[p2p-research] labour, capital and p2p

[Ryan Lanham]

I do not know Kleiner.  Can you give a reasonable entry point.  The rest of
what you say here seems reasonable...I like the membrane analogy.

I agree Ostrom's work is outstanding in this area.  I think it ties closely
with her excellent work on trust as well.

Ryan Lanham



On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 10:58 PM, Stan Rhodes <stanleyrhodes at gmail.com>wrote:

> Michel,
>
> I agree it's not classically Marxist, but I didn't say it was.  It
> fits in what I think "evolved-to-modern-times" Marxism is, which I
> tend to think Kleiner embodies.  I won't debate labeling any further
> because I'm not sure it would add anything--if Kevin wants to clarify
> whether or not copyfarleft is more mutualist than marxist, he can.  On
> to the meat!
>
> I partially agree that copyfarleft has the "problem" you identify, but
> of course Kleiner would not call it a problem.  Obviously, it's quite
> deliberate.  It creates an opt-in structure for the commons, which is
> both closing it, but also not--it's a legal membrane that requires
> agreeing to a particular perspective of commons management in order to
> reap the benefits of the commons.  The GPL does this too. The
> important difference with the GPL is the the high of the barrier to
> entry--the options you give up to reap the rewards.*
>
> Kleiner wants an opt-in system with strong pressure to opt-in for full
> benefits, versus the opt-in GPL with very weak pressure to opt-in for
> full benefits.  The GPL has a very low barrier to entry to get full
> benefits, whereas the copyfarleft, if it could exist, has a high
> barrier to entry.  Ironically, what Kleiner sees as copyleft's
> weakness is also its strength, and why it has lasted and grown.  You
> need all that capitalist free-riding to help propagate it.
>
> *Of course, the other problem--and another important difference
> between copyfarleft and copyleft--is monitoring and enforcement, much
> like it is now with anything related to intellectual property.  That
> problem is a result of a design, but not one of Kleiner's intention.
> As a thought experiment, I find copyfarleft insightful, because it
> couldn't work or restrict any better than copyright does now.
>
> Opt-in structures with strong opt-in pressures shouldn't be abandoned
> tactically, though.  The rule of thumb: strong exclusion attempts fail
> miserably with easily-transmitted nonrival goods.  Kleiner was showing
> precisely this recently with deadswap.  Strong exclusion works quite a
> bit better with rival goods, although that still varies by
> "exclusionability."  As always, see the work of Ostrom et al. on
> common-pool resource management.  (If I had a sig, that should
> probably be it.)
>
> -- Stan
>
> ps. Ryan, thanks for the reply, you mention a couple of concepts I'd
> like to address. I'll try to reply to you soon.
>
> On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 2:52 AM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi Stan,
> >
> > On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Stan Rhodes <stanleyrhodes at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> I know you're not saying this, but I want to put this question out
> >> there: if we don't have equitable ownership norms or standards or laws
> >> or rights, why would we expect money or finance to be fair?  How could
> >> we even tell if it was?
> >>
> >>
> >> To get a modern Marxist take on intellectual property, read the
> >> venture communist himself, Dmytri Kleiner:
> >> http://www.telekommunisten.net/CopyjustrightCopyfarleft
> >
> > I personally don't think this is classically marxist at all, but it
> rather
> > close to the mutualist tradition, though in a more 'antagonistic style'
> than
> > Kevin's.
> >
> > The problem with copyfarleft is that it actually closes down the commons,
> > since it wants to exclude non-venture business from using it.
> >>
> >>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090519/3c3e656a/attachment-0001.html>