Re: IANG license translation draft

On 8/6/07, Dmytri Kleiner <dk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 23:41:56 +0200, Patrick Godeau <pogo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I'd be glad to work with you on this license, and maybe if possible on
> its implementation in real world.

Great, look forward to the working and implementation.

> However, I believe that after we sort
> out the misunderstandings and unclear parts of IANG, we'll realize that
> there's not so much work to do.

I agree, I think we have a very compatible approach.

> Also, don't hold it against me if I don't reply to e-mails very quickly,
> first I'm inherently slow, next I've got other personal worries at this
> time...

No problem, there is no hurry.

[...]

>> Would prefer something like "Labour Contribution" meaning any
>> individual or legal identity contributing labour to the development,
>> manufacturing or distribution of the creation.

> Or perhaps "Work Contribution", the term "work" having the two meanings
> of creation and labour.

I like that.

In venture communism I promote the concept that all who apply their labour
to property are entitled to be among the mutual owners of that property,
perhaps something like that can be a clause.

>>> "Economic Contribution" means any form of monetary contribution,
>>> including but not limited to donation, purchase, subscription,
>>> assessment, investment, capital.

>> IMO, there can not really be an "economic contribution," "investment"
>> and "capital," in the sense of selling equity to private owners is
>> incompatible with commons-based production. "Purchase,"
>> "Subscription," etc, are not contributions, but rather simple exchanges.

> The rationale behind these definitions is that the economy of public
> works should be public, and managed by all those who contribute to it,
> including customers through their purchases and subscriptions. These are
> not exchanges in the sense of market economy but rather contributions to
> a gift economy. Of course, the IANG items will be sold on the market,
> but seller and buyers will not conflict but share the same economic
> entity, like in mutual societies, cooperatives, associations.

In my mind the distinct characteristic of a Maussian "Gift Economy" is that
value is placed on relationships, and not on individual transactions.

As such, a Gift Economy is an exchange economy, just not measured on a
transaction by transaction basis, but rather valued based on mutual benefit
over a period of time. Mauss considers mandatory reciprocation of at least
equal value to be a fundamental component of the Gift Economy, however
pre-monetary economies had a longer term and less transactional measure of
reciprocation. Another feature of the Gift Economy, is inversal of
"winning" criteria. In a modern consumerist economy, the one who got the
most for the least is considered the game "winner," in a gift economy, the
one who gives more is considered the winner, and the one who can not
reciprocate what he has received is the social "loser."

In neither case is the receiver considered a contributor except by
reciprocation.

The concept of the gift economy, imo, is among the most tortured concepts
in alternative economy discussions.

"purchases" are simply reciprocations, and therefore not contributions, in
other words, not //productive inputs.//

Further, as the information covered by a peer-production license is
common-stock, there would be no direct purchases or subscriptions, rather
the commons is a common input to production of goods and services.

As such, it is import that we insist that the exchange value captured by
deriving goods and services from common-stock is captured by it's "work
contributors" and not owners of rent-capturing property. Reproducible
information can not have any direct exchange value of it's own as I argue
with the Iron Law of Copyright Earnings.

So, while a recording artist can not capture exchange value directly from a
recording, a night club or radio station owner can. The trick is how to
make sure this exchange value is equitably shared among all the work
contributors, and not appropriated by property owners.

This is why the possibility of "economic contributors" is extremely
limited, basically outright donors and perhaps interest free lenders can
really be considered "contributors," and even these two are problematic,
because the donation and/or interest-free loan must benefit the commons as
a whole, not simply the "original creator," in order to directly be a
contribution to the commons.

This implies the existence of entities that are able to receive such
contributions.

>> Not sure why this is a required clause. "Economic Contributors," in
>> this case equity holders in legal entities engaging in commercial
>> distribution already have all the right listed.

> As stated, these are not only equity holders, but also customers,
> donators, and of course workers investing in their working tool.

I still do not see customers qua customers as contributors, Workers are
already covered under "work contributors" so "economic contributors," imo,
should be limited to donors and possibly interest-free lenders.

>> I am more interested in limiting the economic contributors to the
>> non-alienating types, i.e. donations and interest-free loans. All
>> other economic input should not be considered a contribution, and
>> private-equity should be explicitly rejected, as this represent
>> enclosure and not commons.

> On the contrary, opening economic participation to the public will make
> it really public and driven by public interest, since if the creation
> has some use value, users will form a majority, even if probably only a
> minority of them desire to participate.

My view is that this public interest will in most case be manifested in
work contributions by individuals and groups joining the project and
contributing to it directly.

> The fact that producers own their working tools does not change anything
> regarding the relation with public.

The "public" is nothing more that the extended community of producers.

> Cooperatives (I happen to work in
> one) operate in a market economy, their interest are in conflict with
> customers about price, and they compete against other companies, even
> other cooperatives.

They also share public goods, and the amount of common-property the employ
in there production could be greatly increased. I do not think that
competition and markets cause problems so much as private property and
economic rent.

> Purchasing a work that is available for free is already a committed act.
> We should have a model that encourages this act, not restrain it.

Sure, it is not donations that I think we should restrain but rather the
ability of property owners to extract rent.

>> The main area that is missing for me is the limitations on Economic
>> Contribution, in particular the prohibition of a User employing
>> private property and wage-labour to capture surplus-value derived from
>> common-stock of creations.

> Fortunately, this is not possible for a public to capture surplus value
> from themselves. This is why the public should not only have financial
> information, but also drive the economy of copyleft.

It is possible, as in my example with a radio station or a night club being
able to capture surplus value from a recording, even without having any
copyright on it.

> I hope that I've clarified a bit the ideas behind IANG. I also hope that
> in near future I have some time to work on a concept of collection
> society that would be managed by the public and not against it.

Yes, thank you, and I look forward to more.

I think one key topic I would like to emphasize is that the "public" is a
collection of producers, and that in a property-based society, a portion of
the total goods produced by these producers is appropriated by
non-producing property owners, and that this reduces the amount of wealth
the producers can share and exchange with each other.

I would like a peer-production license to take this issue head-on.

Cheers.