[p2p-research] Fwd: [fcforum] Fw: iPad DRM is a dangerous step backward. Sign the petition!

[Kevin Carson]

On 2/2/10, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com> wrote:

> But I have a question for you: you say power is a zero sum game. If we
> define power as the ability to influence others, why could we not have a
> equipotential conception of power.

When I say power is a zero sum game, I simply mean that coercive power
is a zero-sum game.  When force is initiated against a nonaggressor,
by definition, one person is forced to accept a different outcome than
he would otherwise have freely chosen; that means he is forced to
accept a lesser utility, so that someone else can receive a greater
utility at his expense.  Force is a means for benefiting one person at
another's expense.

To bring up Ryan's earlier response to my
Britannica->Encarta->Wikipedia example, he said that it's OK to rig
the game so that Britannica is protected if consumers "choose" that
alternative.  My point is that it's not a consumer choice if force is
used to restrict Wikipedia's ability to compete, or to limit the
conditions under which it is allowed to compete.  By definition, when
the power of the state suppresses competition in the supply of
proprietary content, choice is not free.  Only if there are no entry
barriers to the competitive supply of content, without any enforcement
of "intellectual property," is there such a thing as genuine choice.

But if power is used simply in the sense of "empowerment," as you use
it below, I agree with you completely.

> Actually I believe this is what happens in peer production (the 'free jazz
> band' model of leadership) at certain levels.
>
> Power can be distributed, perhaps not totally, but substantially enough to
> achieve acceptable 'justice'?
>
> I think that is the whole point of egalitarian oriented social movements,
>
> Michel
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 1:55 AM, Kevin Carson
> <free.market.anticapitalist at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On 1/31/10, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm not sure there is a "movement."  It isn't political.  It's just a
> > > phenomenon of social technologies.  I used to think about P2P as a
> movement,
> > > etc.  But Michel actually convinced me that historical forces were the
> > > point...not politics.  If something isn't "ripe," it is altogether
> better
> > > for humanity if it doesn't emerge.  True emergeance isn't political.  It
> is
> > > social.  We don't need leaders.
> >
> > I think it's at least fair to call P2P a cluster of more or less
> > closely related movements, to the extent that there are free culture
> > advocacy groups and organizations that have one programmatic agenda or
> > another.
> >
> > But your point re historical forces and emergence is well taken.
> >
> > One of the central historical forces currently in play is the growing
> > uneforceability of IP law, and the inability of proprietary content to
> > compete with free.
> >
> > Ultimately I think the Apple model of monetizing content is doomed,
> > because no matter how popular Jobs' gadget designs are, the content he
> > makes available through iTunes is going to have to compete with free
> > versions available through "illegal" (but highly popular) channels.
> > In the end, what he can charge (and distribute part of to the
> > "artists," aka the industry) will be limited to the rents attendant on
> > convenience.  People (at least middle class people with a moderately
> > high opportunity cost of time relative to money) will pay a small
> > amount to avoid the inconvenience and transaction costs of finding an
> > authentic, complete copy of the song they want.  But that amount is
> > not as much as Apple could get from rents on proprietary content as
> > such.  So in the end, the cost of the content will be driven down by
> > competition with zero marginal cost, and will tend toward a value
> > comparable to that obtainable under Anderson's "Freemium" model.  The
> > only difference is that, ceteris paribus, the DRM will make the
> > product less attractive and reduce the convenience advantage over the
> > "pirated" stuff somewhat.  That means IMO Apple will eventually give
> > up and remove the DRM on everything.
> >
> >
> > > Yes, if the net employment was positive and that was what consumers
> wanted.
> > > To me, it is all about what is compelling. If consumers want it, it's
> > > better.  If post-scarcity cannot be compelling, it's crap.
> >
> > The problem with the "what consumers wanted" thing is that laws like
> > IP restrict what consumers are legally allowed to choose from.
> >
> >
> > > > How about if somebody had managed to save
> > > > the buggy whip makers against Henry Ford?  If somebody comes up with a
> > > > Star Trek replicator that can produce any food or consumer good at
> > > > zero marginal cost, will it be a good thing if somebody figures out a
> > > > way to "save the food/clothing/appliance industries" by enabling
> > > > manufacturers to keep charging for them?
> >
> > > Same answer.  If people want something, it is better.  Apple can't force
> > > people to buy DRM.  People choose it.
> >
> > The Post Office can't force me to buy stamps.  I choose to buy them.
> > The only problem is, if anybody besides the USPS tries to sell first
> > class mail delivery, the government will throw them in jail.  So I
> > "choose" within a coercive framework that criminalizes some forms of
> > voluntary exchange in order to guarantee the legal monopoly of
> > privileged classes.
> >
> > People "choose" DRM in an environment where copyright law artificially
> > restricts the range of other choices available to them.  "Pirated"
> > content is ubiquitous, but the transaction costs of verifying
> > authenticity and completeness of a copy are artificially increased by
> > IP law, because of the difficulty of organizing open and aboveground
> > authentication services.  My hope is that as darknet use spreads, P2P
> > counterinstitutions will emerge for providing such authentication
> > services; the counterinstitutions may be officially "illegal," but
> > will still become the normal means of vouching for quality and
> > authenticity for a growing share of the public.
> >
> > In any case, even if such counterinstitutions do not emerge to make
> > "pirated" content fully competitive with proprietary content, there
> > will be enough competition on the edges to drive down the price of
> > proprietary content in the way I described above.  In that case, the
> > competition will simply be less perfect and the public's "choice" will
> > be between an artificially constricted range of alternatives.  But I
> > don't think that state of affairs will last.
> >
> >
> > >  To me, opposition to intellectual property is a death knell for
> progress.
> > > People need to control their own outputs.  If they cannot, there is no
> hope
> > > of having a gift/free economy.  That is the ultimate slavery.
> >
> > People do control their own outputs.  I don't allow anybody to steal
> > unpublished manuscrips off my hard drive, or grab hard copy drafts off
> > my desk.
> >
> > A legal restriction on copying digital information that's been made
> > public, on the other hand, is a restriction on everybody else's
> > control of their own property.  A society of EULAs, in which I never
> > own anything I pay for, and can only pay for content on the monopoly
> > terms set by copyright liegelords, is the ultimate slavery.
> >
> >
> > > > And again, as I understand it the open movement is about the ultimate
> > > > value of eliminating artificial scarcity.  So while some accommodation
> > > > to IP as an interim measure may be consistent with this, it is still
> > > > in some way a compromise of the fundamental culture of the movement.
> >
> > > Artificial scarcity is the politicized term for abundance.  Abundance is
> > > about capacity. Raise capacity and the reasons for scarcity go away.
> The
> > > answer isn't so much to attack scarcity as it is to find mechanisms to
> raise
> > > the capacity for abundance.
> >
> > No.  The "reason" for artificial scarcity is to PREVENT abundance from
> > lowering the income of rentier classes.  It doesn't matter how
> > abundant technological potential is, if a class of privileged
> > monopolists have a deadlock on the right to sell the output and set
> > prices on it.  And the main way for abundance to defeat their
> > artificial scarcity is to make the rules on which artificial scarcity
> > depends (including IP) unenforceable.
> >
> >
> > > > The problem is they're "competing" in an artificial ecosystem defined
> > > > by "intellectual property."  Capitalism won because the playing field
> > > > was tilted.  If I lived in Virginia in 1850, I wouldn't say that slave
> > > > cotton plantations must be better than free ones because they
> > > > outcompeted in the market.  I'd question the basic structural
> > > > preconditions of the market.
> >
> > > Playing fields are set by what is ultimately compelling.  Power works
> only
> > > so long if it is not advantageous.  That's the lesson of the Soviet
> Union,
> > > of China, increasingly of the Arab World, Persia, Africa and South
> America.
> > > What kills this capacity is people who fight democratic institutions,
> > > markets, and human rights.  It is all about capacity.
> >
> > There is no such thing as a unified social interest.  There is,
> > rather, an "advantage" for the lion and an "advantage" for the lamb.
> > Power works to the advantage of the privileged by disadvantaging the
> > non-privileged.  Power is a zero-sum game.  To those who benefit from
> > zero-sum relations, total capacity (the size of the pie) matters less
> > than the size of their own slice.  What happened in the Soviet Union
> > was not that "society" decided the system was no longer working to
> > everyone's advantage, but that (thanks to destabilizing technology and
> > their own mismanagement) the ruling class lost its ability to control
> > the pie.
> >
> >
> > > If open systems and P2P cannot find a way to be compelling for human
> > > capacity, they will die off. I see nothing blocking them now in most
> free
> > > systems.  To call counter models cheaters is probably not going to help
> the
> > > cause much.  In fact, slavery was well known to be dying under its own
> > > weight--even in the South.  There are numerous economic and historic
> studies
> > > of it.  It couldn't compete with machinery, etc. in the same way slave
> labor
> > > today doesn't compete for very long in attractive markets--like those
> that
> > > require skills.  Skills always win.  China is the proving ground for
> that
> > > now as labor gets more and more skilled by the decade.
> >
> > > The answer is to push advancement and skils, not to attack other systems
> qua
> > > systems.  That is outmoded politics that simply leads to stalemates.
> The
> > > "right" answer is technical achievement, abundance, innovation and
> change.
> > > The wrong answer is planned outputs, political fights against status
> quo's,
> > > and "movements."  At least that is my view.
> >
> > The problem with all this is that power can, at least temporarily,
> > control the terms of competition between capacity/advancement/skill,
> > on the one hand, and outmoded forms of production like slavery on the
> > other.  The old will, for as long as it is able, use the power of the
> > state to regulate the terms of competition with the new--and that's
> > exactly what IP law is.  Ultimately the kind of technical achievement
> > and innovation that will break the stalemate are improvements in the
> > technical means of circumventing IP and other forms of artificial
> > scarcity, and making them unenforceable.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Kevin Carson
> > Center for a Stateless Society http://c4ss.org
> > Mutualist Blog:  Free Market Anti-Capitalism
> > http://mutualist.blogspot.com
> > Studies in Mutualist Political Economy
> > http://www.mutualist.org/id47.html
> > Organization Theory:  A Libertarian Perspective
> >
> http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2005/12/studies-in-anarchist-theory-of.html
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > p2presearch mailing list
> > p2presearch at listcultures.org
> >
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Work:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University -
> Think thank:
> http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>
> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
>
> Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>
> Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens;
> http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
> http://twitter.com/mbauwens;
> http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>  p2presearch mailing list
>  p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>
>


-- 
Kevin Carson
Center for a Stateless Society http://c4ss.org
Mutualist Blog:  Free Market Anti-Capitalism
http://mutualist.blogspot.com
Studies in Mutualist Political Economy
http://www.mutualist.org/id47.html
Organization Theory:  A Libertarian Perspective
http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2005/12/studies-in-anarchist-theory-of.html