Something with no reproduction costs can have no exchange-value in a context of free exchange.
Group items matching
in title, tags, annotations or url
1More
shared by Tiberius Brastaviceanu on 07 Feb 23
- No Cached
Arxterra - Telerobotic Parks - 1 views
www.arxterra.com
IoPA organization network platform community robotics open source ecosystem level social level
![](/images/link.gif)
1More
shared by Tiberius Brastaviceanu on 07 Feb 23
- No Cached
DIY Drones - 0 views
diydrones.com
drone_project DIY hardware drone repository organization network IoPA design social level ecosystem level
![](/images/link.gif)
Farm Hack - 1 views
toowheels - 2 views
TOM - 2 views
Careables.org - 2 views
4th Sector - 0 views
e-NABLE - 0 views
hub.e-nable.org/dashboard
IoPA ecosystem medical hardware network organization social level standard level
![](/images/link.gif)
1More
shared by mayssamd on 21 Dec 22
- No Cached
Access To Land - 3 views
www.accesstoland.eu/index.php
IoPA community infrastructure food_system organization agriculture food platform economic level social level
![](/images/link.gif)
About Plenty4All - 0 views
30More
shared by Kurt Laitner on 31 Jan 14
- Cached
UK Indymedia - WOS4: The Creative Anti-Commons and the Poverty of Networks - 0 views
www.indymedia.org.uk/...350884.html
@ukindymedia commons free material vs immaterial exchange value use value rival goods non-rival goods
![](/images/link.gif)
-
Further, unless it can be converted into exchange-value, how can the peer producers be able to acquire the material needs for their own subsistence?
-
For Social Production to have any effect on general material wealth it has to operate within the context of a total system of goods and services, where the physical means of production and the virtual means of production are both available in the commons for peer production.
- ...26 more annotations...
-
"All texts published in Situationist International may be freely reproduced, translated and edited, even without crediting the original source."
-
The website of the creative commons makes the following statement about it's purpose: "Creative Commons defines the spectrum of possibilities between full copyright -- all rights reserved -- and the public domain -- no rights reserved. Our licenses help you keep your copyright while inviting certain uses of your work -- a 'some rights reserved' copyright."
-
The website of the creative commons makes the following statement about it's purpose: "Creative Commons defines the spectrum of possibilities between full copyright -- all rights reserved -- and the public domain -- no rights reserved. Our licenses help you keep your copyright while inviting certain uses of your work -- a 'some rights reserved' copyright."
-
Or more specifically, who is a position to convert the use-value available in the "commons" into the exchange-value needed to acquire essential subsistence or accumulate wealth?
-
All texts published in Situationist International may be freely reproduced, translated and edited, even without crediting the original source
-
The point of the above is clear, the Creative Commons, is to help "you" (the "Producer") to keep control of "your" work. The right of the "consumer" is not mentioned, neither is the division of "producer" and "consumer" disputed.
-
Creative "Commons" is thus really an Anti-Commons, serving to legitimise, rather than deny, Producer-control and serving to enforce, rather than do away with, the distinction between producer and consumer
-
specifically providing a framework then, for "producers" to deny "consumers" the right to either create use-value or material exchange-value of the "common" stock of value in the Creative "Commons" in their own cultural production
-
Thus, the very problem presented by Lawrence Lessig, the problem of Producer-control, is not in anyway solved by the presented solution, the Creative Commons, so long as the producer has the exclusive right to chose the level of freedom to grant the consumer, a right which Lessig has always maintained support for
-
The Free Software foundation, publishers of the GPL, take a very different approach in their definition of "free," insisting on the "four freedoms:" The Freedom to use, the freedom to study, the freedom to share, and the freedom to modify.
-
The website of the creative commons makes the following statement about it's purpose: "Creative Commons defines the spectrum of possibilities between full copyright -- all rights reserved -- and the public domain -- no rights reserved. Our licenses help you keep your copyright while inviting certain uses of your work -- a 'some rights reserved' copyright
-
In all these cases what is evident is that the freedom being insisted upon is the freedom of the consumer to use and produce, not the "freedom" of the producer to control.
-
Moreover, proponents of free cultural must be firm in denying the right of Producer-control and denying the enforcement of distinction between producer and consumer
-
where a class-less community of workers ("peers") produce collaboratively within a property-less ("commons-based") society
-
However, if commons-based peer-production is limited exclusively to a commons made of digital property with virtual no reproduction costs then how can the use-value produced be translated into exchange-value?
-
Further, unless it can be converted into exchange-value, how can the peer producers be able to acquire the material needs for their own subsistence
-
The source of poverty is not reproduction costs, but rather extracted economic rents, forcing the producers to accept less than the full product of their labour as their wage by denying them independent access to the means of production
-
So long as commons-based peer-production is applied narrowly to only an information commons, while the capitalist mode of production still dominates the production of material wealth, owners of material property, namely land and capital, will continue to capture the marginal wealth created as a result of the productivity of the information commons.
-
Whatever exchange value is derived from the information commons will always be captured by owners of real property, which lays outside the commons.
-
For Social Production to have any effect on general material wealth it has to operate within the context of a total system of goods and services, where the physical means of production and the virtual means of production are both available in the commons for peer production
-
For free cultural to create a valuable common stock it must destroy the privilege of the producer to control the common stock, and for this common stock to increase the real material wealth of peer producers, the commons must include real property, not just information
-
Strong grasp of the issues, not entirely in agreement on the thesis that the solution is the removal of producer control as this does not support the initiation of an economy, only its ongoing function once established, and the economy is continuously intiating itself, so it is not a one time problem. I do support the notion that producers are in fact none other than consumers of prior art but also that effort is required to remix as much as the magical creation out of nothing. In order to incent this behavior then (or even merely to allow it) the basic scarce needs of the individual must be taken care of. This may be done by ensuring beneficial ownership, but even that suffers from the initiation problem, which the requires us to have a pool of wealth to kickstart the thing by supporting every last person on earth with a basic income - that wealth is in fact available...
72More
Crowding Out - P2P Foundation - 1 views
-
The curve indicates that while workers will initially chose to work more when paid more per hour, there is a point after which rational workers will choose to work less
-
At that point, the leaders are no longer leaders of a community, and they turn out to be suckers after all, working for pittance, comparatively speaking
- ...36 more annotations...
-
under certain structural conditions non-price-based production is extraordinarily robust
-
There is, in fact, a massive amount of research that supports the idea that when you pay people to do something for you, they stop enjoying it, and distrust their own motivations. The mysterious something that goes away, and that “Factor X” even has a name: intrinsic motivation.
-
It just is not so easy to assume that because people behave productively in one framework (the social process of peer production that is Wikipedia, free and open source software, or Digg), that you can take the same exact behavior, with the same exact set of people, and harness them to your goals by attaching a price to what previously they were doing in a social process.
-
Extrinsic rewards suggest that there is actually an instrumental relationship at work, that you do the activity in order to get something else
-
If you pay me for it, it must be work
-
It’s what we would call a robust effect. It shows up in many contexts. And there’s been considerable testing to try to find out exactly why it works. A major school of thought is that there is an “Overjustification Effect.” (http://kozinets.net/archives/133)
-
Offering financial rewards for contributions to online communities basically means mixing external and intrinsic motivation.
-
A good example is children who are paid by their parents for mowing the family lawn. Once they expect to receive money for that task, they are only willing to do it again if they indeed receive monetary compensation. The induced unwillingness to do anything for free may also extend to other household chores.
-
Once ‘gold-stars’ were introduced as a symbolic reward for a certain amount of time spent practicing the instrument, the girl lost all interest in trying new, difficult pieces. Instead of aiming at improving her skills, her goal shifted towards spending time playing well-learned, easy pieces in order to receive the award (Deci with Flaste 1995)
-
this is a more troubling example, as playing the harder pieces is also practicing - I would take this as a more complex mechanism at work - perhaps the reinterpretation by the girl that all playing was considered equal, due to the pricing mechanism, in which case the proximal solution would be to pay more for more complex pieces, or for levels of achievement - the question remains of why the extrinsic reward was introduced in the first place (unwillingness to practice as much as her parents wanted?) - which would indicate intrinsic motivation was insufficient in this case
-
-
Suddenly, she managed to follow the prescription, as her own (intrinsic) motivation was recognized and thereby reinforced.
-
The introduction of a monetary fine transforms the relationship between parents and teachers from a non-monetary into a monetary one
-
"The effects of external interventions on intrinsic motivation have been attributed to two psychological processes: (a) Impaired self-determination. When individuals perceive an external intervention to reduce their self-determination, they substitute intrinsic motivation by extrinsic control. Following Rotter (1966), the locus of control shifts from the inside to the outside of the person affected. Individuals who are forced to behave in a specific way by outside intervention, feel overjustified if they maintained their intrinsic motivation. (b) Impaired self-esteem. When an intervention from outside carries the notion that the actor's motivation is not acknowledged, his or her intrinsic motivation is effectively rejected. The person affected feels that his or her involvement and competence is not appreciated which debases its value. An intrinsically motivated person is taken away the chance to display his or her own interest and involvement in an activity when someone else offers a reward, or commands, to undertake it. As a result of impaired self-esteem, individuals reduce effort.
-
these are finally very useful - so from (a) as long as self determination is maintained (actively) extrinsic reward should not shut down intrinsic motivation AND (b) so long as motivations are recognized and reward dimensions OTHER THAN financial continue to operate, extrinsic reward should not affect intrinsic motivation
-
-
External interventions crowd-out intrinsic motivation if the individuals affected perceive them to be controlling
-
External interventions crowd-in intrinsic motivation if the individuals concerned perceive it as supportive
-
In that case, self-esteem is fostered, and individuals feel that they are given more freedom to act, thus enlarging self-determination
-
so effectively a system needs to ensure it is acting on all dimensions of reward, or at least those most important to the particular participant, ego (pride, recognition, guilt reduction, feeling needed, being helpful, etc), money (sustenance, beyond which it is less potent), meaning/purpose etc. If one ran experiments controlling for financial self sufficiency, then providing appreciation and recognition as well as the introduced financial reward, they might yield different results
-
-
cultural categories that oppose marketplace modes of behavior (or “market logics”) with the more family-like modes of behavior of caring and sharing that we observe in close-knit communities (”community logics”)
-
this is labor, this is work, just do it.
-
When communal logics are in effect, all sorts of norms of reciprocity, sacrifice, and gift-giving come into play: this is cool, this is right, this is fun
-
So think about paying a kid to clean up their room, paying parishioners to go to church, paying people in a neighborhood to attend a town hall meeting, paying people to come out and vote. All these examples seem a little strange or forced. Why? Because they mix and match the communal with the market-oriented.
-
Payment as disincentive. In his interesting book Freakonomics, economist Steven Levitt describes some counterintuitive facts about payment. One of the most interesting is that charging people who do the wrong thing often causes them to do it more, and paying people to do the right thing causes them to do it less.
-
You direct people _away_ from any noble purpose you have, and instead towards grubbing for dollars
-
When people work for a noble purpose, they are told that their work is highly valued. When people work for $0.75/hour, they are told that their work is very low-valued
-
you're going to have to fight your way through labour laws and tax issues all the way to bankruptcy
-
Market economics. If you have open content, I can copy your content to another wiki, not pay people, and still make money. So by paying contributors, you're pricing yourself out of the market.
-
You don't have to pay people to do what they want to do anyways. The labour cost for leisure activities is $0. And nobody is going to work on a wiki doing things they don't want to do.
-
wow, exploitative in the extreme - no one can afford to do work for free, it cuts into paid work, family time etc. if they are passionate about something they will do it for free if they cannot get permission to do it for sustenance, but they still need to sustain themselves, and they are making opportunity cost sacrifices, and if you are in turn making money off of this you are an asshole.. go ahead look in the mirror and say "I am an asshole"
-
-
No fair system. There's simply no fair, automated and auditable way to divvy up the money
-
too complicated to do automatically. But if you have a subjective system -- have a human being evaluate contributions to an article and portion out payments -- it will be subject to constant challenges, endless debates, and a lot of community frustration.
-
Gaming the system. People are really smart. If there's money to be made, they'll figure out how to game your payment system to get more money than they actually deserve
-
They'll be trying to get as much money out of you as possible, and you'll be trying to give as little as you can to them
-
If you can't convince people that working on your project is worth their unpaid time, then there's probably something wrong with your project.
-
People are going to be able to sense that -- it's going to look like a cover-up, something sleazy
-
Donate.
-
Thank-you gifts
-
Pay bounties
Ethos VO | Ventures with social impact - 2 views
16More
4.1.D. Peer governance in peer production? - P2P Foundation - 0 views
- ...13 more annotations...
-
The free-form model connotes more of a sense that all users are on the “same level," and that expertise will be universally recognized and deferred to
-
the creator of an entry is spared the trouble of reviewing every change before it is integrated, as well as the need to perform the integration
-
The owner-centric model is better for quality, but takes more time, while the free-form model increases scope of coverage and is very fast.
-
rules are generated within the community itself, though mostly in the early phases. After a while, they tend to consolidate and they are a given for the new participants who come later
-
a process of socialization is crucial to eventual acceptance . The process is akin to the tradition of artisanship, which has been used in the three-degree system of original freemasonry as well: apprentice, companion (fellow craft), master. But it is implied rather than formalized.
-
Crucial to the success of many collaborative projects is their implementation of the reputation schemes.