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

[M. Fioretti]

On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 13:47:10 PM +0000, Andy Robinson (ldxar1 at gmail.com) wrote:

> I think there is a lot of metaphysics in what you say, but it's
> hidden (even from yourself) underneath pseudo-concrete expressions.

I hope this is a compliment :-) In general, it's less hidden to myself
than it showed in this thread. Or so I hope.

> As for the basic income... 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.

Yes, this was clear, no problem!

> 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

No, sorry, you got confused here, or did not read carefully my first
message, just check the archives. I did NOT say that copyright is
needed for schoolteachers, lecturers etc... What I said is
(symplifying):

Way # 1: if there is copyright, I can (as one of many scenarios) write
independently full time, and make a living selling books, articles to
magazines, banner space on his own website etc... because if others
want to read that stuff they only find it in the books or on that one
website (where, please note, it can be accessible for free to
everybody!)

Way #2: if you abolish copyright, I just quit all that activity without
throwing a tantrum and go doing private lessons, or teaching, say,
Linux administration for private organizations or inside corporations.

Offer of long term teaching posts in normal schools and universities
is basically zero these days, at least in Italy and other parts of
Europe, but all the other activities I just mentioned are (relatively
speaking) in much better shape. To the point that I would almost
surely make more money in this Way #2 without any need for copyright
than in Way #1 (which I enjoy much more, but NOT to the point to
starve for it).

So who loses by going Way #2 is only society. Personally, I'd make
more money in Way #2 in the long run, but wouldn't have time left to
write stuff that would be available to everybody online for free. It's
as simple as that. Once you enter that circuit you can't do it one or
two weeks a month if you want to maintain it running. And maybe in the
evening I would be sick enough to teach ICT to not write good software
tutorials as I know I can (I'd have already paid the bills, remember),
but horrendous poetry instead.

In practice, what happens is a balance between #1, #2 and other
things, including lecturing, where I would not expect nor require to
retain "all rights reserved" on what I produce. As long as #1
practicable I do not have to compromise (too much) with "the system",
that is I must not sign long term contracts with some institution
where life may turn into daily brain damage. Been there done that, by
the way. In other word, copyright gives me the possibility to benefit
as many people as possible with my work AND to have much more
**personal** freedom, without damaging society. Freedom, not luxury.

Kill copyright instead of reforming it, and you'll leave many more
individual "non-artist" _authors_ than you imagine (not corporations)
with many less alternatives than they have today to be socially useful
individuals. In the current context, at least.

	     Marco