Re: IANG license translation draft

[Dmytri Kleiner <dk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Michel and Patrick I will look at these comments and respond more
closely. 

[...]


On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 10:37:03 +0700, "Michel Bauwens"
<michelsub2004@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I updated the discussion pages with this, and published Patrick's last 3
> paragraphis in our blog as well.
> 
> Patrick:
> 
> Would it possible to explain in more detail what you mean by ecopyleft,
as
> it would be important to have an entry in our wiki on that. What are
> seikatsu cooperatives.
> 
> If you care to re-explain, for my benefit and that of our readers, how
you
> see the exact relation between contributors and users. I have always
> thought
> that ownut's scheme, where everything is completely owned by users, is
> unaceptable, and that we need schemes that give associated power to both
> users and producers. I think you think in the same way.
> 
> Finally, I would like to take issue with the following:
> 
> "My view is that exchange value should not be captured at all, by no one,
> not even by work contributors. One could call this "ecopyleft", which is
> to economy what copyleft is to information, a guarantee against
> privatization. This is why I wrote about "gift" economy, because
> everyone can give to the commons, but no one can take from. I didn't
> intend to refer to Mauss or potlatch, it would be more like an ordinary
> association, where associates contribute what they will, without a
> necessary reciprocation."
> 
> I think you would benefit from reading Fiske, summarized here at
> http://p2pfoundation.net/Relational_Model_Typology_-_Fiske
> 
> Of course, peer production based on voluntary engagement and universal
> access to its products, is about gifting, but it is a form of giving
> without
> reciprocity. Mauss gift economy on the other hand, is about elaborate
> schemes for reciprocity and symmetry, giving that creates an obligation
of
> return, but unlike exchange, it is deferred in time and not quantified.
> 
> This becomes:
> 
> Equality matching, the gift economy that dominated tribal economies
> 
> Market Pricing, where there is immediate 'equal quantified exchange'
> 
> Communal Shareholding, the peer to peer dynamic of non-reciprocal
> generalized exchange in common project that are available to all
> 
> (the last one is Authority Ranking, the basis of the tributary and
> slaveholding economies)
> 
> Michel
> 
> On 9/14/07, Patrick Godeau <pogo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Hello Dmytri and all,
>>
>> Dmytri Kleiner a écrit :
>> > On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 23:41:56 +0200, Patrick Godeau <pogo@xxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> 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.
>> >
>>
>> I think we have at least the same goal, to extend the commons from
>> immaterial creation to material economy, and to preserve these commons
>> from appropriation. However our approaches may differ on some aspects.
>> There is surely room for improvement in IANG and I hope we can make a
>> better IANG 2.0, but for changing important rules, you may need to
>> convince me first, of course ;-) Interestingly, when I started to think
>> about this project (around 2000) my approach was much similar to yours.
>> But as the project matured, I've come to think that the economy of
>> copyleft should not be managed only by producers, but also by consumers.
>> I'll try to explain why I think it's a better approach in the sense of
>> freedom, equity, solidarity, in short, copyleft.
>>
>> > 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.
>> >
>>
>> This is a fair remark, I should probably add something like this in IANG
>> 2.0. However the most important thing is not who owns, but who decides,
>> and the license already states that decisions about the work belong to
>> all who contribute to this work. Also, the material work is not the
>> creative work, and I don't see why for example the printing press
>> operator should have a say in the story of the book, except if s-he is
>> admitted in the creative project. But I agree that this operator should
>> have a say in the economic project.
>>
>> >
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> > [...]
>> >
>> > 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.
>>
>> My view is that exchange value should not be captured at all, by no one,
>> not even by work contributors. One could call this "ecopyleft", which is
>> to economy what copyleft is to information, a guarantee against
>> privatization. This is why I wrote about "gift" economy, because
>> everyone can give to the commons, but no one can take from. I didn't
>> intend to refer to Mauss or potlatch, it would be more like an ordinary
>> association, where associates contribute what they will, without a
>> necessary reciprocation.
>>
>> >
>> > 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.
>> >
>>
>> Your "commons as a whole" is only the producers, while for me the
>> commons should include producers and consumers, the latter being
>> presumably more numerous than the former, thereby making sure that
>> exchange value is not inequitably shared or appropriated.
>>
>> Also note that a private investor contributing to a IANG economic
>> project, as a legal entity, has only one vote, so a multinational
>> company equals a single customer. And finally, as stated in article 6.2,
>> there is no obligation to admit a contributor.
>>
>> > 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.
>> >
>>
>> Customers are however the most important economic contributors, because
>> without them, the economic project couldn't exist (except if the
>> producers only produce for themselves, which would be of limited public
>> interest).
>>
>> Also, one should note that the Creative Project is different from the
>> Economic Project. Participation rules are designed so that contributors
>> should decide about what they contribute. So creative contributors
>> decide about artistic orientations, while economic contributors decide
>> about prices and payments.
>>
>> >
>> >> 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.
>> >
>>
>> This is not necessarily true. For example, free software hackers have an
>> interest in technical skills and programming tricks, that is opposed to
>> most users interest in simplicity. Even if some recent Linux
>> distributions have become more or less useable, there is still a strong
>> resistance towards user friendliness.
>>
>> >
>> >> 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.
>> >
>>
>> A user is rarely a producer in the sense of creation. I doubt that all
>> the listeners of Jamendo compose music, or that the millions of Firefox
>> users all contribute code. (In fact there are about 1000 developers for
>> 100 millions users, a rather low ratio.) But no one knows better than
>> the public what are the needs, what should be developed, what
>> investments would be necessary, etc.
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >> 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.
>> >
>>
>> I think that the market, which values competition and profit, is by
>> nature opposed to copyleft, which values cooperation and giving. If we
>> want to transpose copyleft into economy, I think we should be careful
>> with the market. As you noticed, reproducible information cannot have
>> direct exchange value of its own, so in this game, authors will always
>> lose.
>>
>> >
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> 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.
>> >
>>
>> Whether the recording is ecopyleft or copyright, if authors want to
>> distribute it to private broadcasters, they must deal with them,
>> possibly through the collection society. If this society is managed by
>> both music producers and consumers, the broadcasters will be more
>> obligated to stick to their role of intermediaries, and not abuse their
>> position. On the contrary, if producers handle collecting on their own,
>> they will be faced at the same time with the broadcasters, with their
>> public (market relation of obligatory reciprocation), and with
>> themselves (conflict for distribution of income).
>>
>> >
>> > 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.
>> >
>>
>> For me, the public is mostly comprised of users, who rarely contributes
>> to the production. For example, the majority of people who have heard
>> about free software think it's just software that is free (as in free
>> beer). However, some contribute, either to copyleft creations, or to
>> their financing (the latest Wikipedia donation campaign raised $1
>> million in 2 months). The question is, how to make sure that these
>> contributions are not appropriated. The IANG approach is somehow to
>> apply the copyleft principle to economy. That is to say, economic
>> contributions can be given, but not taken away. To guarantee this, all
>> economic contributors should not only have access to accounting, but
>> also have control of it, just like free software contributors can not
>> only access the source code, but also change it. So if a capitalist
>> company wants to sell ecopyleft works, it must let its customers control
>> its capital.
>>
>> I think that a big problem with the economy in general is that consumers
>> have no control on it. Multinational companies rule the roost and reign
>> over customers. For example, Stallman was motivated to create the GNU
>> project because a printer manufacturer refused to give the source code
>> of a driver. 25 years later, free drivers may exist for some printers,
>> but the situation has not really improved, free software developers are
>> often obliged to reverse-engineer printer protocols, and customers are
>> forced to buy printers that break down just after the guarantee and
>> can't be repaired, ink cartridges more expensive than the printer, etc.
>>
>> Even if the knowledge is copylefted, it is of no help for users as long
>> as means of production are controlled by producers seeking profit.
>> Suppose for example that the patent system is abolished and all
>> pharmaceutical companies are under workers' control. What would happen?
>> Since we're in a market economy, these compagnies will probably continue
>> to invest in the most profitable medicine at the expense of billions of
>> people having unprofitable diseases, will continue to spend twice more
>> on advertising than on research, etc.
>>
>> When working on a license, I think we should always keep in mind the
>> copyleft values of freedom and solidarity. If an economic project is
>> ruled by producers, there won't be freedom for users to determine its
>> orientation, their only option being to choose a competitor project on
>> the market. The solidarity between producers and consumers is a central
>> value of copyleft, and a raison d'être of IANG is to defend this
>> solidarity also on the economic level. This kind of partnership between
>> consumers and producers is also emerging nowadays for example through
>> fair trade, the Seikatsu cooperatives, etc. But I think that creative
>> works are special because the public is more inclined to donate to
>> artists. Involvement of the public even starts to happen in movie
>> production, as for example with korean netizen funds or Blender open
>> movies. If a 100% open economy will be harder to reach than 100% open
>> source (even open source software sometimes uses closed source drivers)
>> and some intermediaries may be necessary, I think it's important that
>> users have a control, in conjunction with producers, so that they can
>> counteract these intermediaries, and make progress towards a more free
>> society.
>>
>> Regards :-)
>>
>> --
>> Patrick
>> http://iang.info/
>>
>>
> 
> 
>
-- 
Dmytri Kleiner
editing text files since 1981

http://www.telekommunisten.net