[p2p-research] A Penny for your P2P Thoughts

[Michel Bauwens]

Hi Ryan,

I scheduled this for publication on June 5.

I think these terms of funding would be an excellent idea,

just some caveats:

- if there is no selling through pricing, then it's not a market solution

Introducing pure market solutions has the serious danger of distorting and
even destroying the commons-based contribution logic, see here for
literature on that specific effect, called "Crowding Out",
http://p2pfoundation.net/Crowding_Out

This leaves awards, patronage, endowments etc... I think the only issue here
is one of fairness, it has to be done in such a way that it is perceived as
fair by other contributors to the commons, and does not discourage further
contributions.

The German govt, I heard, is already paying a number of people to produce
scientific articles for the German-language Wikipedia, and I think that is
entirely appropriate, since it indeed enriches the commons.

People like Linus Torvalds and Richard Stallmann have gotten private or
Foundation money as recognition of their contributions and this allows them
to continue their work and is well accepted by their communities.

I would frankly love to have a solution like that to continue my own work
without worry,

Michel

On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 11:36 PM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com> wrote:

> *Should a P2P devotee take money for a contribution to the commons?*
>
> Let's imagine a commons was somehow endowed...like a university.  Could it
> be appropriate for the commons to pay for open contributions or is the very
> idea of "open" simply outside the concept of getting some dosh for day's
> drollery?
>
> I say take the buck, and perhaps even spend the buck--why shouldn't
> wikipedia pay a great physicist for an article?  It is perfectly fine to be
> paid for work and there is no crisis in calling something P2P if it has a
> bit of the old modes attached.
>
> One thinks of property trusts for real estate as a possible analogy.
> Wouldn't it be nice in the post-life estates of certain academics or artists
> if they gave their portfolio of intellectual properties to an open trust as
> a P2P "gift?"  Surely it has already happened...perhaps many times.  And if
> it is OK to die and pass something into a commons, why not have it be OK to
> live and sell something to a commons?  Who loses?
>
> Imagine that quaint New England town that surrounded the common grazing
> grounds with houses.  Would it be so wrong if they paid the fellow living
> next door for a little expansion turf?  Of course not.
>
> People get edgy about markets--pro and con.  They get religious.  P2P ought
> not to be of any given creed with regard to markets.  What P2P ought to be
> is open, about responsibility and sharing, and interested in general
> advancement.  It is about growing an open access commons for
> non-hierarchical interactions and uses.  How it gets to these ends can be a
> manifold story.
>
>
> Ryan
>



-- 
Working at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University -
http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html -
http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI

Volunteering at the P2P Foundation:
http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net -
http://p2pfoundation.ning.com

Monitor updates at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens

The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
http://www.shiftn.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090603/11dd069a/attachment.html>