This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
What alternatives are there, beside IP/copyright laws, to support the creative process?
I have been asked to put forward some alternataives to IP/copyright/royalty as methods to ensure on--going creativity for the sake of humanity.
The question "What is creativity" is a complex subject in itself. Here I wish to examine the conditions required for "creativity" to be undertaken and how to contrive those conditions in a balanced manner.
We will assume that the purpose of creativity has a net advantage for the human species.
This advantage can form a frame for the discussion and help identify systems that satisfy this goal.
Firstly, I'd like to offer patronage as the starting model.
The practice of patronage in history was a primary means by which specialist creatives were afforded the time to spare from primary survival activities (food shelter etc) in which to advance their contribution.
The practice was primarily undertaken by those with sufficient surplus - the wealthy. However, there is a recognised dynamic by which greater wealth induces less generosity, and the patronage becomes a self serving investment.
I will bring to attention the practice of busking. A busker conducts a performance that all can enjoy. Only those with generosity will toss a coin - this is an act of direct support with no regard for whoever else is gaining the benefit of the performance - and not donating.
It is a very different paradigm to the concert concept or the investment concept.
It might provide a basis for a system that satisfies the objective.
Happy to explore the dynamics of this model and how to extrapolate it into wider domains.
Also happy to investigate other alternatives.
What are your thoughts?
Mitch SMith 50+
Since the story of the old lady who wrecked the historic fresco of Jesus by tryling to restore it, I find myself laughing whenever the story crosses my mind.
I imagine there are millions of people around the world experiencing the same thing.
SO .. should this old lady be remunerated for the joy she has brought into the world?
And who should remunerate her?
Should it be:
The people who heard the story and gained the benefit of laughter?
The ISPs and physical network owners (physical and social) who's trafic was increased by the story going viral?
The advertisers who finance the social networks for the resulting increase in sales?
The governments of nations and corporations who's GDP has benefited from raised morale?
The descendants of the original artist who's work has been made famous for the first time?
The Spanish town that now has a potential tourism draw-card?
God - because he gets increased market presence?
Ken brown 30+
http://www.soundprint.org/radio/display_show/ID/663/name/The+Busker+and+the+Diva
It might not be your cup of tea but since you're a musician you might enjoy it you might not,who's to say what another likes at any given frame of time.
Mitch SMith 50+
It's brilliant to listen to musicians speak. Specially these ones who truly know their creative hearts.
There is an atmosphere with such people that cannot be mistaken - it is the sense of a journey, a sense of energy that only that journey can deliver. There is a focus - it is not money, it's not anything .. it is the music the music the music. And that focus sees beyond everything and finds its way - seeping through all bariers like water finds its way to the sea.
The door to this excellence of life is shrouded and hidden by the IP trolls - the parasites who claim to be "the industry". The truth of this path is open to all - and I do my best to open the door whenever I can.
My craft is dedicated to keeping open a small door that circumvents much of the flim-flam - a way to get a glimpse of what the world really is. My little door is the humble pennywhislte - I distribute them as I can and have built a life around them. This little door leads to a thread of culture that is rarely observed by the "mainstream" although much of popular culture has drawn from it. This thread is very old, and still persists. It needs no "industry" and keeps the art in trust for all who find it. True giants of music move in these waters - there is a sense of humility and grace that you will not find on the human-farm.
Bipedal Joe
The slogan "work seeks income" says it all.. We all do work all the time that the system neglects, and fails to reward. Innovation is, like you wrote, not always accounted for by the system, since it´s future value. But if we assume that the purpose of creativity has a net advantage for the human species, and that creativity is an innate drive, then we might as well invest in it unconditionally. Like we do with primary education.
If we assume that people will follow their innate drives and do their hearts work, then a basic income would cover expenses(time/metabolized calories/partitionedCognition..?) for all that work, like creative works and social works, that our financial systems often fails to account for and reward.
It would reward and finance the open-source community, that is everyone, to contribute to the commons and help each other out.
So wealth is distributed equally through a basic income, to everyone, trust and altruism increases, cynism decreases. Disruptively generated wealth is created by those at the edge of the network. Reward them and they will multiply. Wealth will multi-multiply...
I believe citizens dividends and basic incomes are a first step towards transitioning to a more resource-ish economy, a ´la VenusProject.
So my solution to IP is just to elevate everyone above poverty and let human nature have it´s way. Poor artist will have enough money to focus on their art, and more business-minded artists will still be able to comercialize their products (akin to buskin, their product instead of "their" ideas). Linux won´t have to starve, and Apple won´t have as much guilty conscience.
Mitch SMith 50+
It's interesting how everyone posting here naturally turns imediately to the nature of currency as teh root problem with promoting creativity.
Descriptions of end-solutions have value. But they need description of a method of transition. Vested interest will fight against any adjustment that reduces their advantage - so the methods become important.
To begin with, the arguement will be made that without financial incentive - no one will work.
This may be true - there are a couple of TED talks here that present the difference between motivators - how creative activities seem to be repressed by by monetary incentive, while repetitive activities respond well to monetary motivation. WHat is not being revealed is - why any such activity is required in teh first place.
I have suggested elsewhere that there is a significance between "job" and "work". That the thing we call "job" is a closed-system unit undertaken by human-resource-units which are entirely defined by monetary incentive. "Jobs" are units of "economy" traded between governments and corporations.
Work operates outside of that definition - it is done for personal motives that may be incentivated by personal or community advantage and may include a "job" as a vehicle. Conversely, a job may not utilse "work" as a vehicle.
As At Houston has pointed out, it is culture that needs to be addressed to drive any kind of change.
Bipedal Joe
Then the question of how to make "jobs" of creative work, without an IP-law, still remains. If we don´t allow as yet commercially unsuccessful creative works to be part of the closed-system unit undertaken by human-resource-units, and instead decide it should be treated as personal motives that may be incentivated by personal or community advantage, only including a "job" as a vehicle, then we get the problem that artists are unable to devote their life, love and creative endeavour to their "work" until it becomes a monetary commerce. You need to work twofold, do "jobs" to afford to live even with minimum expenses. It could be enough to de-incentivize even the most passionate of artists.
To make "jobs" out of creative work without an IP-law, we need another way to finance it until our hindsight tells us it was worth it. Perhaps we should not focus on designing new jobs, but instead change our wealth distribution systems at the core. I believe we should rewild as much as possible to lower-levels of social organization, to be driven by personal motives that may be incentivated by personal or community advantage, because I think that is when we are at our best. And as we have a capitalistic system, we need to liberate personal motives economically, so that they are able to aim higher then food for the day and mere survival... Liberate the cognitive surplus economically. Elevate it from bureaucracy. Redistribute the wealth "surplus" back to the community. This will be increasingly important as the closed-system unit undertaken by human-resource-units "jobs" are solved by creatively designed software and robotics. How will that affect the division of "work" and "jobs"?
I believe it´s currencies, not culture, that we need to focus on. Culture is innate, creative and resilient, it´s the monetary-currencies that are uncreative and unable to adapt to a changing world. They use far less precise heuristics and algorithms for calculating value and wealth
Mitch SMith 50+
Good question.
I can only find a few basic dynamics that fit within a currency-based value system.
1. Pay before release. In this, the individual withholds publication until the effort is remunerated. THis is akin to the kickstarter model. Once released, it is public domain. So here the concept of patronage is in operation - it is also sensitive to "reputation", so a reputation would need to be built before any significant remuneration can be solicited.
2. Subscription. In this model, the reputation is honoured and an-going release is assumed. It is somewhat flawed in that the "creative" will be under pressure to release on a regular basis - relative to reputation.
3. Remunerate hours not products. This is a little like subscription, but it is closer to the reality of the creative process and the actual dynamics of modern media. THe reality of digital distribution is that it cannot be charged on a per-unit basis. Consider the potential of a digital product that goes so "viral" at a cost of $1 per "view" - can potentially attract a few billion dollars. It would not take many of these to suck every dollar out of the currency system - for a product that has no fundamental value - you can't eat IP.
1, 2, and 3 are still subject to market valuation - price determined by supply/demand. However, they are more linear than the per-unit model.
In the creative fields, detaching from the exponential potential of "per-unit" will stop people becoming musicians/creatives/artists for the purpose of becoming "pop-stars" or "rich and famous". This will weed-out a lot of teh crap injected into teh creative continuum.
David Hamilton 50+
One thing everyone seems to forget nowadays, is that all creativity, exists because of the consent of hard working people with strong backs, who you disagree with on just about everything... Being creative doesn't entitle you to a home, and food. Being a citizen, doesn't entitle you to air conditioning. Hard work, most creative people are completely unwilling, and unable to do, creates all of that.
For some reason we no longer value the people who make creativity possible, as much as we value the creatives... "Artists" used to beg for change, now we respect their politics.
Mitch SMith 50+
And it gets even more stark when you ask who is going to maintain sewars and urinals.
There is a problem with the word "entitle".
To me, creativity is something that all humans do - not just the specialists.
Having specialists seems like such a fine thing. It certainly gives rise to some pretty impressive advancements - but where is the evaluation of the need for these advancements?
If you look at what our advancement has been turned to, you will see that most of it is unproductive.
When you ask this, everyone can name a bunch of admirable contributions - but no one mentions the vast majority of questionable outcomes.
In 30 years I have watched as every single human being gets attached to a television or computer screen - wonderful technology removes our need to get out of our chairs. Obesity sets in as a global pandemic and wonderful specialists devise new treatments for teh disorders of food contamination and imobility, new drugs proliferate and robots are sent out to suck the entire open system on Earth into the closed currency farm.
I was once a professional musician - to be a musician meant writing and playing "pop" music which was defined by the distributors. Very few musicians got paid enough to eat and pay rent. I was lucky because I played to teh distributor's market. No one would finance the music I liked because there was no established market for it.
These days I do not do commercial shows or recordings - I saw long ago that the internet would not support the old paradigm.
THese days, I play traditional folk music with friends once or twice a week - as a social activity with no pay. Sometimes I busk.
But my needs are fulfilled by making musical instruments - they are a physical product for which I ask time and materials remuneration. I don't care if this remuneration comes in the form of currency or food/shelter/energy.
The motive of wealth is not alligned with creativity.
Artists still beg for change. Only the parasites prosper by IP
David Hamilton 50+
"Only the parasites prosper by IP"
And, who's fault is that... I blame consumers, that don't do research, and buy whatever crap gets marketed the most... You, I assume, blame people in marketing, and IP law itself.
I am very happy that Modest Mouse, The Mars Volta, and Explosions in the Sky, do not have to beg for change... I don't understand why people keep paying good money for some of the music that passes for "pop" today.
Mitch SMith 50+
For every "Modest Mouse, The Mars Volta, and Explosions in the Sky" who got success in teh IP environment there are hundreds of thousands of brilliant artists who did not.
The entire paradigm that you are "happy with" has prevented you from seeing just how good music can get without the IP scam.
The scam attracts "players" who are motivated by the jackpot dynamic - not the excellence of music.
Your relative "happyness" is simply the level of sufficiency the parasites afford you to keep you alive while harvesting your true potential.
I am not laying blame at the feet of any individual - it is the framework of exploitation itself that has teh flaw. It is the framework itself that channels our life choices into decisions of "be a parasite or be a host". It precludes all other choices - and there are many other choices, but the framework has caused them to atrophy. At this stage, we rarely see them, and if we do, we cannot understand them because our thinking only perceives the framework.
David Hamilton 50+
Mitch SMith 50+
But making the people take the blame is a favourite trick of the parasite. It's part of the creeping marginalization - everyone becomes a criminal and have freedom only by permission of the parasite.
AKA fascism. AKA democracy(in the last few years).
As you can see, nations are tearing-down the internet - the last thing they want is for the sheep to get their agency back. Or, OMG - they might notice that spam and advertising are the same thing - or that leaders are not actually leading, or that laws are unecessary or that the only thing money produces is a few rich people and a lot of slaves.
Opening the system will happen by design or by rupture. I'd rather it was done by design - that way it can be managed to not close it again. A rupture might wipe-out awareness of what caused it in the first place.
David Hamilton 50+
I always thought that parasites placed the blame on other people.
Mitch SMith 50+
Can you demonstrate how that has anything remotely to do with what I have said?
David Hamilton 50+
Mitch SMith 50+
Louis CK and others are doing OK as "independant artists".
That's fine - within the definition of the game, and it demonstrates my point. So let's analyse it:
What is the game?
The game is to take an open system and close part of it.
This is done by constraining access into and out of the part you have closed.
Put simply - "farming".
A farmer is a parasite on the species he farms - he encloses them and constrains their access to and from the open environment - then harvests them exclusively.
One very important closure that has been implemented is money - money closes all value exchange into the human community - this gives rise to a one-way flow from the environment to humans, but not the other way. The system we call "economy" is claimed to be an open system of "market forces", but it is not at all open. Within the boundaries of "economy", natural activities proceed, but the practice of farming, divorced from the open environment results in farming what is inside the "economy" --> humans.
We have become farmers of humans.
Being born and raised on the farm for 10,000+ years, it is difficult for us to imagine anything but the farm.
An open system will permit energy/value flows to cycle and renew with concentrations remaining below critical toxicity levels.
The closed system loses the capacity to dissipate concentrations - hence, you will see exponential spikes in critical parameters.
An example of this is the "jackpot" where certain individuals come to hold orders of magnitude more resources than their fellows.
Over 10,000 years, we have come to accept and admire this. But we have forgotten that such concentrations are toxic.
In the open system, the time and value is honoured to the extent of the value.
THe internet demonstrates starkly that a per-unit charge on a creative product that includes a margin of IP, exceeds the time and materials value of each unit - value that has not been earned.
David Hamilton 50+
I would prefer, that peception of value were more dramatically tied, to actual value. Meaning, I wish we cared more about farmers, and construction workers... and good entertainers... Rather than giving money to our children to spend on lohan and beiber... But, I do believe Kurosawa, and Louis CK, are of great value.
The entertainment they provide makes it possible for farmers to get throught he day some times, and I'm glad some of them succeed and make a good living. I am also a fan of America's initial copyright law however, 12 years renewable once... If we still had that lots of amazing entertainment would be in the public domain.
In general however, I am still for one fundament of capitalism, that will never get old... Merit based pay.
Mitch SMith 50+
We certainly have to contend with them in our daily dealings whether we like them or not.
The perception you speak of can only be tricked in those who's identity resides in the autobiographical self.
The monetary system utilises a very nice little dynamic to keep people trapped in their "stories" - it's called "entertainment" - it can be implemented by direct means using drug adiction or by perversion of the curiosity process - fascination, otherwise called glamour.
I was once in the business of glamour, and, yes - it works well so long as you gain the skill.
And yes, there are positive outcomes to such things as music. It can be used to ground people's identities back into their core selves, but usually it is used to separate them.
These days, I play music with friends - they are masters of their instruments and many have made their instruments with global reputations for it.
The traditions we follow are rooted in old culture - back in the days when farmers would play with friends by candle light.
They were not specialists - but mastery was theirs anyway.
No trumped-up rich pop star was required and the community would gather in person to play and dance and celebrate the joy of community.
What your money buys is slavery - and you are welcome to it.
There are better ways to live.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
it is always the same. some interest group convinces us that their interest is our interest. millers convince us that they need some extra cash or protection, because it is in our common interest that millers do well. this is of course nonsense. milling won't stop as long as we want flour. this is nothing but misdirection and predation. insidious and very harmful predation.
At Houston, Texas
Krisztián Pintér 200+
what i can say though, is that i never said laws do not affect innovation. i said we should not affect them. certainly if we allow millers to form a cartel, they will make more money. but it helps nobody but them. for me, the effect is more expensive flour.
i claimed that if you take into account not only the short term, and not only the effect for some group in focus, but the long term and the everyone, such actions turn out to be harmful and disruptive to the natural order people would develop themselves.
recommended reading is henry hazlitt's economics in one lesson.
At Houston, Texas
I would add that anything people develop is part of the "natural order people would develop themselves," even if it's shortsighted. Like I said below, I can't think of a way to outlaw limited knowledge, which is what leads to shortsighted policy. We just have to keep learning and sharing that knowledge.
David Hamilton 50+
This is why, for example, in the United States, it is an absolute fact, that ending oil subsidies, would be much more effective at growing the green energy economy, than any targeted subsidy for solar or wind power could be. People fighting for wind and solar subsidies, simply are unaware, or refuse to accept the reality that subsidies caused the problem in the green energy market... They won't fix it.
At Houston, Texas
Mitch SMith 50+
Good points - I like your insight..
As a fellow old-timer (pre-java) computer guy, consider a slightly more complex dynamic: that in the domain of "creativity", it is rarely the creative person who forms the cartel - it is the third party and middleman who does this.
If you add this dynamic to the model - what are your insights?
Krisztián Pintér 200+
in this imaginary world, implementors and combinators will be in good position. also people who can come up with many ideas. people won't try to hit the jackpot with one idea-bomb, and then retire. the focus would be on the application. it has far reaching consequences, good and bad. impossible to foresee exactly what would happen.
Mitch SMith 50+
But then, we are in an age where risk is seen as a demon. The result of which is not risk reduction, but risk displacement or deferal.
The consequences are upon us no matter what we do. If one argues that it's "natural selction" if all the risk happens to fall on you - and those who avoided it will be selected, you forget that the process of deferal/displacement will ultimately find its way to the top of the tree - from which no deferal or diplacement is possible - because there is only one individual left standing - who inherits the lot. Such is the nature of closed systems.
My insight is that systems need not be closed.
David Hamilton 50+
Patronage seems like a custom that became distasteful, for no meaningful reason. There's still a Tesla out there somewhere, we didn't stop evolving. There's just no one paying him to be a crazy guy in a rich mans basement with tools anymore.
Still, I would like to think there is a better way to support the creative process... but I'll have to get back to you on what exactly that is. Till then, those antiquated tools, really weren't as bad as we often made them sound to be.
At Houston, Texas
I'm not necessarily an advocate of TVP. Just offering the link for those who want to explore.
Mitch SMith 50+
It is a good start for examining extreme solutions - I see teh Venus project as an example of the utopian fallacy .. utopian definitions are flawed in that they presume that the dynamic is fully understood and that it will remain as understood at the point of achieving the utopian goal.
In my opinion, Utopian ideals are necessary, but only as a "provocation" around which criticism can reveal insight into the current state - if one attempts to achieve them 100%, it seems to always result in disaster.
I think it is valuable to move towards them until a better vision evolves.
So for this exercise, unlike the Venus project proposal, I'd like to keep the scope small and assume that money/currency are still a factor.
Let's keep the definition of value exchange broad enough to include any value transaction - including tokens such as currency.
At Houston, Texas
Find a solution such that all transactions ("exchanges") are fair, whereby neither seller nor buyer are driven to poverty over time.
The only solution I can think of is one where both parties consider each other's best interest and are focused on long-term economic stability, rather than on single transactions. The transactional model is based on subjective appraisal of value. Consequently, buyer and seller may differ on what is fair value, or deception may play a role in reaching an agreement.
Even when buyer and seller sincerely agree on fair value, the transactional model appears to remain unstable because their honest appraisal may be inaccurate. This inaccuracy may eventually lead to a deficit on the part of the seller or buyer.
Any other solution can be manipulated to the buyer's or seller's advantage. Hence, we come back to the need for mutual concern. Utopia?
Mitch SMith 50+
I don't think the system of value transaction has any direct relationship with creativity.
The reason is that we live in an open dynamic system called our "environment".
You can't even define it as "planet Earth" - becasue teh Sun is a big factor, you also can't define it as "the solar system", becasue teh galaxy is a big factor etc ..
Currencies assume a closed system - it is this assumption that makes them antithetical to life - which is an open system.
And when we look at transactions, we also have to look at value. Value is not just one thing. Apart from the subjective modifiers of value, there is a massive objective dynamic that currencies fail to accomodate: value domain:
1: Current value - pertains to anything that generates advantage to a living organism in the moment.
2: Past value - pertains to value that has expired - advantage was obtained for a past moment and is irrelevant to the present moment.
3: Future value - pertains to advantage that is not accessible to the organism in the present environment, but can be expected to deliver advantage in the future.
Consider an ear of wheat:
1, it provides current value by eating - an advantage sufficient to continue to the next moment and not starve.
2. after the ear of wheat has delivered it's advantage to us via digestion, it becomes poo that has no value to us - no further advantage - it's "value" has expired in the closed system, but in the open system it has not expired because the bacteria and plants gain current value from it.
3. If we put some of the wheat in our pocket - we have access to short-term future value. If we plant some of the wheat back in the ground we gain access to long-term value.
The problem with monetary transaction systems is that they are closed - they do not recognise expired value because the environment does not participate in the currency. Hence, most "wealth" consists of expired value - and furthermore, constrains teh value from passing back into the open system (cont
Mitch SMith 50+
Creativity has to do with future value. The closed system of currency cannot cope with the disparity of finite current value and indefinite future value - it gets called "investment" and gives rise to behaviours that focus on protection of investment to ensure that the environment does not benefit - this is called "efficiency".
SO the system is skewed into amassing tokens of "wealth" that represent expired value and contriving "investments" that generate more rapid expiry of value. In essence, wealth defined by money represents the poo that has been denied to the open system - bank accounts are litterally filled with poo.
Furthermore, we call our money "currency" it is actually not current at all. Money closes the system by reducing all value flow into binary exchange and seek a unitary balance regardless of value potential into the future, or expiry into the past.
The practice of patronage and busking re-open this system by allowing more than binary exchange - there is binary transaction only between the "creative" and the patron - there is no transaction between the "creative" and others who benefit. In this scenario, the value enters the open system unconstrained by binary limitation. The value than is free to enter the environment in a non-linear manner with non-linear future value potential - perhaps even exponential.
I would prefer that the discussion proceeds along these lines. Teh dynamics of money are only part of it - the objective is to deliver sufficient advantage for the "creative" individul to continue delivery of value into both current and future timeframes.
This might include methods to violate binary currency, but I'm not trying to change money in this thread.
At Houston, Texas
Mitch SMith 50+
Elsewhere I have proposed that intellect is the property of a species, not any individual or organisation. So, yes, I have challenged our notion of "property".
But I am not all that interested in these closed-system notions of money and property apart from methods of violating and subverting them to give creative activities access to open system dynamics. If we have to get dirty with examining these systems, let's do it without losing the objective - the best way to do that is to admit that property and money are no more than a set of "rules" (laws, if you like).
Laws and rules are entrirely arbitrary - and, with all such arbitrarily defined closed systems, they produce "games". In the realm of games, there are 3 participants: winners, losers and cheats. The imposition of IP and copyright laws pertain to ensuring that the creative process is skewed to the interests of winners and cheats.
Due to the fact that these laws are framed within the wider game of monetary/property competition, it ensures that any player not motivated by the goals of winning and cheating in the money game will become losers in the IP/creativity game.
What I am asking is to set a framework outside these closed definitions and identify cheats and violations that exploit the limitations of the games - for the benefit of the creative process. The largest frame beyond these games is the open environment itself.
So far, we have small-scale patronage - it works because it violates the closed-exchange rule of money/property. I have deliberately marginalised large-scale patronage because it is usually conducted as a strategic component within the money game.
It seems useless to attempt systemic disruption from the top-down, but bottom-up methods might work by avoiding vested interest. Busking is a great example - how can we refine it so that it alters people's acceptance of the game in the process?
At Houston, Texas
Rules allow human beings to organize and focus their efforts, thus achieving great synergy. However, those rules require ongoing improvement to address unforeseen deficiencies in their effectiveness.
When dealing with rules, it's now a question of who will agree to them. Further, any set of rules can be manipulated to an advantage ("winners, losers, cheats"). I can't think of a way to mechanically turn off "wrongdoing" or judgmental "errors" in humanity (such as by making permanent rules). I don't think that the problem to be solved is technical. It's a psychological or social challenge, in my opinion, that can be solved only by fostering mutual concern.
Mitch SMith 50+
In this instance, it is my regard for the creative process, and the people who engage in it, that prompts me to evolve teh rules into an advantage for them.
On the other hand, we have a group of people who are gaming our regard to inflict harness on that process, and those people, in order to generate more poo for their own bank accounts.
So, one begins by pointing out from experience that the IP laws do not enrich teh creative person - they enrich the "farmers" of creative people.
The practice of farming depends on closed systems - fences to keep the sheep in.
The ideal closed system is currency. Granted.
Unfortunately, the sheep have forgotten that they don't need a farmer.
But I am looking for intermediary steps that can accomplish the emancipation of teh creative process.. Something that can be instigated at the individual level and spread.
Consider - all sheep in the paddock end up in shrink-wrap at teh supermarket. WHeras, wolves only get a few of teh wild sheep.
Busking is the seed concept that represents teh old practice of patronage. You tube and kickstarter extend this somewhat.
I am not looking for a rule, I am looking for a self-sustaining thought-system. A meme that erodes fences.
SO rather than describing it - let's start designing it?
At Houston, Texas
My posts above on the problems of a transactional model should adequately address busking.
YouTube and Kickstarter have a business model where someone is making money from the creative works. They seem to be free, but they're not. Eventually, one pays by either purchasing the creative work (ex. music albums on Kickstarter) or by purchasing everyday needs at a grocery store (the grocery chain advertises on YouTube).
Mitch SMith 50+
I know that youtube and kickstarter have "harness" mechanisms, but the driving dynamic is not money.
IF we look at teh system from a distance, we can see that the ISPs and network infrastructure providors of the open system we call "internet" are "laying low".
THe cashflow enabling "free" expression of creativity is entering at the ISP and network farmers.
Who is asking "give us our share" to these guys?
The old ruleset is saying "user pays" but has not perceived where the real dynamic lies.
THus they are saying "close the system! Farm Farm Farm! - Enforce it all with threats of violence!"
And governments are not courageous enough to admit that their entire existence is now superceded by ISPs and network makers.
YOu really have to get some definition into your perception of "mutuality".
To assume that it is a global homogenous dynamic is to miss some very cogent features.
Instead of saying "mutuality" get a little closer and call it "empathy".
Then have a look at what empathy is - and get a feel for the limits of it.
THese limits reveal a structure to "mutuality".
Here is a model you can use:
Empathy consists of convergent pairs.
Look at Damasio's model of levels of "self".
Then look at how the autobiographical "self" is a mechanism of simulation within a world view.
See how these "selves" can be created not only for the organism's self, but for the others with which it transacts.
See that each transacion will be between pairs.
See that the individuals engaged in the transaction will each have a pair - on efor me, one for "other".
That these models begin as copies of "self".
That these models converge (iteratively) diagonally between "me-you" arross the transaction and vertically "me-you" within the self.
Until all 4 "self" models converge.
These models are neither you or me, they are simply code/decode systems for communication.
They have real connections with body regulation - thus, we have empathy.
At Houston, Texas
YouTube essentially "farms" the creators who contribute the videos. It makes money by allowing companies to advertise on its website. People like you and I pay for YouTube when we buy products or use the services of these companies. The ISPs do not provide their services for free either, at least not where I live.
A large number of YouTube videos are hobby projects done with spare time by people who have other sources of income. These types of videos are sort of like blogs that are not really intended for making a profit. In some other cases, videos are posted by companies or organizations that have other sources of income. However, just because something is offered for free does not necessarily mean that there is no monetary incentive somewhere. Often, it's pay now or pay later.
Value is another factor to consider when evaluating what is free. We can easily give away a large quantity of low-value items. Doing so does not prove that we can do the same with very high-value items, like a blockbuster movie, for example.
Mitch SMith 50+
So how about this extrapolation:
Empathy provides a basis for mutuality.
Empathy is the passive part - it is "feeling" based and provides the basis of knowing what someone else is feeling - now, or at the end of a causal chain.
Mutuality comes in with the more active function of discerning relative "advantage" between self and others.
OK - from this I can extend a little further:
All organisms require advantage to survive. For this, I define "advantage" as being the conditions that maintain energy supply and other needs for the organism to persist into the next moment. The organism is either passively at teh mercy of its environment to provide this advantage, or actively commits agency into the environment to contrive advantage. The more active the organism is, the more it can adapt to environmental changes.
e.g trees are somewhat passive, while humans are more active.
When we talk about adaptation, we invite the Darwinian selective dynamic into the model.
At this point, I observe that the Darwinian dynamic refers to "survival of teh fittest". I can extrapolate that to translate : "survival of sufficient advantage". When cast in teh realm of the individual as a closed system, the interpretation of both "fittest" and "advantage" infers supremacy of the individual. But when the selevtive is not for the individual but the genome, it has another translation: survival of the sufficient.
THere is a big big differencve between sufficiency and supremacy.
I note that, lately, the former translation seems to have supplanted Darwin's original intent and supremacy is being assumed as the global dogma.
This is not surprising since institutionalised competition between individuals will prevent them from finding mutuality - and teh power inherent in mutuality.
In other words: "divide and conquer" or "together we stand, divided we fall".
So I would extrapolate that we have been shifted culturally into a false paradigm.
At Houston, Texas
Mitch SMith 50+
It has to do with fields of agency.
A non-communicating species has only its own senses and perceptions to define the field in which it can act. A communicating species can augment its field of agency by gaining the benefit of another's field of senses/perceptions via communication. Field of agency goes a long way towards the adaptability of a species before genetic selection cuts-in.
However, that augmentation can only occur if there is some level of mutuality.
This level is pre-empted by laws. Unfortunately, when mutuality is invested in laws, it becomes divested form the individual. Instead of considering the potental mutuality between us, we only consider our "rights" - what is owed us by others. This subtracts the active part of the dynamic .. empathy and mutuality probably work without laws. Or perhaps laws have gone too far .. "is man made for the sabath - or the sabath for man?"
Either way, what I observe is that our culture consists of a few farmers and a great majority of sheep. The farmers close our systems such that all resource passes through them - they garner all advantage and only remit enough for the sheep to survive. Thus, all our mutual advantage is harvested to a level of sufficiency to fuel the supremacy of farmers.
The only thing a human owns is his agency. Personal creativity is only a small part of that - the greater part comes from community/mutuality.
The culture has been skewed to prevent the inherent synergy in community. So efforts to release the creative process from the human farmer must include showing the human sheep how much of their agency has been subverted.
At Houston, Texas
Mitch SMith 50+
To me liberty and freedom are the measure of how much of an individual's agency remains with the individual.
Our agency is harvested from us on the presumption that we will use our agency to harm and destroy. THis is teh genesis of all law.
But there's something wrong with that - if you accept a law, you are agreeing to not harm or destroy. If you agree to not harm or destroy, then you don't need the law in the first place.
Therefore laws are not made to deter the harmful and destructive - they are made to garner acceptance of the nurturing and creative.
Once acceptance is gained, laws are incrementally imposed to gradually marginalise the people - once marginalised, they can be stripped of their agency.
You might argue that the wealthy farmer uses our agency to bring value to teh world - but my experience is that they prefer to p**s it all up against a wall.
Scott Armstrong 50+
the model is ideal but it doesn't take long before someone comes along with an official note explaining why they must take their piece of the pie.
dismantling the overwrought bureaucracy that slows everything down and siphons money away from creators is the only way forward..
Mitch SMith 50+
In my "creative" career, I can confirm your observation. The creative process always seems to attract parasites. However, the parasites will be quick to point out that the relationship is "symbiotic".
Well .. OK - that can be demonstrated in some circumstances, but not all.
How do you propose we can identify the difference between a parasite and a symbiote of the creative process?
This would have to apply to the objective of promoting "creativity".
We might also have to examine the role of creative specialisation - just what is that role? At what point is specialisation optimal? can it be over-done?