|
|
| (3 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| =1. Comments by Dmytri Kleiner=
| | Follow this link to read the [http://iang.info/en/mhonarc/maillist.html mail archive of the discussion] about the IANG license translation draft. |
| | |
| | |
| Regarding naming, while IANG (IANG Aint No GNU) is funny, I think the
| |
| recursive acronym joke and reference to GNU is too much an insider thing.
| |
| | |
| I am hoping that we can have a license that appeals to wide range of
| |
| artists, software developers, etc.
| |
| | |
| I suggest something like "Peer Production License", the initials PPL can
| |
| also can be an acronym pronounced "people".
| |
| | |
| If possible, I propose we work together to create such a peer production
| |
| license.
| |
| | |
| | |
| Dmytri Kleiner wrote:
| |
| | |
| > "Creative Contribution" means any modification of the Creation in the
| |
| > sense of intellectual property rights, including but not limited to
| |
| > adaptation, correction, translation, sampling, incorporation of, or in
| |
| > another work.
| |
| | |
| What about other forms of labour contribution in the manufacturing and
| |
| distribution process?
| |
| | |
| | |
| > "Creative Contributor" means an individual or legal entity bringing
| |
| > Creative Contributions to a Creative Project.
| |
| | |
| Would prefer something like "Labour Contribution" meaning any individual
| |
| or legal identity contributing labour to the development, manufacturing
| |
| or distribution of the creation.
| |
| | |
| In the productive cycle all workers should own the common-stock, the
| |
| printing press operators as much as the song writers.
| |
| | |
| | |
| > "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.
| |
| | |
| "donation" is perhaps an exception to this, as it is a non-alienating
| |
| contribution.
| |
| | |
| "capital" in the sense of interest-bearing loan, is likewise not a
| |
| contribution as the money must be returned, including interest.
| |
| | |
| An interest-free loan of money may be considered a contribution to the
| |
| amount of the interest.
| |
| | |
| I am not sure what is meant by "assessment."
| |
| | |
| | |
| > 3.2. CREATIVE PARTICIPATION
| |
| >
| |
| > Creative Contributors can participate, according to the conditions
| |
| > specified in article 6, in all technical or artistic decisions
| |
| > concerning the Creative Project, including but not limited to
| |
| > development orientations and priorities, integration and combination of
| |
| > the different works into the Creation.
| |
| | |
| I am a little confused as to how all "Creative Contributors" can
| |
| participate in all "all technical or artistic decisions."
| |
| | |
| In the context of commons-based peer production, each peer producer
| |
| should be free to make whatever technical or artistic decisions they
| |
| want when employing the common-stock in their own production, so long as
| |
| the conform to the terms of the license.
| |
| | |
| | |
| > 4. DISTRIBUTION
| |
| >
| |
| > Distribution of the Creation, or its reproduction or modification, by
| |
| > the User to any person is unrestricted provided that it is governed by
| |
| > this license without any modification or additional clause, and that it
| |
| > is accompanied by all informations specified in articles 2 and 3. These
| |
| > informations must also be transmitted to any person asking for them, for
| |
| > a cost not exceeding those of data transmission.
| |
| | |
| Not sure about "These informations must also be transmitted to any
| |
| person asking for them, for a cost not exceeding those of data
| |
| transmission."
| |
| | |
| I reluctant to place any responsive future obligations on peer producers
| |
| not engaging in commercial distribution, whatever is required to be
| |
| transmitted, should have been in the distribution itself.
| |
| | |
| | |
| > 5.2. ECONOMIC PARTICIPATION
| |
| >
| |
| > Economic Contributors can participate, according to the conditions
| |
| > specified in article 6, in all economical decisions relative to the
| |
| > Economic Project, including but not limited to priorities and amounts of
| |
| > investments and remunerations, distribution of profits, financing policy
| |
| > and selling price of all products or services including the Creation.
| |
| | |
| 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.
| |
| | |
| 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.
| |
| | |
| | |
| > 6.2. MODALITIES
| |
| >
| |
| > Participation is unrestricted and gratis, and its material organisation
| |
| > is assigned to the Contributors. Each Project is autonomous, including
| |
| > in respect to Projects concerning original or derived creations, and
| |
| > each Contributor is autonomous within a Project. Each Contributor has a
| |
| > voice in all decisions concerning the Project and concerning all its
| |
| > Contributors, including admission of new Contributors in the Project.
| |
| | |
| I am a little confused as to how this relates to 3.2. Is 3.2 meant to be
| |
| apply to the internal participation within a project? If so, perhaps
| |
| the terms it makes should be in the PARTICIPATION section instead.
| |
| | |
| I think this is overall a great approach, defining participation and
| |
| requiring financial information to be public is great.
| |
| | |
| 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.
| |
| | |
| | |
| =2. Reply by Patrick Godeau=
| |
| | |
| > If possible, I propose we work together to create such a peer
| |
| > production license.
| |
| | |
| I'd be glad to work with you on this license, and maybe if possible on
| |
| its implementation in real world. 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.
| |
| | |
| 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...
| |
| | |
| >
| |
| >
| |
| > Dmytri Kleiner wrote:
| |
| >
| |
| >> "Creative Contribution" means any modification of the Creation in the
| |
| >> sense of intellectual property rights, including but not limited to
| |
| >> adaptation, correction, translation, sampling, incorporation of, or
| |
| >> in another work.
| |
| >
| |
| > What about other forms of labour contribution in the manufacturing and
| |
| > distribution process?
| |
| | |
| You're right, ideally all labour contributions should be considered, but
| |
| juridically the rights are attached to the creation, and I fear that
| |
| clauses that go beyond this could be held as abusives. This should be
| |
| checked with a lawyer, however.
| |
| | |
| >
| |
| >
| |
| >> "Creative Contributor" means an individual or legal entity bringing
| |
| >> Creative Contributions to a Creative Project.
| |
| >
| |
| > 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.
| |
| | |
| >
| |
| >> "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.
| |
| | |
| >
| |
| > "capital" in the sense of interest-bearing loan, is likewise not a
| |
| > contribution as the money must be returned, including interest.
| |
| | |
| Capital should be understood in the sense of common wealth. Even
| |
| non-profit organisations have a capital.
| |
| | |
| >
| |
| > I am not sure what is meant by "assessment."
| |
| | |
| It's my bad translation, I meant imposition or tax. The idea is that if
| |
| the economic project is financed by subventions, tax payers should have
| |
| a voice in it.
| |
| | |
| >
| |
| >
| |
| >> 3.2. CREATIVE PARTICIPATION
| |
| >>
| |
| >> Creative Contributors can participate, according to the conditions
| |
| >> specified in article 6, in all technical or artistic decisions
| |
| >> concerning the Creative Project, including but not limited to
| |
| >> development orientations and priorities, integration and combination
| |
| >> of the different works into the Creation.
| |
| >
| |
| > I am a little confused as to how all "Creative Contributors" can
| |
| > participate in all "all technical or artistic decisions."
| |
| > In the context of commons-based peer production, each peer producer
| |
| > should be free to make whatever technical or artistic decisions they
| |
| > want when employing the common-stock in their own production, so long
| |
| > as the conform to the terms of the license.
| |
| | |
| Of course each producer can make all decisions in an individual project,
| |
| but things are different for a collective project. Take for example free
| |
| software. While being all governed by "free" licenses, some projects are
| |
| managed democratically while others are benevolent dictatorships. There
| |
| are many "forks" (splits) in free software projects, and while they're
| |
| not necessarily a bad thing, they're often caused by power conflicts.
| |
| And power is also an enemy of freedom, you'll probably agree as an
| |
| anarchist ;-)
| |
| | |
| Note that Creative Contributors are defined for a particular Creative
| |
| Project, so contributors of a project cannot claim participation for
| |
| another project, even if it's derived or originating from the other. But
| |
| contributors can nonetheless accept other participants in their project,
| |
| as stated in article 6.2.
| |
| | |
| >
| |
| >
| |
| >> 4. DISTRIBUTION
| |
| >>
| |
| >> Distribution of the Creation, or its reproduction or modification, by
| |
| >> the User to any person is unrestricted provided that it is governed
| |
| >> by this license without any modification or additional clause, and
| |
| >> that it is accompanied by all informations specified in articles 2
| |
| >> and 3. These informations must also be transmitted to any person
| |
| >> asking for them, for a cost not exceeding those of data transmission.
| |
| >
| |
| > Not sure about "These informations must also be transmitted to any
| |
| > person asking for them, for a cost not exceeding those of data
| |
| > transmission."
| |
| > I reluctant to place any responsive future obligations on peer
| |
| > producers not engaging in commercial distribution, whatever is
| |
| > required to be transmitted, should have been in the distribution itself.
| |
| | |
| Maybe it's enough, indeed, but putting some information on a web site is
| |
| not a heavy burden nowadays. If needed, the IANG site could provide the
| |
| hosting.
| |
| | |
| >
| |
| >> 5.2. ECONOMIC PARTICIPATION
| |
| >>
| |
| >> Economic Contributors can participate, according to the conditions
| |
| >> specified in article 6, in all economical decisions relative to the
| |
| >> Economic Project, including but not limited to priorities and amounts
| |
| >> of investments and remunerations, distribution of profits, financing
| |
| >> policy and selling price of all products or services including the
| |
| >> Creation.
| |
| >
| |
| > 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 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.
| |
| | |
| The fact that producers own their working tools does not change anything
| |
| regarding the relation with public. 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.
| |
| | |
| 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.
| |
| | |
| >
| |
| >
| |
| >> 6.2. MODALITIES
| |
| >>
| |
| >> Participation is unrestricted and gratis, and its material
| |
| >> organisation is assigned to the Contributors. Each Project is
| |
| >> autonomous, including in respect to Projects concerning original or
| |
| >> derived creations, and each Contributor is autonomous within a
| |
| >> Project. Each Contributor has a voice in all decisions concerning the
| |
| >> Project and concerning all its Contributors, including admission of
| |
| >> new Contributors in the Project.
| |
| >
| |
| > I am a little confused as to how this relates to 3.2. Is 3.2 meant to
| |
| > be apply to the internal participation within a project? If so,
| |
| > perhaps the terms it makes should be in the PARTICIPATION section
| |
| > instead.
| |
| >
| |
| > I think this is overall a great approach, defining participation and
| |
| > requiring financial information to be public is great.
| |
| >
| |
| > 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.
| |
| | |
| 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.
| |
| | |
| | |
| =3. Dmytri Kleiner responds=
| |
| | |
| >> 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.
| |
| | |
| | |
| =4. Patrick Godeau=
| |
| | |
| Dmytri Kleiner a écrit :
| |
| >
| |
| > The IANG license, I feel comes very close to realizing the sort of
| |
| > license I thing the peer-production license should be, with the
| |
| > understanding that there would need be more explicit clauses limiting
| |
| > certain forms of "Economic Contributions," particularly to avoid
| |
| > allowing property holders to extract surplus value.
| |
| | |
| I agree that avoiding the appropriation of surplus value is a crucial
| |
| requirement, but in my view, it is avoided precisely by allowing
| |
| economic contributors, especially customers, to control the economy.
| |
| Customers wouldn't extract surplus value from themselves.
| |
| | |
| >
| |
| > Such a license would adequately cover what I describe as endogenic
| |
| > usage of common-stock.
| |
| >
| |
| > This still leaves open the question of what terms to apply to exogenic
| |
| > usage.
| |
| >
| |
| > For groups of peer-producers that want to simply forbid exogenic
| |
| > usage, this is not a problem, but for most artists this is simply not
| |
| > an option.
| |
| >
| |
| > For instance, how many recording artist would agree to a license that
| |
| > forbid commercial radio stations or night clubs from playing the music?
| |
| | |
| Actually, radios and night clubs don't read licenses, they pay a fee to
| |
| collection societies, and play all the music they want, assuming that
| |
| all music is affiliated to these societies.
| |
| | |
| >
| |
| > Obviously, since the number of radio stations and nightclubs that
| |
| > would qualify as commons-based peer producers and thus qualify for
| |
| > free usage is small,
| |
| | |
| There is however a number of non-profit radios (and webradios), whether
| |
| state-owned or associative. In fact I think they are more numerous than
| |
| commercial radios, even if the number of listeners may be lower. Some
| |
| already use commons licenses (BBC, Arte).
| |
| | |
| > a commons license for popular art forms must also specify some sort of
| |
| > non-free terms for exogenic usage by private radio stations and
| |
| > nightclubs.
| |
| | |
| I don't think it would be wise to include non-free terms in a free
| |
| license. Anyway, if authors want to have special terms, nobody can stop
| |
| them from distributing their work under a different license, possibly in
| |
| parallel with the free license.
| |
| | |
| >
| |
| > But, as a common-stock is owned in common, it can not be the
| |
| > "original" artist privately that benefits from such non-free terms, as
| |
| > is the case in Copyleft Non-Commercial, as that asynchronous
| |
| > relationship between the "original author" and other commons users
| |
| > means the creation is not actually a part of the commons. The non-free
| |
| > terms must benefit the commons as a whole, and not any "orginal author."
| |
| | |
| I agree, but for me "commons as a whole" should include users, and
| |
| "asynchronous relationship" is no more desirable between authors and
| |
| users, than between original and secondary authors.
| |
| | |
| >
| |
| > But as commons-based peer production is made up of autonomous
| |
| > individuals and groups of commons based producers, how can any temrs
| |
| > benefit the "commons as a whole."
| |
| >
| |
| > In possibility is employing a Collection Society such as GEMA, SoCan,
| |
| > etc.
| |
| >
| |
| > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collection_society
| |
| >
| |
| > Of course, there are problems with this approach, and the function of
| |
| > such a society must be clearly defined, some risks immediately come to
| |
| > mind:
| |
| >
| |
| > - The society may be hyper-vigilant in collecting and thus be too
| |
| > aggressive in claiming that certain usage is exogenic and therefor is
| |
| > disqualified from having free access.
| |
| >
| |
| > - The society may become too closed and not recognize or welcome new
| |
| > peer-producers into it's membership.
| |
| >
| |
| > - The internal structure of the society itself could become corrupt
| |
| > and non democratic.
| |
| >
| |
| > These risks must be mitigated by explicitly creating terms in the
| |
| > license that define the operations of such a society quite clearly.
| |
| | |
| I believe that the terms of the IANG license already mitigate these
| |
| risks. The society, as an Economic Project, would be submitted to direct
| |
| democratic management, dismissibility of mandates, and open accounting.
| |
| But most of all, it would not be controlled by those having a financial
| |
| interest in it, but by the final users (who will presumably make the
| |
| majority of economic contributors) thus limiting the risk of corruption.
| |
| | |
| I see other problems, however. One difficulty will be to explain to
| |
| radios, night clubs, etc., that they must subscribe to another
| |
| collection society, without dissuading them from playing copyleft music.
| |
| Another problem, maybe harder, will be to explain to existing collection
| |
| societies that they must restitute money collected for authors not
| |
| affiliated with them. Some well-known musicians had lots of difficulties
| |
| with this. (However, some collection societies are making progress
| |
| towards open content licenses, see
| |
| <http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/4141>.)
| |
| | |
| >
| |
| > It also mitigated by having several such societies, not just one, so
| |
| > that the reputation of a society would attract producers to the best
| |
| > operated ones.
| |
| | |
| For this reason, the IANG license deliberately does not define precise
| |
| management rules, but only gives basic principles. Each Economic Project
| |
| can have its own rules, as long as they comply with the principles and
| |
| are controlled by the participants.
| |
| | |
| But I see another problem with your approach, which prevents to have
| |
| several societies. If producers want to create a derivative work, they
| |
| should use the same collection society, or else the benefit of the
| |
| commons would be broken. I think that it is a limitation of freedom and
| |
| diversity.
| |
| | |
| >
| |
| > Assuming such societies could exist, and could represent the
| |
| > commons-based producers, they could then license exogenic usage under
| |
| > non-free terms, and use the funds collected to benefit the commons
| |
| > broadly, including:
| |
| >
| |
| > - Funding infrastructure projects that increase the productivity of
| |
| > the commons, including capital for production, distribution and
| |
| > archiving.
| |
| >
| |
| > - Providing grants and awards for producers.
| |
| | |
| I think this is another reason why producers should not totally control
| |
| these societies, which would inevitably lead to a centralization of
| |
| power in the hands of the most influential producers. See for example
| |
| the Sacem, a collection society having monopoly in France, where a top
| |
| earning author has 14 more votes in general assembly. See also how best
| |
| selling authors bargain for each disk sold twice the royalties of less
| |
| known authors.
| |
| | |
| 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.
| |