I am particularly attracted to Bollier's argument http://www.bollier.org/reclaim.htm that when there are suitable incentive structures established (communal rewards such as prestige, mutual support, residual benefits from the process of "sharing" and so on) then a '"Comedy" of the Commons' begins to develop where the range of the Commons (and the participation) increases--he is thinking specifically of Open Source software, but also applies the argument to broader sustainable resource sharing.
MG -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Harry Pollard Sent: August 4, 2002 5:04 PM To: Michael Gurstein; Solaris@mail. sarai. net; Futurework@Scribe. Uwaterloo. Ca Subject: [solaris]Re: FW: good articles on the "public information commons" Mike, Hardin did a good job of emphasizing the "commons". However, tragedy only intervenes when we don't accept the common ownership - which implies common management, or we allow some to grab the commons for themselves. The English village commons worked very well. If one of the villagers brought in extra geese - more than was deemed proper - the other villagers would have a word with him. That's all. At least until the Enclosures Acts. First an Act for each common - then a General Enclosures Act to prove the efficiency of the assembly line. Thus were the commons grabbed - legally, and with everything aboveboard just like Enron. The importance of managing the commons has particular relevance to handling wild animals, such as elephants and whales, and saving from harm such resources as fishing grounds. These are common resources - commons. When we start recognizing our equal ownership rights to such commons and set up a management process, the commons will become a triumph rather than a tragedy. Harry --------------------------------------------------------- Michael wrote: >Further to our recent discussions on the "commons". > >The Bollier piece that I referred to is chapters 3, 4 and 7 "Reclaiming..." >http://www.bollier.org/reclaim.htm > >MG >-----Original Message----- >From: Ian! D. Allen [NCFreeNet] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: July 18, 2002 12:32 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: good articles on the "public information commons" > >http://www.publicknowledge.org/resources/conference-archives.php > >* Saving the Information Commons by David Bollier and Tim Watts (83 pages) > > "The result is a strangely bifurcated media universe. On the one > hand, there is television, which is doing far less to serve the > public interest than a generation ago despite the proliferation of > channels. Broadcast news programs may be far more plentiful than > twenty years ago, for example, but even veteran journalists question > whether the market-driven flood of tabloid fare and sensationalism > is serving the public or its own profession well." > >* Why the Public Domain Matters by David Bollier (30 pages) > > "This is unfortunate. Because of our conceptual blinders about the > public domain, "copyright maximalists" have been able to extend the > scope of copyright protection through many means: longer terms of > copyright protection, new technologies that eliminate the public's > fair use rights, attacks on the first-sale doctrine which otherwise > lets users share or re-sell purchased copies of works and court > rulings that give narrow interpretations to traditional copyright > doctrines." > >* Trouble on the Endless Frontier by Seth Shulman (30 pages) > > "An oft-cited example from a previous, revered generation of scientists > illustrates the virtual sea change that has occurred in our notions > about ownership and proprietary claims in high-tech research. In 1954, > when Jonas Salk developed a polio vaccine, he never for a moment > considered the idea of pursuing individual ownership rights to the > discovery. Nor did Salk imagine the idea of licensing the vaccine > in an effort to personally control the direction of future research > in the field. In fact, Salk's funder, the March of Dimes, prohibited > patenting or the receipt of royalties on the results of its research > projects. When Edward R. Murrow, the renowned television commentator > of the day, asked, "Who will control the new pharmaceutical?" Salk > replied that, naturally, the discovery belonged to the public. > "There is no patent," he said. "Could you patent the sun?" This > story bears repeating for the contrast it offers to the contemporary > research environment. In the 1990s, for example [...]" ****************************** Harry Pollard Henry George School of LA Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: (818) 352-4141 Fax: (818) 353-2242 *******************************
