The first two chapters of his book, Shirky touches on the power and workings of a community.  He mentions that it is not as much change in human interaction as more so as the way we are accustomed to interacting with each other.  Inn the next few chapters he goes more in depth on the various comparisons of different changes in communicating from before to which that has taken place visibly in our society.  The last part of the book he concludes with addressing to the complexity of actual implementations of using these social tools in hopes of success regardless of what the designated goal is. 

In each chapter of his book, Shirky names them with straight forward titles each explaining an aspect of the greater picture to the changes in how human work and communicate together.  His way of writing creates a more than friendly read sometimes even addressing to the reader directly.  Although each chapter is focused on obvious different themes there are the general reoccurring themes that run through the whole book.  Shirky uses many recent and relevant examples to show how realistic and close these changes are and how the internet takes a big part in the action. 

One of the main themes that Shirky mentions over and over again is the great impact the collapse of traditional barriers between individuals have brought upon society as a whole (Shirky, 22).  Traditional barriers such as cost, speed, and content quality are some of the major points that Shirky mentions over and over again in his book.  With the help of technology and widespread of the internet breaking down these barriers; individuals can now do things that were never even possible before.  But to take each of these factors by themselves are somewhat wrong because they are all interrelated and affect the world it is today. 

Shirky’s whole argument is built upon the very basic assumption that humans are social creatures by nature and all have a desire to share.  Before, group efforts have never been truly fulfilled simply because the cost was too much for the society to bear.  But when transaction cost is no longer an issue and collective action is made so simple by technology it seems only practical that the ways in which people get together to accomplish something is forever changed.  Shirky’s recognition of the power in which technology bestows on the individual and of the community is huge.  He uses many examples where individuals were able to create a community and wield their collective actions into a statement to society.

Like Benkler in Wealth of Networks, Shirky discusses about what motivates an individual.  Shirky and Benkler both uses Wikipedia as a superb example of what they both consider as living proof to the inner desire of all humans to do a good thing without any financial incentives.  According to Shirky, other than the innate desire to do good for others; one can also be motivated by reasons such as vanity and the exercise of mental capacities (Shirky, 132).  His illustration with the Ise Shrine, a Shinto shrine that’s rebuilt every couple of decades, as a supporting example to Wikipedia nicely demonstrates his point of a work in process that survives not only on participation but also on genuine love.  

Although Shirky filled his book full of examples that seem to support case after case of successful stories; he also includes a detailed recap in his last chapter of the complexity nature to the actual implementation of social tools.  He breaks down the equation to three main parts: plausible promise, effective tool, and acceptable bargain (Shirky, 260).  Indeed, with all three factors in sync it may create a better situation for success; but there really is no secret recipe according to Shirky.  Every situation is different and unique with a mix of both social and technological factors that no one can predict.

At first I was a little overwhelmed at all the examples he was dishing out.  But upon reading chapter 10 (Failure for Free) of Shirky’s book I suddenly realized that it is precisely because of what he is writing about that there could be such an abundance of examples to be used.  It didn’t necessary matter if these stories were of success or of failure; but the fact that there were so many in quantities shows exactly what Shirky is talking about.  In this technologically driven, low cost world; sacrifices no longer need to be done to achieve success.  Failure without the downside of transaction cost becomes just as valuable as success. 

I would recommend this book to anyone who wishes to gain a first look overview of the changes our world and society is undergoing.  Instead of just observing these changes, Clay Shirky invites us to join in on the revolution that is changing our lives and everything is in it. 

Reference:
Shirky, C. (2008). Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations. New York, Penguin Books.

In the first part of his book, Benkler defines the network information economy in relations to social production and the economics that surrounds it.  He specifically puts an emphasis on the rise of peer production and its correlation in the network information economy.  In part two, Benkler goes into depth about the complicated economy of property law and free commons.  He presents a good overview of contemporary knowledge towards information laws and its importance to the future development of the network information economy.  Lastly, in part three, Benkler concludes with an address to the changing times of transformation and how these hold the potential to a better world of opportunity, democracy, and human development.

One of the recurring themes in Benkler’s book states that when information becomes freely available to the public without cost; it creates opportunities for individuals to have more creativity and innovation in the networked information economy (Benkler, 37).  Benkler quotes, from Isaac Newton, “If I have seen farther it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants”.  This refers to the fundamental idea that no innovation is original but instead inspired by previous existing ideas.  The very understanding of this idea poses to contradict existing laws that are meant for the protection of one’s expression of ideas by applying a set price to these ideas. 

Benkler uses this concept to his argument that the costs to accommodate the innovations of yesterday and today will only result in the loss of tomorrow’s information production.  When the price that is bestowed upon information becomes too much for today’s innovators to consume; then the amount of information consumed as a whole would decrease and directly influence the information production of tomorrow.  For example, the extension of copyright laws from  intellectual property laws that have been created with the intentions of protecting the welfare of the general public; in reality have fallen to the benefits of the market economy. 

What is good about Benkler is that he outlines a very detailed evolution of the network information economy and the many issues it faces at a time of change.  The excluding nature of already established laws and rights towards information in contrast to the openness nature of the digital world is at the core of these issues.  In short, the widespread of computer networks and its emergence into everyday life by means of the internet enables a digital environment that has never been seen before.  He goes to great lengths with many examples to demonstrate the nonstop efforts in hopes to withstand these changes. 

Benkler does not shy away from either side of the argument and offers a very clear view of what he has on his mind.  Although he emphasizes strongly how the ultimate freedom in information will produce more innovation and creativity than not; he also acknowledges the difficulties that reality presents.  Benkler’s ideas are more of a collective idealistic outcome of what ‘may be’ were the world is to change accordingly by embracing the changes of technological advances straight on.  However, the already established part of the information economy forbids such transformation to happen without resistance. 

Although I may still be a little skeptical about this ‘utopian’ network information economy that Benkler speaks so fondly of, I cannot agree more that intellectual property laws may need to take a step down from interfering potential innovation and creativity.  Benkler’s ‘free’ refers more to the freedom of the established economy and what it means for the benefits to the general public; both culturally and economically.  The internet is the inner lining that connects all parts of the network information economy to create this overabundance of social wealth and the means to spread it. 

In a way Benkler’s take on how the impact of digital information has on the world and its already existing establishments gives a more complete portrayal of what is happening.  A very good part of the digital phenomenon that we are witnessing has a lot to do with how people are reacting and doing to this abundance of information. 

Reference:

Benkler, Yochai.  The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom.  New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006.

Laws that were written for traditional media are now facing problems with the new digital media age.  The definition of ’copyright’ means literally ‘to control the copy of”.  This creates the ‘digital dilemma’ against the very nature of digital information that relies and exists on copying (when you load a page you’re essentially copying its contents to your computer to be viewed).  Copyright essentially is to protect the intellectual property of those that ‘created’ it.  But when information is so easily copied in the digital world it becomes easy for many to want to resort to harsher regulations to maintain intellectual property provision.  

According to Randall, instead of questioning what has been copied; one should focus on the original goals to ensure progress in the arts and sciences when these laws were conceived.  Although not completely agreeing with Benkler’s belief that in the best interest of a society’s welfare it would be most efficient for those with information to give it away; both Varian and Randall agree that more flexibility on the control of information reproduction may in fact encourage more creation.   Rather than holding on to old business models it would probably be wiser to create new business models that embrace the changes surrounding the issue.  As Benkler puts it, “by working out the economics of these practices, we can understand the economic parameters within which practical political imagination and fulfillment can operate in the digitally networked environment”. 

SlideShare Link: http://www.slideshare.net/ctracey/copying-and-copyright

References:
Benkler, Y. (2006). The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. Yale University Press: New York.
Randall, D. (2001). “Digital Dilemma”. Communications of the ACM. v. 44(2), February 2001, p. 77-83.
Varian, H. (2005). “Copying and Copyright”. Journal of Economic Perspectives. v. 19(2), Spring 2005, p. 121-138.

I was very much intrigued by what Anderson wrote in his section of ‘too cheap to matter’.  Especially of his illustration of what if electricity had become ‘virtually free’.  It would have been a wonderous world.  Everything in the world that electricity touched, in Anderson’s words, would be have been completely transformed.  One factor influencing the next,  Anderson got his point across loud and clear (even if his example was essentially impossible to happen).  When something becomes too cheap to meter, the world will indeed be transformed.  Followed by various examples such as Apple’s Ipod, it was clear of how technologies could personify these changes.  In fact, advances of technologies such as computer processing power, digital storage, and bandwidth has made it very much for information to become cheap beyond measurement.

However, having something extremely cheap does not equal it to being free as Anderson also touches on the psychological aspects of one’s purchasing desire (or lack of).  It is a powerful idea to grasp that the world may have only but two prices; one is zero and the other being everything else. Having to pay for a price no matter how miniscule creates thought and justification on the individual’s part.  When there is no price to pay the action of thought is then eliminated.  It does not matter how much one has to pay but the question being if one has to pay at all.  According to Anderson, the technologies of today makes it more than possible to create with almost the cost of nothing.  Along with ‘zero’ cost, it is no longer an issue for companies to create without having to worry about waste.  At the same time, providing ‘free’ for consumers is easy as one-two-three.

But is this really free? Yes, maybe if you only calculate in terms of money but not necessarily in terms of ‘trade’.  If this was a society that does not use money to equate the value of goods but instead in terms of trade it would become evident that all this is not ‘free’.  What we are essentially paying when not in money is our names, our addresses, our e-mails, in general, our information.  Not only on a consumer’s point of view it seems all sunshine and cookies.  What could be better for us to trade information that comes free for us in comparison to normally bought goods? On the business point of view this ‘trade’ could be the win-win to balance them out in this continuously free society. 

In reality there is no way to try and make the world go back to what it was before but businesses should try to   changes on their own terms.  In Mark Cuban’s article, Free vs Freely Distributed, I especially responded with what he said about distribution: “[They] should  distribute their content for Free where they believe it maximizes return, but should do everything possible to keep it from being distributed Freely”.  His example of the music industry shows how businesses and industries need not panic.  In keeping a certain degree of exchange on their own terms, they can redirect their efforts for other valuable assets (information) that they may find valuable in the long run.  As Cuban puts it, “We give you something free, you give us something that costs you nothing”, or at least nothing to ding our bank accounts.  It is easy to offer people something that is ‘free’ but the key is to have people give you something in return that is just as valuable to you.

There will always be people willing to pay for something better than free.  There will always be a need for scarcity.  When scarcity is too scarce to be found, people will start creating scarcity exactly the way they’ve done all this time.  When it gets too late to charge people for material goods, then it’s time to start charging for other things such as time and convenience.  For example, if you were to go to Chris Anderson’s blog you will see many versions of FREE audiobooks for the taking.  But for the abridged version, you will have to pay Audible.com $7.49.  Why is that? Audible.com explains,“Get the point in half the time! In this abridged edition, the author handpicked the most important and engaging chapters and points, cutting three hours from the length without losing key concepts. Time is money!” In such terms people are paying not necessarily for something that cannot be obtained anywhere else or unique but they are given the opportunity to pay to save time.  I have no doubt that the world is becoming more ‘free’ by the minute.  But I also do not believe that anything can ever really be free.

The question of ’will people create if they can’t charge for it?’ made a lot more sense to me.  Genuinely I think so but not without some pain and whining.  The bottom line is that really makes no difference to most people because they were not being paid to create anyways.  But for those that were being paid to create it becomes a different kind of difficulty they face.  It is true that there are a lot of things people may get from creating (other than money) and that’s probably why there are so many people willing to do it. 

 The question I feel should be ‘how can people create to charge for it?’.  Yes, it’s all good that things are becoming free but just as there will always be people willing to compromise.  Settle for the ’free’ even if it might mean that what they’re getting may not be as good as what they would’ve paid for.  There will always be the other people on the other side of the fence willing to pay for that tad bit more.  The difficulty part in all of this is to create what is essentially good enough for those small number of people on the other side of the fence to shell over their money.  Though unfortunately it may mean that the cost for these better than ‘free’ goods will be that tad bit more than what we are comfortable to paying.

All in all, it feels like it could mean good.  Though I am probably one of those people who Kathy pointed out to be thinking more old fashioned and feeling most uncomfortable with all the changes right now. Haha.

It is ridiculous that I’ve been able to live in a world where technology and economics are so intertwined and still was able to only notice half of what is going on.  Through the course I have no doubt that I would be introduced to new ideas that I may have never heard of before.  Although this is somewhat intimidating, it is at the same time reassuring to know that we will be able to go through these ideas together. 

I think that it is important to realize that through this course we may not only learn the fundamentals of economics but also learn how it works in sync with the world.  Through classwork I would expect myself to not only learn from the textbooks but also hear from what our fellow classmates have to share.  What was the world like and what is it now? More importantly, what may we expect to see in the future.  Hopefully by that time I’ll be able to see the differences first hand and have the knowledge to understand the significance of the changes.