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

[Ryan Lanham]

On 2/11/10, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com> wrote:

> you may not like the term artificial scarcity, fine, but then you still
> come up with another one to define something that objectively shareable
> without loss, yet is forbidden by the force lf law, and not by anything
> inherent in the qualities of the object ... so, what are your alternatives,
> given that you cannot wish the objective realities of nonrival goods away?
>

Hi Michel,

You are right that I do not like the term "artificial scarcity."  I will
address that, but first...

You seem to be adopting Kevin's point that laws  are artificial (at least
where protecting IP is concerned).  I do not accept that.  I see laws and
governance as essential human cultural ARTIFacts.  Kevin, as I understand
his argument, basically holds that there are fundamental moral laws (what
legal scholars tend to call Natural Law) that govern our basic activities.
To me that leads to profound inconsistencies and problems.  Instead, I am a
"small-d" democrat.  I believe in due process governance through democratic
mechanisms as the most pragmatic means to solve real-world problems fairly
and justly.  I reject fundamentals though I embrace practical constitutions
on items that are well-established.  I admit it is an imperfect solution
mostly because perfection does not exist.  There is no point of ideal--no
fundamental.  You might say there is a better and worse, but I say these
things are highly contextual and contested.  That is why I inherently am
forced to trust institutions of governance, and you and Kevin
(especially) are inherently disinclined toward them.  I live in an active
society that has rules constructed (artificially constructed, I suppose) by
that society.  At the core, one either accepts or rejects that idea.  If one
rejects it, one is, as I understand the term, an anarchist.  I am not one.
I am a (d)emocrat.  It is irrelevant, but I am also a (D)emocrat.

By comparison, we have the capability to kill at will with technology (e.g.
guns).  Is it artificial to say that we cannot do so?  I would say, by your
argument on IP, we'd have to assume yes.  Else, we are pushed to fundamental
rules and laws (no killing), and who then decides these?  Kevin holds to the
Hobbsian idea of an ancient law...that there are fundamental bases.  I
cannot do that.  I have no such knowledge of an eternal and fundamental
law.  If I did, I have no way of knowing whether it applies to IP as IP is
"new" as are most of its problems.  So I understand he and I are at
loggerheads.  It doesn't upset me much because I know his views have almost
no prospect of holding in large-scale society.  We can debate that, but I
rest confident (if not, as has been claimed, smuggly.)



>
> I think much of what we see depends on our contexts, since from where I'm
> sitting, not only is the political aspect of p2p not declining, it is
> emerging and growing and maturing. I'm not hung up on these politics though,
> but my wish and position is to be integrative, i.e. thinking and doing,
> technology and politics, all are needed, none can be dismissed. I'm assuming
> that this is not the case for you because you are convinced that technology
> is its own independent force, while I believe technology itself is social
> and political, i.e. it evolves in certain directions, not others, not
> because it has its own volition or direction, but because it is pushed and
> used in various directions by social forces. Plenty of tech gets not funding
> or push, others stay hidden and unused for decades ..
>


I defer on this point as you are far more expert than me.  I see an
increasingly irrelevance; you see a groundswell.  I agree with being
integrative.  But there are always boundaries.  You are right that pushing
exists, but I doubt it is very relevant in the main and increasingly is less
so.  The world frankly isn't listening to leaders any more.  It is much more
organic and self-directed.  I think we all see the reasons for that.  People
want proof and no longer trust ideals or fundamentals.  I think you have
resisted a manifesto for similar reasons and I think rightly so.  Manifestos
are impossible.  There is not constitutive P2P.  It is inherently organic.
We can study the organism, but we cannot genetically engineer it.  There is
no GMO P2P.  It is a contradiction.


>
> Otherwise, I agree with you that the heroic age of theory is past, if only
> because both the age of the 'great individual' and cognicentrism, has past.
> Knowledge now has to be integrated in practice and communities, and this is
> probably why people like me, instead of writing books on their own, want to
> participate in dialogic communities which create peer learning and
> collective intelligence as a permanent process ... I wish I could be more
> practical and code, but I'm afraid my practice is that of a 'librarian' or
> knowledge organizer ... my bad <g>
>

Michel, I make no value judgements about your life or anyone else's.  I'm
sure we are all in the upper half of moral individuals by some measure we'd
all find amenable.  That's true of all groups <g>. To my mind, we care about
caring if nothing else.  That used to be the accord in the US political
system...we all believe in liberty, the Constitution, markets, public
service, stable societies.  Of late, rhetoric has overcome reality.  That is
always dangerous.  I see it now happening in the P2P realm to some extent,
but that is also the nature of intellectual exploration.  It is good people
can anger each other over ideas and still be sincere.  That is progress.

I believe the victory is at hand.  P2P is winning.  Free and open is
winning.  But there are and always will be issues...DRMs, etc.  That these
are debated in mainstream outlets is totally extraordinary to me--just as it
is extraordinary that Prime Minister's of major nations are acknowledging
the real threat of climate change.  Thisn't isn't some guy in Arkansas or
Chiang Mai or Cayman saying this stuff...it is major well-known theorists
with 10s of thousands of followers and readers.  Even more, it is action
being taken by millions and millions.  Firefox is more than 24% of the
market--tens of millions of people.  That's amazing, and it will grow.

Coding isn't the answer.  Organizing is (e.g. Gaea).  Where the courage is
needed is to simply do.  To build villages...to go solar...to continue to
speak and teach but to give up on mass and to practice what we preach in the
realm of the local.  Of course we must still blog, etc. but the real reason
I have backed away from these things is that I realize ego was my
motivator.  I am no candidate to be a Bodhisattva, but I do try to minimize
my ego in my own flawed ways.  A Christian would proclaim loudly "I am a
sinner."  As a localist, I admit to ego and self-regard as a leader.  Still,
I work to minimize it while still acting.  That's my own path.  I suppose
Socrates was a far greater teacher than Plato because he never wrote a word.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20100211/364e6a4d/attachment.html>