Loss of information: myth or reality?

According to the tradition appearing in my tradition, another article emerged from the commentary, which overgrew reasonable limits for such (you can trace the origins in the original topic ), and also somewhat came out of the topic discussed there. I have long doubted whether to publish it, as a result I decided to put it in a closed, but thematic blog. The topic is very dangerous, controversial and scandalous, and yet I want to know the opinion of the rest of the IT community.

I really do not understand people (and, I will not hide, in this case, the author of the commentary, which he initially began to answer; as this began as a commentary, further there will be references and questions to a specific person, but I ask you to “attach” them to yourself and, if possible, answer them), which consider the information to be something that is absolutely irrelevant and price. And believing it, so to speak, self-renewing resource. But on this subject and somehow argue ... I do not know ... it makes no sense, or what? I can not find the right definition now. It is like “good” or “bad”: very subjective. And before the adult person himself faces a situation, the conclusions from which will make it possible to revise (or support) the point of view, it is possible to explain another position in rare cases.

Therefore, take my words, please, not as an attempt to convince someone, but as my personal position.
')


So, personally, I believe that in many cases information is much more expensive and more important than material objects. As far as I can see from your words, you deny the possibility of losing information. I believe that copying unique information (that is, information that only you are carrying and which has certain importance for you) is identical to the loss of this information. Suppose you have unique information: say, a prototype of a new device; or a management interface that drastically changes the usability of something; or a new music album you just recorded. You have spent on creating (or receiving) this information certain resources. It was your time, it was your money (because during that time you had to eat, drink, dress, rest, pay for your own housing, make trips, etc.). This is a cost. Having the ability to uniquely - that is, without copying - to spread or use this information: to produce a new device, sell a patent for it, implement a product with a new interface, sell CDs with a music album, you, first, pay back the costs, and second, make a profit. Both material and moral: fame, good (or evil) fame, etc. In the same case, if someone copied and then used your information (or put it in open access), then you lost the opportunity to get at least a profit in the amount that would be possible if only you were the owner of the information, but in some cases - and recoup the costs. Moreover, you also suffered losses - moral ones. For many people, especially creative ones, such moral losses can severely damage their health and even make them stop generating new information of this kind (there are writers who for many years abandoned their writing activities after the first unsuccessful novel; what can we say about the situation when Soprut and give for their own?). This is about information in general. Please do not consider me a supporter of patents and other crap, but everything is not so simple. Give an alternative mechanism for compensating costs to people who generate ideas (not even talking about profits) - this will help the idea of ​​free information much more. But free information is not equal to free access to private (personal, private) information! The ability to put information into free access (under the auspices of Open Source, for example; let's say I have at least one software product that is laid out for free use and modification for everyone) - this is my right , not an obligation! In the same way as my right to deny access to this information.

Let's go back to the current situation, try to draw an analogy. Imagine that there is a society without computers, and a certain skyscraper, a residential building with many hundreds or even thousands of apartments. And downstairs, on the first floor, there is a vault in which people leave copies of the keys to all the apartments in this house. They have so accepted. However, someone is deceiving (illegal, because people obviously did not give such a right) by getting access to these keys and making their copies. Then he makes new keys and has the ability to walk around the apartments in the absence of the owners, and by hiding inside - also watch them. He will not necessarily steal any of these apartments, he will just be able to pick up a personal photo album, watch a home video recorded by residents, or even look at the crack or keyhole at what is happening behind closed doors.
Tell me, would you personally agree that anyone would have the opportunity to watch you at any time, regardless of what you do? And please do not need to say that this is not the same thing - this is also information, only this time about the type of your occupation.

Would I worry if someone copied the radio tape recorder? Perhaps not - in the same way he would not worry much if someone copied my shared articles (of course, it would be unpleasant if the reference to authorship disappears, but in the end this not deadly, although I do not earn a living from it). But if I had the only jewelry in the world, then perhaps it would significantly reduce its price. (I must confess that in fact I personally would not worry much - there is no passion for things - but many people would become; what would paintings of famous artists be worth if the originals were orders of magnitude larger? or if there were copies that are impossible to distinguish from the originals?)

Any laws for the protection of private property, personal information, personal life (!), Etc. exist because someone wants to take possession (and always wanted) with something that does not belong to him, without the consent of the person to whom it belongs. And in this case, everything, anything: life, things, information. Therefore, people who, without the consent of others, encroach on something that belongs to these others, are punished - so that at least the fear of punishment will force them (or others) to change their mind about committing a criminal act.

You know, some of the things that I am saying here should be absorbed in the preschool years. To take someone else's is not good. To lie is not good. To offend those who are weaker is not good. Not to defend the weak is not good. And it was precisely against those who in childhood did not learn all this, and many laws are intended. And it does not matter, someone else is a thing or information. Everything has a price or value for a particular person or circle of people.

Add-on .

I believe that patents are evil. But I still do not see the possibility of canceling them. Although, I would really cancel patents in the software industry, they are stupid by definition (but this does not mean that I would allow someone to copy software without the permission of the owner, these are different things).

Patents could be neutralized to some extent, if there was an opportunity to prove that you invented the same thing, without having information that someone has already found such a solution. But alas, this is from the realm of fantasy.

And one more thing - I am not a saint. I have my own moral code, which does not always correspond to the concepts adopted in our society. But I try, at least, to honestly call my actions as they are called in reality.