Kevin Kelly: What can’t be copied?

by Mathew on February 2, 2008 · Comments

Former Wired editor Kevin Kelly has a very perceptive essay up that is apparently part of a book he’s working on called Technium, and in it he describes the Internet as a giant copying machine — a network that distributes information far and wide, and in the process of doing so copies it over and over, creating an almost endless supply of identical copies, all of which effectively cost nothing to produce.

Our digital communication network has been engineered so that copies flow with as little friction as possible. Indeed, copies flow so freely we could think of the internet as a super-distribution system, where once a copy is introduced it will continue to flow through the network forever, much like electricity in a superconductive wire.

The problem, of course, is that giant industries — music, movies, media and entertainment in general — have been created based on the idea that copies are scarce, and that control over the methods of distribution of those copies is the key to wealth. What happens to those models when copies are readily available and free? This is something Mike Masnick at Techdirt has also written about — the economics of abundance. How does that work?

Kelly argues that when copies are free, you have to focus on what can’t be copied. Trust, for example, which has to be earned over time. He has a list of eight qualities, or elements of intangible value that he calls “generatives” — things that have to grow over time and can’t be copied, and therefore should (theoretically) be worth something. They are:

– Immediacy
– Personalization
– Interpretation
– Authenticity
– Accessibility
– Embodiment
– Patronage
– Findability

I think Kelly has put his finger on something important. Each of these qualities is going to be worth different amounts to different people at different times, depending on their needs, or wants, or moods. It makes things somewhat more complicated than just charging people when they go through the turnstile at the movie theatre, or when they buy a physical product, but in the long run I think they could actually create more value. It’s worth reading the whole essay.

Share:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • Ma.gnolia
  • NewsVine
  • SphereIt
  • StumbleUpon
  • Very interesting... You can already see these concepts taking hold in the marketplace once you put things into this perspective!
  • Kevin Kelly has some excellent points, but I keep having visions of going to a restaurant and the waiter telling me, "Your food is free, but it will cost you to have it cooked and delivered to your table."

    It's not the same thing, I know, but it seems to me that it's just repackaging some old concepts when the end result is the same: the consumer will still pay because the generic "free" product is inferior. Assuming that they will still want the product.

    I need to think about this. I'm probably missing something.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Older post:

Newer post: