[p2p-research] Non digital commons a lot more complicated than Free Software

[j.martin.pedersen]

On 08/12/10 19:06, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> I am not making a pro-IP argument, simply addressing the historical
> situation.  I am, nevertheless, suspicious of claims that IP (and other
> property) rights are confirmed to be always innovation-detrimental.  The
> landscape seems too diverse for that claim to stand unchallenged.

Yes, good points, but..

In any case, none of this history and facts tells us anything else than
what has happened within an economy where all the significant
tangible/material means of production were already held exclusively. It
tells us that innovation *within* capitalist democracy requires a
mixture of things, at best, and generally a lot of exclusivity.

It is the exclusive ownership of land, its resources, and the means of
production that make IP claims over immaterial/intangible stuff not only
convincingly justified, but even necessary, as you suggest. Exclusion
leads to more exclusion. Sharing leads to more sharing.

Roads in many places have the same history: started out as private
projects, but common sense and ownership prevailed in the end. However,
the same applies: this is within a system where exclusivity is already
the norm.

Imagine if the means of production were held in common, then how could
anyone successfully argue for a justification of the resulting products
being held exclusively?

That is why the free culture movement would be well adviced to aim a
little higher than information exceptionalism: not just immaterial
things should be common, but all means of production.

-martin