Re: Copy of IANG license translation draft

On 8/6/07, ownut@xxxxxxxxxxx <ownut@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hey guys. Thanks for including me in this important research.

I hope we can bend and grow together to strengthen each other, but will
warn you now that what I envision cannot be achieved through a copyright
license, as it involves private joint ownership of the rivalrous mass and
energy (physical sources) required to store and express any and all
information.

Is there a URL for the IANG draft, or could I have copy by mail?

Thanks,
Patrick Anderson

> The debate, without the personal comments, is captured here at:
> http://p2pfoundation.net/Talk:IANG_License
>
> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> The P2P Foundation researches, documents and promotes peer to peer
> alternatives.
>
> Wiki and Encyclopedia, at http://p2pfoundation.net; Blog, at
> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net; Newsletter, at
> http://integralvisioning.org/index.php?topic=p2p
>
> Basic essay at http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=499; interview at
> http://poynder.blogspot.com/2006/09/p2p-very-core-of-world-to-come.html;
> video interview, at
> http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2006/09/29/network_collaboration_peer_to_peer.htm
>
> The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by
> http://www.ws-network.com/04_team.htm
>