information wants to be free (does it? can it?)

In Lyotard's final paragraph of the "The Postmodern Condition," he argues that the computerization of society seems situated between a binary future: on one hand, the computer could become "the 'dream' instrument for controlling and regulating the market system...in that case, it inevitably would involve the use of terror" (67). On the other hand, the computer could "give the public free access to the memory and data banks" (67). His preference clearly lying in the latter option, Lyotard imagines how "languages games would then be games of perfect information" (67) but not (paradoxically) predictable as "the reserve of knowlege... is inexhaustible" (67).

I find it ironic if not problematic that Lyotard (with so much against the essentialism of the metanarrative) could possibly distill down the question of computerized society to such a simple binary. Is this really an either/or equation? Either the terror of information used against the individual (terror) or the individual empowered by access? In the binary, one can already see the science fiction narrative forming: on the one side, a institute whose purpose is to control information ("knowledge in the form of an informational commodity indispensable to productive power" (5)) and on the other, individuals who fight to make it free, info-thieves/hackers who take information from the rich and give it to the poor. Even you haven't seen a specific permuation of this narrative as sci-fi film let me recommend the 1995 film "Hackers" were New York hipsters are framed by Lyotard's feared "multinational corporations" (5).

Already, the essentialism of either reality is beginning to look absurd. It seems impossible that society could ever achieve either of Lyotard's spectral ends. Instead, society is left between the two by forces pulling it towards the extremes.

A brief look at contemporary cyberculture reveals this exact scenario. Institutions like Harvard or MIT who attempt projects like Open Access and Open Courseware respectively are frequently rebuffed by their professors and their publishers, whose exclusivity to the dissemination of this information equates to financial gain.

Not being an economist or an information theorist, it is impossible for me to adequately address the question that's really bothering me, which is basically does information retain an intrinsic value if it's freely available?

Postcapitalist wisdom would suggest no, the secret is more valuable that then the known fact. But when try to imagine the world of Lyotard's open informational access the question must be restated. And if that world begins to emerge, than like a library of books overwhelming a researcher, the value would seem to shift from the question of availability to the question of discovery and aggregation. This is to say that if "knowledge [was] produced in order to be sold" (4) does information now exist to be 'peddled' and 'distributed' ? And if this is true than the question is not of open information but open/optimized means of getting at information.