One of the most unreasonable arguments that you see applied day in and day out on the Internet (and on roads before the introduction of speed cameras) is the 'right' to do something just because you can.

It's an interesting argument because it is really an argument for the ultimate failure in ordered society - that I can do anything I can get away with - I have no morals, ethics, scruples or responsibilities.

After all, it justifies any action at all, rape, murder, child pornography - you name it and it's OK.

Hey, but wait a minute, you say.  That's all too heavy.  I didn’t mean all that nasty and illegal stuff.  Obviously that's all way too bad and has got to be wrong (well I sure hope that's what you're saying).

So we are into drawing lines?  Some things are agreed to be bad and just because you can do them does not mean that you should, and if society (not just the cops) finds you doing them then there shall be punishment.

Now obviously murder is not good.  But where is drug dealing?  Does it rank alongside liquor selling?  Is pornography OK but child pornography is not?  And how do you define them anyway?  Where do you rate selling dud cars (maybe that's a bit too topical right now).

But let's cut to the chase.  Does the guy who writes music or the gal writing a play or the group playing a track deserve to get paid for their work?

OK, you could argue that the group playing tracks can get paid for live performances, but I don't know as Elvis, The Beatles, or Madonna would be terrifically impressed by that.  Yes, live work is important to artistes because they get what you never can from a dead studio - an audience, the feel, the thrill of the audience.  So, what about the others.  Are they just supposed to produce and then give it away?  How long do you think authors would last if they had to give away their work and rely on a few crumbs from the hostel to keep them going?  

True, some authors made it big on the conference circuit.  Now I don't mean Tony Blair or GW Bush or their like.  For one thing, authors they ain't.  But Charles Dickens did very well of it for the Brits, and Mark Twain for the Yanks, and you can certainly describe them as authors.

But their real money did not come from lectures, but from printing.  Thomas Paine made his legendary contribution - The Rights of Man, for the American Civil War, as a paid for pamphlet!  If the Internet had existed then, do you suppose Twitter would have produced anything like in under a century?  Being well read is not the same thing as being well paid.

In fact the laws of copyright were introduced in order to prevent the rich (the well paid) from gaining a monopoly over the production and delivery of information.

So whilst the Internet may have given enormous freedoms - the freedom of expression - the access to open and alternative publicity, it has not created a new medium by and through which those creating information as their trading activity can make their livings.  

And whilst this remains the case, however much the Internet may prevent censorship and may grant great voice to the weak and the oppressed - truly great capabilities of our time - it acts to deny information and knowledge creators their right to employment and to trade.  

At the moment, outside of the communities paid for by advertising, people pay in order to make information available on the Internet.  Whether it's purchasing your own server or paying for a domain name, or paying to put up a web site, it's all paying to peddle your own knowledge.  But can you afford to give away the information that you need to sell to make a living?  Maybe the knowledge economy is already dead.