 
|
This board is closed to new users and new posts. Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years. Details here.
|
|
The Free Talk Live BBS
Profile of Scott Bieser
Show Posts Messages
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Pages: [1]
1
General / Re: Libertarian Intellectual Property Alliance...
« on: September 04, 2010, 12:42:57 AM »
I am heartened to see this discussion and, in hopes it may continue I will contribute what I can.
While I'm not prepared to agree with the proposition that the product of mental labor which is neither tangible nor scarce cannot be considered "property," I do recognize that under present technological circumstances, alternative business models and strategies for rewarding creators of art and letters must be found, if we are not to lapse back into the upper-class-patronage model (or worse, state-patronage model) of the Middle Ages. Also, being an Agorist, I'm all about building non-aggressive alternatives to state institutions.
For starters, if you're looking for a group name, how about:
Voluntaryists In Support of Arts and Letters (VISAL) ?
I think that setting up an organization to collect and disburse funds to worthy creators can present many difficulties but those are not insurmountable. The would require a core group of five or fewer people to "own" the plan and focus all their spare energies and talents in making it happen.
Or, one might follow the crowd-sourcing model of Kickstarter, in which people who want to undertake a project make a video sales-pitch and solicit donations from interested persons. Premiums can be offered for increasing donation levels, and the "prestige" idea can be used by such means as a mention in the credits of a completed project. Kickstarter uses an all-or-nothing approach in which a specific level of donations is set, and the project isn't started until that level is reached, within a limited time frame. If donations fail to reach that level the project is canceled and donations are returned to donors.
Something a bit less onerous might be some sort of certification agency, which could endorse specific creators or specific projects as especially deserving of support by libertarians. You'd need to have advisory committees of reputable libertarians/voluntaryists who would donate time to review and recommend certification.
While I'm not prepared to agree with the proposition that the product of mental labor which is neither tangible nor scarce cannot be considered "property," I do recognize that under present technological circumstances, alternative business models and strategies for rewarding creators of art and letters must be found, if we are not to lapse back into the upper-class-patronage model (or worse, state-patronage model) of the Middle Ages. Also, being an Agorist, I'm all about building non-aggressive alternatives to state institutions.
For starters, if you're looking for a group name, how about:
Voluntaryists In Support of Arts and Letters (VISAL) ?
I think that setting up an organization to collect and disburse funds to worthy creators can present many difficulties but those are not insurmountable. The would require a core group of five or fewer people to "own" the plan and focus all their spare energies and talents in making it happen.
Or, one might follow the crowd-sourcing model of Kickstarter, in which people who want to undertake a project make a video sales-pitch and solicit donations from interested persons. Premiums can be offered for increasing donation levels, and the "prestige" idea can be used by such means as a mention in the credits of a completed project. Kickstarter uses an all-or-nothing approach in which a specific level of donations is set, and the project isn't started until that level is reached, within a limited time frame. If donations fail to reach that level the project is canceled and donations are returned to donors.
Something a bit less onerous might be some sort of certification agency, which could endorse specific creators or specific projects as especially deserving of support by libertarians. You'd need to have advisory committees of reputable libertarians/voluntaryists who would donate time to review and recommend certification.
2
The Show / Re: What's this thing with L. Neil Smith about?
« on: July 15, 2010, 04:00:12 PM »
Neil is going to explain his theory of why IP is real, and consistent with the anarchist strain of libertarianism, in a column in the up-coming Libertarian Enterprise.
I met with him yesterday afternoon and we discussed the matter for a bit. He has been doing a fair amount of research of anti-IP arguments since this came up so the result should be interesting.
I met with him yesterday afternoon and we discussed the matter for a bit. He has been doing a fair amount of research of anti-IP arguments since this came up so the result should be interesting.
3
General / Re: L. Neil Smith turns out to be a statist asshole
« on: July 13, 2010, 10:23:34 PM »Quote
Golly, I hope Scott doesn't notice I'm using one of his drawings for my icon...
Really? I thought that was a self-portrait.
<rimshot>
Just kidding
Even though Neil is a close friend and frequent creative partner, I'm not Neil and have somewhat different views about re-use of my work.
4
General / Re: L. Neil Smith turns out to be a statist asshole
« on: July 13, 2010, 04:48:58 PM »
Since I'm new to the forum I'll introduce myself here: I'm Scott Bieser, general director and artist-in-residence at Big Head Press, publisher of libertarian-themed graphic novels. Including several written by L. Neil Smith. Big Head Press is also pleased to be an advertiser on Free Talk Live.
I have to confess I was the one who brought the Shire Declaration to Neil's attention, a week ago. I thought he'd be flattered, and now I'm surprised and wish I hadn't said anything, although I'm sure eventually it would have come to his attention.
In Neil's defense, I would assert that the Declaration is more than "inspired" by Neil's "Covenant." The preamble and first four articles are very similar, just short of identical. The fifth articles of each is different, and does not have the Covenant's "Supersedure Clause." For purposes of direct comparison, here is Neil's Covenant:
I am not an attorney, but as a one-time journalist and current publisher I am fairly familiar with Intellectual Property laws, and I think Neil has a pretty good case for the charge of plagiarism, even though he was given credit at the beginning of the FreeKeene.Com forum discussion in which this thing was hammered out. There is no such attribution on the Fr33Agents site, which is where Google leads people with the "Shire Declaration" search string; Neil's original was not mentioned when Ian announced and read the document on Free Talk Live; I doubt that very many of the people who will see this Declaration will see that forum post -- I didn't see it when this Declaration was announced on Facebook and I still haven't actually seen it, only heard it referred to in this thread. An attribution at the beginning of what amounts to an internal discussion thread is simply not sufficient.
To say the least, it was very, very bad form to use Neil's Covenant so extensively in developing this Declaration without getting his consent. The man makes his living by writing, and through much of his career he has struggled with New York editors trying to change his words -- and I can tell you that in my experience creating graphic novels with him, the most difficult episodes of our working relationship happens when I tell him I think some of his prose needs to be changed, or added to, or removed. But the important thing is that we talk these things through, and I don't make changes or use his work without his consent.
That said, I wish Neil had not reacted so angrily when he learned about the Shire Declaration, even though in retrospect I think I understand why he did. He regards Intellectual Property as something valid and important, even though many libertarian anarchists do not (although I make my living generating art and letters, I'm sort of ambivalent about it myself -- I understand the arguments against the state privilege that IP in its current form represents, but still feel that something in customary law is needed to afford artists and writers a just reward for the value they create).
I don't blame Ian for feeling affronted by Neil's mentioning his attorney. I'm a voluntaryist and I fully understand the threat of state violence implied in that regard. But on the other hand, we don't have a functioning private legal system. When someone feels his rights are being violated, what is he to do? Consulting with an attorney to learn what his legal options may be, is not unreasonable.
That said, I don't think Ian or the Declaration drafters intended to injure Neil in any way. Those who were aware of the provenance probably thought they were doing him an homage. The rancor that has developed on both sides of this dispute is both unfortunate and unnecessary.
I am told that Ian has invited Neil to call in to Free Talk Live this evening to hash this out. I hold Ian in high regard, and consider Neil a good friend, and I implore both gentlemen to take a calm, measured approach to the conversation, and keep your weapons holstered. A public fight will do no good for either party and cause a great deal of harm to the movement.
I have to confess I was the one who brought the Shire Declaration to Neil's attention, a week ago. I thought he'd be flattered, and now I'm surprised and wish I hadn't said anything, although I'm sure eventually it would have come to his attention.
In Neil's defense, I would assert that the Declaration is more than "inspired" by Neil's "Covenant." The preamble and first four articles are very similar, just short of identical. The fifth articles of each is different, and does not have the Covenant's "Supersedure Clause." For purposes of direct comparison, here is Neil's Covenant:
Quote
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED Witnesses to the Lesson of History -- that no Form of political Governance may be relied upon to secure the individual Rights of Life, Liberty, or Property -- now therefore establish and provide certain fundamental Precepts measuring our Conduct toward one another, and toward others:
Individual Sovereignty
FIRST, that we shall henceforward recognize each individual to be the exclusive Proprietor of his or her own Existence and of all products of that Existence, holding no Obligation binding among Individuals excepting those to which they voluntarily and explicitly consent;
Freedom from Coercion
SECOND, that under no Circumstances shall we acknowledge any Liberty to initiate Force against another Person, and shall instead defend the inalienable Right of Individuals to resist Coercion employing whatever Means prove necessary in their Judgement;
Association and Secession
THIRD, that we shall hold inviolable those Relationships among Individuals which are totally voluntary, but conversely, any Relationship not thus mutually agreeable shall be considered empty and invalid;
Individuality of Rights
FOURTH, that we shall regard Rights to be neither collective nor additive in Character -- two individuals shall have no more Rights than one, nor shall two million nor two thousand million -- nor shall any Group possess Rights in Excess of those belonging to its individual members;
Equality of Liberty
FIFTH, that we shall maintain these Principles without Respect to any person's Race, Nationality, Gender, sexual Preference, Age, or System of Beliefs, and hold that any Entity or Association, however constituted, acting to contravene them by initiation of Force -- or Threat of same -- shall have forfeited its Right to exist;
Supersedure
UPON UNANIMOUS CONSENT of the Members or Inhabitants of any Association or Territory, we further stipulate that this Agreement shall supercede all existing governmental Documents or Usages then pertinent, that such Constitutions, Charters, Acts, Laws, Statutes, Regulations, or Ordinances contradictory or destructive to the Ends which it expresses shall be null and void, and that this Covenant, being the Property of its Author and Signatories, shall not be Subject to Interpretation excepting insofar as it shall please them.
I am not an attorney, but as a one-time journalist and current publisher I am fairly familiar with Intellectual Property laws, and I think Neil has a pretty good case for the charge of plagiarism, even though he was given credit at the beginning of the FreeKeene.Com forum discussion in which this thing was hammered out. There is no such attribution on the Fr33Agents site, which is where Google leads people with the "Shire Declaration" search string; Neil's original was not mentioned when Ian announced and read the document on Free Talk Live; I doubt that very many of the people who will see this Declaration will see that forum post -- I didn't see it when this Declaration was announced on Facebook and I still haven't actually seen it, only heard it referred to in this thread. An attribution at the beginning of what amounts to an internal discussion thread is simply not sufficient.
To say the least, it was very, very bad form to use Neil's Covenant so extensively in developing this Declaration without getting his consent. The man makes his living by writing, and through much of his career he has struggled with New York editors trying to change his words -- and I can tell you that in my experience creating graphic novels with him, the most difficult episodes of our working relationship happens when I tell him I think some of his prose needs to be changed, or added to, or removed. But the important thing is that we talk these things through, and I don't make changes or use his work without his consent.
That said, I wish Neil had not reacted so angrily when he learned about the Shire Declaration, even though in retrospect I think I understand why he did. He regards Intellectual Property as something valid and important, even though many libertarian anarchists do not (although I make my living generating art and letters, I'm sort of ambivalent about it myself -- I understand the arguments against the state privilege that IP in its current form represents, but still feel that something in customary law is needed to afford artists and writers a just reward for the value they create).
I don't blame Ian for feeling affronted by Neil's mentioning his attorney. I'm a voluntaryist and I fully understand the threat of state violence implied in that regard. But on the other hand, we don't have a functioning private legal system. When someone feels his rights are being violated, what is he to do? Consulting with an attorney to learn what his legal options may be, is not unreasonable.
That said, I don't think Ian or the Declaration drafters intended to injure Neil in any way. Those who were aware of the provenance probably thought they were doing him an homage. The rancor that has developed on both sides of this dispute is both unfortunate and unnecessary.
I am told that Ian has invited Neil to call in to Free Talk Live this evening to hash this out. I hold Ian in high regard, and consider Neil a good friend, and I implore both gentlemen to take a calm, measured approach to the conversation, and keep your weapons holstered. A public fight will do no good for either party and cause a great deal of harm to the movement.
Pages: [1]