|
TomGlaisyerPaper1EbensArgument 24 - 21 Feb 2011 - Main.TomGlaisyer
|
|
<
< |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
| >
> |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="ArchivedMaterial" |
|---|
| | | Introduction | |
<
< | In this paper I examine Eben's argument that anarchism produces inherently superior functional goods when the marginal cost of production of each new unit equals zero. Specifically, I employ the arguments of David Stark and Gina Neff in their article "Permanently Beta" and Eli Noam's arguments in "The Economics of User Generated Content and Peer-to-Peer: The Commons as the Enabler of Commerce," and suggest that there are conditions at the micro level which provide additional insight into the set of conditions under which Eben's argument works band that anarchism might not be the right way to describe the mode of production. | >
> | In this paper I examine Eben's argument that anarchism produces inherently superior functional goods when the marginal cost of production of each new unit equals zero. Specifically, I employ the arguments of David Stark and Gina Neff in their article "Permanently Beta" and Eli Noam's arguments in "The Economics of User Generated Content and Peer-to-Peer: The Commons as the Enabler of Commerce," and suggest that there are conditions at the micro level which provide additional insight into the set of conditions under which Eben's argument works and that anarchism might not be the right way to describe the mode of production. | | | Efficacy and efficiency of anarchic production | |
<
< | Eben's argument rests on the efficacy and efficiency of the free software movement in a net enabled society. The evidence for such productivity has occurred following the adoption of the General Product License (GPL) and other variations of open source licenses across the movement. (Evidence is ever more plentiful - Samba, Mediawiki, Apache, Firefox - the list goes on.) Few are now willing to defend the "closed" proprietary model as advantageous (see Shawn Shell for an article) Microsoft does so yet even they have opened a open source lab which seemingly seeks to benefit from external contributions of resources though doesn't license them in a "free" manner. Moreover, it is generally accepted that the success of free and open source software proves that it is of a comparable quality and reliability as that of proprietary software. These functional advantages are underpinned by the fact that if the code doesn't quite work as needed the technologists have the ability to fix it themselves, and no less importantly, technology executives avoid the game playing inherent in selection and subsequent purchasing process for software licenses. Moreover free software users can be confident that they won't be left managing proprietary tools for which support is either suddenly no longer available or 30% more expensive as a result of an arbitrary commercial decision. Without question, the facts on the ground suggest that free software production works and works well. | >
> | Eben's argument rests on the efficacy and efficiency of the free software movement in a net enabled society. The evidence for such productivity has occurred following the adoption of the General Product License (GPL) and other variations of open source licenses across the movement. (Evidence is ever more plentiful - Samba, Mediawiki, Apache, Firefox - the list goes on.) Few are now willing to defend the "closed" proprietary model as advantageous (see Shawn Shell for an article) Microsoft does so yet even they have opened a open source lab which seemingly seeks to benefit from external contributions of resources though doesn't license them in a "free" manner. Moreover, it is generally accepted that the success of free and open source software proves that it is of a comparable quality and reliability as that of proprietary software. These functional advantages are underpinned by the fact that if the code doesn't quite work as needed the technologists have the ability to fix it themselves, and no less importantly, technology executives avoid the game playing inherent in selection and subsequent purchasing process for software licenses. Furthermore, free software users can be confident that they won't be left managing proprietary tools for which support is either suddenly no longer available or 30% more expensive as a result of an arbitrary commercial decision. Without question, the facts on the ground suggest that free software production works and works well. | | | Open source production under a "free software" model
Considering Eben's claims for anarchic production more closely, though, there is a need to recognize the criticality of the GPL to open source for several reasons. First, even Eben suggests the GPL is the greatest achievement of Richard Stallman (Moglen, Anarchism Triumphant). This claim is notable since the development of the GNU operating system and its subsequent marriage with the Linux project was no inconsequential success in itself. Second the GPL and its derivatives, are what differentiates free software from merely open source software and though a number of projects don't use the GPL license it is entirely reasonable to conclude that without this legal artifact the groundswell of participation in open source may not have occurred as it has.
That said, it is curious that a relatively modest legal document enforced through the norms and mechanisms of the state is thought critical to facilitating what Eben describes as anarchic production since you might define such production as "lacking order, regularity, or definiteness" if you draw upon the Merriam-Webster definition of the term anarchic. Moreover, since anarchy, as defined by The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics, is "the view that society can and should be organized without a coercive state," it suggests that despite its unconventionality calling this this mode of production "anarchic production" is not quite appropriate. The mode of production that works as a result of the GPL operates as a result of the existence of state-enforced mechanisms. At the micro level production occurs through loose organizational structures, which David Stark might call heterarchical, which contain some level of order and modularity. Additionally, it coexists with profit seeking firms seemingly fruitfully for both parties, which suggests to me that despite its success is far from independently anarchic. | |
<
< | Micro structures and second Order effects | >
> | Micro structures and second order effects | | | Undoubtedly the internet society, a state of societal operation that is underpinned by an electronic network, is a necessary condition for the viability of peer produced, zero marginal cost digital goods, yet the success of such a mode of production requires a richer definition. (For me the seeming anarchy in the mode of production inherent in the development of free code is perhaps more a result of a lack of understanding of the properties of such assemblages of people than anything else.) However, explaining that this mode of production can occur doesn't explain why it does occur. | |
<
< | Stark and Neff in their article "Permanently Beta" identify the properties of the digital as privileging a mode of production that is forever unfinished, yet also one that is populated by "a hodgepodge of formal and informal organization[s]" alongside "practicing communities." Noam in his article? specifically identifies a narrow context, at the beginning of an innovation cycle where he argues community production of content has a competitive advantage over other forms using strictly micro-economic arguments. What Noam doesn't accept is that the innovation life-cycle may, if one accepts Stark and Neff's arguments, never include a phase that privileges either the competitive marker, or even the oligopolistic or monopolistic firm. There may never come a point where enclosing what has been produced inside a private entity occurs. (Perhaps some products in the future will always be of the people, by the people, for the people?) | >
> | Stark and Neff in their article "Permanently Beta" identify the properties of the digital as privileging a mode of production that is forever unfinished, yet also one that is populated by "a hodgepodge of formal and informal organization[s]" alongside "practicing communities." Noam in his article specifically identifies a narrow context, at the beginning of an innovation cycle where he argues community production of content has a competitive advantage over other forms using strictly micro-economic arguments. What Noam doesn't accept is that the innovation life-cycle may, if one accepts Stark and Neff's arguments, never include a phase that privileges either the competitive marker, or even the oligopolistic or monopolistic firm. There may never come a point where enclosing what has been produced inside a private entity occurs. (Perhaps some products in the future will always be of the people, by the people, for the people?) | | | Explaining why open source production does occur and is currently so successful requires a recognition that artifacts such the GPL have been central to its success, that it arisen in a context in which it has aided (and been aided by) profit-seeking firms aiming to use its products in order to make a profit on other non-zero marginal cost goods. Identifying all these artifacts, and the particular properties of the network, including the actors within the networks which succeed, is a task only just begun. |
|
|
TomGlaisyerPaper1EbensArgument 23 - 23 Dec 2008 - Main.TomGlaisyer
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
Introduction
In this paper I examine Eben's argument that anarchism produces inherently superior functional goods when the marginal cost of production of each new unit equals zero. Specifically, I employ the arguments of David Stark and Gina Neff in their article "Permanently Beta" and Eli Noam's arguments in "The Economics of User Generated Content and Peer-to-Peer: The Commons as the Enabler of Commerce," and suggest that there are conditions at the micro level which provide additional insight into the set of conditions under which Eben's argument works band that anarchism might not be the right way to describe the mode of production. | | | The GPL (and its enforcability through the mechanisms of the state) does create different baseline conditions from pure anarchism; it forces parties to distribute source code if they distribute object code. But if copyleft was a necessary feature of an environment under which anarchistic modes of production create better functional goods, then how do you explain the considerable success of BSD-licensed FOSS projects?
-- AndreiVoinigescu - 22 Dec 2008 | |
>
> |
Andrei, Thanks for your comment. I would agree that the GPL is a hack on the prevailing use of copyright law. I will suggest though that without it coders could attempt to extract property rents via the coding equivalent of creating a trade secret by refusing to distribute source code. Hence my argument that the GPL (and its place within a stable legal system) is critical. Regarding your point on BSD I would rather argue its relative lack of success in comparison to the GPL as demonstrating the value of the GPL rather anything else. I wouldn't go as far as to say there wouldn't be production without the GPL just that pure anarchism would not have produced quite as much code.
-- TomGlaisyer - 23 Dec 2008 | | |
| META TOPICMOVED | by="TomGlaisyer" date="1229877925" from="LawNetSoc.TomGlaisyerPaper1MoglensArgument" to="LawNetSoc.TomGlaisyerPaper1EbensArgument" |
|---|
|
|
|
TomGlaisyerPaper1EbensArgument 22 - 22 Dec 2008 - Main.AndreiVoinigescu
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
Introduction
In this paper I examine Eben's argument that anarchism produces inherently superior functional goods when the marginal cost of production of each new unit equals zero. Specifically, I employ the arguments of David Stark and Gina Neff in their article "Permanently Beta" and Eli Noam's arguments in "The Economics of User Generated Content and Peer-to-Peer: The Commons as the Enabler of Commerce," and suggest that there are conditions at the micro level which provide additional insight into the set of conditions under which Eben's argument works band that anarchism might not be the right way to describe the mode of production. | | | A possible negative result of open-source software development:
http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/29/motorola-expected-to-cut-more-jobs-as-it-simplifies-around-andro/
-- MarcelEggler - 29 Oct 2008 | |
>
> |
While I won't dispute the importance of the GPL in the current free software environment, I would characterize free/open source software licenses as a hack that engineers the existing copyright regime into something more akin to what you would have under anarchistic conditions.
The GPL would not be as necessary without copyright and patent laws. In an environment where legal protection didn't exist in the first place, commercial software developers would've sought to extract value from something other than the code from the very beginning.
Widespread acceptance that software code could be copyrighted or patented didn't happen until the 70s/80s. Prior to that point, software development followed patterns that are quite similar to the development patterns now seen in the FOSS community. And commercial software developers like IBM subsidized their software development costs through other means -- selling the hardware and the support.
The GPL (and its enforcability through the mechanisms of the state) does create different baseline conditions from pure anarchism; it forces parties to distribute source code if they distribute object code. But if copyleft was a necessary feature of an environment under which anarchistic modes of production create better functional goods, then how do you explain the considerable success of BSD-licensed FOSS projects?
-- AndreiVoinigescu - 22 Dec 2008 | | |
| META TOPICMOVED | by="TomGlaisyer" date="1229877925" from="LawNetSoc.TomGlaisyerPaper1MoglensArgument" to="LawNetSoc.TomGlaisyerPaper1EbensArgument" |
|---|
|
|
|
TomGlaisyerPaper1EbensArgument 21 - 22 Dec 2008 - Main.TomGlaisyer
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
Introduction | |
<
< | In this paper I examine Eben's argument that anarchism produces inherently superior functional goods when the marginal cost of production of each new unit equals zero. Specifically, I employ the arguments of David Stark and Gina Neff in their article "Permanently Beta" and Eli Noam's arguments in "The Economics of User Generated Content and Peer-to-Peer: The Commons as the Enabler of Commerce," and suggest that there are conditions at the micro level which provide additional insight into the set of conditions under which Eben's argument works. | >
> | In this paper I examine Eben's argument that anarchism produces inherently superior functional goods when the marginal cost of production of each new unit equals zero. Specifically, I employ the arguments of David Stark and Gina Neff in their article "Permanently Beta" and Eli Noam's arguments in "The Economics of User Generated Content and Peer-to-Peer: The Commons as the Enabler of Commerce," and suggest that there are conditions at the micro level which provide additional insight into the set of conditions under which Eben's argument works band that anarchism might not be the right way to describe the mode of production. | | | Efficacy and efficiency of anarchic production
Eben's argument rests on the efficacy and efficiency of the free software movement in a net enabled society. The evidence for such productivity has occurred following the adoption of the General Product License (GPL) and other variations of open source licenses across the movement. (Evidence is ever more plentiful - Samba, Mediawiki, Apache, Firefox - the list goes on.) Few are now willing to defend the "closed" proprietary model as advantageous (see Shawn Shell for an article) Microsoft does so yet even they have opened a open source lab which seemingly seeks to benefit from external contributions of resources though doesn't license them in a "free" manner. Moreover, it is generally accepted that the success of free and open source software proves that it is of a comparable quality and reliability as that of proprietary software. These functional advantages are underpinned by the fact that if the code doesn't quite work as needed the technologists have the ability to fix it themselves, and no less importantly, technology executives avoid the game playing inherent in selection and subsequent purchasing process for software licenses. Moreover free software users can be confident that they won't be left managing proprietary tools for which support is either suddenly no longer available or 30% more expensive as a result of an arbitrary commercial decision. Without question, the facts on the ground suggest that free software production works and works well. |
|
|
TomGlaisyerPaper1EbensArgument 20 - 21 Dec 2008 - Main.TomGlaisyer
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
Introduction | |
<
< | | | | In this paper I examine Eben's argument that anarchism produces inherently superior functional goods when the marginal cost of production of each new unit equals zero. Specifically, I employ the arguments of David Stark and Gina Neff in their article "Permanently Beta" and Eli Noam's arguments in "The Economics of User Generated Content and Peer-to-Peer: The Commons as the Enabler of Commerce," and suggest that there are conditions at the micro level which provide additional insight into the set of conditions under which Eben's argument works.
Efficacy and efficiency of anarchic production | | | In this paper I examine Eben's argument that anarchism produces inherently superior functional goods when the marginal cost of production of each new unit equals zero. Specifically, I employ the arguments of David Stark and Gina Neff in their article "Permanently Beta" and Eli Noam's arguments in "The Economics of User Generated Content and Peer-to-Peer: The Commons as the Enabler of Commerce," and suggest that there are conditions at the micro level which provide additional insight into the set of conditions under which Eben's argument works.
Efficacy and efficiency of anarchic production | |
<
< | Eben's argument rests on the efficacy and efficiency of the free software movement in a net enabled society. The evidence for such productivity has occurred following the adoption of the General Product License (GPL) and other variations of open source licenses across the movement. (Evidence is ever more plentiful - Samba, Mediawiki, Apache, Firefox - the list goes on.) Few are now willing to defend the "closed" proprietary model (See Shawn Shell for an article that does so.) Microsoft does so yet even they have opened a open source lab which seemingly seeks to benefit from external contributions of resources though doesn't license them in a "free" manner. Moreover, it is generally accepted that the success of free and open source software proves that it is of a comparable quality and reliability as that of proprietary software. These functional advantages are underpinned by the fact that if the code doesn't quite work as needed the technologists have the ability to fix it themselves, and no less importantly, technology executives avoid the game playing inherent in selection and subsequent purchasing process for software licenses. Moreover free software users can be confident that they won't be left managing proprietary tools for which support is either suddenly no longer available or 30% more expensive as a result of an arbitrary commercial decision. Without question, the facts on the ground suggest that free software production works and works well. | >
> | Eben's argument rests on the efficacy and efficiency of the free software movement in a net enabled society. The evidence for such productivity has occurred following the adoption of the General Product License (GPL) and other variations of open source licenses across the movement. (Evidence is ever more plentiful - Samba, Mediawiki, Apache, Firefox - the list goes on.) Few are now willing to defend the "closed" proprietary model as advantageous (see Shawn Shell for an article) Microsoft does so yet even they have opened a open source lab which seemingly seeks to benefit from external contributions of resources though doesn't license them in a "free" manner. Moreover, it is generally accepted that the success of free and open source software proves that it is of a comparable quality and reliability as that of proprietary software. These functional advantages are underpinned by the fact that if the code doesn't quite work as needed the technologists have the ability to fix it themselves, and no less importantly, technology executives avoid the game playing inherent in selection and subsequent purchasing process for software licenses. Moreover free software users can be confident that they won't be left managing proprietary tools for which support is either suddenly no longer available or 30% more expensive as a result of an arbitrary commercial decision. Without question, the facts on the ground suggest that free software production works and works well. | | | Open source production under a "free software" model | |
<
< | | | | Considering Eben's claims for anarchic production more closely, though, there is a need to recognize the criticality of the GPL to open source for several reasons. First, even Eben suggests the GPL is the greatest achievement of Richard Stallman (Moglen, Anarchism Triumphant). This claim is notable since the development of the GNU operating system and its subsequent marriage with the Linux project was no inconsequential success in itself. Second the GPL and its derivatives, are what differentiates free software from merely open source software and though a number of projects don't use the GPL license it is entirely reasonable to conclude that without this legal artifact the groundswell of participation in open source may not have occurred as it has.
That said, it is curious that a relatively modest legal document enforced through the norms and mechanisms of the state is thought critical to facilitating what Eben describes as anarchic production since you might define such production as "lacking order, regularity, or definiteness" if you draw upon the Merriam-Webster definition of the term anarchic. Moreover, since anarchy, as defined by The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics, is "the view that society can and should be organized without a coercive state," it suggests that despite its unconventionality calling this this mode of production "anarchic production" is not quite appropriate. The mode of production that works as a result of the GPL operates as a result of the existence of state-enforced mechanisms. At the micro level production occurs through loose organizational structures, which David Stark might call heterarchical, which contain some level of order and modularity. Additionally, it coexists with profit seeking firms seemingly fruitfully for both parties, which suggests to me that despite its success is far from independently anarchic. | | | That said, it is curious that a relatively modest legal document enforced through the norms and mechanisms of the state is thought critical to facilitating what Eben describes as anarchic production since you might define such production as "lacking order, regularity, or definiteness" if you draw upon the Merriam-Webster definition of the term anarchic. Moreover, since anarchy, as defined by The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics, is "the view that society can and should be organized without a coercive state," it suggests that despite its unconventionality calling this this mode of production "anarchic production" is not quite appropriate. The mode of production that works as a result of the GPL operates as a result of the existence of state-enforced mechanisms. At the micro level production occurs through loose organizational structures, which David Stark might call heterarchical, which contain some level of order and modularity. Additionally, it coexists with profit seeking firms seemingly fruitfully for both parties, which suggests to me that despite its success is far from independently anarchic.
Micro structures and second Order effects | |
<
< | | | | Undoubtedly the internet society, a state of societal operation that is underpinned by an electronic network, is a necessary condition for the viability of peer produced, zero marginal cost digital goods, yet the success of such a mode of production requires a richer definition. (For me the seeming anarchy in the mode of production inherent in the development of free code is perhaps more a result of a lack of understanding of the properties of such assemblages of people than anything else.) However, explaining that this mode of production can occur doesn't explain why it does occur. | |
<
< | Stark and Neff in their article "Permanently Beta" identify the properties of the digital as privileging a mode of production that is forever unfinished, yet also one that is populated by "a hodgepodge of formal and informal organization[s]" alongside "practicing communities." Noam in his article specifically identifies a narrow context, at the beginning of an innovation cycle where community production of content has a competitive advantage over other forms and argues thus using strictly micro-economic arguments. What Noam doesn't accept is that the innovation life-cycle may, if one accepts Stark and Neff's arguments, never include a phase that privileges either the competitive marker, or even the oligopolistic or monopolistic firm. There may never come a point where enclosing what has been produced inside a private entity occurs. (Perhaps some products in the future will always be of the people, by the people, for the people?) | >
> | Stark and Neff in their article "Permanently Beta" identify the properties of the digital as privileging a mode of production that is forever unfinished, yet also one that is populated by "a hodgepodge of formal and informal organization[s]" alongside "practicing communities." Noam in his article? specifically identifies a narrow context, at the beginning of an innovation cycle where he argues community production of content has a competitive advantage over other forms using strictly micro-economic arguments. What Noam doesn't accept is that the innovation life-cycle may, if one accepts Stark and Neff's arguments, never include a phase that privileges either the competitive marker, or even the oligopolistic or monopolistic firm. There may never come a point where enclosing what has been produced inside a private entity occurs. (Perhaps some products in the future will always be of the people, by the people, for the people?) | | | | |
<
< | Explaining why open source production does occur, and is currently so successful requires a recognition that artifacts such the GPL have been central to its success, that it arisen in a context in which it has aided (and been aided by) profit seeking firms seeking to use its products in order to make a profit on other non zero marginal cost goods. Identifying all these artifacts, and the particular properties of the network, including the actors within the networks which succeed, is a task only just begun. | >
> | Explaining why open source production does occur and is currently so successful requires a recognition that artifacts such the GPL have been central to its success, that it arisen in a context in which it has aided (and been aided by) profit-seeking firms aiming to use its products in order to make a profit on other non-zero marginal cost goods. Identifying all these artifacts, and the particular properties of the network, including the actors within the networks which succeed, is a task only just begun. | | | Conclusion | |
<
< | | | | It is for these reasons that I argue the word anarchy is inappropriate in describing social production of digital goods and that there is more to the success of free software than an argument that it occurs merely because the net permits collaboration. "Free" software is succeeding not only because the internet society exists, or as Yochai Benkler might write, peer production, is possible, but also because of the existence of a set of licenses, an economic environment which aids it, and the uncertainty reduction benefits users acquire independent of the mode of production (but not the licensing regime) itself. These artifacts and second order uncertainty reducing effects are as important to its success as its efficacy and efficiency. More analysis is required.
-- TomGlaisyer - 25 Oct 2008 | | | -- TomGlaisyer - 25 Oct 2008 | |
<
< | If anyone has any comments on this please feel free to add a comment | >
> | If anyone has any thoughts on this please feel free to add a comment | | | A possible negative result of open-source software development:
http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/29/motorola-expected-to-cut-more-jobs-as-it-simplifies-around-andro/ |
|
|
TomGlaisyerPaper1EbensArgument 19 - 21 Dec 2008 - Main.TomGlaisyer
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
Introduction | |
<
< | In this paper I examine Eben's argument that anarchism produces inherently superior functional goods when the marginal cost of production of each new unit equals zero. Specifically, I employ the arguments of David Stark and Gina Neff in their article "Permanently Beta" and Eli Noam's arguments in "The Economics of User Generated Content and Peer-to-Peer: The Commons as the Enabler of Commerce," since both of these papers suggest that there are conditions at the micro level which provide additional insight into the set of conditions under which Eben's argument works. | >
> | In this paper I examine Eben's argument that anarchism produces inherently superior functional goods when the marginal cost of production of each new unit equals zero. Specifically, I employ the arguments of David Stark and Gina Neff in their article "Permanently Beta" and Eli Noam's arguments in "The Economics of User Generated Content and Peer-to-Peer: The Commons as the Enabler of Commerce," and suggest that there are conditions at the micro level which provide additional insight into the set of conditions under which Eben's argument works. | | | Efficacy and efficiency of anarchic production | |
<
< | Eben's argument rests on the efficacy and efficiency of the free software movement following the adoption of the General Product License (GPL). The evidence for productivity under the auspices of the GPL and other variations of open source licenses is ever more plentiful - Samba, Mediawiki, Apache, Firefox - the list goes on. Few are now willing to defend the "closed" proprietary model (See Shawn Shell for the only article I could find from a quick search of Google and Google Scholar). Microsoft does so yet even they have opened a open source lab which seemingly seeks to benefit from external contributions of resources though doesn't license them in a "free" manner. Moreover, it is generally accepted that the success of free and open source software proves that it is of a comparable quality and reliability as that of proprietary software. These functional advantages are underpinned by the fact that if the code doesn't quite work as needed the technologists have the ability to fix it themselves, and no less importantly, technology executives, avoid the game playing inherent in selection and subsequent purchasing process for software licenses. Moreover they can be confident that they won't be left managing proprietary tools for which support is either no longer available or suddenly 30% more expensive. Without question, the facts on the ground suggest that free software production works and works well. | >
> | Eben's argument rests on the efficacy and efficiency of the free software movement in a net enabled society. The evidence for such productivity has occurred following the adoption of the General Product License (GPL) and other variations of open source licenses across the movement. (Evidence is ever more plentiful - Samba, Mediawiki, Apache, Firefox - the list goes on.) Few are now willing to defend the "closed" proprietary model (See Shawn Shell for an article that does so.) Microsoft does so yet even they have opened a open source lab which seemingly seeks to benefit from external contributions of resources though doesn't license them in a "free" manner. Moreover, it is generally accepted that the success of free and open source software proves that it is of a comparable quality and reliability as that of proprietary software. These functional advantages are underpinned by the fact that if the code doesn't quite work as needed the technologists have the ability to fix it themselves, and no less importantly, technology executives avoid the game playing inherent in selection and subsequent purchasing process for software licenses. Moreover free software users can be confident that they won't be left managing proprietary tools for which support is either suddenly no longer available or 30% more expensive as a result of an arbitrary commercial decision. Without question, the facts on the ground suggest that free software production works and works well. | | | Open source production under a "free software" model | |
<
< | Considering Eben's claims for anarchic production more closely, though, there is a need to recognize the criticality of the GPL to open source for several reasons. First, even Eben suggests the GPL is the greatest achievement of Richard Stallman (Moglen, Anarchism Triumphant). This claim is notable since the development of the GNU operating system and its subsequent marriage with the Linux project was no inconsequential success in itself. Second, the GPL, and its derivatives, are what differentiates free software from merely open source software and though a number of projects don't use the GPL license it is entirely reasonable to conclude that without this legal artifact the groundswell of participation in open source may not have occurred as it has. | >
> | Considering Eben's claims for anarchic production more closely, though, there is a need to recognize the criticality of the GPL to open source for several reasons. First, even Eben suggests the GPL is the greatest achievement of Richard Stallman (Moglen, Anarchism Triumphant). This claim is notable since the development of the GNU operating system and its subsequent marriage with the Linux project was no inconsequential success in itself. Second the GPL and its derivatives, are what differentiates free software from merely open source software and though a number of projects don't use the GPL license it is entirely reasonable to conclude that without this legal artifact the groundswell of participation in open source may not have occurred as it has. | | | | |
<
< | That said, it is curious that a relatively modest legal document enforced through the norms and mechanisms of the state is thought critical to facilitating what Eben describes as anarchic production since you might define such production as "lacking order, regularity, or definiteness" if you draw upon the Merriam-Webster definition of the term anarchic. Moreover, since anarchy, as defined by The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics is "the view that society can and should be organized without a coercive state," it suggests that despite its unconventionality calling this this mode of production "anarchic production" is not quite appropriate. The mode of production that works as a result of the GPL operates as a result of the existence of state enforced mechanisms. At the micro level production occurs through loose organizational structures, which David Stark might call heterarchical, which contain some level of order and modularity. Additionally, it coexists with profit seeking firms seemingly fruitfully for both parties, which suggests to me that despite its success is far from independently anarchic. | >
> | That said, it is curious that a relatively modest legal document enforced through the norms and mechanisms of the state is thought critical to facilitating what Eben describes as anarchic production since you might define such production as "lacking order, regularity, or definiteness" if you draw upon the Merriam-Webster definition of the term anarchic. Moreover, since anarchy, as defined by The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics, is "the view that society can and should be organized without a coercive state," it suggests that despite its unconventionality calling this this mode of production "anarchic production" is not quite appropriate. The mode of production that works as a result of the GPL operates as a result of the existence of state-enforced mechanisms. At the micro level production occurs through loose organizational structures, which David Stark might call heterarchical, which contain some level of order and modularity. Additionally, it coexists with profit seeking firms seemingly fruitfully for both parties, which suggests to me that despite its success is far from independently anarchic. | | | Micro structures and second Order effects | |
<
< | Undoubtedly the internet society, a state of societal operation that is underpinned by an electronic network, is a necessary condition for the viability of peer produced, zero marginal cost, digital goods, yet the success of such a mode of production requires a richer definition. (For me the seeming anarchy in the mode of production inherent in the development of free code is perhaps more a result of a lack of understanding of the properties of such assemblages of people than anything else.) However, explaining that this mode of production can occur doesn't explain why it does occur. | >
> | Undoubtedly the internet society, a state of societal operation that is underpinned by an electronic network, is a necessary condition for the viability of peer produced, zero marginal cost digital goods, yet the success of such a mode of production requires a richer definition. (For me the seeming anarchy in the mode of production inherent in the development of free code is perhaps more a result of a lack of understanding of the properties of such assemblages of people than anything else.) However, explaining that this mode of production can occur doesn't explain why it does occur. | | | Stark and Neff in their article "Permanently Beta" identify the properties of the digital as privileging a mode of production that is forever unfinished, yet also one that is populated by "a hodgepodge of formal and informal organization[s]" alongside "practicing communities." Noam in his article specifically identifies a narrow context, at the beginning of an innovation cycle where community production of content has a competitive advantage over other forms and argues thus using strictly micro-economic arguments. What Noam doesn't accept is that the innovation life-cycle may, if one accepts Stark and Neff's arguments, never include a phase that privileges either the competitive marker, or even the oligopolistic or monopolistic firm. There may never come a point where enclosing what has been produced inside a private entity occurs. (Perhaps some products in the future will always be of the people, by the people, for the people?) |
|
|
TomGlaisyerPaper1EbensArgument 18 - 21 Dec 2008 - Main.TomGlaisyer
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
Introduction | |
<
< | In this paper I examine Eben's argument that anarchism produces inherently superior functional goods when the marginal cost of production of each new unit equals zero. Specifically, I employ the arguments of David Stark and Gina Neff in their article "Permanently Beta" and Eli Noam's arguments in "The Economics of User Generated Content and Peer-to-Peer: The Commons as the Enabler of Commerce," since both of these suggest that there are conditions at the micro level which provide additional insight into the set of conditions under which his argument works. | >
> | In this paper I examine Eben's argument that anarchism produces inherently superior functional goods when the marginal cost of production of each new unit equals zero. Specifically, I employ the arguments of David Stark and Gina Neff in their article "Permanently Beta" and Eli Noam's arguments in "The Economics of User Generated Content and Peer-to-Peer: The Commons as the Enabler of Commerce," since both of these papers suggest that there are conditions at the micro level which provide additional insight into the set of conditions under which Eben's argument works. | | | | |
<
< | Efficacy and Efficiency of Anarchic production | >
> | Efficacy and efficiency of anarchic production | | | | |
<
< | Eben's argument rests on the efficacy and efficiency of the free software movement following the adoption of theGeneral Product License (GPL). The evidence for productivity under the auspices of the GPL and other types of open source licenses is ever more plentiful - Samba, Mediawiki, Apache, Firefox - the list goes on. Few are now willing to defend the "closed" proprietary model (See Shawn Shell for the only article I could find from a quick search of Google and Google Scholar). Microsoft does so yet even they have opened a open source lab which seemingly seeks to benefit from external contributions of resources though doesn't license them in a "free" manner. Moreover, it is generally accepted that the success of free and open source software proves that it is of a comparable quality and reliability as that of proprietary software. These advantages are underpinned by the fact that if the code doesn't quite work as needed the technologists have the ability to fix it themselves, and no less importantly, technology executives, avoid the game playing inherent in selection processes for software licenses, and can be confident that they won't be left managing proprietary tools for which support is either no longer available or suddenly 30% more expensive. Without question, the facts on the ground suggest that free software production works and works well. | >
> | Eben's argument rests on the efficacy and efficiency of the free software movement following the adoption of the General Product License (GPL). The evidence for productivity under the auspices of the GPL and other variations of open source licenses is ever more plentiful - Samba, Mediawiki, Apache, Firefox - the list goes on. Few are now willing to defend the "closed" proprietary model (See Shawn Shell for the only article I could find from a quick search of Google and Google Scholar). Microsoft does so yet even they have opened a open source lab which seemingly seeks to benefit from external contributions of resources though doesn't license them in a "free" manner. Moreover, it is generally accepted that the success of free and open source software proves that it is of a comparable quality and reliability as that of proprietary software. These functional advantages are underpinned by the fact that if the code doesn't quite work as needed the technologists have the ability to fix it themselves, and no less importantly, technology executives, avoid the game playing inherent in selection and subsequent purchasing process for software licenses. Moreover they can be confident that they won't be left managing proprietary tools for which support is either no longer available or suddenly 30% more expensive. Without question, the facts on the ground suggest that free software production works and works well. | | | | |
<
< | Open Source Production under a "free software" model | >
> | Open source production under a "free software" model | | | | |
<
< | Considering Eben's claims for anarchic production more closely, though, there is a need to recognize the importance of the GPL for several reasons: | >
> | Considering Eben's claims for anarchic production more closely, though, there is a need to recognize the criticality of the GPL to open source for several reasons. First, even Eben suggests the GPL is the greatest achievement of Richard Stallman (Moglen, Anarchism Triumphant). This claim is notable since the development of the GNU operating system and its subsequent marriage with the Linux project was no inconsequential success in itself. Second, the GPL, and its derivatives, are what differentiates free software from merely open source software and though a number of projects don't use the GPL license it is entirely reasonable to conclude that without this legal artifact the groundswell of participation in open source may not have occurred as it has. | | | | |
<
< | (a) Eben suggests the GPL is the greatest achievement of Richard Stallman (Moglen, Anarchism Triumphant). This claim is notable since the development of the GNU operating system and its subsequent marriage with the Linux project was no inconsequential success in itself. | >
> | That said, it is curious that a relatively modest legal document enforced through the norms and mechanisms of the state is thought critical to facilitating what Eben describes as anarchic production since you might define such production as "lacking order, regularity, or definiteness" if you draw upon the Merriam-Webster definition of the term anarchic. Moreover, since anarchy, as defined by The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics is "the view that society can and should be organized without a coercive state," it suggests that despite its unconventionality calling this this mode of production "anarchic production" is not quite appropriate. The mode of production that works as a result of the GPL operates as a result of the existence of state enforced mechanisms. At the micro level production occurs through loose organizational structures, which David Stark might call heterarchical, which contain some level of order and modularity. Additionally, it coexists with profit seeking firms seemingly fruitfully for both parties, which suggests to me that despite its success is far from independently anarchic. | | | | |
<
< | (b) The GPL, and its derivatives, are what differentiates free software from merely open source software and though a number of projects don't use the GPL license it is entirely reasonable to conclude that without this legal artifact the groundswell of participation may not have occurred as it has.
That said, it is curious that a relatively modest legal document enforced through the norms and mechanisms of the state is thought critical to facilitating anarchic production since you might define such production as "lacking order, regularity, or definiteness" if you draw upon the Merriam-Webster definition of the term anarchic. Moreover, since anarchy, as defined by The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics is "the view that society can and should be organized without a coercive state," it suggests that despite its unconventionality calling this this mode of production "anarchic production" is not quite appropriate. The mode of production that works as a result of the GPL operates as a result of the existence of state enforced mechanisms. At the micro level production occurs through loose organizational structures, which David Stark might call heterarchical, which contain some level of order and definiteness. Additionally, it coexists with profit seeking firms, seemingly fruitfully for both parties, suggesting that despite its success is far from independently anarchic.
Micro structures and Second Order Effects | >
> | Micro structures and second Order effects | | | Undoubtedly the internet society, a state of societal operation that is underpinned by an electronic network, is a necessary condition for the viability of peer produced, zero marginal cost, digital goods, yet the success of such a mode of production requires a richer definition. (For me the seeming anarchy in the mode of production inherent in the development of free code is perhaps more a result of a lack of understanding of the properties of such assemblages of people than anything else.) However, explaining that this mode of production can occur doesn't explain why it does occur. | |
<
< | Stark and Neff in their article "Permanently Beta" identify the properties of the digital as privileging a mode of production that is forever unfinished, yet also one that is populated by "a hodgepodge of formal and informal organization[s]" alongside "practicing communities." Noam in his article specifically identifies a narrow context, at the beginning of an innovation cycle where community production of content has its advantages and argues thus using strictly micro-economic arguments. What Noam doesn't accept is that his lifecycle may, if one accepts Stark and Neff's arguments, never include a phase that privileges either the oligopolistic or monopolistic firm. There may never come a point where enclosing what has been produced inside a private entity occurs. (Perhaps some products in the future will always be of the people, by the people, for the people?)
Explaining why it does occur, and is currently so successful requires a recognition that artifacts such the GPL have been central to its success, that it arisen in a context in which it has aided (and been aided by) profit seeking firms seeking to use its products in order to make a profit on other non zero marginal cost goods. Identifying all these artifacts, and the particular properties of the network, including the actors within the networks which succeed, is a task only just begun. | >
> | Stark and Neff in their article "Permanently Beta" identify the properties of the digital as privileging a mode of production that is forever unfinished, yet also one that is populated by "a hodgepodge of formal and informal organization[s]" alongside "practicing communities." Noam in his article specifically identifies a narrow context, at the beginning of an innovation cycle where community production of content has a competitive advantage over other forms and argues thus using strictly micro-economic arguments. What Noam doesn't accept is that the innovation life-cycle may, if one accepts Stark and Neff's arguments, never include a phase that privileges either the competitive marker, or even the oligopolistic or monopolistic firm. There may never come a point where enclosing what has been produced inside a private entity occurs. (Perhaps some products in the future will always be of the people, by the people, for the people?) | | | | |
<
< | "Free" software is succeeding not only because the internet society exists, or as Yochai Benkler might write, peer production, is possible, but also because of the existence of a set of licenses, an economic environment which aids it, and the uncertainty reduction benefits users acquire independent of the mode of production (but not the licensing regime) itself. These artifacts and second order uncertainty reducing effects are as important to its success as its efficacy and efficiency. | >
> | Explaining why open source production does occur, and is currently so successful requires a recognition that artifacts such the GPL have been central to its success, that it arisen in a context in which it has aided (and been aided by) profit seeking firms seeking to use its products in order to make a profit on other non zero marginal cost goods. Identifying all these artifacts, and the particular properties of the network, including the actors within the networks which succeed, is a task only just begun. | | | Conclusion | |
<
< | It is for these reasons that I argue the word anarchy is inappropriate and that there is more to the success of free software than an argument that the net permits collaboration. | >
> | It is for these reasons that I argue the word anarchy is inappropriate in describing social production of digital goods and that there is more to the success of free software than an argument that it occurs merely because the net permits collaboration. "Free" software is succeeding not only because the internet society exists, or as Yochai Benkler might write, peer production, is possible, but also because of the existence of a set of licenses, an economic environment which aids it, and the uncertainty reduction benefits users acquire independent of the mode of production (but not the licensing regime) itself. These artifacts and second order uncertainty reducing effects are as important to its success as its efficacy and efficiency. More analysis is required. | | | -- TomGlaisyer - 25 Oct 2008 | | | -- MarcelEggler - 29 Oct 2008
| |
<
< |
| META TOPICMOVED | by="EbenMoglen" date="1222613623" from="LawNetSoc.Paper1MoglensArgument" to="LawNetSoc.TomGlaisyerPaper1MoglensArgument" |
|---|
| >
> |
| META TOPICMOVED | by="TomGlaisyer" date="1229877925" from="LawNetSoc.TomGlaisyerPaper1MoglensArgument" to="LawNetSoc.TomGlaisyerPaper1EbensArgument" |
|---|
|
|
|
TomGlaisyerPaper1EbensArgument 17 - 12 Dec 2008 - Main.TomGlaisyer
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
Introduction | | | (b) The GPL, and its derivatives, are what differentiates free software from merely open source software and though a number of projects don't use the GPL license it is entirely reasonable to conclude that without this legal artifact the groundswell of participation may not have occurred as it has. | |
<
< | That said, it is curious that a relatively modest legal document enforced through the norms and mechanisms of the state is thought critical to facilitating anarchic production since you might define such production as "lacking order, regularity, or definiteness" if you draw upon the Merriam-Webster definition of the term anarchic. Moreover, since anarchy, as defined by The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics is "the view that society can and should be organized without a coercive state," it suggests that despite its unconventionality calling this this mode of production "anarchic production" is not quite appropriate. The mode of production that works as a result of the GPL which operates as a result of the existence of state enforced mechanisms. At the micro level production occurs through loose organizational structures, which David Stark might call heterarchical, which contain some level of order and definiteness. Additionally, it coexists with profit seeking firms, seemingly fruitfully for both parties, suggesting that despite its success is far from independently anarchic. | >
> | That said, it is curious that a relatively modest legal document enforced through the norms and mechanisms of the state is thought critical to facilitating anarchic production since you might define such production as "lacking order, regularity, or definiteness" if you draw upon the Merriam-Webster definition of the term anarchic. Moreover, since anarchy, as defined by The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics is "the view that society can and should be organized without a coercive state," it suggests that despite its unconventionality calling this this mode of production "anarchic production" is not quite appropriate. The mode of production that works as a result of the GPL operates as a result of the existence of state enforced mechanisms. At the micro level production occurs through loose organizational structures, which David Stark might call heterarchical, which contain some level of order and definiteness. Additionally, it coexists with profit seeking firms, seemingly fruitfully for both parties, suggesting that despite its success is far from independently anarchic. | | | Micro structures and Second Order Effects |
|
|
TomGlaisyerPaper1EbensArgument 16 - 10 Dec 2008 - Main.TomGlaisyer
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
Introduction | | | Efficacy and Efficiency of Anarchic production | |
<
< | Eben's argument rests on the efficacy and efficiency of the free software movement following the adoption of theGeneral Product License (GPL). The evidence for productivity under the auspices of the GPL and other types of open source licenses is ever more plentiful - Samba, Mediawiki, Apache, Firefox - the list goes on. Few are now willing to defend the "closed" proprietary model (See Shawn Shell for the only article I could find from a quick search of Google and Google Scholar). Microsoft does so yet even they have opened a open source lab which seemingly seeks to benefit from external contributions of resources though doesn't license them in a "free" manner. Moreover, it is generally accepted that the success of free and open source software proves that it is of a comparable quality and reliability as that of proprietary software. These advantages are underpinned by the fact that if the code doesn't quite work as needed the technologists have the ability to fix it themselves, and no less importantly, technology executives can be confident that they won't be left managing proprietary tools for which support is either no longer available or suddenly 30% more expensive. Without question, the facts on the ground suggest that free software production works and works well. | >
> | Eben's argument rests on the efficacy and efficiency of the free software movement following the adoption of theGeneral Product License (GPL). The evidence for productivity under the auspices of the GPL and other types of open source licenses is ever more plentiful - Samba, Mediawiki, Apache, Firefox - the list goes on. Few are now willing to defend the "closed" proprietary model (See Shawn Shell for the only article I could find from a quick search of Google and Google Scholar). Microsoft does so yet even they have opened a open source lab which seemingly seeks to benefit from external contributions of resources though doesn't license them in a "free" manner. Moreover, it is generally accepted that the success of free and open source software proves that it is of a comparable quality and reliability as that of proprietary software. These advantages are underpinned by the fact that if the code doesn't quite work as needed the technologists have the ability to fix it themselves, and no less importantly, technology executives, avoid the game playing inherent in selection processes for software licenses, and can be confident that they won't be left managing proprietary tools for which support is either no longer available or suddenly 30% more expensive. Without question, the facts on the ground suggest that free software production works and works well. | | | Open Source Production under a "free software" model |
|
|
TomGlaisyerPaper1EbensArgument 14 - 26 Oct 2008 - Main.TomGlaisyer
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
Introduction | |
<
< | In this paper I examine Eben's argument that anarchism produces inherently superior functional goods when the marginal cost of production of each new unit equals zero. Specifically, I employ the arguments of David Stark and Gina Neff in their article "Permanently Beta" and Eli Noam's arguments in "The Economics of User Generated Content and Peer-to-Peer: The Commons as the Enabler of Commerce," since both of these suggest that there are conditions at the micro or firm level which provide additional insight into the set of conditions under which his argument works. | >
> | In this paper I examine Eben's argument that anarchism produces inherently superior functional goods when the marginal cost of production of each new unit equals zero. Specifically, I employ the arguments of David Stark and Gina Neff in their article "Permanently Beta" and Eli Noam's arguments in "The Economics of User Generated Content and Peer-to-Peer: The Commons as the Enabler of Commerce," since both of these suggest that there are conditions at the micro level which provide additional insight into the set of conditions under which his argument works. | | | Efficacy and Efficiency of Anarchic production | |
<
< | Eben's argument rests on the efficacy and efficiency of the free software movement following the adoption of the General Product Licence (GPL). The evidence for productivity under the auspices of the GPL and other types of open source licenses is ever more plentiful - Samba, Mediawiki, Apache, Firefox - the list goes on. Few are now willing to defend the proprietary model. Microsoft does so yet even they have opened a open source lab which seemingly seeks to benefit from external contributions of resources though doesn't license them in a "free" manner. Moreover, it is generally accepted that free and open source software is of a higher quality and reliability than proprietary software.(cite) These advantages are underpinned by the fact that if the code doesn't quite work as needed technologist have the ability to fix it themselves, and no less importantly, technology executives can be confident that they won't be left managing proprietary tools for which support is either no longer available or suddenly 30% more expensive. Without question, the facts on the ground suggest that free software production works and works well. | >
> | Eben's argument rests on the efficacy and efficiency of the free software movement following the adoption of theGeneral Product License (GPL). The evidence for productivity under the auspices of the GPL and other types of open source licenses is ever more plentiful - Samba, Mediawiki, Apache, Firefox - the list goes on. Few are now willing to defend the "closed" proprietary model (See Shawn Shell for the only article I could find from a quick search of Google and Google Scholar). Microsoft does so yet even they have opened a open source lab which seemingly seeks to benefit from external contributions of resources though doesn't license them in a "free" manner. Moreover, it is generally accepted that the success of free and open source software proves that it is of a comparable quality and reliability as that of proprietary software. These advantages are underpinned by the fact that if the code doesn't quite work as needed the technologists have the ability to fix it themselves, and no less importantly, technology executives can be confident that they won't be left managing proprietary tools for which support is either no longer available or suddenly 30% more expensive. Without question, the facts on the ground suggest that free software production works and works well. | | | | |
<
< | Open Source Production under a "free software" model - The General Product License (GPL) | >
> | Open Source Production under a "free software" model | | | Considering Eben's claims for anarchic production more closely, though, there is a need to recognize the importance of the GPL for several reasons: | | | That said, it is curious that a relatively modest legal document enforced through the norms and mechanisms of the state is thought critical to facilitating anarchic production since you might define such production as "lacking order, regularity, or definiteness" if you draw upon the Merriam-Webster definition of the term anarchic. Moreover, since anarchy, as defined by The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics is "the view that society can and should be organized without a coercive state," it suggests that despite its unconventionality calling this this mode of production "anarchic production" is not quite appropriate. The mode of production that works as a result of the GPL which operates as a result of the existence of state enforced mechanisms. At the micro level production occurs through loose organizational structures, which David Stark might call heterarchical, which contain some level of order and definiteness. Additionally, it coexists with profit seeking firms, seemingly fruitfully for both parties, suggesting that despite its success is far from independently anarchic. | |
<
< | | | | Micro structures and Second Order Effects | |
<
< | Undoubtedly the internet society, a state of societal operation that is underpinned by an electronic network, is a necessary condition for the viability of peer produced, zero marginal cost, digital goods, yet the success of such a mode of production requires a richer definition. (For me the seeming anarchy in the mode of production inherent in the development of free code is perhaps more a result of a lack of understanding of the properties of such assemblages of people than anything else.) | >
> | Undoubtedly the internet society, a state of societal operation that is underpinned by an electronic network, is a necessary condition for the viability of peer produced, zero marginal cost, digital goods, yet the success of such a mode of production requires a richer definition. (For me the seeming anarchy in the mode of production inherent in the development of free code is perhaps more a result of a lack of understanding of the properties of such assemblages of people than anything else.) However, explaining that this mode of production can occur doesn't explain why it does occur. | | | | |
<
< | Stark and Neff in their article "Permanently Beta" identify the properties of the digital as privileging a mode of production that is forever unfinished, yet also one that is populated by modular structures. (check) Noam in his article specifically identifies a narrow context, at the beginning of a product lifecycle where community production has its advantages and argues thus using strictly micro-economic arguments. What Noam doesn't accept is that his lifecycle may, if one accepts Stark and Neff's arguments, never include the phase that privileges the firm. There may never come a point where enclosing what has been produced inside a private entity occurs. Some products will always be of the people, by the people, for the people. (check) | >
> | Stark and Neff in their article "Permanently Beta" identify the properties of the digital as privileging a mode of production that is forever unfinished, yet also one that is populated by "a hodgepodge of formal and informal organization[s]" alongside "practicing communities." Noam in his article specifically identifies a narrow context, at the beginning of an innovation cycle where community production of content has its advantages and argues thus using strictly micro-economic arguments. What Noam doesn't accept is that his lifecycle may, if one accepts Stark and Neff's arguments, never include a phase that privileges either the oligopolistic or monopolistic firm. There may never come a point where enclosing what has been produced inside a private entity occurs. (Perhaps some products in the future will always be of the people, by the people, for the people?) | | | | |
<
< | However, explaining that this mode of production can occur doesn't explain why it does occur. Explaining why it does occur, and is so successful requires a recognition that artifacts such the GPL have been central to its success, that it arisen in a context in which it has aided (and be aided by) profit seeking firms seeking to use its products in order to make a profit on other non zero marginal cost goods. Identifying all these artifacts, and the particular properties of the network, the actors within the networks which succeed is a task only just begun. | >
> | Explaining why it does occur, and is currently so successful requires a recognition that artifacts such the GPL have been central to its success, that it arisen in a context in which it has aided (and been aided by) profit seeking firms seeking to use its products in order to make a profit on other non zero marginal cost goods. Identifying all these artifacts, and the particular properties of the network, including the actors within the networks which succeed, is a task only just begun. | | | | |
<
< | "Free" software is succeeding not only because the internet society, or as Yochai Benkler might write, peer production is possible, but also because of the existence of a set of licenses, an economic environment which aids it, and uncertainty reduction benefits users acquire independent of the mode of production itself. These artifacts and second order uncertainty reducing effects are as important to its success as its efficacy and efficiency. | >
> | "Free" software is succeeding not only because the internet society exists, or as Yochai Benkler might write, peer production, is possible, but also because of the existence of a set of licenses, an economic environment which aids it, and the uncertainty reduction benefits users acquire independent of the mode of production (but not the licensing regime) itself. These artifacts and second order uncertainty reducing effects are as important to its success as its efficacy and efficiency. | | | Conclusion | | | -- TomGlaisyer - 25 Oct 2008 | |
<
< | If anyone has any comments on this please feel do add a comment | >
> | If anyone has any comments on this please feel free to add a comment | | | |
|
|
TomGlaisyerPaper1EbensArgument 13 - 25 Oct 2008 - Main.TomGlaisyer
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
Introduction | |
<
< | In this paper I examine Eben's argument - Anarchism produces inherently superior functional goods when the marginal cost of production equals zero. I engage with Eben's arguments from a skeptical position into to interrogate whether his definition of an "internet society" privileges the anarchic production methods quite as much as he suggests. | >
> | In this paper I examine Eben's argument that anarchism produces inherently superior functional goods when the marginal cost of production of each new unit equals zero. Specifically, I employ the arguments of David Stark and Gina Neff in their article "Permanently Beta" and Eli Noam's arguments in "The Economics of User Generated Content and Peer-to-Peer: The Commons as the Enabler of Commerce," since both of these suggest that there are conditions at the micro or firm level which provide additional insight into the set of conditions under which his argument works. | | | | |
<
< | Specifically, I employ the arguments of Stark and Neff in "Permanently Beta," Noam's arguments in "The Economics of User Generated Content and Peer-to-Peer: The Commons as the Enabler of Commerce," since both of these suggest that there are conditions at the micro or firm level which provide additional insight into the set of conditions under which his argument works. | >
> | Efficacy and Efficiency of Anarchic production | | | | |
<
< | Efficacy and Producctivity of Anarchic production | >
> | Eben's argument rests on the efficacy and efficiency of the free software movement following the adoption of the General Product Licence (GPL). The evidence for productivity under the auspices of the GPL and other types of open source licenses is ever more plentiful - Samba, Mediawiki, Apache, Firefox - the list goes on. Few are now willing to defend the proprietary model. Microsoft does so yet even they have opened a open source lab which seemingly seeks to benefit from external contributions of resources though doesn't license them in a "free" manner. Moreover, it is generally accepted that free and open source software is of a higher quality and reliability than proprietary software.(cite) These advantages are underpinned by the fact that if the code doesn't quite work as needed technologist have the ability to fix it themselves, and no less importantly, technology executives can be confident that they won't be left managing proprietary tools for which support is either no longer available or suddenly 30% more expensive. Without question, the facts on the ground suggest that free software production works and works well. | | | | |
<
< | I will focus on the aspect of Eben's argument which rests on the productivity and efficacy of the free software movement following the adoption of the General Product Licence (GPL). The evidence for productivity under the auspices of the GPL and other types of open source licenses is ever more plentiful - Samba, MediaWiki? , Apache, FireFox? - the list goes on. Few are now willing to defend the proprietary model, Microsoft does so yet even they have opened a open source lab. Moreover, it is generally accepted that free and open source software is of a higher quality and reliability than proprietary software. These advantages underpinned by the fact that if the code doesn't quite work as needed the technologist has the ability to fix it themselves, and no less importantly, the technology executive can be confident that they won't be left managing proprietary tools for which support is either no longer available or suddenly 30% more expensive. | >
> | Open Source Production under a "free software" model - The General Product License (GPL) | | | | |
<
< | Free software is succeeding not only because the internet society, or as Yochai Benkler might write, peer production is posssible, but also because of the existence of a set of uncertainty reduction benefits users acquire independent of the production itself. | >
> | Considering Eben's claims for anarchic production more closely, though, there is a need to recognize the importance of the GPL for several reasons: | | | | |
<
< | The General Product License (GPL) | >
> | (a) Eben suggests the GPL is the greatest achievement of Richard Stallman (Moglen, Anarchism Triumphant). This claim is notable since the development of the GNU operating system and its subsequent marriage with the Linux project was no inconsequential success in itself. | | | | |
<
< | Considering Eben's claims more closely though there is a need to recognize the importance of the GPL for several reasons | >
> | (b) The GPL, and its derivatives, are what differentiates free software from merely open source software and though a number of projects don't use the GPL license it is entirely reasonable to conclude that without this legal artifact the groundswell of participation may not have occurred as it has. | | | | |
<
< | (a) Eben suggests it is the greatest achievement of Richard Stallman (Moglen, Anarchism Triumphant). This claim is notable since the development of the GNU toolset and its subsequent marriage with the Linux project was no inconsequential success in itself. | >
> | That said, it is curious that a relatively modest legal document enforced through the norms and mechanisms of the state is thought critical to facilitating anarchic production since you might define such production as "lacking order, regularity, or definiteness" if you draw upon the Merriam-Webster definition of the term anarchic. Moreover, since anarchy, as defined by The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics is "the view that society can and should be organized without a coercive state," it suggests that despite its unconventionality calling this this mode of production "anarchic production" is not quite appropriate. The mode of production that works as a result of the GPL which operates as a result of the existence of state enforced mechanisms. At the micro level production occurs through loose organizational structures, which David Stark might call heterarchical, which contain some level of order and definiteness. Additionally, it coexists with profit seeking firms, seemingly fruitfully for both parties, suggesting that despite its success is far from independently anarchic. | | | | |
<
< | (b) The GPL, and its derivatives, are what differentiates free software from merely open source software and though a number of projects don't use the GPL license it is entirely reasonable to conclude that without this legal artifact the groundswell of participantion may not have occurred as it has. | | | | |
<
< | That said, it is curious that a relatively modest legal document enforced through the norms and mechanisms of the state is thought critical to facilitating anarchic production since one might define such production as "lacking order, regularity, or definiteness" if you draw upon the Merriam-Webster definition. Moreover, since anarchy, as defined by The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics is "the view that society can and should be organized without a coercive state," it suggests that despite its properties this mode of production calling it "anarchic production" is quite right. The mode of production works as a result of the GPL which works as a result of the existence of state enforced mechanisms and at the micro level production occurs through loose organizational structures, which David Stark might call heterarchical, which contain some level of order and definiteness. Additionally, it coexists with profit seeking firms, seemingly fruitfully for both parties, suggesting that despite its success it is far from anarchistic. | >
> | Micro structures and Second Order Effects | | | | |
<
< | - Add Benkler and peer production | >
> | Undoubtedly the internet society, a state of societal operation that is underpinned by an electronic network, is a necessary condition for the viability of peer produced, zero marginal cost, digital goods, yet the success of such a mode of production requires a richer definition. (For me the seeming anarchy in the mode of production inherent in the development of free code is perhaps more a result of a lack of understanding of the properties of such assemblages of people than anything else.) | | | | |
<
< | Proprietary production | >
> | Stark and Neff in their article "Permanently Beta" identify the properties of the digital as privileging a mode of production that is forever unfinished, yet also one that is populated by modular structures. (check) Noam in his article specifically identifies a narrow context, at the beginning of a product lifecycle where community production has its advantages and argues thus using strictly micro-economic arguments. What Noam doesn't accept is that his lifecycle may, if one accepts Stark and Neff's arguments, never include the phase that privileges the firm. There may never come a point where enclosing what has been produced inside a private entity occurs. Some products will always be of the people, by the people, for the people. (check) | | | | |
<
< | - Elaborate the alternative private ownership of intellectual property | >
> | However, explaining that this mode of production can occur doesn't explain why it does occur. Explaining why it does occur, and is so successful requires a recognition that artifacts such the GPL have been central to its success, that it arisen in a context in which it has aided (and be aided by) profit seeking firms seeking to use its products in order to make a profit on other non zero marginal cost goods. Identifying all these artifacts, and the particular properties of the network, the actors within the networks which succeed is a task only just begun. | | | | |
<
< |
Differences between the two modes of production
- Mention certain case studies.
Ownership - Has value and also costs (day to day and over the lifecycle -> they have to be passed.
Risk - Is it lower? Lower for whom (the producer or the user - the two are conflated in teh open source context),
Is the GPL inherently more supportive of entrepreneurial approaches?
One can make the argument that it works better if certain assumptions are in place.
- Deishen Lee article
Contexts in which these modes work best
- Review Noam's arguments over time -> conclusion - It only works in certain contexts
- Permanently beta -> those situations are becoming more and more frequent. Both in software itself, in production of assoicated zero marginal cost goods such as new and politics)
- Eben | >
> | "Free" software is succeeding not only because the internet society, or as Yochai Benkler might write, peer production is possible, but also because of the existence of a set of licenses, an economic environment which aids it, and uncertainty reduction benefits users acquire independent of the mode of production itself. These artifacts and second order uncertainty reducing effects are as important to its success as its efficacy and efficiency. | | | Conclusion | |
<
< | Tendency for the anarchic mode to work more than in the past
- the consequences of zero marginal cost networks are that it is now significantly more effective than in the past
- in some situations it is more efficacious
- the lack of profitability in the production of goods but rather in the entrepreneurship of exploiting re-combinations (the "permanently beta" argument)
but
- necessary, but not sufficient conditions have been elaborated
or
- open source software will eliminate firm-market based production for "internet" goods permanently.
-- TomGlaisyer - 18 Sep 2008
Notes from Eben | >
> | It is for these reasons that I argue the word anarchy is inappropriate and that there is more to the success of free software than an argument that the net permits collaboration. | | | | |
<
< | * I don't think you're going to succeed in starting an argument between Yochai and me, Tom. That's more likely to result in something like the Marshall McLuhan scene from Annie Hall. So far as Eli Noam is concerned, you will find it more interesting to look at Eli's bloviations over time, as he continues to try not to agree with me, but keeps edging closer to my positions under the pressure of the facts. You have, I understand, decided to impersonate the positions of outraged economic orthodoxy, which I welcome, but you will find the job is very much more difficult than you think. If I were you, I would listen for a couple more weeks before deciding what to write. Closing your mind at this stage is not even calculated to lead to the best closed-minded writing, let alone the best intellectual experience for you overall. | | | | |
>
> | -- TomGlaisyer - 25 Oct 2008 | | | If anyone has any comments on this please feel do add a comment |
|
|
TomGlaisyerPaper1EbensArgument 12 - 25 Oct 2008 - Main.TomGlaisyer
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
Introduction | |
<
< | In this paper I examine Eben's argument - Anarchism produces inherently superior goods when the marginal cost of production equals zero, in the case of functional goods; or in the case of non-functional goods (e.g aesthetic goods such as music) an anarchistic distribution system is superior to distribution organized by firms. I engage with Eben's arguments from a skeptical position and interrogate whether his definition of an "internet society" privileges the anarchic production methods quite as much as he suggests. | >
> | In this paper I examine Eben's argument - Anarchism produces inherently superior functional goods when the marginal cost of production equals zero. I engage with Eben's arguments from a skeptical position into to interrogate whether his definition of an "internet society" privileges the anarchic production methods quite as much as he suggests. | | | | |
<
< | Specifically, I employ the arguments of Stark and Neff in "Permanently Beta," Noam's arguments in "The Economics of User Generated Content and Peer-to-Peer: The Commons as the Enabler of Commerce," since both of these suggest that their are conditions at the micro or firm level which provide additional insight into the set of conditions under which his argument works. | >
> | Specifically, I employ the arguments of Stark and Neff in "Permanently Beta," Noam's arguments in "The Economics of User Generated Content and Peer-to-Peer: The Commons as the Enabler of Commerce," since both of these suggest that there are conditions at the micro or firm level which provide additional insight into the set of conditions under which his argument works. | | | | |
<
< | Anarchic production | >
> | Efficacy and Producctivity of Anarchic production | | | | |
<
< | As I am most interested in functional goods I will focus on the aspect of Eben's argument which rests on the productivity(?) of the free software movement following the adoption of the General Product Licence (GPL). The evidence that production under the auspices of the GPL and other types of open source licenses generates successful free and open source projects is ever more plentiful - Samba, MediaWiki? , Apache, FireFox? - the list goes on. Few are willing to defend the proprietary model, Microsoft does yet even they have opened a open source lab (http://www.microsoft.com/opensource/) Moreover, it is generally accepted that free and open source software is better than proprietary software on a number of dimensions - feature set, usability, reliability. All of this underpinned by the fact that if it doesn't quite work the technologist has the ability to fix it themselves, and no less importantly, the technology executive can be confident that they won't be left managing proprietary tools for which support is either no longer available or become suddenly 30% more expensive. | >
> | I will focus on the aspect of Eben's argument which rests on the productivity and efficacy of the free software movement following the adoption of the General Product Licence (GPL). The evidence for productivity under the auspices of the GPL and other types of open source licenses is ever more plentiful - Samba, MediaWiki? , Apache, FireFox? - the list goes on. Few are now willing to defend the proprietary model, Microsoft does so yet even they have opened a open source lab. Moreover, it is generally accepted that free and open source software is of a higher quality and reliability than proprietary software. These advantages underpinned by the fact that if the code doesn't quite work as needed the technologist has the ability to fix it themselves, and no less importantly, the technology executive can be confident that they won't be left managing proprietary tools for which support is either no longer available or suddenly 30% more expensive. | | | | |
<
< | Considering Eben's claims more closely though there is a need to focus on the GPL for several reasons | >
> | Free software is succeeding not only because the internet society, or as Yochai Benkler might write, peer production is posssible, but also because of the existence of a set of uncertainty reduction benefits users acquire independent of the production itself. | | | | |
<
< | (a) Eben suggests it is the greatest achievement of Richard Stallman (Moglen, Anarchism Triumphant). This claim is notable since the development of the GNU toolset and its subsequent marriage with the Linux project was no small or inconsequential success in itself. | >
> | The General Product License (GPL) | | | | |
<
< | (b) The GPL, and its derivatives, are what differentiates free software from merely open source software and though a number of projects don't use the license it is entirely reasonable that without this legal vehicle participants may not have participated in the projects in the way that they have. | >
> | Considering Eben's claims more closely though there is a need to recognize the importance of the GPL for several reasons | | | | |
<
< | That said, it is curious that a relatively modest legal artifact enforced through mechanisms of the state is said to be critical to facilitating anarchic production since anarchy, as defined by The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics, is "the view that society can and should be organized without a coercive state." for me this suggests that despite the attractiveness of this mode of production to users, and its success at a technical level it isn't clear to me that the term anarchic production is an adequate description and that it needs to be considered at a more micro level. It is occurring within loose organizational structures, which Stark might call heterarchical, and moreover it has thrived in conjunction with the firm though its success is because copyright privileges were assigned according to the GPL. | >
> | (a) Eben suggests it is the greatest achievement of Richard Stallman (Moglen, Anarchism Triumphant). This claim is notable since the development of the GNU toolset and its subsequent marriage with the Linux project was no inconsequential success in itself.
(b) The GPL, and its derivatives, are what differentiates free software from merely open source software and though a number of projects don't use the GPL license it is entirely reasonable to conclude that without this legal artifact the groundswell of participantion may not have occurred as it has.
That said, it is curious that a relatively modest legal document enforced through the norms and mechanisms of the state is thought critical to facilitating anarchic production since one might define such production as "lacking order, regularity, or definiteness" if you draw upon the Merriam-Webster definition. Moreover, since anarchy, as defined by The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics is "the view that society can and should be organized without a coercive state," it suggests that despite its properties this mode of production calling it "anarchic production" is quite right. The mode of production works as a result of the GPL which works as a result of the existence of state enforced mechanisms and at the micro level production occurs through loose organizational structures, which David Stark might call heterarchical, which contain some level of order and definiteness. Additionally, it coexists with profit seeking firms, seemingly fruitfully for both parties, suggesting that despite its success it is far from anarchistic. | | | - Add Benkler and peer production |
|
|
TomGlaisyerPaper1EbensArgument 11 - 16 Oct 2008 - Main.TomGlaisyer
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
Introduction | | | (b) The GPL, and its derivatives, are what differentiates free software from merely open source software and though a number of projects don't use the license it is entirely reasonable that without this legal vehicle participants may not have participated in the projects in the way that they have. | |
<
< | That said, it is curious that a relatively modest legal artifact enforced through mechanisms of the state is said to be critical to facilitating anarchic production since anarchy, as defined by The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics, is "the view that society can and should be organized without a coercive state." for me this suggests that despite the attractiveness of this mode of production to users, and its success at a technical level it isn't clear to me that the term anarchic production is an adequate description and that it needs to be considered at a more micro level. It is occurring within loose organizational structures, that Stark might call heterarchical, and moreover it has thrived in conjunction with the firm though its success is because copyright privileges were assigned according to the GPL. | >
> | That said, it is curious that a relatively modest legal artifact enforced through mechanisms of the state is said to be critical to facilitating anarchic production since anarchy, as defined by The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics, is "the view that society can and should be organized without a coercive state." for me this suggests that despite the attractiveness of this mode of production to users, and its success at a technical level it isn't clear to me that the term anarchic production is an adequate description and that it needs to be considered at a more micro level. It is occurring within loose organizational structures, which Stark might call heterarchical, and moreover it has thrived in conjunction with the firm though its success is because copyright privileges were assigned according to the GPL. | | | - Add Benkler and peer production | | | - Mention certain case studies. | |
<
< | Contexts in which these modes work best | >
> | Ownership - Has value and also costs (day to day and over the lifecycle -> they have to be passed.
Risk - Is it lower? Lower for whom (the producer or the user - the two are conflated in teh open source context),
Is the GPL inherently more supportive of entrepreneurial approaches? | | | | |
<
< | - Review Noam's arguments over time | >
> | One can make the argument that it works better if certain assumptions are in place. | | | - Deishen Lee article | |
>
> | Contexts in which these modes work best
- Review Noam's arguments over time -> conclusion - It only works in certain contexts
- Permanently beta -> those situations are becoming more and more frequent. Both in software itself, in production of assoicated zero marginal cost goods such as new and politics) | | | - Eben | |
<
< | Tendency for the anarchic mode to work more than in the past | >
> | Conclusion
Tendency for the anarchic mode to work more than in the past | | | - the consequences of zero marginal cost networks are that it is now significantly more effective than in the past | | | - the lack of profitability in the production of goods but rather in the entrepreneurship of exploiting re-combinations (the "permanently beta" argument) | |
<
< |
Conclusion | >
> | but | | | - necessary, but not sufficient conditions have been elaborated |
|
|
TomGlaisyerPaper1EbensArgument 10 - 15 Oct 2008 - Main.TomGlaisyer
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
Introduction | | | Anarchic production | |
<
< | As I am most interested in functional goods I will focus on this aspect of Eben's argument which rests on the productivity of the free software movement following the adoption of the General Product Licence (GPL) - a creation that he argues is the greatest achievement of Richard Stallman. (Moglen, Anarchism Triumphant) Eben's claim that it is Richard Stallman's greatest achievement seems curious since the development of the GNU toolset and its subsequent marriage with the Linux project was no small or inconsequential undertaking yet it is entirely reasonable that without this legal vehicle the latter project may not have succeeded. However, suggesting that a relatively modest legal artifact enforced by elements of the state is critical to facilitating anarchic production since anarchy,as defined by The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics, is "the view that society can and should be organized without a coercive state." | >
> | As I am most interested in functional goods I will focus on the aspect of Eben's argument which rests on the productivity(?) of the free software movement following the adoption of the General Product Licence (GPL). The evidence that production under the auspices of the GPL and other types of open source licenses generates successful free and open source projects is ever more plentiful - Samba, MediaWiki? , Apache, FireFox? - the list goes on. Few are willing to defend the proprietary model, Microsoft does yet even they have opened a open source lab (http://www.microsoft.com/opensource/) Moreover, it is generally accepted that free and open source software is better than proprietary software on a number of dimensions - feature set, usability, reliability. All of this underpinned by the fact that if it doesn't quite work the technologist has the ability to fix it themselves, and no less importantly, the technology executive can be confident that they won't be left managing proprietary tools for which support is either no longer available or become suddenly 30% more expensive. | | | | |
<
< | That said, the evidence of successful free and open source projects is ever more plentiful - Samba, MediaWiki? , Apache, FireFox? - the list goes on. Moreover, it is generally accepted that they are better than proprietary software on a number of dimensions - feature set, usability, reliability. All of this underpinned by the fact that if it doesn't quite work the technologist has the ability to fix it themselves. Moreover, and much more important to the technology executive, won't be left holding proprietary tools for which support is no longer available or 30% more expensive. | >
> | Considering Eben's claims more closely though there is a need to focus on the GPL for several reasons | | | | |
<
< | Clearly, this mode of production is attractive to users as well as more successful at a technical level. Yet it isn't clear to me that anarchy full describes its mode of production. | >
> | (a) Eben suggests it is the greatest achievement of Richard Stallman (Moglen, Anarchism Triumphant). This claim is notable since the development of the GNU toolset and its subsequent marriage with the Linux project was no small or inconsequential success in itself. | | | | |
<
< | - Define in as rich a way as possible by bringing in Stark and heterarchy, Benkler and peer production | >
> | (b) The GPL, and its derivatives, are what differentiates free software from merely open source software and though a number of projects don't use the license it is entirely reasonable that without this legal vehicle participants may not have participated in the projects in the way that they have.
That said, it is curious that a relatively modest legal artifact enforced through mechanisms of the state is said to be critical to facilitating anarchic production since anarchy, as defined by The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics, is "the view that society can and should be organized without a coercive state." for me this suggests that despite the attractiveness of this mode of production to users, and its success at a technical level it isn't clear to me that the term anarchic production is an adequate description and that it needs to be considered at a more micro level. It is occurring within loose organizational structures, that Stark might call heterarchical, and moreover it has thrived in conjunction with the firm though its success is because copyright privileges were assigned according to the GPL.
- Add Benkler and peer production | | | Proprietary production |
|
|
TomGlaisyerPaper1EbensArgument 9 - 15 Oct 2008 - Main.TomGlaisyer
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
Introduction | | | Anarchic production | |
<
< | As I am most interested in functional goods I will focus on these and here Eben's argument rests on the productivity of the free software movement following the adoption of the General Product Licence (GPL) - a creation that he argues is the greatest achievement of Richard Stallman. (Moglen, Anarchism Triumphant) This seems a curious claim since the development of the GNU toolset and its subsequent marriage with the Linux project was no small or inconsequential undertaking yet without this legal vehicle it does seem reasonable that the latter project may not have succeeded. However, suggesting that a relatively modest, it is only a few pages long, legal artifact enforced by elements of the state seems an odd document to invoke when making an argument for anarchic productionsince it is defined by The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics as
-- "the view that society can and should be organized without a coercive state
| >
> | As I am most interested in functional goods I will focus on this aspect of Eben's argument which rests on the productivity of the free software movement following the adoption of the General Product Licence (GPL) - a creation that he argues is the greatest achievement of Richard Stallman. (Moglen, Anarchism Triumphant) Eben's claim that it is Richard Stallman's greatest achievement seems curious since the development of the GNU toolset and its subsequent marriage with the Linux project was no small or inconsequential undertaking yet it is entirely reasonable that without this legal vehicle the latter project may not have succeeded. However, suggesting that a relatively modest legal artifact enforced by elements of the state is critical to facilitating anarchic production since anarchy,as defined by The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics, is "the view that society can and should be organized without a coercive state." | | | | |
<
< | That said, the evidence exists, | >
> | That said, the evidence of successful free and open source projects is ever more plentiful - Samba, MediaWiki? , Apache, FireFox? - the list goes on. Moreover, it is generally accepted that they are better than proprietary software on a number of dimensions - feature set, usability, reliability. All of this underpinned by the fact that if it doesn't quite work the technologist has the ability to fix it themselves. Moreover, and much more important to the technology executive, won't be left holding proprietary tools for which support is no longer available or 30% more expensive.
Clearly, this mode of production is attractive to users as well as more successful at a technical level. Yet it isn't clear to me that anarchy full describes its mode of production. | | | - Define in as rich a way as possible by bringing in Stark and heterarchy, Benkler and peer production |
|
|
TomGlaisyerPaper1EbensArgument 8 - 15 Oct 2008 - Main.TomGlaisyer
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
Introduction | |
<
< | In this paper I want to examine Eben's argument - Anarchism produces inherently superior goods – and the way in which freedom emerges under the conditions of an internet society. I intend to engage with Eben's arguments from a skeptical position and interrogate whether his definition of an "internet society" privileges the anarchic production methods quite as much as he suggests. | >
> | In this paper I examine Eben's argument - Anarchism produces inherently superior goods when the marginal cost of production equals zero, in the case of functional goods; or in the case of non-functional goods (e.g aesthetic goods such as music) an anarchistic distribution system is superior to distribution organized by firms. I engage with Eben's arguments from a skeptical position and interrogate whether his definition of an "internet society" privileges the anarchic production methods quite as much as he suggests. | | | | |
<
< | Specifically, I will engage the arguments of Stark and Neff in "Permanently Beta," Noam's arguments in "The Economics of User Generated Content and Peer-to-Peer: The Commons as the Enabler of Commerce," since both of these suggest to that the method of production occurs only under a narrower set of conditions than those which Eben has elaborated (so far). | >
> | Specifically, I employ the arguments of Stark and Neff in "Permanently Beta," Noam's arguments in "The Economics of User Generated Content and Peer-to-Peer: The Commons as the Enabler of Commerce," since both of these suggest that their are conditions at the micro or firm level which provide additional insight into the set of conditions under which his argument works. | | | Anarchic production | |
<
< | - Elaborate Eben's definition. | >
> | As I am most interested in functional goods I will focus on these and here Eben's argument rests on the productivity of the free software movement following the adoption of the General Product Licence (GPL) - a creation that he argues is the greatest achievement of Richard Stallman. (Moglen, Anarchism Triumphant) This seems a curious claim since the development of the GNU toolset and its subsequent marriage with the Linux project was no small or inconsequential undertaking yet without this legal vehicle it does seem reasonable that the latter project may not have succeeded. However, suggesting that a relatively modest, it is only a few pages long, legal artifact enforced by elements of the state seems an odd document to invoke when making an argument for anarchic productionsince it is defined by The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics as
-- "the view that society can and should be organized without a coercive state
That said, the evidence exists, | | | - Define in as rich a way as possible by bringing in Stark and heterarchy, Benkler and peer production |
|
|
TomGlaisyerPaper1EbensArgument 7 - 02 Oct 2008 - Main.TomGlaisyer
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
Introduction | |
<
< | In this paper I want to examine Eben's argument regarding the way in which freedom emerges under the conditions of an internet society. I intend to engage with Eben's arguments from a skeptical position and interrogate whether his definition of an "internet society" privileges the anarchic production methods quite as much as he suggests. | >
> | In this paper I want to examine Eben's argument - Anarchism produces inherently superior goods – and the way in which freedom emerges under the conditions of an internet society. I intend to engage with Eben's arguments from a skeptical position and interrogate whether his definition of an "internet society" privileges the anarchic production methods quite as much as he suggests. | | | Specifically, I will engage the arguments of Stark and Neff in "Permanently Beta," Noam's arguments in "The Economics of User Generated Content and Peer-to-Peer: The Commons as the Enabler of Commerce," since both of these suggest to that the method of production occurs only under a narrower set of conditions than those which Eben has elaborated (so far). |
|
|
TomGlaisyerPaper1EbensArgument 6 - 30 Sep 2008 - Main.TomGlaisyer
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
Introduction | |
>
> | In this paper I want to examine Eben's argument regarding the way in which freedom emerges under the conditions of an internet society. I intend to engage with Eben's arguments from a skeptical position and interrogate whether his definition of an "internet society" privileges the anarchic production methods quite as much as he suggests. | | | | |
<
< | In this paper I want to examine Moglen's argument regarding the way in which freedom emerges under the conditions of an internet society. I intend to engage with Moglen's arguments from a skeptical position and interrogate whether his definition of an "internet society" privileges the anarchic production methods quite as much as he suggests.
- I would prefer to be "Eben" than "Moglen" in this community, Tom. History will also be very impressed that you were on a first-name basis with me, even though you tried to reject my ideas.
Specifically, I will engage the arguments of Stark and Neff in "Permanently Beta," Noam's arguments in "The Economics of User Generated Content and Peer-to-Peer: The Commons as the Enabler of Commerce" since both of these suggest to that the method of production occurs only under a narrower set of conditions than those which Moglen has elaborated. | >
> | Specifically, I will engage the arguments of Stark and Neff in "Permanently Beta," Noam's arguments in "The Economics of User Generated Content and Peer-to-Peer: The Commons as the Enabler of Commerce," since both of these suggest to that the method of production occurs only under a narrower set of conditions than those which Eben has elaborated (so far). | | | Anarchic production | |
<
< | - bring in Stark and heterarchy, Benkler and peer production | >
> | - Elaborate Eben's definition. | | | | |
<
< |
- I don't think you're going to succeed in starting an argument between Yochai and me, Tom. That's more likely to result in something like the Marshall McLuhan scene from Annie Hall. So far as Eli Noam is concerned, you will find it more interesting to look at Eli's bloviations over time, as he continues to try not to agree with me, but keeps edging closer to my positions under the pressure of the facts. You have, I understand, decided to impersonate the positions of outraged economic orthodoxy, which I welcome, but you will find the job is very much more difficult than you think. If I were you, I would listen for a couple more weeks before deciding what to write. Closing your mind at this stage is not even calculated to lead to the best closed-minded writing, let alone the best intellectual experience for you overall.
| >
> | - Define in as rich a way as possible by bringing in Stark and heterarchy, Benkler and peer production | | | Proprietary production | |
<
< | - private ownership of intellectual property | >
> | - Elaborate the alternative private ownership of intellectual property | | |
Differences between the two modes of production | |
<
< | - | >
> | - Mention certain case studies. | | | Contexts in which these modes work best | |
<
< | - Noam | >
> | - Review Noam's arguments over time | | | | |
<
< | - Moglen | >
> | - Deishen Lee article | | | | |
>
> | - Eben | | | Tendency for the anarchic mode to work more than in the past | | | - necessary, but not sufficient conditions have been elaborated | |
>
> | or | | | | |
>
> | - open source software will eliminate firm-market based production for "internet" goods permanently. | | |
-- TomGlaisyer - 18 Sep 2008 | |
>
> | Notes from Eben
* I don't think you're going to succeed in starting an argument between Yochai and me, Tom. That's more likely to result in something like the Marshall McLuhan scene from Annie Hall. So far as Eli Noam is concerned, you will find it more interesting to look at Eli's bloviations over time, as he continues to try not to agree with me, but keeps edging closer to my positions under the pressure of the facts. You have, I understand, decided to impersonate the positions of outraged economic orthodoxy, which I welcome, but you will find the job is very much more difficult than you think. If I were you, I would listen for a couple more weeks before deciding what to write. Closing your mind at this stage is not even calculated to lead to the best closed-minded writing, let alone the best intellectual experience for you overall. | | | If anyone has any comments on this please feel do add a comment
|
|
|
TomGlaisyerPaper1EbensArgument 5 - 28 Sep 2008 - Main.EbenMoglen
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
Introduction | | | | |
<
< |
| META TOPICMOVED | by="TomGlaisyer" date="1222359927" from="LawNetSoc.Paper1MoglenSArgument" to="LawNetSoc.Paper1MoglensArgument" |
|---|
| >
> |
| META TOPICMOVED | by="EbenMoglen" date="1222613623" from="LawNetSoc.Paper1MoglensArgument" to="LawNetSoc.TomGlaisyerPaper1MoglensArgument" |
|---|
|
|
|
TomGlaisyerPaper1EbensArgument 4 - 26 Sep 2008 - Main.EbenMoglen
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
Introduction
In this paper I want to examine Moglen's argument regarding the way in which freedom emerges under the conditions of an internet society. I intend to engage with Moglen's arguments from a skeptical position and interrogate whether his definition of an "internet society" privileges the anarchic production methods quite as much as he suggests. | |
>
> |
- I would prefer to be "Eben" than "Moglen" in this community, Tom. History will also be very impressed that you were on a first-name basis with me, even though you tried to reject my ideas.
| | | Specifically, I will engage the arguments of Stark and Neff in "Permanently Beta," Noam's arguments in "The Economics of User Generated Content and Peer-to-Peer: The Commons as the Enabler of Commerce" since both of these suggest to that the method of production occurs only under a narrower set of conditions than those which Moglen has elaborated. | | | - bring in Stark and heterarchy, Benkler and peer production | |
<
< | | >
> |
- I don't think you're going to succeed in starting an argument between Yochai and me, Tom. That's more likely to result in something like the Marshall McLuhan scene from Annie Hall. So far as Eli Noam is concerned, you will find it more interesting to look at Eli's bloviations over time, as he continues to try not to agree with me, but keeps edging closer to my positions under the pressure of the facts. You have, I understand, decided to impersonate the positions of outraged economic orthodoxy, which I welcome, but you will find the job is very much more difficult than you think. If I were you, I would listen for a couple more weeks before deciding what to write. Closing your mind at this stage is not even calculated to lead to the best closed-minded writing, let alone the best intellectual experience for you overall.
| | | Proprietary production |
|
|
TomGlaisyerPaper1EbensArgument 3 - 25 Sep 2008 - Main.TomGlaisyer
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
Introduction
In this paper I want to examine Moglen's argument regarding the way in which freedom emerges under the conditions of an internet society. I intend to engage with Moglen's arguments from a skeptical position and interrogate whether his definition of an "internet society" privileges the anarchic production methods quite as much as he suggests. | |
<
< | Specifically, I want to engage the arguments of Stark and Neff in "Permanently Beta" and Noam's arguments in "The Economics of User Generated Content and Peer-to-Peer: The Commons as the Enabler of Commerce" since both of these suggest to that the method of production occurs only under a narrower set of conditions than those under which Moglen has elaborated. | >
> | Specifically, I will engage the arguments of Stark and Neff in "Permanently Beta," Noam's arguments in "The Economics of User Generated Content and Peer-to-Peer: The Commons as the Enabler of Commerce" since both of these suggest to that the method of production occurs only under a narrower set of conditions than those which Moglen has elaborated.
Anarchic production
- bring in Stark and heterarchy, Benkler and peer production
Proprietary production
- private ownership of intellectual property
Differences between the two modes of production
-
Contexts in which these modes work best
- Noam
- Moglen
Tendency for the anarchic mode to work more than in the past
- the consequences of zero marginal cost networks are that it is now significantly more effective than in the past
- in some situations it is more efficacious
- the lack of profitability in the production of goods but rather in the entrepreneurship of exploiting re-combinations (the "permanently beta" argument)
Conclusion
- necessary, but not sufficient conditions have been elaborated
| | | -- TomGlaisyer - 18 Sep 2008
If anyone has any comments on this please feel do add a comment
\ No newline at end of file | |
>
> |
| META TOPICMOVED | by="TomGlaisyer" date="1222359927" from="LawNetSoc.Paper1MoglenSArgument" to="LawNetSoc.Paper1MoglensArgument" |
|---|
|
|
|
TomGlaisyerPaper1EbensArgument 1 - 18 Sep 2008 - Main.TomGlaisyer
|
|
>
> |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
Introduction
In this paper I want to examine Moglen's argument regarding the way in which freedom emerges under the conditions of an internet society. I intend to engage with Moglen's arguments from a skeptical position and interrogate whether his definition of an "internet society" privileges the anarchic production methods quite as much as he suggests.
Specifically, I want to engage the arguments of Stark and Neff in "Permanently Beta" and Noam's arguments in "The Economics of User Generated Content and Peer-to-Peer: The Commons as the Enabler of Commerce" since both of these suggest to that the method of production occurs only under a narrower set of conditions than those under which Moglen has elaborated.
-- TomGlaisyer - 18 Sep 2008
If anyone has any comments on this please feel do add a comment
|
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|