[p2p-research] Historical anti-materialism

[Ryan Lanham]

I suppose the point I really wish to make is that we have lost the P2P out
of these discussions.  P2P is an ethos of sharing and responsibility for
one's own contributions to a commons.  It is not a coercive system. It is
not a right. It is now a power.  It is not a solution to the world's
problems.  It is a mode of sharing.  How that has tangled with neo-Marxism,
I have no idea.

I continue myself to think that responsible sharing under many different
types of law--and international property law--has dazzled and amused the
world.  It excites us to think people are noble enough to share and that all
manner of things can happen.  But P2P sharing is also about possible
technologies that further enable sharing and 1 to 1 interactions of all
sort...and the elimination of certain hierarchical governance systems.
Those too can be stretched into political arguments that have no business
with P2P.

I have said too much.  Probably you are right that much of it is wrong or
wrong-headed.  I simply feel the purpose of P2P--which was the joy of
sharing and building a common purpose, has been conflated with an anger, a
political view, that is not elemental to P2P.
That saddens me.  P2P is a great and exciting thing.  Much of what is being
pinned to it is not so great in my view.  I suppose that is the way of the
world.

Ryan


On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 8:38 PM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Stan,
>
> You are quite right that I confused rivalrous and excludable goods.  It has
> been a long time since I read Rothbard and the Austrians who gave us these
> ideas (I presume).
>
> The difference of course is largely irrelevant since property laws do
> exist.
>
> I accept that data is possible to be replicated at negligible cost.  That
> doesn't make the right to copy it inherently present.  And excludability is
> everywhere we want it to be from viewsheds to air rights.
>
> In practical terms, I continue to believe the discussion of rivalrous goods
> to be largely irrelevant.  If you want to talk about property law, you are
> in national political systems.  What difference does it make if a good can
> or can't be copied without loss of material?
>
> Ryan
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 8:06 PM, Stan Rhodes <stanleyrhodes at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> 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.econ.upf.edu/%7Emarimon/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/c497ae44/attachment.html>