When big networks thrive on free flow of content, creativity takes the brunt

For the longest time people have celebrated the idea of free data and access on the internet. The idea that it bears the responsibility of information for the learners in us. That subscription as a concept is dead. That we must celebrate free flow of ideas. That once an idea is in the digital universe, it can turn from a piece of art to a video to a table to a t-shirt or a mash up of a lot of that without crediting or rewarding the original creator. But here's a thought. What if everyone pays for information on the web? What if the new digital order recognises and rewards every one in the value chain of information creation? And that's the argument of Jaron Lanier, the man widely known for being pioneer of virtual reality. I interviewed him a few days ago at WIPO Conference on Digital and Content Market in Geneva. His argument is that right now a handful of giants are acting like traditional monopolies knowing everything that's said, gathering who is saying what and controlling what is seen and how by people using the internet. He uses the analogy of oil behemoths to search engines and social media. "The networks have a giant chunk of the world's wealth and it's having a destabilising impact. While an oil monopoly might control the oil, it won't take over everything in your life, but information does, especially with greater automation."

Lanier insists the features of technology that make it all pervasive and popular have produced enormous benefits for consumers but have also presented multiple challenges for creators and their business associates.

"I have tremendous sympathy for people who say they do not have to pay for music or movies," he said, because "we have broken the social contract with them," he said. Going to the period before internet, people used to pay for music or movies, but the production of either of them created employment and wealth in the society so it was a two-way street, he said. That is no longer the case, he shares, "thanks to technology advancement." There is much criticism about how musicians aren't getting rewarded appropriately even in the new world of buy tracks over albums, or take up monthly subscriptions though platforms like Spotify. Yes, it has reached more people, but hasn't rewarded the owner of the creativity, he says.

Intellectual property may hold an answer, says Lanier. He talked about "a vastly expanded notion of IP" as there is a need for a social contract, which allows spending and receiving money from the internet. When I asked about the possibility of such a system of micro-payments (payments at every stage of information consumption to everyone who has help create that value chain), he said the technical framework for such a system would be "extremely easy" to set up. So what was missing? The keenness of all including the 'controllers' of platforms to share it with creative contributors to its space. Simply put, his point is the internet needs to monetarily benefit its users and builders. He worries that the internet will not create jobs in big numbers but only a few specialised ones. "Like gamblers at a casino, many young people believe they may be the one to make it on YouTube, Kickstarter or some other platform. But these opportunities are rare compared to the old-fashioned middle-class jobs that existed in great numbers around things like writing, photography, and many other creative pursuits."

And so he advocates robust understanding of IP that's made widespread and simpler. "The general principle that we pay people for their information and contributions is critical if we want people to live with dignity as machines get better."