The big picture thing is that Wave is trying to introduce a landscape hardening product into the marketplace. Something which firms up the edges of digital information in the way that a fence marks the edge of a field, or the outer layer of skin denotes the final expression of a person's body, or law establishes the edge which separates freedom from the harms that anarchy produces. It's a product which renders the word copy something limitable, something which may be used in some circumstances but not in others.
But at the same time, there is another interest, one which currently belongs to consumers and which they perceive is the kernel of their unique and individual freedom - and that is control of the capabilities of their equipment.
The question Wave puts to them is this. If we can show that freedom is something different from anarchy, that the advantage of curtailing your ability to copy anything and everything you wish is that you will gain control of other things - your private information, your digital wealth, your access to new spaces, even your identity - then perhaps many folks will see that freedom is a bargain between competing virtues and that we sometimes gather up benefits as a result of setting limits on what we can do. Some kinds of internet use causes harm. It is a nice thing to have a zone of privacy, to know that another user cannot get access to our bank account, that we can retain some secrets - even in cyberspace. It is painful not to have these things in cyberspace. So rather than obstructing the notion of limitation, why not embrace its benefits?
Clearly the philosophical battle is far from being won. And if there is one big obstacle which stands in the way of Wave's progress, this is it. Wave appears to be the party pooper. Whereas - done right - what Wave and the other TCG members are introducing might easily be seen as a key enabler of liberty in cyberspace.
| 