[p2p-research] [Commoning] Information sector: a qualitative different mode of production?

[j.martin.pedersen]

On 03/01/11 15:02, Michel Bauwens wrote:
> ok, I understand a lot better where your claim comes from, and a lot of the
> intricate argument gets lost in your summaries.
> 
> here is how I understand it,
> 
> the FSF reject property on intellectual 'goods' and frame this as an
> opposition to property and an interpretation of copyright as policy
> 
> for me this means they reject property as applied to information things

Yes, that is why I call their position "information excpetionalism"
(following Mossof, who calls them "internet exceptionalists", and who
himself by the way is a property fundamentalists who thinks that all
property relations should be modelled on the exclusive, private model).


> and they do this because they are actually believe that property is a
> natural right for objects , but not for information ..
> 
> this may prove that they are inconsistent, since as you cite mossof, if it
> is policy for the one, it must be for the other
> 
> and it proves they are liberals
> 
> thus, the FSF is actually in favour of property!!

Yes, RMS makes this quite clear.


> I stress this because in   your summaries when you say they are vehemently
> rejecting property it is not necessarily clear that this means only for
> informational goods
> 
> all this being said, I have used the concept of peer property since 2005,
> especially as concerns the GPL and free software .. ; I
> have given many lectures with free software advocates in the audience, and I
> have not once got an objection on it

Perhaps not, but the motivation for my critique is that this view is
shared by the leading commentators and they have set the agenda and
shaped the philosophy that underpins a lot of Free Culture politics -
including information exceptionalism - and many continue to follow their
lead. I wanted to begin developing a different philosophical and
political economy foundation that does not suffer from this
contradiction and inconsistency and doesn't by implication serve the
interest of capital and the owners of the tangible means of production.

Also, even if you disregard Benkler, Lessig et al. they continue to be
embraced by people who might think twice about doing so, if they were
aware of their philosophy and its political implications. That's what I
wanted to bring out.


> so I'm not sure if I would read so many things into that tactical stance,

It has implications, philosophically and politically. It is misleading
and helps keep property thinking in the dark.


> but in any case, I don't think we are so far apart in our thinking of
> software as property ,..

I never did think we were, but I think we differ on the importance of
the philosophical and political implications of this tactical stance.