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

[Andy Robinson]

Marco:  Your binaries of metaphysical/speculative on the one hand versus
concrete/experiential on the other are of a type I consider fundamentally
ideological.  I think there is a lot of metaphysics in what you say, but
it's hidden (even from yourself) underneath pseudo-concrete expressions.

The reforms you propose would certainly be a big step forward.  It is often
harder to mobilise people for reforms than for systemic changes, however.
For one thing they are less exciting emotionally, and for another they tend
to be less well-grounded.  Historically, how reforms usually come about
(civil rights/anti-racism, the welfare state, etc) is most often as a
side-effect of the danger of a more systematic break, which the system,
unable to repress, wards off by offering up reforms.  I don't question for
the moment the value of these reforms, but they are ultimately an effect of
strategic manoeuvres of two countervailing and ultimately incommensurable
forces.

As for the basic income, it would not be as drastic a change as people
think; a functional (unrecognised) basic income actually existed in most of
Europe until about the 1980s, arising from various needs-based benefit
entitlements, unenforced unemployment and income benefits, and student
grants (which could often be stretched out with minimum activity).  This did
in fact provide a basis for some very interesting cultural experimentation
which now has more limited space.  A basic income would be quite compatible
in principle with a lot of the present system remaining intact, though it
would vastly increase the quality of life and the options available to
marginal people.  I introduced it here, because your argument from scarcity
hinged on a need to pay bills which is conditional on the imposition of
commodified labour.

You're right that I associate copyright mainly with the arts (music,
computer games, films, TV shows, literature and so on).  And that I'm
convinced that motivation in these fields is not sufficiently driven by
direct financial incentives for the abolition of copyright to have much
effect (either because it isn't the main motive - as with poetry - or
because there are other forms of remuneration - as with music concerts,
cinema tickets and TV advertising).  I'm not sure what other kinds of
situations you have in mind.  You mention teaching - but very few teachers
act as businesspeople; most are employees, and are paid for a far broader
range of tasks than just giving lectures (in schooling, the main issue is
emotional management and/or control of children; in universities, a mixture
of interactive engagement such as seminars, and issues of research status).
The abolition of copyright would have no effect on schoolteachers and very
little on university lecturers (provided the status function of publication
remained intact).  Scientific research?  I wonder how much of this is
motivated by profit either - personally I think the role of profit in the
sciences is pretty poisonous anyway.  A lot of the best stuff comes from
universities, governments, and NGOs.  Curiosity or a desire to better the
world are proper motives for scientists, profit is not.  And any gains from
eliminating R&D markups on pharmaceuticals for instance could be recycled
into R&D funding.  Suppose for instance that instead of drug patents, drugs
which would have had markups were subject to a tax, which would be given to
a university-based medical research board to distribute to applicants
through grant applications (feeding extra money into the existing research
grant system).  It's still a kind of rent extraction, but a more equitable
one - and wouldn't it lead to better research overall, than R&D covered by
profits?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20100204/a2d2131e/attachment.html>