Message 05199 | [Homepage] | [Navigation] | |
---|---|---|---|
Thread: oxenT05107 Message: 41/46 L15 | [In index] | ||
[First in Thread] | [Last in Thread] | [Date Next] | [Date Prev] |
[Next in Thread] | [Prev in Thread] | [Next Thread] | [Prev Thread] |
[Converted from multipart/alternative] [1 text/plain] Here's my definition: Peer to peer is the relational dynamic over a distributed network in which individuals can voluntarily contribute to a common good, under the following conditions: 1) 'open' and 'free' raw material must be available, or must be able to be created, for the cooperation to occur 2) the processes of collaboration are participatory because they are based on voluntary permissionless input . If participation is truly voluntary, then no coercion can occur and the process of cooperation is necessarilty participatory. 3) the result of the collaboration is put in a universally available commons. A commons which is universally available results in non-reciprocal generalized exchange: one can use the resource without contributing. On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 2:22 AM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Michel, When Stefan says that it would be great for one peer to supply all the world's energy needs, that statement goes against what I associate most with P2P, which is the distribution of power to the edge away from the center. That's my core definition of P2P, i.e. distribution of power to the edge, regardless of the peer-to-peer economic model. I believe there can be different P2P economic models other than communal share-holding. Having said that, I'd be happy to highlight the difference between the P2P Foundation's definition and the way I define it. If you would like to go over the P2P Energy Bank<http://p2pfoundation.net/P2P_Social_Currency_Model#P2P_Energy_Bank>, Making the Case for Energy as Currency<http://p2pfoundation.net/P2P_Social_Currency_Model#Making_the_Case_for_Energy_as_Currency>, P2P Energy Management<http://p2pfoundation.net/P2P_Social_Currency_Model#P2P_Energy_Management>and other relevant sections of P2P Social Currency Model then highlight the difference between my and P2P Foundation's definitions of P2P then I'd be happy to incorporate that in a section in the model to educate the readers on the different definitions of P2P. Thanks in advance, Marc On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 7:44 AM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 gmail.com>wrote:Hi Marc, you are of course correct to say that p2p means different things to different people and may be evolving, but at the p2pfoundation, I use a quite specific definition, that is shared by christian siefkes and I'm guessing Stefan Merten and crew, I trust you know that definition of p2p as communal shareholding relational templace involving 3 aspects (input, process, output) that are quite specifically defined, Michel On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 6:33 AM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi gmail.com> wrote:I think when an idea matures it moves beyond its initial definition in the mind of people P2P today means a lot of things, not any one set of ideas "In the spirit of P2P" and "P2P" become one and the same It's 2009. P2P was coined back in the pre-dot-com era. It's been over a decade now. The definition is subject to evolution/growth or decay, and you can't choose which because when it comes to language there is no central authority that decides the meaning of words. No single entity or person has control over the evolution of word meanings. I'm collecting thoughts for an article about the adaptive nature of language and how language can exists for tens of thousands of years or thousands of years without a central authority or a group in charge of its maintenance. Dictionaries follow language's evolution and act only as one of many feedback loops in the evolutionary process... I think language's ability to adapt has a shared biological basis... some process similar to genetic evolution and the immune system process of defending against intrusions... You're being the immune system and I'm trying to smuggle my definition of P2P as a nutrient rather than a pathogen :-) On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 1:10 PM, Stefan Merten <smerten oekonux.de> wrote:Hi Marc and all! Last week (13 days ago) marc fawzi wrote:Bandwidth as well as energy have a cost, even if in the case of energy it comes from the sun or the wind etc. The cost of production, while it approaches zero (energy/hour) over time will never be zero.I think you are making an important point here. That there are cases where producing new things is near zero. For example today this is the case for digital copies using the Internet. In fact today in industrialized countries Internet connections are often flat rated meaning that you can not put a definite cost label on a certain amount of copied data. In such cases I'd say that the means of production became part of the general infrastructure. Though right now I can not put the finger on it it changes somehow the character of these means of production. And for any productive process - like peer production - means of production are of central importance. Thus this is an important topic. In addition if you are paying the cost of some general infrastructure anyway it doesn't matter much how often and for what purpose you use it. Therefore it is easy to give your share of the infrastructure away for free. For a photovoltaic facility for instance you would also have some cost to maintain it. But when it is general infrastructure this is paid anyway. However, there is one limitation: If that share given away could be used in alienated ways then you probably don't give it away. For instance: If that bandwidth given away by you could be sold by someone else you would probably not give it away in the first place - at least not if this is a big phenomenon. To give an example: I think Free Software is given away because nobody is really able to sell Free Software on a large scale basis. If this would be different then we would probably not see Free Software.So then with abundant production that "near zero" figure will rise.Or in my words: When means of production become more and more part of the general infrastructure.This cost of energy production that each peer carries has to be offset so if I pump my excess energy into the grid then I'd like to get paid for itWell, all I can say is that peer production doesn't work this way. You just give excess copies of your software / Wikipedia article / scientific paper away. You even take the effort / cost of making these things available. Why should this be different for a photovoltaic energy facility? If you see the grid as a storage facility for excess energy then it would even be easier to just give away excess energy instead of holding it back. But may be my alienation argument from above applies here: Your energy can be used for alienated things. In particular others can make money from using energy from your place to produce goods they sell afterwards. But on the other hand: this also applies to Free Software. There are companies which make money by using Free Software and the Free Software doesn't mind this. On the other hand the `NC clause`_ of the CC licences is used much to often pointing at the fact that people in other realms see this differently. .. _NC clause: http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/ Hmm... Interesting questions arising: * Under which conditions do people give away their excess products? * How much is such a decision influenced by the possibility of alienated use of such a product? * What is considered alienated by people?The idea of money sitting idle (e.g. in a bank)Where did you get that idea from? The money brought to a bank does everything but sitting idle. In fact banks are doing very interesting things with money brought to them including giving it to capitalists to apply it in productive endeavors. It sits idle if you put it under your pillow.The nature of money in this model does not change. Only its behavior changes,Sorry but this is wrong. What you describe is exactly how capitalism works where money is applied as capital as I explained a few posts ago. The banks are only an agent to make use of money as capital easier by utilizing excess money at one point to be invested in labor at another point. Gr ü ße Stefan _________________________________ Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/ Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/ Contact: projekt oekonux.de-- The P2P Foundation researches, documents and promotes peer to peer alternatives. Wiki and Encyclopedia, at http://p2pfoundation.net; Blog, at http://blog.p2pfoundation.net; Newsletter, at http://integralvisioning.org/index.php?topic=p2p Basic essay at http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=499; interview at http://poynder.blogspot.com/2006/09/p2p-very-core-of-world-to-come.html BEST VIDEO ON P2P: http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=4549818267592301968&hl=en-AU KEEP UP TO DATE through our Delicious tags at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN, http://www.shiftn.com/
-- The P2P Foundation researches, documents and promotes peer to peer alternatives. Wiki and Encyclopedia, at http://p2pfoundation.net; Blog, at http://blog.p2pfoundation.net; Newsletter, at http://integralvisioning.org/index.php?topic=p2p Basic essay at http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=499; interview at http://poynder.blogspot.com/2006/09/p2p-very-core-of-world-to-come.html BEST VIDEO ON P2P: http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=4549818267592301968&hl=en-AU KEEP UP TO DATE through our Delicious tags at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN, http://www.shiftn.com/ [2 text/html] _________________________________ Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/ Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/ Contact: projekt oekonux.de
Thread: oxenT05107 Message: 41/46 L15 | [In index] | ||
---|---|---|---|
Message 05199 | [Homepage] | [Navigation] |