[p2p-research] Fwd: arguments against applying open/free to other content

Wed Feb 20 05:14:48 CET 2008

With links to Marco's original points, and the corrected version of Stan,
http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/stan-rhodes-3-fundamental-arguments-against-the-continuation-of-copyright-restrictions/2008/03/05

will be published on March 5 (I'm post-dating to create content during my
absense)

Michel

On Feb 20, 2008 10:54 AM, Stan Rhodes <stanleyrhodes at gmail.com> wrote:

> Marco, please see below.  It is a short and concise refutation of the
> basis of your argument.  A few comments first.  I think some of your "myths"
> are themselves myths.  Also, I see mention of donation.  Donation is the
> weakest service model, but it's not the only one.  In fact, morals and laws
> aside, when someone can copy a work, yet pays the artist anyway, they're
> actually using a donation model.  What works for Sam may no work for someone
> else, and that's fine.  That doesn't mean information is property.  The
> need, then, is to create additional service models--not product/goods models
> (copyright).  "Killing" copyright will happen as these models are created
> within a network that allows optimal value exchange between users and
> creators, assuming the users and creators have control of the information
> and transmission commons to they can keep it fair and open.  In this way,
> copyright will be made obsolete.
>
> There are at least two other nitpicks from your email, though:
> 1. Controlling use of nonrival goods is not natural in any sense of the
> word.  They are nonrival goods, controlling them is artificial and should
> only be done with good reason (that reason is the basis of the incentive
> argument).  That laws have to be made to enforce a monopoly, and that those
> laws can't be enforced without major restrictions of freedom, is a sign the
> concept of information as property of the owner is bogus.
>
> 2. You say "But if this is the _only_ way to survive for an artist, if an
> artist
> cannot be just an artist full time, with as little powerful patrons
> and intermediaries as possible... it isn't a good thing for society as
> a whole, we haven't progressed all that much since the middle ages"
>
> This assumes the artists are all of sufficient value to society to earn a
> livelihood.  The "dream" of everyone who wants to be an artist being one
> full time IS a dream, as it is not grounded in reality.  You address this as
> "Myth #3" but then answer it with your own myth.  An artist must create
> value for others, not just him or herself, to be a value to society.  For
> the occupation to be a livelihood, the value must be significant to everyone
> else.  Otherwise, they are not carrying their weight; you cannot
> legitimately dismiss that concept as being like the "middle ages."  The
> problem we have today is that value taken is not proportionate to value
> compensated for, but copyright law does little for that, it mostly feeds the
> middlemen who are not creating value at all.  Nonrival creation is a
> service.  Service markets have rules that are different from markets of
> goods.  The compensation models we use right now are very poor, and that's
> the main problem.  The deeper we muddy ourselves with trying to make
> "intellectual property" work, the more time and public good is wasted.  We
> need to build networks that are "lean middlemen" instead.  This has to be
> done by peers, and cannot not be done by laws and regulations; Lawrence
> Lessig himself could tell you this, and that's why he switched from fighting
> with copyright to going after corruption.  Laws and regulations favor the
> middlemen who add no value, not the artists or users.  One of those three
> has the most influence over law, and it's not the users or the artists.
>
>
> Analysis of the Socioeconomic Argument for Restriction: Invaliding the
> Incentive Argument
>
> The restriction of information is at best inefficient, and at worst, a
> form of coercive power. In all cases such restriction negatively impacts the
> public good. The only good reason to create a restriction, legally, would be
> because of some other factor affecting the public good. In this case, the
> concern of creator incentive. The origin of copyright and patent, Article I,
> Section 8, Clause 8 of the US Constitution, addresses this economic concern,
> attempting to maximize public good by balancing the benefit of creator
> incentive and the resulting higher output (quantity and/or quality) of works
> with the detriment of restricting distribution among the public.
>
> Today we can question, and I believe invalidate, the very basis of the
> incentive argument, for three main reasons:
>
>    1. Distribution of information--nonrival goods--is continually
>    approaching zero cost. Attempting to raise the cost of distribution
>    (artificially, particularly through the fallacy of "property") fights
>    against this technological reality, requiring restriction of technology
>    through stifling technological innovation and restricting individual
>    freedom. *This is the "losing battle" reason.*
>    2. The benefit of the the works created by the incentive must be
>    greater than the societal detriment the restrictions cause. As distribution
>    costs become trivial, the amount of detriment caused by reducing cumulative
>    knowledge production increases rapidly. The benefit cannot outweigh the
>    stunting of growth. *This is the "stifles progress (of science and
>    the useful arts)" reason.*
>    3. Technology currently provides, and will continue to provide and
>    improve upon, methods of direct compensation, means of creation,
>    decentralized risk-sharing. Technology enables direct exchange of value
>    between parties. Technology increases availability of means of production
>    (from digital media to fabrication using design information). Technology
>    enables a near-zero middlemen cost (distribution and risk cost) between
>    users and creators, enabling risk to be efficiently spread widely and in
>    small amounts. *This is the "service model" reason.*
>
>
> -- Stan
>
> On Feb 19, 2008 7:02 PM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Marco,
> >
> > perhaps you would be interested to join the p2p research list, which is
> > mostly, but not exclusively, academics and research oriented people?
> >
> > please feel free to use Sam's comments on your own site as well.
> >
> > I will engage with the arguments myself, but not now,
> >
> > Michel
> >
> > On Feb 20, 2008 6:32 AM, M. Fioretti <marco.fioretti at eleutheros.it>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 20:52:21 PM +0700, Michel Bauwens wrote:
> > > > a response to the ip article,
> > >
> > > thanks for passing it around and for defining it "a good set of
> > > arguments". If you want, I can post the comments below directly to
> > > that list, to discuss them.
> > >
> > > > On Feb 19, 2008 7:01 AM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >     http://digifreedom.net/node/58
> > > >
> > > >     This is a good set of arguments, actually written by a free
> > > >     software advocate, against applying those principles to other
> > > >     areas of content creation
> > >
> > > I'm not against applying those principles to other creative works than
> > > live music. I'm just pointing out that what can work great with live
> > > music is not an absolute, universal truth, but something which is much
> > > less valid, or much less often, in other creative fields. With respect
> > > to Samuel's comments:
> > >
> > > > Without actually addressing his arguments one-by-one, I have to say
> > > > that his understanding of how people can possibly earn a living from
> > > > art, music, and creative works, is limited. I think that time will
> > > > prove him wrong.
> > >
> > > I'd like to hear from Samuel more on this, so if I'm wrong I can
> > > correct myself earlier :-) I'd also like him to note that I haven't
> > > said at all anything like "All rights reserved, all the time, all the
> > > way is the only sustainable way". That is Disney and Sony, not me. I
> > > have said that the usual copyright-complete-abolition arguments are
> > > much, much weaker than those who I call "freeloaders" usually care to
> > > admit.
> > >
> > > > I do agree with him that it's useful to declare a license of some
> > > > form up front, as the creator of a work.
> > >
> > > As far as I can see and recall, I have not really written in that
> > > piece that it is "useful to declare a license". Of course it _is_
> > > useful. It is even _necessary_ given the current legislation, as
> > > Samuel himself points out.
> > >
> > > But what I have written is that a right of authors to control the use
> > > of their creations (within limits, especially in time, much stricter
> > > than the current ones, see http://digifreedom.net/node/59) is a
> > > natural and good thing, not some artificial, out-of-the-blue,
> > > inherently unethical violence as implied in what I call "copyright
> > > myths". Regardless of, and before, if and how the author freely
> > > decides to exercise it, that is to explicitly declare a license.
> > >
> > > > With creative works, like art and music, I understand the author's
> > > > point about donation based models, and needing build up fan
> > > > bases. Yet, the need to build up demand in order to make a profit
> > > > exists no matter what, whether or not they are donation based, or
> > > > whether music materials are totally copyrighted, for instance.
> > >
> > > Is this a critic to my positions? If yes, I confess I don't see it.
> > >
> > > > I can tell you from experience as a professional touring musician,
> > > > our group made more money by offering recordings and other products
> > > > for a donation, than just trying to sell them outright. And, these
> > > > products we're all fully copyrighted. But the way that we sold them
> > > > was by asking for people who took a CD to donate whatever they
> > > > could. This also happens to be a good way to attract more fans, by
> > > > making your recording more widely available.
> > >
> > > This just confirms my initial point, doesn't it? "What can work great
> > > with live music is not an absolute, universal truth, but something
> > > which is much less valid, or much less often, in other creative
> > > fields". That is, in the context of my piece, "be very, very, very
> > > carefull to yell "death to copyright!" just because several musicians
> > > may make a living without it".
> > >
> > > See last paragraph of Myth #3:
> > >
> > > > Live performances? What should writers do, read a whole 400 pages
> > > > book in a pub or theater every night, to an audience which would
> > > > enjoy it much more reading it where they feel like it, probably
> > > > alone, one chapter at a time? Even staying with music, what about
> > > > lyricists?
> > >
> > > I'll just add to this that side jobs don't count in discussing these
> > > issues. Sure, one can survive with a clerk or farming job, or even
> > > teaching guitar, literature or mathematics and play or write at
> > > night.
> > >
> > > But if this is the _only_ way to survive for an artist, if an artist
> > > cannot be just an artist full time, with as little powerful patrons
> > > and intermediaries as possible... it isn't a good thing for society as
> > > a whole, we haven't progressed all that much since the middle ages and
> > > a reformed copyright continues to seem to me the most natural,
> > > effective and intrinsically right way to avoid these errors.
> > >
> > >   Marco
> > > --
> > > Eleutheros:  www.eleutheros.it
> > >             A Catholic approach to Information Technology
> > >             Un approccio Cattolico all'Informatica
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > The P2P Foundation researches, documents and promotes peer to peer
> > alternatives.
> >
> > Wiki and Encyclopedia, at http://p2pfoundation.net; Blog, at
> > http://blog.p2pfoundation.net; Newsletter, at
> > http://integralvisioning.org/index.php?topic=p2p
> >
> > Basic essay at http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=499; interview at
> > http://poynder.blogspot.com/2006/09/p2p-very-core-of-world-to-come.html
> > BEST VIDEO ON P2P:
> > http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=4549818267592301968&hl=en-AU
> >
> > KEEP UP TO DATE through our Delicious tags at
> > http://del.icio.us/mbauwens
> >
> > The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
> > http://www.shiftn.com/
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > p2presearch mailing list
> > p2presearch at listcultures.org
> > http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
> >
> >
>

-- 
The P2P Foundation researches, documents and promotes peer to peer
alternatives.

Wiki and Encyclopedia, at http://p2pfoundation.net; Blog, at
http://blog.p2pfoundation.net; Newsletter, at
http://integralvisioning.org/index.php?topic=p2p

Basic essay at http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=499; interview at
http://poynder.blogspot.com/2006/09/p2p-very-core-of-world-to-come.html
BEST VIDEO ON P2P:
http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=4549818267592301968&hl=en-AU

KEEP UP TO DATE through our Delicious tags at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens

The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
http://www.shiftn.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20080220/a7761273/attachment-0001.html 