[flagged]
> On the one hand you have—the point you’re making Woz—is that information sort of wants to be expensive because it is so valuable—the right information in the right place just changes your life. On the other hand, information almost wants to be free because the costs of getting it out is getting lower and lower all of the time. So you have these two things fighting against each other
He stated later more succinctly:
> Information Wants To Be Free. Information also wants to be expensive. ...That tension will not go away
Inherent value provides a ceiling on the price of whatever it is.
Availability also provides a ceiling on the price.
If I give you two theorems that say C < 300 and also C < 10, why would you describe those as being "in tension" with each other?
Society agreed to copyright because of the social benefit of having people willing to put effort/expense into creating works. We're not talking zero value internet BS, but real works. People who create the works don't make them scarce, their distribution is infinitely scalable. They just make it so that they are compensated.
The argument is that authors will stop making information publicly available because piracy takes away the value. So instead information will be hidden in vaults and do good only for a few people. Like how maps used to be top state secrets.
Don't want to release your recipe ever? Tough cookies when your lead scientists bring it to a competitor.
Trade secrets are counter to the purpose of "IP" law. The public has no interest in protecting them and every interest in... not doing that.
If people are not fairly compensated for sharing their secrets and discoveries with the public, they won't do it. They'll take it to the grave if so be. And we loose out on information which can benefit an enormous amount of people.
So the quoted person is absolutely right that there is a great tension between these two factors. How should great ideas be greatly compensated while giving the widest access possible? Neither piracy nor expensive access to information is the right solution.
The fair compensation they should be offered is time limited protection. Otherwise it should simply be legal for any of their employees to spread that knowledge. Giving unlimited protection to not divulge knowledge is counter to the entire point of "IP" law.
"The" Coca-Cola formula would have lost its patent restrictions a century ago. It's still unshared. Why exactly should we continue to grant any legal protection from an employee sharing it?
Sorry, this was a more general rant, because it is so annoying every single time.
In this case: Who the hell cares about that random guy's random views? How is it relevant in this conversation?
Not you.
>How is it relevant in this conversation?
If you cared it'd be obvious to you.
"Not caring" was cool last century.
Or perhaps you are saying that people that have an interest in the availability of particular information should have some control on that information's freedom...
The failure of any exploit regarding SSNs or the like is not on the offending party, but on each using party's failure to implement even a modicum of actual security.
Who is, and which buildings?
I'm sick and tired of this misquote; as it was merely an observation of trends, and was never meant to be a moral maxim or mandate. If you truly believe information needs to be free as a moral mandate, share your company's source code first.