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

[Kevin Carson]

On 2/6/10, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com> wrote:
> well, the thing is, there is a difference between perception and reality.
> Many artists and creators want to hold to IP, see Marco's reaction, because,
> barring alternatives they see working, it's one of the few ways they see
> they can get an income; and I also think, from having discussed the issue
> with different student groups, that there is still a social consensus that
> it's something useful.

So it seems to me that the proper approach is to give the lie to all
the pseudo-populist RIAA agitprop, by publicizing as far and wide as
possible just how small a percentage of artists benefit significantly
from IP, compared to the number who are inconvenienced by legal
restrictions on sampling and mashups, and how little the average
artist makes from IP.  It's exactly like the pseudo-populist
Republican approach to the "Death Tax," acting like it's even a
relevant issue to the overwhelming majority of farmers and family
businesses.

At the same time, dissatisfaction with the excesses
> of the current regime is growing, and also slowly becoming the basis for
> social action. So this is something that we can actually win, perhaps not
> today, but in a few years. If abolishing totally is advisable, and a social
> discussion and consensus acquirses, then it will happen, but that will take
> considerably more time,

I doubt it's feasible to work for a significant change in the laws
from the perspective of social consensus.  It's far more
cost-effective to promote stigmergic efforts to simply make the law
unenforceable.  Even if the majority of the people come to disagree
with the IP law regime, a majority of people support a lot of things
that never appear on the radar because the bipartisan establishment is
against them.  You could probably convince 90% of the people that IP
was bad, and unless they felt that sentiment with such extreme
intensity that they were willing to sweep every incumbent from office
on that basis alone, change would still be effectively blocked by RIAA
lobbyists writing the laws in secret, and industry representatives
drafting trade laws in closed tribunals, and buying off Congressmen
from both parties.

The best way to change the law is to present the state with a fait
accompli by which it is unenforceable.
-- 
Kevin Carson
Center for a Stateless Society http://c4ss.org
Mutualist Blog:  Free Market Anti-Capitalism
http://mutualist.blogspot.com
Studies in Mutualist Political Economy
http://www.mutualist.org/id47.html
Organization Theory:  A Libertarian Perspective
http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2005/12/studies-in-anarchist-theory-of.html