- JoPP-Public - lists.ourproject.org

Unsubscribe
by CCE 24 Jan '15

24 Jan '15

Unsubscribe me please.

1 0

Issue #6 Disruption and the Law
by Steve Collins 23 Jan '15

23 Jan '15

Hi Everyone I'd like to announce the release of issue #6 of the Journal of Peer Production. Disruption and the Law was edited by Angela Daly (Swinburne University of Technology and European University Institute) and myself (Macquarie University). Please distribute across your networks. http://peerproduction.net/issues/issue-6-disruption-and-the-law/ The disruption caused by new technologies and non-conventional methods of organisation – from a Western perspective at least – have posed challenges for the law, confronting regulators with the need to balance justice and an appreciation of new realities with powerful interests and existing paradigms. Experience from the “disruptions” of the late twentieth century has shown that the response from incumbent industries can lead to a period of intense litigation and lobbying for laws that will maintain the status quo. For example, following its “Napster moment”, the music industry fought to maintain its grip on distribution channels through increased copyright enforcement and the longer copyright terms it managed to extract from the legislative process. The newspaper industry has similarly seen its historical revenue stream of classified ads disrupted by more efficient online listings, and responded to its own failure to capitalise on online advertising by launching legal campaigns against Google News in various European countries. Though the law as it stands may not be well-equipped to deal with disruptive episodes, the technological innovations of the last twenty years have created an environment that generates disruption. The Internet, the Web and networked personal computers have converged into the ubiquitous post-PC media device, leaving twentieth century paradigms of production, consumption and distribution, particularly in the Western world, under considerable threat. The latest technology to be added to this group of disruptive innovations may be 3D printing, which in recent times has become increasingly available and accessible to users in developed economies, whilst the manufacturing capacity of 3D printers has dramatically grown. Although current offerings on the market are far from a Star Trek-like “replicator”, the spectre of disruption has once again arrived with the prospect of 3D printed guns inspiring a moral panic and raising questions of gun control, regulation, jurisdiction and effective control. In addition, 3D printing raises a number of issues regarding intellectual property, going far beyond the copyright problems that file-sharing brought about due to its production of physical objects. It is against this backdrop that we present this special issue of the Journal of Peer Production, comprising six peer-reviewed papers and one discussion paper covering an array of diverse issues implicated by the emergence of new production and distribution technologies, associated peer practices and tensions with legal and de facto regulatory frameworks. best steve -- *Dr Steve Collins* Senior Lecturer in Multimedia Program Director / BA-Media / Bachelor Marketing and Media Department of Media, Music, Communication & Cultural Studies Macquarie University P: (02) 9850 2165 W: http://bit.ly/122QivW L: Y3A 191D

2 1

CFP RGS-IBG Annual Conference, Exeter, September 2015 / Session: Critical geographies of the sharing economy
by maxigas 21 Jan '15

21 Jan '15

CFP RGS-IBG Annual Conference, Exeter, September 2015 Session: Critical geographies of the sharing economy Sponsored by the Economic Geography Research Group Session convenors: Filippo Celata, University of Rome La Sapienza (Italy), filippo.celata(a)uniroma1.it and Ramon Ribera-Fumaz, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (Spain), rriberaf(a)uoc.edu Abstract: The sharing economy is emerging as a powerful force for restructuring post-recession economies, for mitigating climate change through the sustainable (re-)use of resources, and for experimenting with non-capitalistic practices in which ownership and markets are replaced by access, collaborative consumption and commoning. The sharing economy is also becoming a new venue for venture capital investments, and has been accused of disrupting old industries by devolving further any legal, fiscal and social responsibilities to low-paid and unregulated “micro-entrepreneurs” who are induced to monetize personal assets and to compete against each other through self-branding. The aim of the session is to address this controversy from a geographical perspective, which is still missing. Sharing is indeed embedded in interpersonal relationships and based upon a variety of relational proximities which are needed to create links, trust, and reciprocity among people who share. These networks have a peculiar spatiality, may be more or the less inclusive, diverse, autonomous, ‘alternative’, and require the social infrastructure which is typical of cohesive communities and of densely urbanized areas. The problem is that community-based initiatives in the field often strive to survive and to up-scale. Internet-based intermediaries are indeed necessary to provide what self-organized networks rarely guarantee: efficient platforms, reputation systems and the critical mass of connections which are needed to reduce transaction costs and risks. These ICT platforms are increasingly controlled by big corporations which mobilize an array of benign geographical imaginaries - communitarism, autonomy, intimacy, reciprocity, authenticity, sustainability, etc. - for legitimising a business model that may be regarded as the last frontier of post-fordism, and as the advent of a libertarian and purely informational capitalism in which control over social networks became a major source of oligopolistic power. We invite papers which deal with the bright as well as dark side of this emerging phenomenon, and in particular: # The sharing economy and the spatiality of collaborative networks # The sharing economy and the geographies of community # The sharing economy and the diverse economies # The sharing economy and the reconfiguration of work and labour relations # The sharing economy and the extending geographies of outsourcing # The sharing economy and creative destruction # The sharing economy and (de)monetization # The sharing economy and the marketing of the self # The sharing economy and material/immaterial internet geographies # The sharing economy and libertarian/informational capitalism If you are interested in presenting a paper in this session, please send an abstract of max. 250 words to Filippo Celata, filippo.celata(a)uniroma1.it and Ramon Ribera-Fumaz, rriberaf(a)uoc.edu The deadline is 10 February 2015. -- maxigas, kiberpunk FA00 8129 13E9 2617 C614 0901 7879 63BC 287E D166 http://research.metatron.ai/ Life is more than artificial intelligence.

1 0

Broken page
by george dafermos 07 Jan '15

07 Jan '15

I am feeling there's something wrong with this page: http://peerproduction.net/peer-review/current/ Shouldn't that page be dedicated to the most recent issue of JoPP? x, g.

2 4

Future Scenarios for a Collaborative Economy
by Vasilis Kostakis 06 Jan '15

06 Jan '15

Hi everyone, I would like to announce the publication of a 100-pages long book authored by Michel Bauwens and myself, which came out with Palgrave Macmillan books. It is titled "Network Society and Future Scenarios for a Collaborative Economy". http://tinyurl.com/ptvhg9b and the wiki site http://tinyurl.com/ldl3e7r Should you want to read the ebook, you may contact me with a private email. Best wishes to all for a (more) Commons-based 2015, Vasilis -- Dr. Vasilis Kostakis Senior Research Fellow Ragnar Nurkse School of Innovation and Governance Research Director P2P Lab: http://p2plab.org

1 0

law issue
by Angela Daly 16 Dec '14

16 Dec '14

Dear all, Just a quick update on the law issue - we had some money for a copyeditor, who has been editing the 6 peer reviewed articles and 1 short essay which will be included in the issue. Since we're now past 15 Dec, we are planning to release this issue around 15 Jan in order to maximise exposure given the holiday season for many of us is about to start. Angela

1 0

CfP Alternative Internets
by Johan Söderberg 09 Dec '14

09 Dec '14

Fellow JoPPers. We have a new special issue cooking. Please distribute the Call for Paper to whomever you think might be interested to contribute to this theme. /Johan Editors: Félix Tréguer (EHESS), Panayotis Antoniadis (ETH Zurich), Johan Söderberg (Göteborgs Universitet) States are attempting to consolidate their control over the Internet, turning it into an instrument for minute surveillance, whilst a handful of tech-corporations seek to use it as a means to manipulate human behaviour toward their own objectives and siphon off the wealth from local and national markets. In response, alternative technologies have arisen, aiming to restore the Internet’s initial values of net neutrality, distributed control, freedom of speech, and self-organization. Community networks, offline networks, darknets, peer-to-peer systems, encryption, anonymization overlays, digital currencies, and distributed online social networks appear today as examples of alternative technologies aiming at emancipation, redistribution, and maximal autonomy. However, these tools are as ambiguous as the contradictory values and claims that have been invested in them. We can therefore expect alternative infrastructures to be appropriated for ends deemed illegitimate, such as tax evasion or arms trading, thus renewing the calls for restoring “law and order” on the Internet. Can we learn from the past and avoid the transformation of the utopian promises of these technologies into a dystopian future as, arguably, is happening to the promises of the early Internet? In order to address such concerns, this special JoPP issue seeks to document and critically assess past and ongoing efforts to alter the commercial development process of mainstream Internet technologies in order to build viable alternatives. What are the futures awaiting these alternatives, which contradictions and ambiguities will they undergo, and which steps can be taken today to avoid failures and disappointments? Topics of interest include, but are not limited to: •Technical, social, political, economic and legal hurdles faced by alternative projects. •The evolution of utopian imaginaries when mediated through socio-technical artifacts and the conflicting interests of multiple stakeholders. •The strategic trade-off between “voice and exit”: going off-grid, developing offline and online alternative networks, or engaging in the public sphere on mainstream platforms. •The politics of self-organization: actors, local and global institutions, trust, design, regulation, ambiguities. What is an “alternative” imagined to be, how is it concretely realised? •Lessons learned from the history of the Internet and other communcation networks. •Utopias, dystopias, and pragmatic imaginaries of the future Internet and its role in society. •How market or state actors develop their own visions of alternative Internets to foster business interests (e.g. the proposition for a tiered Internet by dominant telecom operators) or facilitate social control (e.g. Iran’s “halalnet”). •Hijackings and détournements of existing infrastructures to serve purposes other than those first intended. •The environmental challenges raised by communications technologies and possible responses for ensuring their sustainability and resilience in the face of the mounting ecological crisis. Submission abstracts of 300-500 words are due by February 8, 2015 and should be sent to alternets(a)peerproduction.net. All peer reviewed papers will be reviewed according to Journal of Peer Production guidelines. Full papers and materials (peer reviewed papers around 8,000 words; testimonies, self-portraits and experimental formats up to 4,000 words) are due by June 31st, 2015 for review. While the issue will be mainly comprised of academic papers, we also welcome 1-page poster-like “visual”, more or less artistic, submissions, without format restrictions, on stories from the past (alternatives to the current Internet that didn’t survive), today’s alternative technologies, real-life experiences and case studies, as well as future imaginaries. These contributions which could range from diagrams and cognitive maps to paintings, photos, installations, even poems, will be included as an appendix to the main volume. The deadline for submission is June 31st, 2015.

2 1

News and Issues
by Mathieu ONeil 01 Dec '14

01 Dec '14

Hi everyone? As maxigas has been so active in developing JoPP the editorial team (Francesca, Johan, Maurizio, Nate, Sara and me) decided to "make it official" by inviting him to join us, he accepted, and we are delighted to have him. Since the release of JoPP#5, a number of new people have subscribed to this list. We don't have any rules about this apart from (I guess) welcoming you, inviting you to join in discussions, and - if you feel like it - introducing yourselves and your interests? Or: should the membership list be made public? I don't know. Finally, looking ahead: -issue#5 on shared machine shops was just released (for consistency's sake, I propose to backdate it to July 2014) -issue#6 on law to be released in Dec/jan -special issue on #FLOK to be released in Feb (numbered or not?) -issue on #feminism to be released in July First question: is this all a bit much - should we space things out a bit? Delay FLOK maybe? Second question: what comes after? It was mentioned that #feminism may be split in two. Whether that happens or not, we need to think about future issues. Johan and others have agreed to work on an "alternative internet" issue, inspired by this event: http://www.iscc.cnrs.fr/spip.php?article1912 Thanks to them for taking this on. More info soon. We need further issues. We have never addressed privacy / surveillance. I contacted someone in that space, but she declined, too busy. Is anyone out there interested in putting a team together around that? if any other ideas are forthcoming, and you want to explore them privately as a first step: please email an editorial team member directly. Or post straight here. We need to plan things well in advance. It really is very open, and an opportunity to explore ideas in any direction, with like-minded people, whilst having fun, so don't be shy! On behalf of the editorial team, cheers, Mathieu

6 10

Re: [JoPP-Public] News and Issues
by george dafermos 20 Nov '14

20 Nov '14

Hi Mathieu, hi all, On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 1:54 AM, Mathieu ONeil <mathieu.oneil(a)anu.edu.au> wrote: > [...] > > Finally, looking ahead: > > -issue#5 on shared machine shops was just released (for consistency's > sake, I propose to backdate it to July 2014) > > -issue#6 on law to be released in Dec/jan > > -special issue on #FLOK to be released in Feb (numbered or not?) > > -issue on #feminism to be released in July > > > First question: is this all a bit much - should we space things out a > bit? Delay FLOK maybe? > I just had a chat with Vasilis about it and we both think it makes sense to delay the special issue on FLOK. Although we could go ahead with the release (as planned) in the end of February, given that the issue on law is to be released in January and the next release of an issue is scheduled to be in July, maybe it'd be better to postpone the release the FLOK issue for a couple of months so that it's released about two months after the law issue and two months before the next one. So, we're basically proposing to release it in April. @list members: What do you think? -G.

1 0

Fwd: Open Science Peer Review Oath (via Techdirt)
by Dr. Peter Troxler 16 Nov '14

16 Nov '14

http://f1000research.com/articles/3-271/v1 is that something to consider for JoPP? / Peter Begin forwarded message: > Open access is about making academic research more widely available, particularly when it is publicly funded. But there is a broader open science movement that seeks to make the entire scientific process -- from initial experiments to the final dissemination of results -- transparent, and thus reproducible. One crucial aspect of that complete process is peer review, whereby experts in a field provide advice about the quality of new research, either to editors prior to a paper being published in a journal, or more directly, by reviewing work publicly online. Recognizing the importance of this step for the integrity and validity of the scientific process, a group has drawn up what it calls the "Open Science Peer Review Oath": > We have formulated an oath that codifies the role of reviewers in helping to ensure that the science they review is sufficiently open and reproducible; it includes guidelines not just on how to review professionally, but also on how to support transparent, reproducible and responsible research, while optimising its societal impact and maximising its visibility. > The Oath's 17 components include commitments to act fairly and ethically, for example, the following: > While reviewing this manuscript: > > i) I will sign my review in order to be able to have an open dialogue with you > > ii) I will be honest at all times > > v) I will not unduly delay the review process > > vi) I will not scoop research that I had not planned to do before reading the manuscript > > vii) I will be constructive in my criticism > > x) I will try to assist in every way I ethically can to provide criticism and praise that is valid, relevant and cognisant of community norms > It also includes actions specifically designed to foster science that is truly open: > xi) I will encourage the application of any other open science best practices relevant to my field that would support transparency, reproducibility, re-use and integrity of your research > > xiii) I will check that the data, software code and digital object identifiers are correct, and the models presented are archived, referenced, and accessible > > xiv) I will comment on how well you have achieved transparency, in terms of materials and methodology, data and code access, versioning, algorithms, software parameters and standards, such that your experiments can be repeated independently > > xv) I will encourage deposition with long-term unrestricted access to the data that underpin the published concept, towards transparency and re-use > > xvi) I will encourage central long-term unrestricted access to any software code and support documentation that underpin the published concept, both for reproducibility of results and software availability > Although the framing of an "Oath" for open science peer review may sound rather over the top -- slightly pompous, even -- it rightly underlines the seriousness with which peer review ought to be conducted. It remains to be seen what kind of response it receives from the wider scientific community, and whether it becomes a fixed element of the open science movement.

2 3