must watch on future of internet: who agrees ?
http://www.ted.com/talks/roger_mcnamee_six_ways_to_save_the_internet.html -- 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
Checked it out to view later..The list of sponsors include the major corporations we don’t trust. Should/does that matter? From: Michel Bauwens Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2011 9:04 AM To: p2p-foundation Cc: Samuel Rose Subject: [P2P-F] must watch on future of internet: who agrees ? http://www.ted.com/talks/roger_mcnamee_six_ways_to_save_the_internet.html -- 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 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
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 ... On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 12:43 AM, Natalie Golovin <[email protected]> wrote:
Checked it out to view later..The list of sponsors include the major corporations we don’t trust. Should/does that matter?
*From:* Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> *Sent:* Sunday, November 20, 2011 9:04 AM *To:* p2p-foundation <[email protected]> *Cc:* Samuel Rose <[email protected]> *Subject:* [P2P-F] must watch on future of internet: who agrees ?
http://www.ted.com/talks/roger_mcnamee_six_ways_to_save_the_internet.html
-- 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
------------------------------ _______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
_______________________________________________ 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
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.
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
On 21/11/11 08:00, Michel Bauwens wrote:
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 ..
.. now that might be the case, but this sophisticated debate is nevertheless missing from the Free Culture Forum's declaration "Models for Sustainable Creativity", as far as I can tell. It's been quite a while since I read it, but I just searched through it again and: Search for "labor" or "labour" or "environment" in the declaration and no hits. Search for "material" and what you find is the seemingly accepting statement that "free culture" is in fact a free labour factory: "The providers of commercial platforms for cooperation share their revenues with the creators who produce the material that makes their services valuable, while commoners are able to freely share and exploit the commons." Search for "ownership", or "property": no hits. So maybe very sophisticated in theoretical debate, but rather silent in practice.
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
This is not a correct representation. It is not that "recognition of emergent properties" equals denial, but that building a philosophical framework and political realities on the emergent properties *only* - and not including the material basis in the context of the organisation of those "emergent properties" - in the form of "Creative Commons" and "Copyleft" and so on is problematic and misleading: it not only obscures the material basis, but in fact celebrates its hidden nature. Anyway, just leave at this. No interest in discussing this again. The consequences are, as it were, materialising gradually in any case. That's what the monetisation is all about. m
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 - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-- NOT sent from a flippin' "smart"phone - 'cause I like birds...
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 8:53 PM, mp <[email protected]> wrote:
On 21/11/11 08:00, Michel Bauwens wrote:
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 ..
.. now that might be the case, but this sophisticated debate is nevertheless missing from the Free Culture Forum's declaration "Models for Sustainable Creativity", as far as I can tell. It's been quite a while since I read it, but I just searched through it again and:
Search for "labor" or "labour" or "environment" in the declaration and no hits. Search for "material" and what you find is the seemingly accepting statement that "free culture" is in fact a free labour factory:
"The providers of commercial platforms for cooperation share their revenues with the creators who produce the material that makes their services valuable, while commoners are able to freely share and exploit the commons."
i'm surprised to find this paragraph; perhaps this was formulated as a wish. In another place, as i recall, the FC Forum asked for a 15% contribution from the platform to the creative community, as a minimum contribution to the commons.
Search for "ownership", or "property": no hits.
So maybe very sophisticated in theoretical debate, but rather silent in practice.
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
This is not a correct representation. It is not that "recognition of emergent properties" equals denial, but that building a philosophical framework and political realities on the emergent properties *only* - and not including the material basis in the context of the organisation of those "emergent properties" - in the form of "Creative Commons" and "Copyleft" and so on is problematic and misleading: it not only obscures the material basis, but in fact celebrates its hidden nature.
I agree. both are needed.
Anyway, just leave at this. No interest in discussing this again. The consequences are, as it were, materialising gradually in any case. That's what the monetisation is all about.
m
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 - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-- NOT sent from a flippin' "smart"phone - 'cause I like birds...
_______________________________________________ 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
participants (3)
-
Michel Bauwens -
mp -
Natalie Golovin