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

[Ryan Lanham]

On 2/2/10, 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



I of course agree with all this.  People ought not to coerce.  But the
capitalists will agree just as soon as the socialists do.  Neither will so
agree.  In the end, politics is about self-interest.  It is only overcome
when systems evolve to mutual interest or stalemate.  Stalemates are dead
ends.  P2P offers benefits to all without politics or stalemates.  Wikipedia
should always be allowed to be compelling with its own model.  I
see no justification for anyone blocking free and open.  I also see no
reason for people to be punished for not choosing free and open.  If
Wikipedia is not chosen as compelling, it ought not to exist.  By all means,
let's have a level playing field.  But IP is part of a level playing field.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20100203/ef66e2be/attachment.html>