10.18 Appendix 1: Re-Inventing Innovation
221
10.18.1 Micropayments Would Be Better
So why not pursue an entirely different IPR approach, perhaps in parallel to the current
intellectual property regime? By it’s very nature, information “wants” to be free and
to be shared. Every culture is based on this. Information is a virtually unlimited
resource, which in principle can be reproduced almost for free. In contrast to material
resources, this allows us to overcome scarcity, poverty and conflict. Nevertheless,
we currently try to prevent people from copying digital products. What if we simply
allowed copying, but introduced a micropayment system to ensure that every copy
generates revenue for the content creator (and those who help to spread content)?
Under such circumstances, we would probably love it when others copy our work!
Rather than complaining about people who copy digital products, we should make
it easier to pay for the fruits of creativity and innovation. Remember that, some time
back, Apple’s iTunes made it simple to download and buy songs, for 99 cents each.
It would be great to have a similarly simple, automatic compensation scheme for
digital products, ideas and innovations. Modern text-mining algorithms could form
the basis of a system, where content creators and companies would be automatically
paid whenever their ideas are used. This payment could be calibrated according to
the scale of the initial investment, the age of the invention and its “innovativeness”,
i.e. the degree to which it made advances over already existing solutions. This would
encourage cooperative innovation without providing a disincentive for new research.
Establishing a micropayment system would also allow companies and citizens to
earn money on the data they generate and exchange. Then, everyone could benefit
from contributing to the global information ecosystem. This would create an incentive
system that would reward the sharing of data. But to get paid for every copy, one
would need a particular file format. Copies (“offspring”) of data would have to
be linked with their respective source (“parent”) via a kind of “data cord”, so that
micro-payments between the owners and users of the data can be processed.
48 In fact,
something like a “Personal Data Store” would be needed to execute these payments.
49
48 Lanier [17].
49 Another function of this Personal Data Store would be to give each user control over his or her
own personal data. Whenever personal data would be (intentionally or accidentally) produced about
someone, it would have to be sent to that person’s data store (which would be like a mailbox for
data). The person could then determine what kind of data they are willing to share, with whom, for
what period of time, and for what purposes.
221
10.18.1 Micropayments Would Be Better
So why not pursue an entirely different IPR approach, perhaps in parallel to the current
intellectual property regime? By it’s very nature, information “wants” to be free and
to be shared. Every culture is based on this. Information is a virtually unlimited
resource, which in principle can be reproduced almost for free. In contrast to material
resources, this allows us to overcome scarcity, poverty and conflict. Nevertheless,
we currently try to prevent people from copying digital products. What if we simply
allowed copying, but introduced a micropayment system to ensure that every copy
generates revenue for the content creator (and those who help to spread content)?
Under such circumstances, we would probably love it when others copy our work!
Rather than complaining about people who copy digital products, we should make
it easier to pay for the fruits of creativity and innovation. Remember that, some time
back, Apple’s iTunes made it simple to download and buy songs, for 99 cents each.
It would be great to have a similarly simple, automatic compensation scheme for
digital products, ideas and innovations. Modern text-mining algorithms could form
the basis of a system, where content creators and companies would be automatically
paid whenever their ideas are used. This payment could be calibrated according to
the scale of the initial investment, the age of the invention and its “innovativeness”,
i.e. the degree to which it made advances over already existing solutions. This would
encourage cooperative innovation without providing a disincentive for new research.
Establishing a micropayment system would also allow companies and citizens to
earn money on the data they generate and exchange. Then, everyone could benefit
from contributing to the global information ecosystem. This would create an incentive
system that would reward the sharing of data. But to get paid for every copy, one
would need a particular file format. Copies (“offspring”) of data would have to
be linked with their respective source (“parent”) via a kind of “data cord”, so that
micro-payments between the owners and users of the data can be processed.
48 In fact,
something like a “Personal Data Store” would be needed to execute these payments.
49
48 Lanier [17].
49 Another function of this Personal Data Store would be to give each user control over his or her
own personal data. Whenever personal data would be (intentionally or accidentally) produced about
someone, it would have to be sent to that person’s data store (which would be like a mailbox for
data). The person could then determine what kind of data they are willing to share, with whom, for
what period of time, and for what purposes.