Copyfarleft - P2P Foundation Wiki
Copyfarleft
From P2P Foundation Wiki
Jump to navigation<br>Jump to search
Contents
1 Context
1.1 Copyfarleft type licenses
1.2 Description
1.3 Discussion
1.3.1 Details
1.3.2 Copyfarleft as 'restricted' commons
1.4 Critique
1.4.1 Critique by Stefan Meretz of Oekonux
1.4.1.1 Key critical points
1.4.2 Alan Toner on the Problems of the Copyfarleft proposal:
1.5 More Information
Context
A proposal by Dmytri Kleiner (et al.), based on a critique of the approach by Creative Commons and other Copyleft approaches.
A more recent development along similar lines is Copyfair. Copyfarleft is specifically limited to worker-owned entities and cooperatives, which some may find restrictive. So Copyfair addresses more generically the relations between commons communities and the market entities working with them, expecting reciprocity in exchange for commercial rights (note from Michel Bauwens)
"The main argument advanced in the essay is that artists can not<br>earn a living from exclusivity of "intellectual property" and that<br>that neither copyleft licenses like the GPL, nor "copyjustright"<br>frameworks such as the creative commons, can help."
Copyfarleft type licenses
Here are some existing licenses which are related to the Copyfarleft concept:
Peer Production License
CopyFair License
Fair Source License
Description
Alan Toner:
"“His suggestion is to establish a form of cooperative which would function in the same way as the copyright collection societies, such as GEMA in Germany which collects licenses for musical performances. Members would assign their copyrights to the cooperative, which would issue free non-exclusive licenses to other members.This is a similar modus operandi to that used by the Free Software Foundation who collect copyright assignments from their contributors, and then grant back a series of guaranteed permissions which form the crux of software freedom. Non-members could still use the works but would have to negotiate and pay a licensing fee in the normal manner. The original twist is in the criteria for membership of the cooperative, which would be limited to those who do not employ wage-labour or capital-intensive technology in producing cultural works; Dmytri referred to these as the non-alienation clause, and it’s worth unpacking it a bit.”
(http://knowfuture.wordpress.com/2007/11/22/copyfarleft-an-anarchist-gema/)
Dmytri Kleiner:
"the basic pragmatics is that that any organisation that<br>employs wage labour, that is, is not a collective, co-operative or<br>individual, would need to buy a license to distribute or otherwise use the works of the copyright collective. It is exactly the same as non-commercial, except that commons-based commercial use is allowed.
This allows the collective to license the work to commercial users, such<br>as other publishers, broadcasters, etc.
Thus, such a collective could earn money from various sources, including<br>licensing as described above, but also from providing streams or<br>physical media to stores and other premises who do not wish to pay gema<br>fees, and providing indemnification from persecution by gema, etc., if<br>they agree to play exclusively titles represented by the collective.
In addition, the collective could publish it's own titles, and provide<br>services including manufacturing, distribution, etc., to members who<br>wish to self-publish.
The collective could also organize live events, such as concerts,<br>screenings, readings and exhibitions, drawing on door and bar receipts<br>as well as grants and sponsorships to earn revenue from such activities.
The earnings of such a collective, beyond funding it's operational<br>expenses, could be used to build production infrastructure that cultural<br>producers require, as well as giving grants and awards to fund artistic<br>works."<br>(by email, September 2009)
Discussion
Dmytri Kleiner:
"Bauwens other point, that "The problem with copyfarleft is that it<br>actually closes down the commons, since it wants to exclude non-venture<br>business from using it," is false. It doesn't exclude anyone, it simply<br>denies propriatarian users free access, meaning they have to negotiate<br>non-free access, which is what they want and expect anyway.
As for: "Stallman created a feasible defensive tactic against future<br>software capture with the GPL, whereas Kleiner says that isn't good<br>enough, and proposes an offensive one."
The point of copyfarleft is that the economics of software and art<br>are different, as the former is a capital stock, an input to production,<br>while the second is a consumer stock, an end-consumable.
I do not say that the GPL is not good enough, my argument is that it is<br>not applicibale to art (iirc Stallman has agreed with this, if for very<br>different reasons than my own). The most common licences used by "free" art are<br>"Non Comercial" licences, and it is these, not the GPL that Copyfarleft<br>is proposed as an alternative for"<br>(by email, May 2009)
Details
From an essay at...