Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Solving the prisoner's dilemma in crowdfunding

[Aaron Wolf]

On 02/23/2016 02:53 AM, gmail gregor wrote:
> Thank you for the answer.
> 
> If i got it right, the gist of snowdrift is looking forward, thus
> changing the whole culture (hopefully/eventually) into sharing and
> giving one.
> 
> Also, the term ransom is new to me (wich goes to show i am not really
> all too informed). 
> 
> Still, was not referring so much to the future works in my question.
> What i primarily had in mind was academic works that one needs to pay
> access fees (and worse). Thinking, huh, what if all the liberated minds
> would chip in, wouldn't eventually all the (digital) culture be freed.
> 

In the case of academic journals, this is *totally* a hostage and ransom
situation. The research is not funded by journal fees! The research is
funded in other ways, and the journals are basically holding research
hostage. It's atrocious. Yes, Snowdrift.coop intends to fund research
and journals, But this issue is bigger than this and is not just about
funding but about other power issues.

The reason we should not ransom academic journals is really a case where
we don't want to reward the hostage takers. We need to destroy the
for-profit academic journal industry, not pay it off.

The overall battle for academic journals is *mostly* one about politics
and convincing researchers about the need to publish their works under
FLO terms, and that's that. Just skip the proprietary publishers. Yes,
Snowdrift.coop could fund some publishing and research costs. For all
the back-log of locked-down things, we need to just get society to where
we realize this is insane and then we need to change the laws and norms
and simply *take* back our heritage and make it publicly available
regardless of what the hostage-taking publishers say.

For anyone interested, check out http://sci-hub.io

> And after reading a few of the pages at snowdrift.coop, i think i might
> have my answer. Below are some excerpts:
> 
> ###
> https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/w/en/economics
> ...
> Public goods vs club goods
> 
> Economists classify non-rivalrous goods (including abstract concepts and
> patterns that we metaphorically talk about as “goods” and “resources”)3
> as either public goods or club goods.
> 
> Public goods are those non-rivalrous resources open to everyone to use
> and share freely. Club goods are non-rivalrous resources where access
> and/or other privileges are reserved for members of an exclusive club
> (such as those who pay a fee).
> ...
> Ideas were either shared freely and openly or controlled through secrecy
> and censorship, but, either way, nobody confused them with physical
> goods. The modern concept of “intellectual property” developed only
> recently as lectures, storytelling, and concerts gave way to physical
> media containing texts, drawings, and audio/video recordings.
> ...
> Digital technology has essentially freed recorded works from their
> scarce containers. Copies of works no longer require publishing new
> physical objects.
> ...
> Laws and business models have not adapted
> ...
> #
> https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/w/en/free-libre-open
> ...
> “Free/libre” vs “open”
> 
> The now-common term “Open Source” also has a problematic
> software-centric framing1 and focuses mainly on the development process
> rather than on the overall ethics of a project.
> 
> Overall, “open” tends to complement rather than replace “free/libre”.
> Freedom on its own doesn’t emphasize collaboration, participation, or
> transparency. Openness on its own does not necessarily bring freedom
> (especially when “open” refers only the source and not to the final
> product). Real freedom also requires respect for privacy, and the term
> “open” doesn’t really address that concern. At Snowdrift.coop, we care
> about both open participation and essential liberties.
> ...
> At Snowdrift.coop, we support the FSF’s mission to rid the world of
> proprietary software, but we’re not convinced about the tactic of
> demonizing the term “open”. We focus on providing a better economy for
> non-scarce goods in order to remove the economic excuse for proprietary
> restrictions.
> ...
> FLO
> 
> As no single choice covers all our values clearly, the best solution
> acknowledges all the terms via the combination free/libre/open or FLO. 
> ...
> #
> https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/w/en/licenses
> ...
> Our position
> 
> Snowdrift.coop emphasizes the importance of cooperating toward mutual
> goals of freedom, compatibility, and creative productivity. We want to
> maximize the standing of FLO in the world by both acknowledging ideals
> and advocating practical strategies.
> 
> The main co-founders of Snowdrift.coop support copyleft terms, and the
> site itself is copyleft. However, consistent with our dedication to
> cooperation and inclusion, we have allied with the Copyfree Initiative
> (whose founder joined our steering committee). We allow projects and
> users to choose their preferred terms within the scope of general FLO
> definitions.
> 
> #
> https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/w/en/project-requirements
> Required licenses and FLO definitions
> 
> Free/Libre/Open (FLO) means unrestricted freedoms to use, modify, and
> share. A few precise FLO definitions compete for recognition as the
> standard in different fields.1 Thankfully, the most accepted definitions
> are practically equivalent. We do not want to create yet another
> competing standard, so we defer to the options listed below.
> ...
> ###
> 
> And it might be something along the lines of a 1000 mile journey :).
> 
> Anyhow, all the best
> g
> 
> 
> On Sat, 2016-02-20 at 12:30 -0800, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>> On 02/20/2016 02:31 AM, gmail gregor wrote:
>>> Hi Aaron,
>>>
>>> umm, firstly - i've been following libreplanet discussion group for a
>>> couple of years. Because i find the problematic it covers interesting
>>> (obviously). Still, this is my first letter.
>>>
>>> Just quickly went over snowdrift.coop and let me join in thanking you
>>> for the effort. Also for many posts, here on libreplanet.
>>>
>>> To the point: do you think that the snowdrift platform could be used,
>>> for buying the rights on all sort of (digitally published/released)
>>> works, then releasing them under public licences? (Via some mechanics
>>> say: each donor gets to put one item on the wish list then choose 3
>>> items (out of the same list) that he/she fancy liberating first.)
>>>
>>> Anyhow, all the best
>>> sincerely
>>> g
>>>
>>
>> Thanks Gregor. The term for what you're talking about is "ransom" and it
>> is highly problematic to *encourage* people to publish non-free anything
>> with the goal of ransoming it.
>>
>> More thoughts at:
>> https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/w/en/status-quo-floss#ransom-systems
>>
>> It's not impossible for Snowdrift.coop to expand to cover cases like
>> that in the long run. However, our focus for now and the foreseeable
>> future is on better supporting those actors who are already doing the
>> right thing and releasing their work freely but need more support.
>>
>> We hope that if we can provide good support for FLO public goods, then
>> more people will see that it's possible to get by making FLO works and
>> they'll just choose to do so, and anyway the existing FLO stuff will be
>> that much better and there will be less need to ransom proprietary
>> things. Like all types of ransoming, we're happy when the thing is
>> freed, but we don't want to encourage people to keep hostages in the
>> first place.
>>
> 
>