[p2p-research] Repurposing Profit for User Freedom

[Ryan Lanham]

On 2/4/10, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Ryan,
>
> Artificial scarcity is an objective fact, actively enforced through
> creation, as I think Kevin has well established.
>
> A different point is, are some forms of artificial scarcity 'acceptable'.
> My point is that important social forces do find moderate protection for
> authors and creators acceptable, and that we have to contend with that, but
> that the radical and extremely lengthy monopolies demanded and gotten by
> content multinationals, do not have the same level of social support, and
> hence an active social movement is brewing to oppose this, while a more
> radical group wants to abolish it altogether.
>
> There is a whole range between those polarities. If I remember correctly,
> Lessig wants a return to the seventies, is that about 20 years for
> copyright, as acceptable; while the Pirate Party proposes five years. So
> this is all about, 'artificial scarcity' can be a necessary temporary evil
> to protect some other social good.
>
> Now about your commons entities,
>
> - what about patent pools like GreenXchange, IBM giving away its patents,
> and David Martin's ambitious pool of green patents now freely available, so
> it seems to me that things are indeed moving in that direction and that
> those 'not seen entities' are indeed emerging as we speak.
>
> Michel



HI Michel:

You are certainly more up-to-date on some these items than I am.
GreenXchange is news to me.  I did know about David Martin's work.  Great
stuff.  More is needed as I am sure you would agree.

I think I remain unconvinced on artificial scarcity (though you know I hold
Kevin in the highest esteem and you both have convinced me of many things).
I'd like to see us say more...really laying out what it means as a detailed
expression or manifesto.  I fear it means the end of IP.  That would be in
conflict with P2P in my view.

Of course we also need to start saying "an end to artificial scarcity" or
"post-artificial scarcity."  That is part of why I think abundance is a much
more useful term.  Abundance is about capacity.  The rest is supply and
demand...and rights.  If we have abundant means to produce something, the
rest is inevitable.  But this is not abundant capacity--the ability to
download a tract of knowledge, code or art owned by someone else.  That is
taking.  Taking is stealing.  Stealing is a fact.  Property is a fact.
Intellectual property exists.  The whole world--legal and rights
world--agrees.  It would truly be a fringe POV to say IP is not real.  Such
views can only hurt the Foundation and P2P advocacy in general.

If that is where we are headed, it crosses a clear and bright line for me.
I am strongly and completely against taking something without official
(state) approval.  Individuals who take from other individuals against their
will are simply stealing.  And states have, in my opinion, the full right to
stipulate the laws and regulations protecting information, art, knowledge,
etc.  If we don't like the rules, we should work to change them and to
provide alternatives.  We should not violate laws.  Of course there is a
moral point at which one is called upon to reject social rules--if commanded
to commit genocide, etc.  Being asked to not copy a piece of code is not
such a moral dilemma.  People who cannot distinguish the two really are not
capable discussing morality in reasonable terms in my view.  A categorical
rejection of IP as "existing" is completely anti-social.

I am quite comfortable with Lessig arguing to change policies.  He is a
brilliant guy who passed up easy millions in law practice to do public
good.  To me, he is a clear hero.  Regardless, I agree with him.

There is no future wherein I see the rights of individuals extending to
taking something from others that they do not wish to be taken.  If that is
the meaning of post or ending artificial scarcity, I am thoroughly against
it.  As to discussions of DRM, etc. I think I have made myself clear: I
believe "market" forces are moving toward free.  That will continue.  To the
extent that DRM systems work within laws and are chosen by consumers who
have reasonable access to free alternatives, I support them.

I appreciate the anarchist movement has taken a position of ambiguity and
indiference toward the legitimacy of states now and in the future.  I cannot
disagree more fundamentally with that view.  I find it destructive, hurtful
and ultimately evil.  Others are certainly welcome to disagree.  Those are
my views.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20100204/765d3383/attachment.html>