
Copyfarleft, Copyjustright. - tricknik
http://www.telekommunisten.net/CopyjustrightCopyfarleft
======
lupin_sansei
"property is the enemy of freedom. It is property, the ability to control
productive assets at a distance, the ability to ‘own’ something being put to
productive use by another person that makes possible the subjugation of
individuals and communities."

Sure. That's why the USSR, China, North Korea, Cuba and all places that
restricted property ownerships are so well known for their freedoms.

How can a sane person not think twice for a second about that statement?

~~~
tricknik
USSR, China etc have very strong property rights, property was very strickly
enforced.

~~~
tricknik
Actually, what sane person reads the sentance "The ability to control
productive assets at a distance, the ability to ‘own’ something being put to
productive use by another person that makes possible the subjugation of
individuals and communities" without seeing how well this applies to the USSR,
China, etc. Property is still just as much property when it is owned by the
State, the King or The Corporation. It is important to understand the
distinction between property and possesion. Proudhon: "I prove that those who
do not possess to-day are proprietors by the same title as those who do
possess; but, instead of inferring therefrom that property should be shared by
all, I demand, in the name of general security, its entire abolition."

------
davidw
If I may be allowed a moment of snark: "The 19th century is calling, and it
wants its failed ideology back". This is pretty much just politics, in any
case.

~~~
tricknik
One man's "snark" is another man's ignorance. Do you have a logical argument,
or is snark all you got?

~~~
davidw
"The 20th century"

~~~
tricknik
What about it?

------
pbhjpbhj
I'm with him right the way except where he dis's CC-NC-SA. Surely if someone
from the copyfarleft community works on the project then they too will be
releasing it free and so how is the work not endogenic. CC-NC-SA simply puts
up a wall, that PD does not, to prevent exploitation from outside the
sharealike community (to coin a term).

I can see that without [intellectual] property if we wish to enjoy artistic
works we must establish a way of paying artists; the question is will we do
any better than copyright?

It is only really the long terms [monopoly periods] that stop copyright from
performing its duty to aid movement of creative works into the public domain
AND allow ample time for artists to gain reward from that work.

Oh yeah and viva la revolution comrades.

~~~
tricknik
Hi, thanks for the comments. For example take the book 54 by Wu Ming, released
under a NC license, because it is NC this prevents both Random House and the
local Anarchist bookshop from havin free terms, Copyfarleft allows the
bookshop to have free terms, but not Random House. That way the bookshop could
independenlt manufacture and sell copyfarleft material without any violation,
but Random House would need to negotiate a licence with the authors, exactly
as they did for 54.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
The Anarchist Bookshop can produce it, just not commercially, in copyright law
commercial damage can be made by giving stuff away for free but I've always
assumed in CC that commercial means anything above material costs.

You say the Anarchist Bookshop (I'm not sure if that's a real example?) could
then sell the work, why, why should they sell it I thought this was about
removing rental costs on intellectual items. What's your criterion for
allowing a reseller to make profit, political persuasion?

Now I'm confused.

~~~
tricknik
Material costs, like all prices must include rent, interest and wages. CC
removes rent only on the IP, not on the location the store is in, for example,
which still must be included in the final consumer price. Manufacturing books
and selling them is commercial activity even when undertaken by an anarchist
book shop. The anarchist book shop, presumably works collectively and thus has
no external shareholders, and therefore can only have income, not profit. The
point of copyfarleft is to prevent value derive from free terms from being
captured by non-producing capital owners.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
First up don't say "The anarchistic book shop" (definite article) when you
mean "An anarchistic bookshop", ie a hypothetical bookshop which from your
description appears to be a worker owned co-op.

I get where you're at now (I think), you want to allow the commercial use
provided that the business, eg a co-op, isn't providing profit to external
agents only to owners or workers in the form of wages. That's still
commercial. It's not greatly different if a family owned bookshop make
millions off liberalised copyright works versus a publically owned company
making millions split amongst it's shareholders. In fact in some ways it's
worse.

The only way to keep your model and not have this sort of scenario would be to
specify the allowed wages, but then if the same people own the building they
can put the rent up - the company doesn't make a profit as their rent eats up
all excess monies which goes to the same peoples bank accounts at the end of
the day.

I like the spirit of what you appear to be suggesting but in practice it seems
entirely unworkable as a system unless all members of society agree not to
abuse it. Most systems would work under those terms IMO.

