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.

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

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.

Considering Eben's claims more closely though there is a need to focus on the GPL for several reasons

(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.

(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, 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

Proprietary production

- Elaborate the alternative private ownership of intellectual property

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

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

* 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