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

Wed Feb 3 04:27:48 CET 2010

ok, understood, you meant coercive power, we're in total agreement on this,
and this is something that I learned to understand better through your work,

Michel

On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 9:52 AM, Kevin Carson <
free.market.anticapitalist at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20100203/9108f672/attachment.html>