Message 04231 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT04222 Message: 10/13 L2 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

Re: [ox-en] Re: Material peer production




On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 03:55:42 -0800 (PST), Michael Bauwens
<michelsub2003 yahoo.com> wrote:

I would remove "volunteers" here, as part of my point is that many
contributers,
particularly in many projects in wide commercial use are paid wages.

The essence of doubly-free software are not the paid wages, which may
support the project, but the free engagement and self-unfolding of the
process, so the volunteer part is important. Linux pre-existed the
subsequent commercial implication, after it was already successfull.

As mentioned, so did HURD? Where is HURD?

Linux preexisted, but was not widely used, even as late as 1996, when many
commercial
internet ventures where well underway, most computer users had not head of
linux. 

It's use was primarily driven by the web hosting, 'dot com,' and commerce
industry, and it's 
first 'killer app' was apache. It's development was driven by commercial
use.

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 like the
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.

this is the definition of cooperative production,

Co-operative production implies neither equal, and certainly not
independent, only non-alienated.

A Co-operative is a single organization, more like node than a network,
what I talk about is explicitly
a network. 

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 them to
the enterprises.

While there are similarities, you are missing the point if you do not see
that there are differences in peer production as I understand it, and
co-operative production.


yes, I disagree with your fundamental premise. Businesses may use and
exploit the process as a whole, and get surplus value from the workers
that
they pay. The system as a whole may be said to benefit/profit from the
commons.

However different polities in the system benefit unequally depending on
their ownership of property.


But the voluntary engagement is not exploitation, but free
engagement of producers.

We're going in circles as you again have drifted away from my argument that
"free
engagement of producers" still requires an explanation of how the mode of
production
provides for the reproduction costs of such inputs. 

That they do their work voluntarily and circulate the results freely is 
a matter of organization and circulation, not production in the economic 
sense, as I am trying to explain.


Furthermore, because it is an essentially
non-reciprocal system, these peer producers not only do not object to
commercial usage, but in fact usually favour it, because in the end this
commercial and institutional engagement strenghtens the commons.

This is false. You are narrowly looking at software, currently most "free"
media
assets, such as books, music and movies are produced under non-commercial
licenses, a great
many peer producers actual do not favour commercial use, especially by
Capitalist financed firms.

Many, if not most, prominent proponents of so-called "free culture," i.e.
Wu Ming, Corey Doctorow,
Jim Munroe, etc, promote and employ non-commercial licenses.


What they
object to however are attempts to privately appropriate the commons, or
to
use/exploit without returning any benefits to sustain the commons.

This is also false, you are now narrowly looking at copyleft.

May OSI approved free software licenses, BSD, MIT, etc, do not object
to private appropriation and insist that Copyleft is _less_free, I disagree
with this view,
but it does illustrate that your claims here are also not accurate.


"non-reciprocal" not logically related to the word "peer," which means
"independent equals" in both plain English and network topology.

commons-based peer production has been used first I believe by
Benkler,and
has taken on a rather precise meaning from that point onwards;

However he draws upon peer newtorks for he this anaology and I can think of
no other reason he would have chosen the word 'peer.'

He has no monopoly on the politcal economy of networks and thier
implications and
I reject his formulation.



you are
using this concept out of context to give a new name for cooperative
production, which you can't distinguish (see the above 3 processes) and
therefore, that creates confusion.

The distinction between peer production and co-operative production is peer
producers independently
share productive assets, co-operatives collectively own them.

As I pointed out, this is consistent with the use of the term in both plain
English and networking, from
where both Benkler and I get the term.

The peer in peer production refers to equal in potential to participate,

IMO the peer in peer production comes from networking terminology as
popularized
by P2P file sharing technology and I would be surprised if even Benkler
himself
denied this.

two points, empirically, it is benkler that is correct, since peer
production already exists in the context of freely circulating immaterial
goods

This is backwards, "immaterial, non-reciprocal" *production* does *not*
exist in any economic sense. Only free circulation exists, and it's
production, as I have attempted to explain depends on a material and
reciprocal
mode.

Empirically, it is production of independent equals working on and with a
common-stock that does exist.

"immaterial, non-reciprocal" production does not exist, has never existed,
and can not exist, 
anymore than the "perpetual motion machine" or any machine that violates
the laws of thermodynamics.


I understand it, you want to allow access only to other peer producers; 
the key question is: will these other peer producers have to pay for 
it or not, will you use open licenses, or closed licenses?

For (most) media assets, which are inventory, yes, not for (most) software
packages, which are capital.

It is exactly the _different_ economic relations of art and software that
my
essays about Copyfarleft explains. 

The proposal is to allow access to free access immaterial inventory to
direct-producers 
(co-opertive, peer, or solo) and require proprietary producers to negotiate
for a non-free license,
as they want and expect in anycase.

I agree that immaterial capital should be free for all users, regardless of
production modes. 
However movies, books, music and many other media assets are not capital,
they are inventory.


Cheers.


-- 
Dmytri Kleiner
editing text files since 1981

http://www.telekommunisten.net


_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de



Thread: oxenT04222 Message: 10/13 L2 [In index]
Message 04231 [Homepage] [Navigation]