[p2p-research] Profit Measures the Payer's lack of Physical Source Ownership

[Patrick Anderson]

Richard Stallman wrote:
> It might be a workable approach, but can you write down concrete and
> complete rules based on what we've discussed?

That's a tough one.

I hope you and others can help create those rules as we better
understand why it would be worth it.

Here are some incomplete suggestions:  To everyone reading: please add
or change what you think is wrong:


IMPLEMENTATION:
This may be implemented as an inter-owner Trade Agreement (herein:
RULES) enforced by local and international property and/or contract
laws.  It is a Terms of Operation or Contract or other legally binding
arrangement for http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_ownership


APPLICATION:
The RULES are applied by one or more investors toward the purchase or
construction, installation, storage, and protection of the Physical
Sources required for some Objective.

Incorporation is optional.  It seems likely such entities could
qualify as "Non-Profit" since Price above Cost will be targeting the
needs of those who pay.

In many cases the number of investors can usefully be quite small.
Even just 2 people getting together to share the costs of something
like a rototiller can be "worth it".  The deciding factor seems to be
the ability to utilize that Physical Source - in other words, to "keep
it busy" by renting it to others or by using directly to work for
someone that doesn't own a tiller and cannot or does not want to do
the work themselves.


DESIGN:
Requirements enforced during the selling of any Objective created by
Physical Sources under RULES, or during the rental of those Physical
Sources (in that case the Objective is access during that slice of
time).

. The current co-owners of any Physical Source under these RULES must
be allowed to arbitrarily exclude others by disallowing access to
those Objectives.  But once access is granted, all other RULES apply.

. When a User pays Price above Cost (commonly known as Profit), it is
collected by the current owners but then invested on behalf of that
Payer toward the Costs of more Physical Sources required for that
production - or to purchase any Physical Sources already under RULES
that the current co-owners may be selling.

. It may be important to somehow designate a sort of "minimum
divisibility" to any Physical Source under these RULES so any of those
co-owners can make "no-harm" decisions about the it's use and upkeep.
For example, a group shouldn't be able to stop any one co-owner or
sub-group from using the Physical Source in a way that does no harm to
the others.  This is similar in intent to how the GNU GPL makes no
restrictions on use.

. The Payer must receive notification and paperwork or electronic
record that the Profit they paid is being invested for them.


. All Copyrightable materials must be protected by the GNU AGPL or better.


'Costs' include Access, Investment, Insurance, Installation,
maintainence, Pollution, Security, Storage and Wage.
    Access: External taxes or uncontrollable alien fees.
    Exclusion: The cost of disallowing others.
    Investment: Some Consumers will pre-pay.
    Insurance: Done once the "replacement cost" is gathered.
    Installation: tools, materials, labor
    Maintainence: tools, materials, labor
    Operate: tools, materials, labor
    Pollution: noise, smell, poison
    Security: locks, cameras, labor
    Storage: size, shelter, temperature, sun, soil, ventilation, bedding, labor
    Wage: Set between Worker and Owners.



This is really just a draft, but wanted to get it sent so others could
begin thinking in these terms.


Thanks,
Patrick Anderson