Commercial activity, exchange and capitalism, was: Re: [matilda] gigspace collective related-proposal

[R&A]

Perhaps it's a question of trust: i personally support Helen and Nick 
proposal to go ahead with their bookings for gigs. (and Gavin's). No 
moratorium (on gigs) can be imposed without consensus, therefore...

Also ...don't forget the sound legal advice (see dougald's messages) 
that the only problem with pricing tickets is a tax one: asap as this 
disappears, there is no legal reason to stop organizing gigs for good 
causes, provided organisers take the liability.

R&A



gavin at cyber-rights.net wrote:

> It's really cool to see such positive engagement with the issue.
> 
> I like the free software stuff, but I think maybe with the 
> diversity of practices at matilda (gigs, artworks, speakers...) 
> finding ways to make them practical (ie-financially viable) whilst 
> still offering alternatives to capitalist social relations might 
> require more than a one-size fits all solution. Though Chris' 
> suggestions are well worth investigating to give us ideas, I don't 
> think we should try and find one systematic solution for all our 
> practices.
> 
> This means letting collectives find a diversity of solutions. I 
> feel basically there needs to be a bit more trust. Not everything 
> should need to be ratified at a Monday meeting. Like, we'd trust 
> the gig collective to put on an event in a DIY way, and not veto it 
> out of fear it might not be. If we went along to the gig, and there 
> was something we weren't sure about afterwards, it'd be good to 
> approach them (and perhaps not on the internet) with a positive 
> proposal and maybe develop new ways of doing things. This doesn't 
> mean we can't offer critique, but that it should be a bit more 
> constructive, and less interfering (from a distance and without 
> getting , than it has been.
> 
> This is basically what Helen said with respect to the Art05 event. 
> Let's just try and it and learn from it. Matilda is an experimental 
> space for finding alternative tactics to fight capital and ways of 
> living in, but against, it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 05:14:57 -0700 Chris <chris at aktivix.org> wrote:
> 
>>Hi
>>
>>On Tue 11-Oct-2005 at 11:28:11AM +0100, Helen and Nick
>>wrote:
>>
>>>All the same arguments apply to selling artwork made at
>>>matilda. But again why not trust people and lets see
>>>what happens rather than closing down this opportunity
>>>for artists before they start. I am not overly stressed
>>>by people getting a few quid in their pocket to pay
>>>bills, avoid work, have a good night out when there is
>>>so much more to be angry about. It's a grey area, but
>>>lets at least burn brightly in a hive or creative
>>>activity that may be imperfect before we burn out with
>>>nothing achieved but a management quagmire.
>>
>>I totally agree with Helen.
>>
>>But you might want to stop reading this email at this
>>point... ;-)
>>
>>I think everything should be free (free as in gratis and
>>free as in freedom) and available in abundance, however
>>capitalism isn't going to go away tomorrow... (which is a
>>shame).
>>
>>In principal I'm not opposed to things like, the Cafe
>>charging for cups of coffee, gigs that you pay to get
>>into, art work for sale, books for sale, a t-shirt
>>collective printing t-shirts and charging for them etc...
>>
>>These things are not really capitalism (where is the
>>capital?) but I do think they are commercial activity.
>>
>>I guess the following example won't make much sense to
>>many people but these are examples that I know best...
>>
>>With Free software is is OK to charge (as much as
>>possible) for it:
>>
>> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
>>
>>And in addition I don't really have a problem with large
>>amounts of Capital being invested in Free software (it
>>absorbs it with few problematic side effects) because it
>>doesn't effect the freedom of others.
>>
>>I don't like the Non-Commercial use clause that the
>>Creative Commons licenses have as an option:
>>
>> Noncommercial. You let others copy,
>> distribute, display, and perform your work — and
>> derivative works based upon it — but for noncommercial
>> purposes only
>>
>> Examples: Gus publishes his photograph on his website
>> with a Noncommercial license. Camille prints Gus'
>> photograph. Camille is not allowed to sell the print
>> photograph without Gus's permission.
>>
>> http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/
>>
>>Because, for example it could prevent all the above
>>mentioned activities that could happen at Matilda that
>>would involve commercial exchange.
>>
>>The SSF wiki we have been using has all content under the
>>Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 license:
>>
>> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/
>>
>>Applying terms like this to electronic things is
>>relatively easy, making actual physical stuff Free (free
>>as in freedom initally, free as in free beer also if
>>possible...) is a bit more complicated... but I think this
>>is essentially what is needed here...
>>
>>Chris
>>
>>PS More on this stuff here:
>>
>>  - Philosophy of the GNU Project
>>    http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html
>>     
>>  - Free Software & GPL Society
>>    http://subsol.c3.hu/subsol_2/contributors0/mertentext.html
>>  
>>  - Free Software and Market Relations
>>    http://www.oekonux.org/texts/marketrelations.html
>>     
>>-- 
>>Aktivix -- Free Software for a Free World
>>_______________________________________________
>>matilda mailing list
>>matilda at lists.aktivix.org
>>http://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/matilda
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get your free encrypted email at http://www.cyber-rights.net
> 
> _______________________________________________
> matilda mailing list
> matilda at lists.aktivix.org
> http://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/matilda
> 
>