Note to Freenet producers and users:
Consider the aim to move various industries in
which digitized information is the central product
to more sane, rational, humane, and just methods
of operation based on freenet-ish distribution
schemes.
The problems of implementing such a plan,
particularly in the form of a business or economic
operation, become:
(a) being very clear about what it is that one
trying to move toward -- that is, what ultimate
goal for work and people doing work and the
consumption of work's products?
And (b) being clear about and continually updating
one's perception of what steps can be successfully
taken now, largely due the extreme implications of
certain new technologies, that will allow an
institution to come into being and develop, and
that will also move as much as possible within
current constraints toward the ultimate goals?
No doubt you all are quite aware, from both
thought and practice, that in such undertakings
there are tremendous market and social forces and
inducements, as well as old habits, highlighting
the need to conform to what is immediately
possible (and even very constraining perceptions
of what is immediately possible), and, on the
other side, there are few salient and coherent
forces or pressures or even voices saying, yes,
sure, let's innovate, and here is where we are
trying to get to and we need to also keep being
sure that what we are doing to succeed in the
present isn't diverting us from our longer term
aims. And no doubt you all know, as well, that
because of this disparity, virtually all socially
motivated business projects more or less rapidly
devolve until they are largely indistinguishable
from what they once opposed, at least in all basic
features.
My knowledge of freenet is not too great, but I
think it is okay for a stab at the topic at hand.
Freenet, as I understand it, provides a
non-traceable, non-disruptible (is it susceptible
to viruses that are confined to its users?) means
for the free and anonymous transfer of any type of
digital information among a potentially immense
community of (again anonymous) participants.
Thus, of course, if it can move from potential to
actuality, blasts copyright law and remuneration
according to ownership of digitized property to
smithereens.
The big questions that promptly arise, it seems,
for those in favor of undercutting the profit
making arm of associated industries, are: if we
don't remunerate private ownership of property,
what do we remunerate? And how do we get revenues,
at all.
I would guess you are clear on the latter
already -- you would probably have to provide
valuable premiums to induce a second level of
membership in the freenet community - that of
sustainers or donors, assuming you don't want to
have a charge for belonging at all, which would be
another possibility. Either could provide a pool
of income. But what about remuneration of people
creating the music, videos, books, etc. etc.
The answer could be there is none. Make the
product free and make its provision voluntary.
This, however, means that no one can choose to
work in music or video or writing and be
remunerated for their labors -- thus reducing
these to hobbyist pursuits....which is presumably
not the goal. One might reply, people can
perform -- but software writers and book writers
and video creators don't have that option, and
maybe not all music players and writers wish to do
that.
So what is to be remunerated?
Without belaboring, one obvious answer would be
product. Remunerate participants according to
contribution to product. In fact, however, this
doesn't deviate philosophically much from Capital
Records which claims to do exactly that, after
paying costs and taking profits, of course. (In
fact, Capital Records remunerates bargaining
power, not product per se, but product plays a big
role in determining bargaining power in this
industry...and would likely continue to in your
case to, were you to take that approach as not
only a possible imposed starting point, but as a
goal.)
The approach says each artist should be paid some
percentage of the revenues that accrue from the
donations that arise from the distribution of that
artist's product (notice, not even the pleasure or
wisdom or enjoyment or other positive impact the
product has) --in essence a royalty (presumably in
your case a much higher percentage than in the
industry since so many costs of production,
packaging, etc. have been removed.
The thing is, this doesn't take us very far. In
fact, unless the operation is non-profit, it is IN
NO WAY different than Capital Records. It is
simply another firm taking advantage of a new
mechanism for distribution to compete with
existing firms mired in old ways...still taking a
profit, and still remunerating according to output
(or, in practice, I think, likely according to
bargaining power--which will also set your profit
rate, in this model). Yes, from selling the actual
songs one moves to selling value added (the
premiums people donate to get), but that is not in
itself changing anything basic about remuneration.
What is the other possibility? Well, this
technology throws in everyone's faces the
question: how much should an artist earn for their
work in their field? (And, five seconds later for
someone who is thinking at all, hey, how much
should a ballplayer earn, or a doctor, or a
custodian?)
The answer I would propose, for the ULTIMATE goal,
is that remuneration for artistic work -- as for
every other kind of work -- ought to be not for
property owned, nor for bargaining power, nor for
output, but only for effort and sacrifice.
I have written extensively about all this...and if
it interests folks much of it is easily accessible
at www.parecon.org
We are not talking merely good values, here, but
very serious explorations of how specific types of
institutions can implement the values...this
particular value about remuneration and others as
well. (As long as we are talking values, those at
the heart of parecon are solidarity, diversity,
equity (remuneration for effort and sacrifice),
and self management (decision making input in
proportion as one is affected by the decisions to
be undertaken).
Without rambling on too long, perhaps this little
story will make the point about remuneration, even
short of full arguments and such.
Milton Friedman, the noble prize winning
right-wing economist once debated a left economist
and posed the following -- you argue that we
shouldn't reward luck in the inheritance lottery.
We shouldn't put a person on third base or even a
step from home plate, just because they are born
to parents who own lots of property. We should
make someone bat with a waffle bat against Nolan
ryan, with two strikes, and seven great
infielders, just because his parents were poor.
Thus we shouldn't have private ownership of
property...and you argue this on grounds that it
isn't morally warranted -- the person who inherits
property did nothing to merit the reward.
(Actually, leftists with brains also argue that it
isn't a good incentive system either...but that's
another matter.) Okay, Milton continues, doesn't
it follow, then, that we shouldn't reward people
for luck in the genetic lottery either. Mozart did
nothing to acquire the ability that lets him spin
out wonderful music effortlessly...why should we
reward him with money on top of his lucky genes?
Maybe for time spent learning, sure - but not for
the genius that is inherited and the output it
makes possible.
Friedman was right. The leftist should have said,
yes, you are correct -- but it doesn't mean we
should reward property and product (which in
institutional practice translates into rewarding
power) but, instead, that we ought to reward
effort and sacrifice at useful labor, and neither
property nor profit. Now let's see if we can
conceive an economy in which we do that, and it
works, and works wonderfully...
Well, that's a worthy task, and transforming the
music industry, or other digitial information
industries, would be a nice place to start.
So, imagine a community of freeneters. Millions.
Imagine that revenues are generated from these
listeners/users as donations, or fees, or
whatever. Now imagine also a community of
musicians and music workers organized as a kind of
workers councils for the industry, if you will.
Their responsibility is to disperse the funds to
the members of their community. The freenet system
says to them - you can have the funds so long as
the norm you use for remuneration to all in the
field, musicians, writers, engineers, whatever -
is that they are paid for their effort and
sacrifice in doing work that is deemed worthy of
support by the overall community.
Britney Spears, or whoever, doesn't get oodles of
payment because she has oodles of listeners.
Rather, everyone gets payments pegged to the hours
they work, the effort they put in in their labors.
There is no minority who gets stinking rich and
majority who are worried about income.and so on.
There is a just remuneration norm, a just
relationship between producers and consumers, no
profits, and so on. It is institutionally viable.
It delivers the goods. Incentives are proper - is
Spear going to sing less well (?) because she is
earning less than a gagzillion dollars? If she
wants a good living income, she has to sing -
simple.
The dynamic is that the freenet community not only
has a means of distribution that benefits
listeners greatly and that annihilates
profiteering - it also has an answer for artist
income which raises the incomes of all but the
elite money makers and brings their's back where
they belong.
More, the undertaking is exemplary in that the
principles and many of the evolved methods are
applicable in all other domains of the economy, as
well.
Again, this is a brief presentation, of course -
as much emotive as analytic. There is much more
than can be said, of course. And one place where
much more is said, about this mode of
remuneration, about workplace organization and
decision making, and about allocation, is the
parecon web site - www.parecon.org.
Michael Albert
Z Magazine / ZNet
www.zmag.org
_______________________________________________
Chat mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
