[P2P-F] must watch on future of internet: who agrees ?

Mon Nov 21 14:53:42 CET 2011

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...