[p2p-research] Historical anti-materialism

[Stan Rhodes]

Ryan, I have not seen those definitions of rivalry before, nor do I know of
any literature that would support them.  Goods are, by nature, rival or
nonrival.  You should have looked this up and fact-checked it.

See the following economic papers:
http://www.econ.upf.edu/~marimon/paulAER02whenIPs.pdf
http://www.undp.org/globalpublicgoods/globalization/pdfs/KaulMendoza.pdf
http://www.maxey.info/documents/summary_economic_growth.doc

Simply put, classifying a good as rival or nonrival depends upon whether
consumption or use of the good prevents simultaneous consumption or use of
the good by another.  You are confusing excludability with rivalry.

Information as a "good" is not rival, even if someone claims it private
(they can claim whatever they like).  Information can be used with no
rivalry.  Stallman was speaking of software.  Information--a subset being
software--is very clearly a non-rival good by definition.

As for my own perspective: the divide between unenforceable and untenable
claims of rivalry, and the reality of information nonrivalry, underlies the
losing battle of copyrighted media "piracy." Legally establishing nonrival
goods as rival goods only creates more dissonance.  The term "intellectual
property" attempts to beg the question by classifying information as both
private property and rival, but information is no more rival property than
"creation science" is science.  "Private" information not released in some
way is still a nonrival good, but is being excluded.

Your points about Stallman were scattered, and in my view, incorrect.  The
implicit lie about rivalry at the core of most "intellectual property"
claims couldn't be more relevant to P2P.

Property laws consider the rivalrous/nonrivalrous nature of a good when
determining the entitlements they establish.  Any reading on the
jurisprudence behind property rights, whether Romer or Epstein, consider
both rivalry and excludability, among other important factors.

-- Stan

2009/6/22 Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com>

>
>> Rivalry is a very important of the p2p concept - rival goods cause
>> problems. http://smari.yaxic.org/rivalry_scarcity_graph.png
>>
>>  - Smári
>>
>>
> Things are not, by nature, rival or non-rival goods.  Those are defined by
> laws of property.  If you do not like the laws, work to change them.
> However, there is no indepedent concept of rival versus non-rival goods
> outside of a political system.
>
> Non-rival goods -- like ocean water classically -- can easily become rival
> goods -- 200 mile territory limits.  The same is true of electrons
> (electricity) air -- air rights.
>
> Property laws are set by lawyers and politicians.  P2P systems are designed
> by those who freely choose to share their output and to pool into
> commons--it could be any sort of system of scarce or non-scarce goods.
>
> To say rival goods cause problems is akin to saying cultures cause
> problems.  There may be some hint of truth to it, but it is largely
> irrelevant unless one wishes to radically alter a political system.  Nothing
> in P2P requires altering any political system--P2P thrives just fine
> regardless of when and where it is implemented.
>
> Ryan
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090622/e9052608/attachment.html>