The production of software and cultural works as a factor in class conflict exists within the broader context of the forces and relations of production.
A key distinction that is often overlooked in discussions of intellectual property is that property is not a monolithic category. Immaterial assets must be separated into producer's goods and consumer's goods. Capital demand is distinct from consumer demand "Capital" assets, goods that are employed in production, are different from Inventory, the stocks of consumables, products, that are the output of production. Failure to make this distinction propagates the myth that the success of Free software in creating immaterial producer's goods can be a template for the production of immaterial consumer's goods. Free software and free cultural works must be understood in light of this distinction "Copyleft," despite its success in creating capital stocks such as free software, cannot succeed in producing cultural stocks or provide for the subsistence of artists. For cultural works, copyleft must evolve into "Copy-far-left," which ties the rights to reproduce immaterial assets with the economic mode of production employed, granting free access only to those engaging in co-operative, commons-based production and not embrace counterproductive projects like "The Creative Commons" which represents a "Copy-just-right" approach that attempts to fit a more flexible approach to copyright into a property-based system of capitalist domination. Free culture can not flurish within a class stratified society, but requires a free society, one that produces primarily for social value, not exchange value.
There has been error in communication with booki server. Not sure right now where is the problem.
You should refresh this page.