[p2p-research] Repurposing Profit for User Freedom

Thu Feb 4 16:11:50 CET 2010

Hi Ryan,

again, artificial scarcity is just a fact, it exists whenever legal or other
means  are used to restrict access to something that could potentially be
beneficial to all. But there is a wide variety of articifial scarcity. To my
mind for example, terminator seeds are wholly evil, but moderate protection
of creations is an acceptible 'necessary evil', if it helps balance
competing goods. I also make a difference between what I want, and what
people want. I don't see the benefit of taking a position, 'abolish the
state', 'abolish property', 'abolish IP', which have no chance to be
implemented, not just because of coercion, but also because they are many
'objective' reasons they keep existing, as well as enjoying broad legitimacy
with majorities. I believe there is no support in the artists community to
totally abandon any and all protection of individual and collective
creations. This is why I like both the FSF approach, giving people a choice
to choose for a software commons; and Creative Commons, because creators can
modulate their choices.

However, I do think that 'diminishing artificial scarcity' and 'diminishing
pseudo abundance' are key to the new p2p society, and to the ideas of the
p2p foundation, they are not a weakness, but it's very reason for being. But
again, the question is 'how to get from here to there'. As I believe
coercive fiat is not going to work, then the only alternative is to work on
democratic consensus in a pluralistic context.

Michel

On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 9:58 PM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com> wrote:

>  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.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20100204/d5b3f05d/attachment.html>