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 it>> >>> > Well, 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/>