[p2p-research] Repurposing Profit for User Freedom

Thu Feb 4 17:28:27 CET 2010

Example one,

nature is in many ways naturally abundant, for example through annual cycles
of growth; biodiversity etc..

if you introduce terminator seeds, you destroy this ability for nature to
regenerate itself

Example two

digital media can be inherently shared and reproduced; and any individual
has the right to share what he has purchased ... any technology which
artificially destroys this possibility of sharing destroys this abundance

Example three

Medicines are available which could save millions of live, if they could be
produced at the price of production plus profit, but they are sold at 1,000
times this price, thereby condemning people to death

These are three examples of artificial scarcity that have very serious
negative effects

I think restrictions that cause preventable deaths are totally ethically
unacceptable

BUT,

that an author like Marco, and others like him, desire a certain protection
of their creation, so that they can make an income, for a reasonable number
of years, this is an artifcial scarcity that can be lived with, for the sake
of the authors income

So the principle is: it is generally not a good idea to artificially withold
an abundance which already exist

However, the moderate IP option is complicated by the fact that it is no
longer truly enforceable.

So you give people a choice, some authors may choose for the artificial
scarcity protection, others will opt for business models which are congruent
with the abundance that is naturally created through digital sharing and
copying.

More details below

On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 10:47 PM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com> wrote:

>  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.
>

But when there is abundance, objectively, and you imprison people for it,
you are exactly hampering the creation of abundance

>
> 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.
>

But certain commons already naturally exist, say the sky or the oceans, so
here it is a problem of protecting the already existing commons from private
appropriation; in other cases, say carbon creation, it's a matter of equity,
giving people an equitable share of the commons

But in the case of culture, I agree, people should be free, and optional
free licenses are the way to do that.

However, I do not think the freedom to sabotage digital equipment is a
defensible freedom

END of reaction

Michel

>
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20100204/8c49dde0/attachment-0001.html>