Of all the chants issued at the February 10th Scientology protests that of “Knowledge is Free, Scientology is not” is the one that I found most jarring and which has stuck in my mind most since.

The latter part of that premise is certainly true: to ascend along the OT levels you must pay tens of thousands of pounds, but the former half was rather less clearly substantiated. In terms of that protest, of course, it was certainly accurate. Knowledge about the OT levels is readily available at http://xenu.net with all Scientologists who have reached OT 3 and left at least verifying the information stored upon it. The global “Raid” was to publicise the website and others like it as much as anything else. The aim of Anonymous was to inform as many people as possible of as much about the Church as the raids were able, irrespective of how much the Church wanted to reveal.

But I suspect that the initiators of the meme might not purely have confined their meaning in this implicit fashion. Instead I suspect that this was simply an instance of a group of primarily young adults revealing their values and views: to this generation knowledge is free. That which we wish to know about, largely, can be known.

Above and over any other factor by many a mile is the Internet. Quite simply there was no factor whatsoever, television inclusive, that has played or will play a greater role in the distribution of data to all. In terms of inventions with egalitarian implications it is a struggle to think of an equal. Let there be no doubts about this: in a truly bizarre article for any Conservative by any measures Matthew Parris bemoaned the fact that life is “Recognisable” to that of life in the 1950s and although perhaps correct in this broad point his general claim a specific point in his article of April last year is utterly, horribly wrong:

IT has yet to represent much more than a huge convenience. Perhaps it will but so far its effect is to facilitate and accelerate.

He also remarked that:

The nation state is as strong as ever.

It is my intention to illustrate why both of these claims are nothing other than inerrant from reality.

Firstly let us clarify the nature of the beast. All of the most successful websites have acknowledged the fact, or at least operated upon the foundation that, they are doing nothing other than providing a means to an individual end. They in themselves provide nothing at all but a method for people to perform an action that they wish to. This is most obviously true of Google: people wish to obtain the URLs of websites that suit their interests, for whatever reason, and using the search engine they are capable of doing so.

But this remains true for less likely websites: intuitively one would imagine that eBay and certainly Amazon are in some ways providers of the tangible, the corporeal. But, of course, they are not. On closer inspection they both reveal themselves to be little more than electronic marketplaces: they bring together sellers providing a product that is desirable and buyers who have a desire that other sources have not yet met and together to two reach an agreement that the website hosts but does not dictate. Much the same principle {save, usually, without the exchange of money} is present within the personals websites that currently are usurping the crown of online pornography, that provides visions coveted by even the most twisted of minds, along with vast swathes of the naked flesh that much of humanity longs to view.

Social networking sites such as MySpace and Facebook allow humans to attempt to quench the relentless thirst for contact with others and present themselves via a new medium, while Flickr and all forms of blog are another means of creatives to display their work and receive responses and nothing else.

Perhaps the only exception is Wikipedia, which is a consequence of all these sights effectively doing as it does but less directly: providing information.

This is obvious, as evidenced by its presence in the very name of the technology’s name. But what is not known and has not been appropriately considered are the consequences of a generation being weaned upon access to such marvels.

Increasingly the impact of this grows greater and greater: the creators YouTube estimate that it will soon contain every music video ever created and 70 minutes of footage is uploaded each hour, at the cost of observation of their decisions through SpyWare users of KazAa may download whichever files from their peers those gentlemen and ladies have elected to make available to them, while over BitTorrents they do not even require corporate voyeurs in order to obtain whatever they please. Wikipedia has inherent limitations of that which is written and published physically but this has not restricted it from hosting almost two and a half million articles as I type and doubtless will exceed that marker shortly after I post or perhaps even before I have completed this post.

Even these examples do little to demonstrate the full enormity of my point, which is simply that the amount of information being made accessible is vast.

It is also free.

These facts combined have led to groups of hundreds placed at various pre-arranged locations around the world proclaiming that “Knowledge is Free” without consideration. Because, for us, it is. Largely, it has been. The moments of frustration which I experienced with the web {why such a struggle to observe the act of two men engaged in the act of docking? Why are so few non-mainstream films available upon BitTorrent? Why is such a large quantity of Hentai presented censored?} have largely diminished and vanished to understandable minutiae {why such difficulties finding the version of Death From Above 1979’s own “Girl on Girl” remix of Romantic Rights without Final Fantasy daubing violin scrawls all over it in his “reimagining”? Where are the anthropomorphic Silky Anteaters?} that I could probably amend myself if I could muster the effort. This is likely to become increasingly true

Capitalist ethics aside, there is precious little data that you could desire and not obtain.

So is Parris correct, then? Does this simply make things that would have occurred regardless swifter?

Well upon two counts he is incorrect: firstly there is the matter of MMORPGs. As little respect as they receive from the wider community {and, given their standard quality, deserve} they are immensely popular and involve not simply the exchange of information from provider to request lodger or from seller to buyer via third party, but truly create a setting that can not exist as anything other than a location to be inhabited by those interacting online together. Perhaps it could be argued that those opting to play against the “Environment” are simply fighting a more cluttered computer game but when it comes to player against player combat there is simply no way that these experiences can be understood as anything other than an inherently and exclusively internet based affair.

But returning to the web, secondly this too is reaching levels that would never have been touched upon before. As a well educated man Parris perhaps can not appreciate the truly vast impact of anyone from the council estate in Tower Hamlets to a Closer Mine town in the North being able to type in a concept, a noun, of their choice and having detailed information provided upon it.

For nothing.

Well, effectively nothing. The cost of a monthly internet subscription, at some stage that of the computer, the electricity powering the devices involved. But even that can be neatly circumnavigated via the use of a library, school, or friend’s browser. The egalitarian implications of this should be immediately obvious: those that have benefited from a rich and excellent education often go on to write books, thesis, articles and so on that are referenced in Wikipedia and form the backbone of articles that can be enjoyed by anyone with a basic grasp of literacy. If they struggle to understand certain words then dictionary.com can be employed and clarity enjoyed. That which they require is available to them and studies in developing countries show that even the most intellectually deprived of urban children benefit from such exposure to the raw power of information.

The consequences of this are limited, admittedly, by the fact that those not instilled with a joy and yearning for knowledge may not possess it inherently but the fact remains that an option for them, one which has never been enjoyed by anyone before, is that they can obtain whatever they wish to know virtually as soon as they wish to know it. Virtually, of course, in more ways than one.

The reason that the results of this are so far-reaching is that the entertainment industry, and to some degree to publishing one, are dependent upon the restriction of information in order to make their profits. There is some degree of experience, of associative sensation, associated to such acts as going to a cinema and reading a book and {to a much lesser extent} loading a CD or DVD into its player, but if given the option there are a considerable number who would opt not to enjoy this at the benefit of doing so under other conditions for free, as well as others still who are incapable of paying for such luxuries yet can afford a web connection {that mobile telephone now offer for free combined with certain phone packages}.

The consequence is obvious and, I am sure, known to everyone and anyone reading this article.

The music industry is already reeling from this and, as I have noted previously, seemingly crippled by its inability to adjust to the new order. With increasing internet speed the film industry seems inevitably the next victim, but a less discussed one is a striking possibility, and by means entirely other than illicit: publishing.

The tools for this are already in place: Google Books stores an increasingly diverse series of texts for which all copyright have expired, while a device that allows electronic reading of books has become an utterly unexpected run-away success. These two facts may well spell the down-fall for a business that makes vast amounts of profit from the publishing of those texts devoid of copyright “Protection” at identical prices to those which are not and pockets the resulting excess.

Indeed, it is questionable how an industry operating with such low profit margins as it is could possibly endure this without vastly radical reforms.

Of course it is perfectly possible that Google Books will not expand in as thorough and wide-ranging a way as has Wikipedia. It is possible that e-readers will remain the technology of science-fiction simply because people are unwilling to use them, much as the Concorde remains at the forefront of aero-travel yet lingers unused as nobody was left willing to ride them. Or not anyone beside Jeremy Clarkson, at least.

It was said by Alan Moore that “Literature is the highest possible technology: it’s virtual reality right there, 26 letters rearranged in certain forms which, when decoded by the average human mind, can re-create a wrap-around 3-D environment.” But irrespective of the long-standing claims that humanity would soon catch up with it in a more directly visual fashion it seems that the possibility to shear this higher technology from the crude but irrepressibly sensual medium of the book is available, and it remains only to be seen whether those raised with access to such a possibility will embrace it and destroy the publishing industry as we know it by carrying a library in their back pocket.

But even so, the one area of entertainment {besides live performance, which we shall come to later} that might be spared does not diminish the fact that the rest is to become a profit void. Those that are introduced to the possibility of obtaining through acquiring from peers rather than purchasing through exploiters are bound to opt for the former. Through betraying the creator rather than customer the middle ground of iTunes has presented itself, the fact that artists are paid mere pennies and fractions for their sales not dimming the popularity of albums for pounds, but I suspect that this shall last a limited length of time rather than the perpetuity that Steve Job’s empire building evidences he has hopes for.

Even if this remains the industry as it exists will be left in torn tatters. The film industry seems even less aware of affairs, with the strike of the writers that brought it to its knees rather an irrelevance given the forthcoming bullet of BitTorrent that will strike its temple regardless of whether it is standing or hunched. Before the Pirate’s Bay and those like it only reactionary action is possible to those as unversed in the new era. And really, what chance do they stand against a group that is perfectly prepared to buy its own island?

No, through their inertia and ignorance the providers of joy have been undermined and undercut by the grand Nihil. Just as much fun, none of the cost. An offer which is too alluring for almost any to resist.

Which leads to an increasing consensus, that we near further and further every day: any who wishes to provide information shall not be able to charge and receive, or at least not from great enough numbers to make the restriction worth their while.

Consider three case studies: firstly the Church of Scientology, as aforementioned. Widely derided online it has received by most the same treatment as Micro$oft and been dubbed the $cientology. The massive costs and furtive secrecy is what many have taken objection to, especially given that they are given the same tax-exempt status as true religions in many nations and waived VAT in Britain. Its tendency to kill believers is also a bone of contention but the massive costs are a major issue that affect directly all members and have provided just cause for ridicule and mockery. The catalyst for united action against this group, though, was their efforts to yank videos from YouTube which they deemed against their interests. In other words to protect their cult’s integrity they damaged the free flow of information that characterises the web.

The outrage that this caused demonstrates the true esteem in which freedom of expression is held upon the internet. Their aim for the Church’s charges of its “Parishioners” displays the scorn they reserve for cost-based advancement and the publishing of restricted documents their evaluation of the truth as of more importance than property. Irrespective of the guardian’s of its creator’s wishes

The second is that of internet pornography. As strange as this may sound all has not been well for its salesman, of late. Having made vast profits from the internet in its early years they now, for the first time, find themselves struggling. The causes of this are obvious: there are those willing to both provide and {to a lesser degree} provide either their content or that much similar to it devoid of fee for the consumer.

Through sites such as myfreepaysite.com those who wished to could obtain pictures and films for free could do so years ago. But now to exacerbate this chink in the firewalled, password protected armour of all the traditional pay-monthly-to-access websites there are mimickers of YouTube that have become multitude: to mind spring XTube, YouPorn and PornTube and I am sure that there are many others that I have either forgotten or never encountered. As seems to be the way with threatened info-restrictors the porn companies intend to sue, but I fancy not their chances. Even if one should fall they simply aid others. Past this if you visit /b/ on 4Chan it is likely that someone will be able to fulfill your lewd ambitions.

Worse still there are those they can never close down: studiers of such matters have noted that the share of porn has diminished and in its place has risen “Social Networking” websites, many of which are more accurately for matters carnal than social, others of which are rather more innocent. This impacts upon porn by offering the reality instead of the simulation, with the former prospect invariably seeming more stimulating to a considerable number of men, not to mention women. Many of these sites, of course, demand a charge but that of greatest popularity, Craigslist, does not. This, as it originates from 1999, predates the majority of pay-porn sites but the basic principle, allowing people who wish to meet up in order to have sex initiate correspondence upon your servers, has grown vastly in popularity, arguably to the cost of the industry depending upon depicting the fantasy of such an event.

{Another consequence is that those who have claimed that no women enjoy purely casual sex have been left with rather a contradiction upon their hands, but that is a happy side-affair, not the focus of this essay.}

Finally the woes endured by Encyclopædia Britannica form the third and final of our examples, along perhaps with the epitome of the downfall of pay-demanding data providers. The EB used to be the tomb to which other books could only dream wistfully, the source of data that was beyond reproach, filled with the accumulated knowledge of all the experts that there were and containing detailed information upon almost any topic imaginable.

However in Wikipedia an alternative model, one based around the amateur, the mob, the horde a challenger appeared and the obvious disadvantage which it appeared at in terms of respectability was swiftly reduced by the most notable feature of what increasingly became such a vast bank of facts: it was entirely free.

This drew in literally anyone upon the internet who had ever wondered about anything. An obscure concept, creation or construct of any variety woud most likely be found there. That I can remember the few instances it has failed me demonstrates more than anything else the ubiquity of the knowledge stored there {there is no article for neo-nazi punk band No Remorse, for instance, as well as…Actually, nothing springs to mind at all besides that} and the facts, in addition to how they were decided upon and arranged, is presented openly to any who ask.

What, against this, could the Britannica, that costs multiple thousands of pounds to buy and then many more hundreds to annually update, possibly hope to arrange? It could have opened its doors too, perhaps not given us as deep an insight into the workings of the academics who devise it but at least provided the articles for free, but this was clearly not the elitist business model that it relied upon and such an approach was thus considered too radical a departure from how it had always operated. Accordingly its only option was to smear and to sneer, glowering down from its ivy tower balefully and casting down what it intended to be withering criticism.

The media seemed mostly helpful in this, arranging countless “Expose” articles that invariably failed to update as successfully as the site does and neglected to mention the diligent amendments and removals of libel that resided upon the articles criticised. Indeed Wikipedia has always had inbuilt conceptually the ultimate riposte of mal foi: if you observed an error and this irked or alarmed you why did you not alter it yourself to make it more closely resemble reality?

Yet still the critics piled on, opinion piece after another protecting Britannica by assailing the newcomer. But with no success: indeed by the time they had observed it at all it was far too late and, as ever, it was the very popularity which both drew the eye and ensured that its position of prominence remained. While maligned journalists were loath to participate a broad spectrum of humanity both have not been and are not. Indeed everyone from Scientologists from Britannica contributers is represented.

The consequence is that flaws can be found at an astoundingly fast rate and fixated pedants are heavily engaged to a degree that has left the forlorn Britannica without a hope, especially given its slow annual slog. The consequence is that in places Wikipedia is both more detailed and more precise, as demonstrated by this article.

The prospects for the old guard, therefore, are grim. The current generation are heavy users of the free variety but incapable of stumping up the thousands of pounds required to access the alternative in either form. Their site appears to have taken measure to obfuscate the cost as best they can behind offers of a “Free 30 day trial” but the fact reminds that besides this and their aforementioned cold-hearted snarls they have few tactics and minimal hope of continuing their existence.

Why? Because they offer information, but at a price.

It has become increasingly clear to me that this is no longer tenable. Just consider the way that this entire system works, what is keeping the internet as active as it is at this moment: GoogleAds. These have provided the financial lubricant required to get the web rolling in a way that it was meant to, but what do they effectively consist of? A means of a product’s creator attempting to catch the eye of someone with an interest in buying what is offered. Nothing more.

This perhaps indicates the way in which the future will be reached, indeed displays the way it is occurring already. You can no longer make profit reliably from hording information and delivering it only to those that are willing to pay for it, be it trying to stop them listening to songs you control access to or view films you funded the creation of. There are negative consequences that may occur as a result of this, indeed the more that they are considered the more terrifying they become. But with enough innovation this could become something beautiful.