Ghosh Shubha
Syracuse University College of Law, Syracuse, NY, United States.
Front Res Metr Anal. 2022 Aug 31;7:974706. doi: 10.3389/frma.2022.974706. eCollection 2022.
Scarcity abounds in law just as abundance is subject to law's limitations. This Article builds on legal theory, economics, and social psychology to present the dialectic of scarcity and abundance as they interplay in our relationship to information and time. This Article has made two overarching arguments: one about scarcity, abundance, and regulation generally and a second about time as an instrument of regulation subject to terms of scarcity and of abundance. The first argument is that scarcity and abundance are rhetorical constructs that inform different regulatory institutions. Scarcity traditionally has mapped onto limits on freedom. Abundance, by contrast, props freedom's unlimited potential. Under the language of scarcity, limits promote outcomes, for example through rights to exclude, deprivation of a benefit, or imposition of a burden. Under the language of abundance, identified freedoms promote outcomes through rights of access or rights to use. Scarcity is distinct from absolute deprivation, and abundance, from unbounded and infinite possibility. Each are building blocks understood relative to the goals of institutional design. Furthermore, scarcity and abundance have an intertwined relationship, a dialectic of famine and plenty. Similarly, freedom and limitations coexist each supporting the other. The second argument of this Article is that time as an instrument of regulation illustrates the uses of scarcity and abundance. Time can be regimented to regulate activities such as work, travel, diet, reproductive rights, social relations, and interaction with media. Time can also be liberating, seemingly abundant using perpetuities, technologies for fast forwarding, rewinding, or shifting content, and increases in the velocity of access and movement. Information retrieval, processing, and sharing are connected to time. It is no surprise that reform proposals for the problems confronting the information economy rest up regulation of time. This Article has demonstrated what these reform proposals share is an attempt to make time scarce, to return to perhaps an idealized era of regimented broadcast within an era of multivalent technological means for information creation and dissemination. But imposing scarcity on abundance ignores the deeper challenges of information glut and distortion: how to manage and assess content.
法律中稀缺现象比比皆是，正如充裕也受到法律的限制一样。本文基于法律理论、经济学和社会心理学，阐述稀缺与充裕的辩证法，它们在我们与信息及时间的关系中相互作用。本文提出了两个总体论点：一个是关于稀缺、充裕和监管的一般情况，另一个是关于时间作为一种受稀缺和充裕条件制约的监管工具。第一个论点是，稀缺和充裕是影响不同监管机构的修辞结构。传统上，稀缺与自由的限制相关联。相比之下，充裕则支撑着自由的无限潜力。在稀缺的语境下，限制通过例如排除权、剥夺利益或施加负担等方式来促进某种结果。在充裕的语境下，所确定的自由通过获取权或使用权来促进结果。稀缺不同于绝对匮乏，充裕也不同于无边界和无限的可能性。它们都是相对于制度设计目标而理解的构建要素。此外，稀缺和充裕有着相互交织的关系，即匮乏与富足的辩证法。同样，自由和限制相互依存，彼此支撑。本文的第二个论点是，时间作为一种监管工具体现了稀缺和充裕的用途。时间可以被规划来规范诸如工作、旅行、饮食、生殖权利、社会关系以及与媒体互动等活动。时间也可以是解放性的，利用永久产权、快进、倒带或切换内容的技术以及获取和移动速度的提高，时间似乎变得充裕起来。信息检索、处理和共享与时间相关联。毫不奇怪，针对信息经济所面临问题的改革提议都依赖于对时间的监管。本文已经表明，这些改革提议的共同之处在于试图让时间变得稀缺，在一个信息创造和传播手段多样的时代回归到或许是理想化的有规划广播时代。但是，将稀缺强加于充裕之上忽略了信息过剩和扭曲带来的更深层次挑战：如何管理和评估内容。
