this is an old and recurring discussion, and a charge I disagree with .. .I participated in different free culture forums, except the last one, and the debates around the material basis of free culture were actually the most sophisticated i have witnessed anywhere ... I think the free culture = loves only cyberspace is mostly a strawman ... material infrastructures, business and sustainability models for creators, and ownership issues were at the core of the discussions ... some people seem to believe that the recognition of emergent properties means a denial of other and sustaining layers, but it is not, it is a necessary differntiation, but it has to be seen in its relation and embeddedness to material infrastructures On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 2:01 AM, mp <[email protected]> wrote:
On 20/11/11 17:58, Michel Bauwens wrote:
I don't think it matters directly .. but it is definitely a silicon valley tech investor mentality, intend on re-introducing monetization of everything on the internet and he's confident they will succeed ...
.... and the monetization is particularly possible because of the material aspects of the internet combined with ownership relations, which is why it is philosophically problematic and politically disempowering, I think, that the "free culture" movement perpetuates the "immaterial myth", by contrasting cyberspace to "real space" and on that basis arguing for exceptions in cyberspace. One step forward and two steps back.
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens