see item 2 from the moral economies conference, http://www.moraleconomies.leeds.ac.uk/abstracts/ links on the authors and their thesis would be appreciated, see Hesmondhalgh, David: *Free creative labour and exploitation* A dominant theme of recent critical analysis of digital media, user-generated content and cultural industries is that they involve unpaid work (‘free labour’) on the part of participants. Critiques of ‘free labour’ have provided some stimulating and necessary interventions against complacent celebrations of creative labour, and of the relations between production and consumption in the digital era, but some significant conceptual issues concerning capitalism, exploitation, power and freedom remain underexplored. I argue that the frequent pairing of the term ‘free labour’ with the concept of exploitation is often unconvincing and rather incoherent, at least as so far developed by the most-cited analysts; and I explore what political demands might and might not coherently be derived from critical accounts of free labour (arguing that the internship system is by far the most significant example of free labour in the contemporary cultural industries). Hunsinger, Jeremy: *From Hacklabs to Hacker Markets: becoming complicit in self-exploitation* Hacklabs and Hackerspaces are a global movement where individual rent spaces online and off in order to have a shared workspace in which to create or reproduce technologies and techniques that they value. As these labs have developed, their members have become complicit in their own self-exploitation and marketization, developing open systems that are commoditized and marketed through the community, using its networks, and developing the community, some of whom explicitly against elements of the commoditization of their work. Based in an analysis of over 300 hackerspace and hacklab’s blogs, wikis, and related social media outlets, this research describes the tensions between the community and the market they create by examining what these groups post in the public arena. From this data, we can see a wide variety of conflicting statements about the nature of their participation in their community and the markets in which they participate. These conflicts are even occasionally recognized reflexively with and across groups creating arenas for discussion, debate, and consensus-building. This reflexive reconstruction and renegotiation of their relative perspectives is an emotional and affective politics of becoming complicity and self-legitimizing a form of self-exploitation. Granted, most of the members of the community does not see the relationship between market and community as self-exploiting, but they cover their affective responses with normalizing encodings and justifications. -- 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