Information Goods

Discussion

Information Goods intrinsically do not have exchange value, only use value, argues Ernst Lohoff (translation Stefan Meretz/Stefan Merten):

In `issue 31`_ of the magazine krisis_, Ernst Lohoff published a very interesting article_. Title: "Der Wert des Wissens. Grundlagen einer Politischen Ökonomie des Informationskapitalismus" ("The value of knowledge. Fundamentals of a political economy of the information capitalism"). It discusses the question whether digital information goods are commodities and whether they represent value substance ("Wertsubstanz"). Lohoff's answer: They are neither commodities nor in an economical sense do they contain value. Here are the arguments in a short form.

"1. Information goods are not exchange goods. Exchange depends on an "change of hands". The information good, however, does not leave the hands of the "seller", who is in the nice situation to sell the same good for money multiple times. This phenomenon must not be confused with the production of equal material goods in the industrial mass production. Here every new entity needs to be produced anew, while for information goods this happens only once.

2. Information goods are universal goods while conventional goods are of a singular nature. Though information goods need a carrier the connection to the carrier is volatile and the spreading to other carriers is very easy. To be used information goods in digital form need universal machines. These universal machines are transformed into manifold specialized machines by appropriate software - where the software already belongs to the universal goods. Often only use creates the intended utility. Universal machines and universal goods create an uncloseable universe of utility. Conventional goods on the other hand embody a singular utility. If the wanted utility changes a new good must be created.

3. Information goods are genuine non-exclusive, i.e. they don't prevent someone from use. Moreover they are non-rival in use - my use does not limit others' use. Information goods gain their utility through use while conventional goods gradually loose their utility through use. Information goods can only "wear out morally" (Marx) while conventional goods wear out mainly technical.

4. Information goods may be made exclusive by setting up technical barriers which prevent access or at least make access harder. However, these technical add-ons don't change the universal character of the good. Technical add-ons don't transform universal goods into commodities but their form is changed in a paradoxical way: They become privatized universal goods. If the technical barriers are removed the universality comes out again unrestricted. Breaking copy protection is an act of de-privatizing, the restoration of the universal character of the information good.

5. The "societal hieroglyphs" (Marx), that is the societal relationships mediated by the goods, differ for privatized universal goods and commodities heavily. The bourgeois society does not have a concept of this and thinks of all payed goods of "commodities". Nonetheless it codified the difference by law: While the property of traditional goods usually is transferred exclusively to the buyer, the buyer of the information good receives only a limited co-use right.

6. Information goods are created by common labor ("allgemeine Arbeit") or - if they appear in the privatized form as payed goods - by privatized common labor. In that respect they are similar to science. Conventional goods on the other hand need the repeated application of direct labor ("unmittelbare Arbeit") for their production. Following Marx common labor is unproductive labor as far as their potential of creating value is concerned. Only direct labor is producing value. However, that may not be short-circuited to the equation direct = material = productive. Direct labor comprises material as well as mental activity. However, mental activities are only productive if they apply existing knowledge in the production process - such as knowledge which science delivers as gratis productive power - but not activities which create new knowledge. The same applies when knowledge and information take on the "material" but nonetheless volatile digital form: Information goods with universal nature created by common labor do not embody value.

7. If information goods in privatized form succeed as payed goods there is no "buy" but an permission to use it is granted. Nonetheless there is an unidirectional value transfer from the one asking for permission to the one granting permission. This value must come from other creation of value - for instance mediated by selling labor power. In the same manner as the landlord who for the permission to use his ground receives a ground rent the controller of the privatized universal good receives an information rent.

8. For the private producer of universal goods the information rent means an income, on whole of society the basis of valorization is not expanded, however. As a consequence the picture of a self-supporting wave of accumulation of information capitalism is a mirage."

Sources

.. _issue 12/2007: http://www.nadir.org/nadir/periodika/contraste/dezember_2007.htm

.. _CONTRASTE: http://www.contraste.org/

.. _issue 31: http://www.balzix.de/nav_124.html

.. _article: http://www.balzix.de/el%200707%20Wert%20des%20Wissens%20-%20kurzfassung.html

.. _krisis: http://www.krisis.org/