[p2p-research] [P2P-Coop] Choosing the copyfarleft for the P2P Foundation coop

[Samuel Rose]

On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 4:02 AM, Dmytri Kleiner <dk at telekommunisten.net> wrote:
> Hey Michel, that would be great. "copyfarleft" is a type of license, just
> like "copyleft
> " is, there is neither a license called copyfarleft nor one called
> copyleft. There are specific licenses that implement both types; many that
> implement Copylet, i.e. GPL, CCBYSA, etc, and so far only one that
> implements copyfarleft, that is the "Peer Production License" published in
> the Telekommunist Manifesto, which itself a fork of the Creative Commons
> Attribution Non Commercial license with clauses added that explicitly allow
> commons-based and non-profit commercial use.
>
> It would be really cool if the P2P foundation used the Peer Production
> License, as far as I know the only work that currently uses the license is
> the Telekommunist Manifesto itself.
>
> Best,
>
>
>

Dmytri,


I never really understood the appeal of "non commercial", as it seems
to me that it is beyond the basic resources of all but a few to
detect/police and enforce the non-commercial use of produced output.

>From my perspective, the real value for all of humankind is in
"share-alike", that no matter what you do with the modified output,
you must also make it freely available for re-use as the originator
has. Likewise, for the individual contributor, "by attribution" holds
tremendous value for the individual contributor.

"Non commercial" as a basic licensing concept (whether used in
Creative Commons license or others) is so ambiguous and legally
undefined in case law worldwide, that it seems to be practically
meaningless.

What "non commercial" really seems to be saying is "you may not earn
money through the sale of this creative output without first getting
my permission". But, the definitions of what is commercial in judicial
(legal) constructions extend beyond financial transactions, to include
non-monetary compensations, or secondary transactions (does a website
that republishes BY-NC-SA content and also receives money via a tipjar
and/or advertising fall under this clause, or is their
republishing/modifying/re-using covered under existing fair use
rights? The laws of many countries are not clear).

Plus, on a fundamental (business) level, this set of assumptions:

"The main argument advanced in the essay is that artists can not earn
a living from exclusivity of "intellectual property" and that that
neither copyleft licenses like the GPL, nor "copyjustright" frameworks
such as the creative commons, can help."

...seems to me to ignore a fundamental reality:

An artist or other producer's ability to earn a living by way of
earning money is predicated *not* on their choice of license alone,
but primarily on the *business models* they are operating with. The
license is only part of the model. The most important thing is that
other people *want* to buy what you are making, and that they are
willing to take the time to buy it from you. If this doesn't seem
plausible for a given producer, then a different model is suggested
(not for profit, donation-based model, bartering, etc).

-- 
--
Sam Rose
Future Forward Institute and Forward Foundation
Tel:+1(517) 639-1552
Cel: +1-(517)-974-6451
skype: samuelrose
email: samuel.rose at gmail.com
http://forwardfound.org
http://futureforwardinstitute.org
http://hollymeadcapital.com
http://p2pfoundation.net
http://socialmediaclassroom.com

"The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human
ambition." - Carl Sagan