[p2p-research] Repurposing Profit for User Freedom

Sun Feb 7 04:11:57 CET 2010

Hi Ryan,

again I am baffled that you can define away artificial scarcity, while you
support IP which is exactly that, a state-enforced  prohibition of sharing
material that would represent no loss to its purported owner. I have not met
any lawyer myself who denies that IP is a socially accepted form of articial
scarcity, for the sake of a greater good, it is providing an income for
creators.

and as for identifying socialism with IP violation, this is historically
just not so.

Historically, emergent states, and the U.S. figures prominently in that,
refused to recognize IP from other countries such as the UK, this is a
matter of well-known historical fact. For the same reason, poor and
developing countries today chose not to enforce IP, because of its huge
social cost. The reason is that the overwhelming majority of people in such
countries cannot afford the extra cost of the IP rent, and seek to avoid it,
and that enforcing such massive violations is very poltically costly for
these governments, especially because the only ones to benefit from it are
multinational corporations, and it creates an income stream that is sucked
out of the host country. However, as soon as these countries develop more,
and have their own industry which wishes to export IP-based material, they
start slowly to join the IP bandwagon. This for example is what is happening
in China right now, where they are starting to repress IP violations. The
reasons countries like the US are for enforcing and perpetuating it, is
similarly based on self-interest, since it is the major stream of income for
them. IP rent seeking, and financial rent extraction have become the primary
drivers of the western economy, while direct industrial profit has become
secondary. But as you know and agreed, despite the fact that you find this
legimate, technology makes it harder and harder to enforce.

It is strange though that while you obviously sympathize with p2p dynamics,
you refute and disagree with the primary driver of the open and social
movements emerging everywhere, which is precisely the fight against the
artificial scarcity in the domain of intellectual, cultural and scientific
exchange. If you take those social and political struggles away, as well as
the practical implementations of these principles by open software and
hardware movements, there is really nothing left at all. Peer to peer is
<only> possible is the material of cooperation is available, no peer
production and peer communities would be possible without renouncing
proprietary IP.

But to become back to the earlier point: 'socialist' countries do in fact
respect IP and author rights. I am not aware of any country that
systematically rejects it.

I am curious though as what you could characterize as socialist in China.
There is no central planning anymore, hardly any welfare and worker rights,
but on the other hand, hyper-capitalist development under a repressive
state. So, where is the socialism that you identify there? I'm just curious.
And in Venezuela, yes there are social measures, but as far as I know, under
your definition of socialism, there is no central planning and negligeable
state property. It is still a capitalist economy operating under private
property. Political repression exists but on a very minor level.

On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 4:59 AM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com> wrote:

>  On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Kevin Carson <
> free.market.anticapitalist at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2/5/10, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On 2/5/10, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > but I am never arguing for that, so I find it strange that you always
>> > bring that up ...
>>
>> > Excellent.  Then we can agree coercive state socialism (as in Cuba,
>> China or
>> > Venezeula) is not something either of us support.  And that people have
>> the
>> > right to property both real and intellectual and the right to protect
>> that
>> > property through mechanisms of the state.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>  I'm at a loss to see where you get the specific "agreement" above from
>> Michel's renunciation of coercive socialism or communism.
>>
>>
> I agree I combined two unrelated things probably unfairly.  But the point
> is, only in coercive socialist regimes has there been large-scale rejection
> of IP so fa=--that I know of...where state espionage of IP is a standard
> practice.  Even there it is short-lived.  I'm told Cuba has a battery of IP
> lawyers for their medical industry at present and relationships with top
> international IP law firms.
>
>
>> That a renunciation of coercive socialism entails recognizing a right
>> to "intellectual property" [sic] and the right to protect it through
>> the state strikes me as a monumental exercise in question-begging to
>> the point of smugness, since it assumes that opposition to
>> "intellectual property" [sic] equates to coercive socialism in the
>> first place.  That latter assumption may be your belief, but it's
>> wrong to attribute to others in interpreting their foreswearing of
>> coercive socialism as an endorsement of IP.
>>
>
> OK.  Give me another example to cure my bias.  The only ones I know of in
> practice are coercive socialist projects.  Generally only hegemonic states
> that ignore rights established in other nation act broadly to nullify widely
> held views such as the enforceability of IP law.  In modern times those tend
> to be coercive socialist nations--unlike Michel I could easily put Venezuela
> in that category as well as China.  It is a continuum, but both of these are
> far closer to coercive socialism than not.  I harbor no sympathies for these
> states.  I have great sympathies for those forced to live under them.  I
> have personally discussed Cuba and China with many persons from those
> places.  It would take much to convince me of their benign advantages given
> the horror stories I've heard.  I know less about Venezuela but am actively
> educating myself.  So far, I see a nation where democracy is under threat
> through a sharp move toward nationalization as coercive socialism.  I would
> be against that in most (but not all) circumstances.  Harry Truman in the US
> was well justified in nationalizing steel industries.  It reversed quickly
> however.  States ought not to own means of production in my view.  It is
> unlikely such arrangements will be fair or efficient--but not impossible.
>
> Regardless, I am not excited in any way about individuals knocking of Coco
> Chanel purses or people copying a song to their MP3 player.  Big deal.  I am
> against systematic violation of the right of people to their own property
> (as I and most legal systems see it.)
>
>
>> It would be similarly impermissible for me to infer that you opposed
>> IP law, just because you foreswore coercive fascist corporatism.
>>
>>
> Not sure what fascist capitalism is, but I'd probably be against it if it
> is fascist.  I'd certainly forswear it if it is fascist.  Opposing IP law
> enforcement strikes me as a very obscure sort of political view.  My
> original worry was that the P2P Foundation would render itself obscure and
> incompatible with most conventional thinkers if it took that position.  I
> still feel that way.
>
>
>
>
>> --
>>
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>   p2presearch mailing list
>> p2presearch at listcultures.org
>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Ryan Lanham
> rlanham1963 at gmail.com
>  Facebook: Ryan_Lanham
> P.O. Box 633
> Grand Cayman, KY1-1303
> Cayman Islands
> (345) 916-1712
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20100207/a1d503d1/attachment.html>