Law in the Internet Society

View   r8  >  r7  ...
AlexeySokolin_FirstPaper 8 - 23 Nov 2011 - Main.AlexeySokolin
Line: 1 to 1
 
META TOPICPARENT name="FirstPaper"
Changed:
<
<
This is a set of comments in response to Eben's feedback. Second draft is still to be done, but debate is welcome.
>
>
DRAFT
 
Changed:
<
<

Ethically Appropriate Business Models

>
>

Making Money When Its All Free

 -- By AlexeySokolin - 17 Oct 2011

Introduction

Changed:
<
<
On the horizon is a world where cultural goods are distributed freely and quickly to everyone who wants them. But, even if society may be in transition to a system without private property in ideas, transitional stages are important. It matters how we move from intellectual property regimes of today. What then are ethical business approaches to do so?
>
>
On the horizon is a world where cultural goods are distributed freely and quickly to everyone who wants them. Such a world fundamentally challenges the conventional conception of private property in ideas. Now is a time of transition. Transitional stages are important because define how power is distributed and the principles that will drive cultural norms in the coming phase. It matters how we move from intellectual property regimes of today.
 
Deleted:
<
<
I think the exploration of transitional stages is very important. Sure, pointing to 50 years out is a useful exercise for framing the journey. But, people need immediate, real actionable ideas that are viable, at least to some extent, within existing paradigms. We are creatures of habit and inertia. We are not yet in an economy where sharing enables a large portion of the productive population to make a living--I don't know whether you claim this--and so thinking about steps towards our goal is useful. I grew up partially in the Soviet Union. That socialist experiment was stuck in a transition stage for 70 years.
 

Economic Axioms

Line: 27 to 26
 From behind the veil of ignorance it is clear that MC=0 goods should be free.
Changed:
<
<
This pop-Rawlsian stuff isn't really necessary, is it? Why do we have to find some normative justification for a descriptive theory strongly confirmed by empirical evidence? That P=MC in free competitive market at equilibrium doesn't require moral justification any more than the Pythagorean Theorem does. It's a category error at the outset, isn't it?

Yes, the digital economy is a fact, as are sharing and MC=0. However, I think, it is more powerful to challenge the misuse of monopoly power on its own terms. When merely providing powerful actors a descriptive view of the world, they will attempt to change it or control it. Business men create barriers to generate excess return that flows to shareholders--this is the creed taught in this university, and every business school out there. I agree with you that this may not be a result we want in relation to cultural goods. Then why not ground the desired end-result in a driving principle. I recognize my indoctrination and to get to an alternate position need an approach that makes sense bottoms-up. Not merely as a conclusion.
>
>
? can say if you believe this, then this model, if you believe this, then this model
 We want access to music and the internet if born in New York or India. Less clear is how much access we want—perhaps there is a line to be drawn between necessary cultural goods (learning the classics) and luxury cultural goods (StarCraft? ). One empowers, lifts people from their station into the flow of human progress; the other entertains and distracts. The two are not synonymous in function and moral weight. The problem encountered in this distinction is who decides, and how.

Revision 8r8 - 23 Nov 2011 - 21:47:51 - AlexeySokolin
Revision 7r7 - 16 Nov 2011 - 04:47:20 - AlexeySokolin
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
Syndicate this site RSSATOM