Should all information be freely available to everyone?

[LaserSteve]

I work in Academia. I have access to vast amounts of interesting publications most can't afford. Depending on which of my colleagues you speak to, 30 to 60% percent of
academic papers in science are irreproducable.

 I'm hitting about 50% in biomedical and organic chemistry myself.

You sure you want to dump that on the world?

Steve

[Rick Law]

How about "good for public to know" information collected for profit?

At least a few reporters lost their life while collecting information that is good for public to know.  They were doing their job, taking a risk to collect information, but that roll of the dice sadly didn't work out for them that time.  I can still recall the images I saw on TV, an ABC news reporter named Bill Stewart was reporting in Nicaragua during a revolution in 1979.  He was executed while lying face down.  His camera man was secretly filming (from inside the car) when they were stopped at the road block, expecting no danger.  The reporter was ordered to get down on the ground, but mere moments later, he was shot in the back of the head.  The camera man in this case survived, turned in the video to ABC.  That was Bill Stewart's last report on ABC new.

I know from the news that many crime reporters in Mexico lost their lives.  Some were just months ago.  In their case, they were mostly taking the known huge risk to inform the public and not for profit.  Therefore, while I am more sympathetic to their situation, the information collected by them is not part of the free/not-free discussion.  They deserved a "shout out" for their courage and their contribution to the information world.

Lesser than life is profit.  How about educational videos/information developed explicitly for profit?  If profit is zero, reason dictates that none of those would exist.

For profit or otherwise, running a server is NOT free.  Someone has to make some money along the pipeline to support the infrastructure to collect and to deliver the information.

Therefore, reason dictates that not all information should be free.  It is up to the developer of the information to decide how much that information is worth.  Datasheet for an IC and specs for a machine as examples: it is worth more to the manufacturer to give that away so users can evaluate and may be buy their products.

Let the free market decide.  If the developer of the information feel that their hard work and risk is done as philanthropy, so it is.  If they want to make a buck, they should be able to do so.

[thm_w]

I work in Academia. I have access to vast amounts of interesting publications most can't afford. Depending on which of my colleagues you speak to, 30 to 60% percent of
academic papers in science are irreproducable.

I'm hitting about 50% in biomedical and organic chemistry myself.

You sure you want to dump that on the world?

Steve

Not many people are interested in reading publications. But a good percentage of them can be found for free on sci-hub.

I also wonder if maybe patents should not be ownable by companies, only by individuals.
I'm not sure how that sort of a system would actually work, but it's interesting to think about.

What are you thinking the benefit would be though?
If I produce a patent while working and being paid at a company, who would own it?

[lezginka_kabardinka]

YES.

Now if you’d kindly email me your PayPal login, I’ll pay myself 😆

[jonovid]

The problem is that all information to be freely available isn't good for all of us.
your log in ID or other personal information.   the US ICBM launch codes for an example. 

[RJSV]

   A couple of seconds, into reading this, I realize you mean info available, whereas I'd be thinking in terms of costing cash money, vs 'free' in the literature available, when subject matter might get dicey.
So the two separate out, but have similarities;
   In your example, a government could 'weigh' the good (or any), of keeping such chemistry under a lid, vs the loss of such science detail.
   My case, example could be Elvis Presley estate wanting to charge royalties for movie viewing.  I think there the government (U.S.) determines a set amount of years, before an Elvis movie rights expire (copyrights and Patents).

[MarkS]

You really need to clarify what you mean by "all". Do you really want or need to know the last time, date, duration and consistency of my bowl movements? 

[EEVblog]

I work in Academia. I have access to vast amounts of interesting publications most can't afford. Depending on which of my colleagues you speak to, 30 to 60% percent of
academic papers in science are irreproducable.

 I'm hitting about 50% in biomedical and organic chemistry myself.

A handy rule of thumb is that half of all published scientific research is wrong.
And peer review adds nothing to that.

[EEVblog]

Let the free market decide.  [/b]If the developer of the information feel that their hard work and risk is done as philanthropy, so it is.  If they want to make a buck, they should be able to do so.

Not accoridng to the open source hardware purists.

[vk6zgo]

In a near-perfect world, it would be great. Just think of the amount of time saved as we don't have to reinvent the wheel every time we go to do a task. If someone works out a better way to do something, that way gets adopted.

This is kinda the way I view Open Source stuff. It's why when I have stuff I try to share it with others.
The problem is that all information to be freely available isn't good for business.

And therein lies the rub.
For example, even the most pure and ardent open source hardware companies aren't going to give you a list of their suppliers, prices, and other business related stuff so you can duplicate them.

Often things made with alternate components are better performing & more reliable than using the original parts, so the exact suppliers etc., aren't a vital part of building a device of equivalent specifications.

Just knowing what a complete device is supposed to do is often enough.

[vk6zgo]

Back in the early days of electronics, large companies tried to enforce patents rigidly, but with the explosion of hobby activity in radio, magazines showing "the latest circuits" sprung up around the world, so anything new wasn't secret for long.
They managed to get agreements with other big firms who would "Swap patents with them", but the plethora of hobbyists & small businesses ensured that the lid was definitely off "Pandora's Box".

[T3sl4co1l]

   A couple of seconds, into reading this, I realize you mean info available, whereas I'd be thinking in terms of costing cash money, vs 'free' in the literature available, when subject matter might get dicey.

It's a Libertarian trope, just open up The Marketplace Of Ideas and let everything figure itself out.

What they so often and gladly forget is that ideas are worthless.

...The converse, along these lines, would be interesting I suppose, if impossible to pull off for obvious reasons; what if every idea, every packet of info, carried a cost, a mandatory transaction no matter how small? There were some proverbial, universal app store that you had to commit to buying something off of?  The mere existence of a fee, no matter how trivial, would seriously recontextualize information for a lot of people.

Mind, that's what information is, ultimately; you can't have information without entropy, and we're all constantly paying in terms of that.  But it's an indirect cost, and we so often and gladly ignore apparent fixed costs.

Tim

[Psi]

I also wonder if maybe patents should not be ownable by companies, only by individuals.
I'm not sure how that sort of a system would actually work, but it's interesting to think about.

What are you thinking the benefit would be though?
If I produce a patent while working and being paid at a company, who would own it?

The company would get a license to use it forever, but you, or all the RnD team, or all employees at the company at the time would technically own it.
I know this idea has issues, I just like thinking about it sometimes.
I really don't like that companies can buy and sell patents. People come up with ideas and make discoveries, companies don't

[ebastler]

Back in the early days of electronics, large companies tried to enforce patents rigidly, but with the explosion of hobby activity in radio, magazines showing "the latest circuits" sprung up around the world, so anything new wasn't secret for long.

You seem to be mixing up "patents" and "secrets". They are not the same; in fact they are opposites. It is a core part of the "patent" concept that, in exchange for a limited period of protection, your idea will be published -- such that others can learn from it, come up with alternatives or improvements upon it.

(Having said that, modern patent-writers are often trying to undermine that idea by being as hazy about technical content  as they can get away with...)

[ebastler]

What are you thinking the benefit would be though?
If I produce a patent while working and being paid at a company, who would own it?

The company would get a license to use it forever, but you, or all the RnD team, or all employees at the company at the time would technically own it.
I know this idea has issues, I just like thinking about it sometimes.
I really don't like that companies can buy and sell patents. People come up with ideas and make discoveries, companies don't

Would that be an exclusive license to the company which employs the inventors? Royalty-free too? Then what would be the difference to the company actually owning the patent?

Or would the inventors be free to license their invention to competitors of their employer? Would that be fair, given that their employer paid for the inventors' time, and for a lot of extra effort to turn the patented idea into a marketable product?

In Germany, the "Employee Inventors Act" stipulates that

• the employing company has first right of refusal to claim exclusive ownership of the patent -- in which case they pay the examination fees etc.;
  
• if they make money from the invention during the term of the patent, they have to pay a royalty to the inventor -- but at a rate which is significantly lower than what an independent inventor would get, taking into account that the inventor was already paid for doing his job;
  
• if the company decides that they do not want to claim the invention (maybe business plans have changed, or it does not look like such a great technical solution upon second thought), the inventor is free to take it through the patenting process and look for other licensees independently.
  

Not a bad approach in principle, although implementation has its challenges in the details.

[Psi]

What are you thinking the benefit would be though?
If I produce a patent while working and being paid at a company, who would own it?

The company would get a license to use it forever, but you, or all the RnD team, or all employees at the company at the time would technically own it.
I know this idea has issues, I just like thinking about it sometimes.
I really don't like that companies can buy and sell patents. People come up with ideas and make discoveries, companies don't

Would that be an exclusive license to the company which employs the inventors? Royalty-free too? Then what would be the difference to the company actually owning the patent?

Or would the inventors be free to license their invention to competitors of their employer? Would that be fair, given that their employer paid for the inventors' time, and for a lot of extra effort to turn the patented idea into a marketable product?

In Germany, the "Employee Inventors Act" stipulates that

• the employing company has first right of refusal to claim exclusive ownership of the patent -- in which case they pay the examination fees etc.;
  
• if they make money from the invention during the term of the patent, they have to pay a royalty to the inventor -- but at a rate which is significantly lower than what an independent inventor would get, taking into account that the inventor was already paid for doing his job;
  
• if the company decides that they do not want to claim the invention (maybe business plans have changed, or it does not look like such a great technical solution upon second thought), the inventor is free to take it through the patenting process and look for other licensees independently.
  

Not a bad approach in principle, although implementation has its challenges in the details.

All fair questions.

I was thinking that the company would have the same rights they have now with patents,  except that...

- There would be a small fee paid by the company to everyone written on the patient paid every year.
Not a huge amount in most cases, but it would be tied to company profits and split between all people named on the patient.
- The company could never sell the patent, since they never own it.
- The patient is always owned by the people/team who created it, or maybe to keep things simple by all employees of the company at the time of patent creation who've been with the company for more than a 1,2 or 5 year etc..
- If the company was ever sold the new company would take over paying that yearly fee to all the people on the patent.
- If the company ever went under or was dissolved and no one had the license to use that patent any more the patent would become available to use by anyone. They would still have to pay the yearly fee to the people on the patent, but it would be a smaller fee in this case. 
- The company can, at any time, decide they don't want the patent any more. They stop paying the yearly fee and it changes to being available to use by anyone, same as above.  This means if they want to pay less to use it they can, they just have to let other use it too and then they get the cheaper rate.
- The patent would automatically becomes available to everyone after n years or after n sales of the company, or after n amount of total money has been paid out to the people on the patient.

[Marco]

Humans should be isolated and/or moral enough for all information to be free, unfortunately humans are just the result of a random walk with some selective pressure and capable and willing of hurting each other.

Making RNA printers and viral genomes easily available is dangerous. WMD research has never been this affordable. AGI would present a similar problem, but I'm not optimistic we will make it that far.

[hans]

I work in Academia. I have access to vast amounts of interesting publications most can't afford. Depending on which of my colleagues you speak to, 30 to 60% percent of
academic papers in science are irreproducable.

 I'm hitting about 50% in biomedical and organic chemistry myself.

A handy rule of thumb is that half of all published scientific research is wrong.
And peer review adds nothing to that.

Nobody has time to fully scrutinize someone else's work. And in other cases, it can become an ego game of "hey, I think this section is missing these and these references" -- oh sure, you happen to be author on all suggested references.. What happens if I refuse? Ah right.. my manuscript gets rejected, and is now at risk of being duplicated by reviewers' team as they "got inspiration" (even though that is forbidden) and there is little I can do about it. In theory, the peer review system is perfect. But that assumes no bad actors.

IMO this is similar to having all information available to anyone. Virtually all technology developed today is marketed for some unicorn application/story of how it will save the planet. People will work on these devices for years to make them more efficient, more sensitive, more bandwidth, etcetera.
A social company will market it with you can use it for calling family, doing fun things with friends, etc. But almost all of the same tech can be overturned for spying, military and destruction.

Just look at happens to the Flipper Zero. The hardware is nothing exotic. Anyone thats used some radio chipsets in-depth (sub-GHz, WiFi, bluetooth) knows you can mess with other signals. Many "wireless keys" are simply "remote controls" that people mistake for keys. But suddenly people are afraid  of this "superpower" being available in an accessible package.

In reality its nothing new. Its simply a case of bad actors, again, and the level of education these actors have to jump over "to perform". A good actor would use a Flipper Zero to uncover (security) flaws and use it for whistleblowing. Security through obscurity [ultimately] never works, and at best it hides weaknesses in technologies/platforms for a period of time whilst they are subject to being exploited.

[lezginka_kabardinka]

I work in Academia. I have access to vast amounts of interesting publications most can't afford. Depending on which of my colleagues you speak to, 30 to 60% percent of
academic papers in science are irreproducable.

 I'm hitting about 50% in biomedical and organic chemistry myself.

A handy rule of thumb is that half of all published scientific research is wrong.
And peer review adds nothing to that.

Yes, of particular note are any fairy stories which begin "Milllllll-yuns of years ago, this life form first evolved..." - that junk is spread far and wide, poisoning and deluding many people.

[EPAIII]

Re: personal information

You are not going to like my thoughts on personal information. It is my contention that any and all information collected by anyone or any company or agency about a person should be 100% the personal property of that individual. And any use of it should be totally illegal without PAYING that person's price for it.

In other words, we all should have title to the part of Google's database that is about ourselves. And they can't use it without our permission. And that applies to all the others who collect information about us. And especially to government agencies.

That's my position and I am sticking to it.

[BrianHG]

Are you sure you want everyone to have access to a crisper genetic code alterations for a common cold virus making it a 99% accurate hereditary seeking, 99% lethal virus?

Once that sequence is published, the DNA can be easily printed today as you find those in home basement labs already making DNA additions/changes to yeast to make it glow in the dark.

Just based on human nature, I don't think any such knowledge should be publicly (or even privately) available anywhere.

[Dan123456]

Are you sure you want everyone to have access to a crisper genetic code alterations for a common cold virus making it a 99% accurate hereditary seeking, 99% lethal virus?

Once that sequence is published, the DNA can be easily printed today as you find those in home basement labs already making DNA additions/changes to yeast to make it glow in the dark.

Just based on human nature, I don't think any such knowledge should be publicly (or even privately) available anywhere.

I’m pretty sure anyone can get access to CRISPR already!

Google search is saying it is this video (will watch now to verify  ) but regardless am almost certain I have seen the thought emporium messing with it before 



Edit: Na, no mention of CRISPR that I heard in that one  Maybe I am mistaken but I’m almost sure I’ve seen him use it before!

Regardless, the video is a good example of biohacking / home brew genetic modification being done “at home” 

[BrianHG]

I’m pretty sure anyone can get access to CRISPR already!

CRISPR isn't the problem.  It's just the DNA sequence cut/insert/paste editing tool for DNA.  It's when we start screwing around with deliberately harmful man-made sequences.

[hans]

Orchestration of ideas and mechanisms is rarely the problem.

Its similar to explaining how WiFi works. Here is how the connection process works. We're now explicitly asking you to not take the next (evil) step.
Similarly, privacy laws also forbid certain processing steps of data. E.g. if you put a motion detector to turn on a street lamp, that's fine. But if you then log that activity data and reduce (targeted) activity patterns, it may not be fine.

[SiliconWizard]

One big problem to solve here is that the more *unexplained* information we get, and the dumber we are likely to get as well. Not smarter.
Of course, the tools are not the problem, the information itself is not a problem.
The lack of any effort to gain information is, OTOH, a problem, as raw information is relatively useless and cutting off the 'effort' part of learning is counterproductive.