[p2p-research] Repurposing Profit for User Freedom

[Ryan Lanham]

On 2/4/10, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>

Hi Michel,

I disagree fundamentally (I think).  Reducing artificial scarcity is a red
herring.  It is creating abundance that matters.  The "getting from here to
there" is exactly the point I wish to argue.

If you want to say that having a large portfolio of choices in the commons
for all to use and benefit from is the goal...then I agree totally.  No
difference at all.

If you want to say that adding items to the commons is strictly voluntary,
then I agree totally.  No difference at all.  No person may be coerced to
association with a commons either as a user or producer.

If you want to say that changing laws so that the right to profit from an
idea is set in a reasonable but not excessive mode, I agree totally.  Of
course what is reasonable and not excessive is open to debate.  Personally,
I find little wrong with the 1970s US standards advocated by Lessig. But I
would likely support even more aggressive minimizations of intellectual
property terms (times as Marco put it.)

If you want to say that abolishing artificial scarcity means that I somehow
have a right to unilaterally decide what is in the commons and what is not,
we are at fundamental odds.

If you want to say that abolishing artificial scarcity means that the skills
a person builds over time to be able to write code, record music, write a
book, only have value at the time of live performance, I'd say I disagree
fundamentally with you.  That is quite naturally scarce ability.  It is the
capacity to copy it that is not natural.  I say give that copying capacity
away all you want...but the underlying idea...no, that is quite scarce and
deserve protection under the law in all its forms.

So, you tell me where we are differing.

Ryan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20100204/8875a760/attachment.html>