Creative Commons are trying to protect shared creative space from enclosure. Open space allows value creation, closed space is value extraction.
http://www.bollier.org/reclaim.htm
http://creativecommons.org/
I’m not convinced that commons are the best metaphor for the *constructed* wealth of shared human knowledge. Better imagery is available. One of “No Logo”‘s theses is that public space is being fenced off by brands under the guise of sponsorship. Since it reduces the value of the sponsored space and regulates its use, sponsorship is value extraction and is enclosure.
http://www.nologo.org/
This shared theme of protecting shared space against enclosure and insuring value creation rather than asset-stripping is important. Open Source/Open Content seeks to address it by changing individuals’ mode of production but the historically romanticised model of commons is inaccurate. Anti-globalisation’s image of recent civic space such as the town square is still romantic but is more accurate. Anti-globalisation’s weakness is that it seeks to change other people’s mode of production without any real understanding of how this will impact its own ground conditions.
Open Content can learn from Anti-Globalisation’s imagery and critiques of enclosure. Anti-globalisation can learn from Open Content’s self-practice and legal strategies. Hopefully it will be a fruitful exchange.
http://www.bollier.org/reclaim.htm
http://creativecommons.org/
I’m not convinced that commons are the best metaphor for the *constructed* wealth of shared human knowledge. Better imagery is available. One of “No Logo”‘s theses is that public space is being fenced off by brands under the guise of sponsorship. Since it reduces the value of the sponsored space and regulates its use, sponsorship is value extraction and is enclosure.
http://www.nologo.org/
This shared theme of protecting shared space against enclosure and insuring value creation rather than asset-stripping is important. Open Source/Open Content seeks to address it by changing individuals’ mode of production but the historically romanticised model of commons is inaccurate. Anti-globalisation’s image of recent civic space such as the town square is still romantic but is more accurate. Anti-globalisation’s weakness is that it seeks to change other people’s mode of production without any real understanding of how this will impact its own ground conditions.
Open Content can learn from Anti-Globalisation’s imagery and critiques of enclosure. Anti-globalisation can learn from Open Content’s self-practice and legal strategies. Hopefully it will be a fruitful exchange.