Re: [ox-en] Re: Material peer production
- From: Michael Bauwens <michelsub2003 yahoo.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 20:32:47 -0800 (PST)
----- Original Message ----
From: Dmytri Kleiner <dk telekommunisten.net>
To: list-en oekonux.org
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 8:03:08 PM
Subject: Re: [ox-en] Re: Material peer production
As mentioned, so did HURD? Where is HURD?
I have no idea what HURD is, a piece of free software that no longer exists?; only one in seven companies survives three years (or something like that, the six that dissapear are not a proof that entrepreneurship don't work)
What we call Linux today is nothing like the Linux that prexisted
commercial interest, which was a linux
that was only of interest to students of computer science, exactly
Minix kernel it was written
to be an alternative to. If Minix had a better license or HURD more
volunteers, there may be no Linux.
There are two aspects here, and they are complementary
- the law of asymmetric competition, which says that any for-benefit institution that can draw on peer production will eventually be more competitive than its private alternatives working with exclusionary property forms (more broadly: the competitive advantage of using open, participatory, commons oriented approaches in production for any institution and/or corporation)
- that any peer production project which can draw on corporate or institutional support will be stronger than those that don't
This explains that once Linux and free software had demonstrated its superiority in certain aspects, then institutions and corporations would start to use it, thereby strengthening it even more; and those that cannot receive that kind of support, are much harder to maintain
Each co-operative owns it's own productive assets directly, in venture
communism the enterprises _do not_
own the productive assets directly, rather rent sharing allocates
so it's not a universal available commons as in peer production, it involves scarce goods that you rent out for a price
While there are similarities, you are missing the point if you do
that there are differences in peer production as I understand it, and
so please explain, but I think that despite the differences, as you show above, you are renting resources out, for a price
However different polities in the system benefit unequally depending on
their ownership of property.
but the point is: they do not own the commons, the productive capacity itself is no longer in their exclusive control, these are all aspects that emancipatory forces can use
This is false. You are narrowly looking at software, currently
assets, such as books, music and movies are produced
licenses, a great
many peer producers actual do not favour commercial use, especially by
Capitalist financed firms.
the reason is different, software functions as a real commons, but what you are talking about, the authors and musicians using creative commons, this is a different beast, it is not a real commons, but individuals modulating the degree of sharing of their individually owned work, this is the difference between the commons and the sharing economy.
As I understand most CC-authors indeed choose the non-commercial clause, and this is precisely why GPL advocates say it is not a real commons. And you want to strengthen that divide even more in your copyfarleft. I have nothing against it, as long as we know that this creates a whole different dynamic, away from non-reciprocal peer production, to a form of cooperative economy.
I explain that here:
The social web and its sharing economy should not be confused with the
commons economy, which has its own infrastructure. The commons economy
exists when the communities are geared towards the production of common
artefacts, which require coordination and engagement, and therefore
create stronger ties. Because of these stronger ties, we notice that
commons-oriented projects, unlike the sharing oriented platforms, have
their own infrastructures. Instead of a dual structure between user
community and proprietary platform, the commons economy has a triune
structure, combining the self-organized produser communities,
democratically governed for-benefit institutions which insure the
necessary infrastructures, and an ecology of businesses which create
marketable scarcities around the commons.
object to however are attempts to privately appropriate the
use/exploit without returning any benefits to sustain the commons.
This is also false, you are now narrowly looking at copyleft.
I was indeed looking at copyleft, because we were talking about commons-oriented peer production
May OSI approved free software licenses, BSD, MIT, etc, do not object
to private appropriation and insist that Copyleft is _less_free,
with this view,
but it does illustrate that your claims here are also not accurate.
not sure what you are trying to say here; I think it reinforces my point, the less you care about the use of open licenses, the more non-reciprocal the attitude and process is; but when I say private appropriation, I'm not saying private commercial usage, which is fine for most of the commons licences, what I'm saying is: they do not accept the 'ownerisation' of open material; I also believe that corporations that return benefits, such as IBM, gain a lot more goodwill from the communities that those that merely profit
However he draws upon peer newtorks for he this anaology and I
no other reason he would have chosen the word 'peer.'
He is talking about people, not machines, so clearly peer has a human sense.
He has no monopoly on the politcal economy of networks and thier
I reject his formulation.
that's your freedom, but it confuses the debate, as most people that I know, use peer production in the sense of commons-oriented peer production as first exemplified by free software
using this concept out of context to give a new name for cooperative
production, which you can't distinguish (see the above 3
therefore, that creates confusion.
The distinction between peer production and co-operative production
share productive assets, co-operatives collectively own them.
You mean as in creative commons license, you mere allow others to share; but this can only work with material assets and clearly identified granular contributions; so this is quite different from the commons-oriented approaches used in free software? please help me understand what this means: "independently sharing productive assets"
IMO the peer in peer production comes from networking terminology as
by P2P file sharing technology and I would be surprised if even Benkler
have you read his book? and essays on the topic? I have, and it is quite clear for me that he gets the dynamic of free software production; on the other hand, Lessig as far as the end of 2006, clearly did not understand peer to peer except as filesharing
This is backwards, "immaterial, non-reciprocal" *production* does *not*
exist in any economic sense.
it does, just look around, it is produced, it has an input, it has a process, it has an output; only singly free software is only about circulation
"immaterial, non-reciprocal" production does not exist, has
and can not exist,
anymore than the "perpetual motion machine" or any machine
the laws of thermodynamics.
you have to be precise about the meaning of immaterial non-reciprocal production
1. the dynamic clearly corresponds to what fiske calls communal shareholding, just compare the definition with the social practice
2. immaterial non-rival, anti-rival goods do exist, but of course they are embedded in a material economy, and their 'immateriality' is only relative, as in 'digital'
But in that sense, they empirically exist, no matter how much you try to deny it.
just think about your own action:
1. do you pay to get on this list
2. has anybody forced you to participate
3. did anyone promise you to give back specific benefits
4. do you own the collective production of this list?
5. is the production of this list being sold?
The answer should be five times no, because the very fact is that we are peer producing knowledge here, through freely engaging in collective debate, we all generally benefit from it; we give what we can, we take what we need
So let's quit discussing whether it exists or not. If you deny it, please pay to participate, say who forced you to contribute, admit that somebody promised you concrete benefits, or prove your individual property claim.
For (most) media assets, which are inventory, yes, not for
packages, which are capital.
The proposal is to allow access to free access immaterial inventory to
(co-opertive, peer, or solo) and require proprietary producers
for a non-free license,
as they want and expect in anycase.
I agree that immaterial capital should be free for all
However movies, books, music and many other media assets are
they are inventory.
sounds a legitimate distinction to me; but what about open designs for machinery?
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Contact: projekt oekonux.de