https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=Vasilis.niaros&feedformat=atomP2P Foundation - User contributions [en]2024-03-28T19:05:39ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.40.1https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Laura_Martelonni&diff=114922Laura Martelonni2019-01-11T11:39:35Z<p>Vasilis.niaros: Created page with "=Short bio= 200px Laura Martelloni is partner of LAMA Agency and Research & Innovation Area Manager since 2015, where she mainly..."</p>
<hr />
<div>=Short bio=<br />
<br />
[[File:Laura_Martelloni.jpg|thumbnail|left|200px]]<br />
<br />
Laura Martelloni is partner of LAMA Agency and Research & Innovation Area Manager since 2015, where she mainly develops research and innovation projects in thematic areas such as social innovation and social entrepreneurship, collaborative economy and ecosystems of innovation. She has 12 years of experience in designing and coordinating large-scale projects at regional, national and European level, working for cooperatives, associations, NGOs and Universities. In recent years, she has focussed on the design of innovative learning and capacity-building environments rooted in system thinking and inspired by communities of practice approaches, working in close collaboration with Universities, enterprises and innovation communities across Europe and beyond. <br />
<br />
Since 2013, Laura is co-founder and member of the Management Board of Impact Hub Florence. She is also an Affiliate at [http://www.p2plab.gr/en/ P2P Lab]. <br />
<br />
Laura holds a Master in European Studies at the Université Libre de Bruxelles, a University Degree in Peace Operations, and she has attended several professional courses on cooperative learning, multicultural education and educational inclusion.</div>Vasilis.niaroshttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=File:Laura_Martelloni.jpg&diff=114921File:Laura Martelloni.jpg2019-01-11T11:35:37Z<p>Vasilis.niaros: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Vasilis.niaroshttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=File:Vasilis_Niaros.png&diff=114911File:Vasilis Niaros.png2019-01-11T11:18:18Z<p>Vasilis.niaros: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Vasilis.niaroshttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Grassroots_Contributions_to_Sustainability&diff=112258Grassroots Contributions to Sustainability2018-05-21T11:10:08Z<p>Vasilis.niaros: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
'''* Article: : Smith, Adrian, and Andrew Stirling (2018). “Innovation, Sustainability and Democracy: An Analysis of Grassroots Contributions,” Journal of Self-Governance and Management Economics 6(1): 64–97.'''<br />
<br />
URL = https://grassrootsinnovations.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/smithstirling-2017-gi-id-journal-article.pdf<br />
<br />
<br />
=Abstract=<br />
<br />
"In this paper we introduce an area of activity that has flourished for<br />
decades in all corners of the globe, namely grassroots innovation for sustainable<br />
development. We also argue why innovation in general is a matter for democracy.<br />
Combining these two points, we explore how grassroots innovation can contribute to<br />
what we call innovation democracy, and help guide innovation so that it supports<br />
rather than hinders social justice and environmental resilience. <br />
<br />
<br />
Drawing upon qualitative<br />
case studies from empirical domains including energy, food, and manufacture,<br />
we suggest it does so in four related ways: <br />
<br />
* 1. Processes of grassroots innovation can<br />
help in their own right to cultivate the more democratic practice of innovation more<br />
generally. <br />
<br />
* 2. Grassroots innovations that result from these processes can support citizens<br />
and activities in ways that can contribute to practice of democracy. <br />
<br />
* 3. Grassroots innovations can create particular empowering sociotechnical configurations that might<br />
otherwise be suppressed by interests around more mainstream innovation systems. <br />
<br />
4. Grassroots innovations can help nurture general levels of social diversity that are<br />
important for the health of democracy in its widest political senses. <br />
<br />
The paper finishes with a few suggestions for how societies committed to innovation democracy can<br />
better support and benefit from grassroots activity, by working at changes in culture,<br />
infrastructure, training, investment, and openness."<br />
<br />
=Excerpts=<br />
<br />
Adrian Smith and Andrew Stirling:<br />
<br />
"Grassroots innovation is a diverse set of activities in which networks of<br />
neighbors, community groups, and activists work with people to generate<br />
bottom-up solutions for sustainable developments; novel solutions that respond<br />
to the local situation and the interests and values of the communities<br />
involved; and where those communities have control over the process and<br />
outcomes (Gupta et al., 2003; Seyfang & Smith, 2007).<br />
<br />
Unencumbered by policy silos, commercial logics, disciplinary boundaries,<br />
and other institutional pressures, grassroots groups are free to innovate how<br />
they see fit.<br />
<br />
Throughout the history of modern environmentalism and development<br />
there has always existed an undercurrent of grassroots activism, working<br />
directly on sustainable local solutions (Ely et al., 2013). This has played out<br />
equally in the global north and south; in urban or rural settings; and across<br />
all sorts of sectors, including food, energy, housing, manufacturing, leisure,<br />
health, communications, education, and so on (Hess, 2007; Thackara, 2015;<br />
Schumacher, 1973; Gupta et al., 2003). In a few cases, what began as grassroots<br />
activity has evolved into substantial commercial activity in green industrial<br />
sectors, such as wind energy and car clubs (Truffer, 2003; Jorgensen<br />
& Karnoe, 1995). Often the mainstreaming of grassroots innovation involves<br />
input from – and hybridization with – more conventional research, development<br />
and investment in institutions for science, technology and marketing<br />
(Fressoli et al., 2014).<br />
<br />
Sometimes grassroots innovation is an entirely indigenous endeavor, with<br />
people creating their own technologies, methods and organizations in order<br />
to realize a community need or aspiration. The Honey Bee Network in India,<br />
for example, has documented thousands of ingenious developments in villages<br />
across the country (http://www.sristi.org/hbnew/). Honey Bee has worked<br />
for decades to build up a system of support and diffusion that connects these<br />
grassroots innovators to formal research, development and marketing organizations<br />
in order that local ingenuity can be turned into marketable products<br />
(Gupta, 2016; Kumar & Bhaduri, 2014).<br />
<br />
In other instances, grassroots initiatives appropriate technologies or models<br />
from elsewhere and adapt them to their own needs in unusual ways. Hackerspaces<br />
and makerspaces, for example, are popping up in many towns and<br />
cities globally – helping to make available to local communities versatile,<br />
small-scale industrial prototyping technologies, such as laser cutters, microelectronic<br />
controllers, design software, and 3D printing, but also traditional<br />
hand tools too, including lathes, drills and sewing machines (Kohtala, 2016; <br />
Smith, 2017). Inspired by ideas from free software, open design and peer<br />
production, these community-based workshops enable neighbors to cultivate<br />
the skills of using these tools and appreciate the new working practices of<br />
peer production, and apply these tools and practices to their own projects<br />
(Hielscher & Smith, 2014). Many hackerspaces and makerspaces are networked<br />
with one another, and form part of a global phenomenon that shares<br />
designs, instructions and code over social media platforms. In this way<br />
collaborative projects can be pursued and replicated internationally.<br />
<br />
In grassroots innovation, skills are developed through the practicalities of<br />
creating an initiative, as well as the innovation presenting new capabilities for<br />
communities to develop (Sen, 1999; Bell, 1979). Take a community microhydro<br />
project, for example, where a group wishes to convert the run of a<br />
river into clean electricity for the local community (and thereby opening up<br />
new possibilities for that community). The community group will have to<br />
constitute itself and attract members. They will have to learn about the technology<br />
options, and begin the demanding task of raising funds and securing<br />
permission to develop a suitable section of their local river. Throughout, they<br />
will need to reinforce commitment, maintain solidarity, and have the emotional<br />
stamina to keep going. This requires a continuous articulation of the<br />
plurality of reasons motivating different members, to support the project and<br />
its aims (Seyfang et al., 2013); but also the negotiation of sometimes painful<br />
compromises."<br />
<br />
==Grassroots Contributions to Innovation Democracy==<br />
<br />
"We have introduced grassroots innovation and painted a picture of<br />
innovation not just as a technical matter, but as deeply value-laden; and not<br />
just about technology, but sociotechnical configurations (that include many<br />
social dimensions). <br />
<br />
<br />
In this view, it is possible to identify four related ways in<br />
which grassroots innovation can contribute to innovation democracy:<br />
<br />
* 1. Processes of grassroots innovation can help in their own right to cultivate<br />
the more democratic practice of innovation more generally.<br />
<br />
* 2. Grassroots innovations that result from these processes can support citizens<br />
and activities in ways that can contribute to practice of democracy.<br />
<br />
* 3. Grassroots innovations can create particular empowering sociotechnical<br />
configurations that might otherwise be suppressed by interests around more<br />
mainstream innovation systems.<br />
<br />
* 4. Grassroots innovations can help nurture general levels of social diversity,<br />
that are important for the health of democracy in its widest political senses.<br />
These contributions are interlinked. None are guaranteed. Realizing their<br />
potential depends upon the social conditions in which grassroots innovation<br />
arises. We will now discuss each of these issues in turn."<br />
<br />
==Visualizations==<br />
[[File:Grassroots contributions.png]]<br />
<br />
<br />
==More excerpts==<br />
<br />
* The [[Movement for Socially Useful Production]]<br />
* [[Seedy Sunday]]<br />
* [[Community Energy]]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Sustainable Manufacturing]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Articles]]</div>Vasilis.niaroshttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=File:Grassroots_contributions.png&diff=112257File:Grassroots contributions.png2018-05-21T11:09:53Z<p>Vasilis.niaros: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Vasilis.niaroshttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Sharing_Economy&diff=111607Sharing Economy2018-03-06T18:19:38Z<p>Vasilis.niaros: </p>
<hr />
<div>= Concept and book title<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=Concept Definition=<br />
<br />
Particular definitions connect the sharing economy to open content, while other equate it with [[Collaborative Consumption]] or the [[Solidarity Economy]].<br />
<br />
* Sharing platform definition:<br />
<br />
The Sharing Economy is used for business models whereby users are sharing creative content, but using a proprietary platform which sells their aggregated attention to advertizers, such as on Facebook. It can be contrasted with full commons-oriented [[Peer Production]], and with [[Crowdsourcing]]<br />
<br />
<br />
==Why the 'official' commercial sharing economy has no relationship to sharing==<br />
<br />
Brett Scott:<br />
<br />
"There’s nothing resembling a “sharing economy” in an Uber interaction. You pay a corporation to send a driver to you, and it pays that driver a variable weekly wage. Sharing can really only refer to one of three occurrences. It can mean giving something away as a gift, like: “Here, take some of my food.” It can describe allowing someone to temporarily use something you own, as in: “He shared his toy with his friend.” Or, it can refer to people having common access to something they collectively own or manage: “The farmers all had an ownership share in the reservoir and shared access to it.”<br />
<br />
None of these involve monetary exchange. We do not use the term “sharing” to refer to an interaction like this: “I’ll give you some food if you pay me.” We call that buying. We don’t use it in this situation either: “I’ll let you temporarily use my toy if you pay me.” We call that renting. And in the third example, while the farmers may have come together initially to purchase a common resource, they don’t pay for subsequent access to it.<br />
<br />
In light of this, we should call out Uber for what it is: a company in control of a platform that originally facilitated peer-to-peer renting, not sharing, and that eventually transformed into the de facto boss of an army of self-employed employees. And even as “self-employed employee” might sound like a contradiction, that’s the dark genius of the Uber enterprise. It took the traditional corporation, with its senior managers responsible for controlling workers and machines, and cut it in two — creating a management structure that need not deal with the political demands of workers."<br />
(https://howwegettonext.com/reversing-the-lies-of-the-sharing-economy-a85501d14be8)<br />
<br />
<br />
=Characteristics=<br />
<br />
<br />
Janelle Orsi [http://youtu.be/xpg4PjGtbu0]:<br />
<br />
<br />
1. Shared Control<br />
<br />
2. Shared Responsibility for the Common Good<br />
<br />
3. Shared Earnings<br />
<br />
4. Shared Capitalization<br />
<br />
5. Shared Information, and<br />
<br />
6. Shared Efforts<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Drivers: From Convenience and Community==<br />
<br />
"'''What brings people into the sharing economy? And what keeps them sharing?'''<br />
<br />
For many of us in the sharing community, we want to know what the gateway is for people to begin to start adopting sharing practices. What draws people to use a P2P car sharing service or Airbnb? The panelists agreed that the functionality of sharing - being able to get your needs met in an efficient way - is what initially draws lots of people, but that community, the ability to meet and interact with others in a positive way, is what keeps them sharing. Casey said that many of his users start using CouchSurfing just as a convenient service, but end up truly believing that sharing is a movement, and are eager to become part of the larger community.<br />
<br />
<br />
==The Need for Trust, Reputation Systems, and Security==<br />
<br />
'''How important is building trust?'''<br />
<br />
Trust and security are big issues within sharing communities. Initially, in order for someone to share, there’s an inherent small level of trust that a user must have to try out a service, and that initial trust can be aided by how well a service can build trust, connection, and safety into it's platform.<br />
<br />
One form the need to create trust has taken is the creation of reputation systems - but there is a lot of debate about how to regulate these systems and whether they can actually inhibit the natural building of trust and community. For example, sites like eBay had a tough time regulating retaliatory negative feedback from users (e.g. - if you write me a negative review, then I’m going to write you a negative one). So, they along with many other sites have ended up “filtering” negative feedback. However, hiding negative feedback also inhibits a feeling of trust. So, how can people who manage online communities allow people to be honest about their experiences while at the same time promoting a positive, self-policing, community? And how do you protect people who are not actually at fault but get bad reviews? Some possible solutions that were suggested were encouraging people to resolve their issues with their fellow users first, or to report negative feedback directly to the service so that an independent party can regulate reputations. Another conversation that’s beginning to happen is the idea of creating a sort of reputation system that spans across platforms. Is it fair to assume that someone who is a good Airbnb user would also probably be a good car sharer? Could it be possible to aggregate someone’s reputations on different platforms into one reputation score?<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Democratic Governance of the Community==<br />
<br />
'''How can we insure that online sharing communities are fair and democratic?'''<br />
<br />
As was mentioned last night, communities are nothing new - and there’s just as much of a history of bad, dysfunctional communities as there is good ones. There is always the potential for problems to abound in communities. They can become homogeneous, exclusive, or begin to police themselves based on the majority’s norms. How do we make sure that sharing communities both online and off stay open, fair, and democratic? Reputation systems in the current economy, namely, credit scoring agencies, tends to skew in the favor of people with higher incomes with more affluent backgrounds and create a stratified system of haves and have nots. If someone were to get a bad reputation in the sharing economy, would they have the opportunity to get to repair it? How? And who would be the authority that decides who is a fit user and who isn’t? While the answer is unclear, I think it was agreed that it’s important to not recreate the same inequalities that exist in the current economy in this new Sharing economy, and that a commitment to transparency and democracy are important to the future of sharing communities.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==From Sharing Platforms to a Sharing Society==<br />
<br />
'''If sharing platforms are helping to lower the barrier to connection for people, what does that mean for our society?'''<br />
<br />
Casey mentioned that many of his users feel like CouchSurfing can help them connect deeply to others in a way that’s pretty rare in every day life. That connection, fostered by being able to use a medium like a car or a couch, is something that helps shift people’s perspectives about themselves, their communities, and how they view the world. Paulo and Bodgan mused about whether or not repeated positive experiences with trust and sharing can help change the rest of people’s lives by shifting their perspectives of the world. Bodgan ended the panel by saying that positive sharing experiences have the power to counter the vicious cycle of distrust that happens when we see bad things happen in society. What if every sad thing we hear about - A Ponzi scheme and people losing their retirement, for example, were countered by a positive experience of being able to trust a stranger and have a positive interaction?"<br />
(http://www.shareable.net/blog/collaborative-chats-recap-building-community-in-the-sharing-economy)<br />
<br />
<br />
===Source===<br />
<br />
From a conversation between Casey Fenton from CouchSurfing, Shelby Clark from RelayRides, Elizabeth Mueller from Airbnb, and Paolo Parigi and Bogdan State who are studying trust at Stanford University.<br />
<br />
Event: Collaborative Chats at Hub SoMa. Series’ first topic - Building Community in the Sharing Economy. <br />
<br />
URL = http://www.shareable.net/blog/collaborative-chats-recap-building-community-in-the-sharing-economy<br />
<br />
<br />
=Typology=<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Commercialized Sharing]] vs. [[Communitarian Provisioning]]==<br />
<br />
Maurie J. Cohen:<br />
<br />
"Present-day commercialized sharing falls mainly into two categories: mediated micro-entrepreneurship and serialized rental. <br />
<br />
1) [[Mediated Micro-Entrepreneurship]] entails the brokerage of individual assets and/or labor and irregular work opportunities for which the match-making platform receives a commission. Applied within the field of urban mobility, this is the strategy operationalized by Uber, which relies on iterant drivers to provide on-demand taxi services using their own cars. <br />
<br />
2) [[Serialized Rental]], by way of contrast, is common to anyone who has picked up a car at the airport from Hertz or one of its competitors, but the business model has more recently been adapted for intra-urban travel and spur-of-the-moment city trips by ZipCar (a subsidiary of the Avis Budget Group), Car2Go (a subsidiary of Daimler AG), and a host of other companies. <br />
<br />
3) By contrast, a third alternative -- [[Communitarian Provisioning]] -- promises a more credible form of sharing. With respect to mobility services, this option includes "transit oriented" nonprofit and cooperative providers like City Car Share in San Francisco and Modo in Vancouver."<br />
(http://www.shareable.net/blog/how-platform-cooperativism-can-accelerate-sustainable-consumption)<br />
<br />
==Transactional vs Transformational Sharing==<br />
<br />
<br />
Sharon Ede:<br />
<br />
"Neal Gorenflo of Shareable expressed a useful distinction between sharing that is transactional and sharing that is transformational.<br />
<br />
While there are no absolutes, in general ‘transactional’ sharing is typically profit-driven, and more about the efficient operation of existing systems, resource efficiency and cost sharing.<br />
<br />
More efficiently using existing assets (be they physical, virtual, skills or time), whether or not monetary exchange is involved, contributes to a more effective operation of the status quo. This can be a good thing, for example when people can access what they need, when they need it; and when it results in less resource consumption.<br />
<br />
But it does not impact on existing power structures.<br />
<br />
‘Transformational’ sharing can have some or all the characteristics of transactional sharing (more efficient use of resources, spreading costs), but there is an additional, critical element – it involves a shift in power and social relations. This means who owns and controls the processes by which sharing occurs, who benefits, and whether it is strengthening the commons or resulting in the commodification of our lives. Integral to transformational sharing is that it builds ‘social capital’, strengthening relationships and resilience of communities through sharing and co-operation.<br />
<br />
Transformational sharing can be found in the gift economy, in the co-operative movement and in not for profit social enterprise. Examples include:<br />
<br />
CoWheels Car Club, a car sharing platform in the UK that runs as a not for profit social enterprise, with all surplus reinvested back into the organisation’s social mission.<br />
<br />
Vandebron, a Dutch peer-to-peer platform which enables residents to buy and sell energy directly from each other, bypassing utilities altogether. Could there be unintended consequences for other citizens as people effectively ‘opt out’ of the grid? Possibly, however again clues lie in looking at why and how a sharing platform was set up and whom it is intended to benefit.<br />
<br />
It’s important to scratch the surface of anything calling itself ‘sharing economy’ and look at the legal and financial structures underpinning them as well as the mission of the organisation and how it empowers people, as platforms can be offering a similar service, but be based on very different operating systems."<br />
(http://www.shareadelaide.com/transactional-sharing-transformational-sharing/)<br />
<br />
==The fourfold typology of Juliet Schorr==<br />
<br />
Juliet Schorr:<br />
<br />
"Sharing economy activities fall into four broad categories: recirculation of goods, increased utilization of durable assets, exchange of services, and sharing of productive assets. <br />
<br />
The origins of the first date to 1995 with the founding of eBay and Craigslist, two marketplaces for recirculation of goods that are now firmly part of the mainstream consumer experience. These sites were propelled by nearly two decades of heavy acquisition of cheap imports that led to a proliferation of unwanted items. In addition, sophisticated software reduced the traditionally high transaction costs of secondary markets, and at eBay, reputational information on sellers was crowdsourced from buyers, thereby reducing the risks of transacting with strangers. By 2010, many similar sites had launched, including ThredUp and Threadflip for apparel, free exchange sites like Freecycle and Yerdle, and barter sites such as Swapstyle.com. Online exchange now includes “thick,” or dense, markets in apparel, books, and toys, as well as thinner markets for sporting equipment, furniture, and home goods. <br />
<br />
The second type of platform facilitates using durable goods and other assets more intensively. In wealthy nations, households purchase products or hold property that is not used to capacity (e.g., spare rooms and lawn mowers). Here, the innovator was Zipcar, a company that placed vehicles in convenient urban locations and offered hourly rentals. After the 2009 recession, renting assets became more economically attractive, and similar initiatives proliferated. In transportation, these include car rental sites (Relay Rides), ride sharing (Zimride), ride services (Uber, UberX, Lyft), and bicycle sharing (Boston’s Hubway or Chicago’s Divvy Bikes). In the lodging sector, the innovator was Couchsurfing, which began pairing travelers with people who offered rooms or couches without payment back in 1999. Couchsurfing led to Airbnb, which has reported more than 10 million stays.<br />
<br />
There has also been a revival of non-monetized initiatives such as tool libraries, which arose decades ago in in low-income communities. These efforts are typically neighborhood-based in order to enhance trust and minimize transportation costs for bulky items. New digital platforms include the sharing of durable goods as a component of neighborhood building (e.g., Share Some Sugar, Neighborgoods). These innovations can provide people with low-cost access to goods and space, and some offer opportunities to earn money, often to supplement regular income streams. <br />
<br />
The third practice is service exchange. Its origins lie in time banking, which, in the United States, began in the 1980s to provide opportunities for the unemployed. Time banks are community-based, non-profit multilateral barter sites in which services are traded on the basis of time spent, according to the principle that every member’s time is valued equally. In contrast to other platforms, time banks have not grown rapidly, in part because of the demanding nature of maintaining an equal trading ratio.6 There are also a number of monetized service exchanges, such as Task Rabbit and Zaarly, which pair users who need tasks done with people who do them, although these have encountered difficulties expanding as well. <br />
<br />
The fourth category consists of efforts focused on sharing assets or space in order to enable production, rather than consumption. Cooperatives are the historic form these efforts have taken. They have been operating in the US since the nineteenth century, although there has been a recent uptick in new ones. Related initiatives include hackerspaces, which grew out of informal computer hacking sessions; makerspaces, which provide shared tools; and co-working spaces, or communal offices. Other production sites include educational platforms such as Skillshare.com and Peer-to-Peer University that aim to supplant traditional educational institutions by democratizing access to skills and knowledge and promoting peer instruction."<br />
(http://www.greattransition.org/publication/debating-the-sharing-economy)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Quadrant typology of [[Sharing Economy Platforms]]==<br />
<br />
Juliet Schorr distinguishes for-profit from not-for-profit, and peer to peer from business to peer, creating a quadrant typology:<br />
<br />
"While all sharing economy platforms effectively create “markets in sharing” by facilitating exchanges, the imperative for a platform to generate a profit influences how sharing takes place and how much revenue devolves to management and owners. <br />
<br />
For-profit platforms push for revenue and asset maximization. The most successful platforms—Airbnb and Uber, valued at $10 and $18 billion respectively— have strong backing from venture capitalists and are highly integrated into existing economic interests.8 The introduction of venture capitalists into the space has changed the dynamics of these initiatives, particularly by promoting more rapid expansion. While some of the platforms present a gentle face to the world, they can also be ruthless. Uber, which is backed by Google and Goldman Sachs, has been engaging in anti-competitive behavior, such as recruiting its competitors’ drivers. While its representatives articulate a neoliberal rhetoric about the virtue of “free markets,” the company is apparently hedging its bets on what “free” markets will deliver for it by hiring Obama campaign manager David Plouffe to bring some old-fashioned political capital to its defense. <br />
<br />
By contrast, many of the initiatives in the sharing space, such as tool libraries, seed banks, time banks, and food swaps, are non-profits. They do not seek growth or revenue maximization, but instead aim to serve needs, usually at a community scale. <br />
<br />
While the for-profit vs. non-profit divide is the most important one, the divide between P2P (peer-to-peer) and B2P (business-to-peer) platforms is also significant. <br />
<br />
P2P entities earn money by commissions on exchanges, so revenue growth depends on increasing the number of trades. In contrast, B2P platforms often seek to seek to maximize revenue per transaction, as traditional businesses often do. Consider the differences between Zipcar (B2P) and RelayRides (P2P). On RelayRides, owners earn income from renting their own vehicles, choosing trades based on their needs, and setting rates and availability. Zipcar functions like an ordinary short-term car rental company. With a P2P structure, as long as there is competition, the “peers” (both providers and consumers) should be able to capture a higher fraction of value. Of course, when there is little competition, the platform can extract rents, or excess profits, regardless. Sharing platforms, particularly non-profits that are operating to provide a public benefit, can also function as “public goods.” A tool library is like a public library in many ways, although it is not organized by a government, not typically supported by public funds, and not necessarily governed by a democratic process. Many public goods have a G2P structure (government-to-peer), rather than P2P. But P2P structures can be, and frequently are, democratically organized."<br />
(http://www.greattransition.org/publication/debating-the-sharing-economy)<br />
<br />
=Discussion 1=<br />
<br />
Maryknoll Encounters newsletter:<br />
<br />
"As Arthur de Grave writing on Ouishare, a website focused on the collaborative economy, explains, “Two main groups of criticism have emerged: one on ownership structures and the other on employment.” Other concerns around questions of insurance, regulations and tax avoidance also hound the sharing economy."<br />
(http://www.maryknollogc.org/encounters/encounters-5-sharing-economy-economy-right-relationship#sharing)<br />
<br />
==Why Share==<br />
<br />
Juliet Schorr:<br />
<br />
"Motives for participating in the new sharing economy differ, which is not surprising given the diversity of platforms and activities. Some participants are drawn by the trendiness or novelty of the platforms. It is, however, important to recognize that the novelty about which many participants (and platforms) talk can be an expression of classism and racism. Sharing is not just a relic of pre-modern societies; such practices remain more common in working-class, poor, and minority communities. The discourse of novelty employs a false universalism that can be alienating to people who have maintained non-digital sharing practices in their daily lives.<br />
<br />
Beyond novelty and the pull of new technologies, participants tend to be motivated by economic, environmental, and social factors.10 Sharing economy sites are generally lower in cost than market alternatives. Particularly with P2P sites, value can be redistributed across the supply chain to producers and consumers and away from “middlemen,” in part because producers’ costs are lower. An Airbnb host, for example, can deliver a room more cheaply than a hotel. The platforms’ fees are also lower than what established businesses extract in profits. (Airbnb’s maximum fee is 15%.) Service and labor exchange platforms, whether they are time banks or for-profit platforms like Task Rabbit, extract far less value than traditional agencies that arrange child care, concierge services, or home health care aides. The platforms also allow people to earn money in ways that had not previously been safely or easily available.<br />
Many sites advertise themselves as green and present sharing as a way to reduce carbon footprints. It is a truism among “sharers” that sharing is less resource intensive than the dominant ways of accessing goods and services (e.g., hotels, taxis, shopping malls) because of the assumed reduction in demand for new goods or facilities. The actual environmental impacts of the sites are far more complicated, however, as will be discussed in the following section.<br />
The desire to increase social connections is also a common motivation. Many sites advertise this feature of their activities, and participants often articulate a desire to meet new people or get to know their neighbors. While heartwarming anecdotes about making new friends are plentiful, many platforms fail to deliver durable social ties. For instance, a recent study of carsharing found that the two parties to the transaction often never met on account of remote access technology.<br />
<br />
Finally, a commitment to social transformation is an important motivator. My Connected Consumption Research Team has found that many respondents emphasize the value of sharing and collaboration, and some are highly critical of capitalism, the operation of the market, and the business-as-usual economy.12 Ideological motivation, however, varies by site, with less exhibited by earners on platforms such as Airbnb and RelayRides and more by participants in time banks and food swaps.<br />
(http://www.greattransition.org/publication/debating-the-sharing-economy)<br />
<br />
==The importance of ownership==<br />
<br />
"In terms of ownership, there is concern that most of the larger sharing companies are privately held, profit-oriented corporations financed by Silicon Valley venture capitalists looking not to create a new economy, but to reap the largest profits possible. As Marjorie Kelly, senior fellow and director of special projects with the Democracy Collaborative, said in an interesting presentation on her book, The Emerging Ownership Revolution, “Ownership is the original system condition. Ownership is how wealth is created, and it determines who gets that wealth; it determines who controls the economy.”<br />
<br />
Janelle Orsi states, “You can’t truly remedy today’s economic problems by using the same business structures that created the economic problems. Because of their current ownership structure, Airbnb, Lyft, Über, and TaskRabbit could be bought out by ever larger and more centralized companies that won’t necessarily care about the well-being of people using the services, or about the overall abundance of jobs in our economy.” She and many others see “only one way to ensure that a company will make decisions in the interests of the people it serves: Put those people in control of the company.” She suggests that “[i]f Lyft were a user-owned cooperative, it would be more apparent that Lyft operates simply to provide technology and payment processing to the users, and it will look less like drivers are working for and generating profits for Lyft.”<br />
<br />
“Are Silicon Valley venture capitalists currently being fooled into creating the embryo of a peer-to-peer (P2P) economic paradigm, in which they will lose most of their influence? Or are the enthusiasts talking about empowerment being tricked into creating a new kind of serfdom?” asks technology writer Jon Evans."<br />
(http://www.maryknollogc.org/encounters/encounters-5-sharing-economy-economy-right-relationship#sharing)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Legal questions around the sharing economy==<br />
<br />
"The sharing economy brings with it a host of legal questions related to taxation, public safety, insurance and more. As Janelle Orsi puts it, “[F]or now, the sharing economy exists almost entirely in legal grey areas… Everything happening in the sharing economy lands somewhere on a spectrum between what is regulated and what is not.”<br />
<br />
Economist Dean Baker describes some of the problems related to Airbnb’s business model in that cities lose tax revenue since participants are not paying hotel room taxes. “Airbnb can also raise issues of safety for its customers and nuisance for hosts’ neighbors. Hotels are regularly inspected to ensure that they are not firetraps and that they don’t pose other risks for visitors. Airbnb hosts face no such inspections – and their neighbors in condo, co-ops or apartment buildings may think they have the right not to be living next door to a hotel (which is one reason that cities have zoning restrictions)… Insofar as Airbnb is allowing people to evade taxes and regulations, the company is not a net plus to the economy and society – it is simply facilitating a bunch of rip-offs.”<br />
<br />
Joe Mathews expressed his concern that the sharing economy “is likely to produce more fights than profits,” and will likely leave state and city governments “embroiled for years in political, legal, commercial and environmental battles related to sharing.” He gives examples: “Who’s responsible if your dog bites my kid while in my care? What kind of car insurance, training and licensing do you need to shuttle me safely? What, if anything, do we owe to the kennel workers and cabbies who lose work? And who decides how we govern all of this? … There are so many potential conflicts—along professional, political, commercial, geographic, generational and gender lines—posed by sharing that I couldn’t list them here.” And there are already a growing number of lawsuits and regulation battles related to the sharing economy in cities around the world."<br />
(http://www.maryknollogc.org/encounters/encounters-5-sharing-economy-economy-right-relationship#sharing)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==The situation of workers in the sharing economy==<br />
<br />
'''1.'''<br />
<br />
"A major area of concern is the situation of workers in the sharing economy. Many writers have comments similar to The Economist’s that it “is surely no coincidence that many peer-to-peer rental firms were founded between 2008 and 2010, in the aftermath of the global financial crisis.” As Leo Mirani points out in Quartz.com, “There are only two requirements for an on-demand service economy to work, and neither is an iPhone. First, the market being addressed needs to be big enough to scale—food, laundry, taxi rides. Without that, it’s just a concierge service for the rich rather than a disruptive paradigm shift, as a venture capitalist might say. Second, and perhaps more importantly, there needs to be a large enough labor class willing to work at wages that customers consider affordable and that the middlemen consider worthwhile for their profit margins.”<br />
<br />
While many provide services through these platforms as a way to supplement their income from other traditional jobs, as these types of jobs become scarcer, an increasing number of people rely on their participation in sharing platforms as their main or sole source of income. In the U.S. we see the unemployment rate falling not only because of more jobs being available, but also due to an increasing number of people opting out of the traditional jobs market and becoming independent contractors in the gig economy.<br />
<br />
In an interesting article in the Washington Post, Catherine Rampell places the sharing economy within the larger history of how, over the last 40 years, corporations have shifted risk on to their workers. “The risks involve everything from income instability (the worker, rather than the firm, has to absorb the brunt of demand shocks or price cuts); to irreversible capital investments (Über and Lyft have infamously pushed drivers to buy new cars by promising big returns that never materialized); to unforeseen criminal liabilities (what happens if an Airbnb guest turns your home into a brothel?); to fewer protections in the event of catastrophe (no access to programs such as workers’ comp).” This process is further detailed in Jacob Hacker’s classic book, The Great Risk Shift: The new economic insecurity and the decline of the American dream.<br />
<br />
As labor researcher and attorney Veena Dubal explained at a recent conference on the sharing economy, “Since the 1970s, forces have aligned to create work that is more precarious. ‘Rideshare’ companies contribute to that culture of precarious work, putting workers back in early 20th century conditions. They’ve made it really easy to get a ride – at the cost of workers’ lives… It’s the great risk shift.” This is because the service providers in these sharing economy exchanges are not considered to be employees and receive none of the perks associated with employment like paid sick days, health care and Social Security. Natasha Singer in the New York Times has an interesting exposé about the precariousness of being a service provider for a variety of sharing platforms.<br />
<br />
Jon Evans reports that in the UK, “[t]he median hourly earnings for the self-employed are £5.58, less than half the £11.21 earned by employees,” continuing: “The slow transformation of a huge swathe of the economy from steady jobs to an ever-shifting maelstrom of short-term contracts with few-to-no benefits, for which an ever-larger pool of people will compete thanks to ever-lower barriers to entry, in a sector where most jobs are already poorly paid…does this sound to you like it will decrease inequality and increase social mobility?”<br />
<br />
“What we are witnessing with the collaborative economy is a shift from jobs towards unpaid labor from a crowd of volunteers. Take open-source softwares or Wikipedia for instance, and imagine this for the whole economy. Long story short, this is not about less work, but about having fewer paid positions,” writes Stanislaus Jordon in Ouishare. “Is that a disaster though?” he asks, responding, “It is, if we don’t redefine what ‘job’ and ‘work’ means, and how they relate to income. However, if we seriously consider the radical alternatives, this could be a great step for society.”<br />
<br />
He then explains why a guaranteed basic income would be crucial in granting workers more security while participating in the less structured or regulated collaborative economy. “[S]ince a basic income would partly separate income from jobs, it would put the social utility of employment into question. Is employment the only (and best) way to produce wealth? It seems to me that the financial crisis just demonstrated the opposite: stratospheric wages of traders and bankers only help fuel the mass destruction of our economies instead of building sustainable growth.”<br />
<br />
These are crucial questions to consider as the sharing economy grows and replaces parts of the traditional economy. We need to create structures and regulations that help the sharing economy be a positive change instead of simply deepening the economic crisis and increasing worker-assumed risk."<br />
(http://www.maryknollogc.org/encounters/encounters-5-sharing-economy-economy-right-relationship#sharing)<br />
<br />
<br />
'''2. Juliet Schorr:'''<br />
<br />
"The debut of the sharing economy was marked by plenty of language about doing good, building social connections, saving the environment, and providing economic benefits to ordinary people. It was a feel-good story in which technological and economic innovation ushered in a better economic model. Especially in the aftermath of the financial crash, this positive narrative was hard to resist. Social activists flocked to these initiatives, hoping to piggyback on their popularity. Maybe, they thought, digital P2P platforms could be a pathway to a true grassroots, inclusive, fair, and lowimpact economy.<br />
<br />
Dean Baker, a progressive economist, claims the new sharing is “largely based on evading regulations and breaking the law” and subjects consumers to a substandard, possibly unsafe product.19 Anthony Kalamar has called out “sharewashing,” in which platforms shift risk onto employees under the guise of “sharing.” Tom Slee, writing in Jacobin, has challenged Airbnb’s claim that its users are single individuals earning small amounts of extra money, finding that half the revenue generated in New York City accrues to hosts with multiple listings.<br />
<br />
The central theme of the critics is that for-profit platforms have coopted what began as a progressive, socially transformative idea. Are they right? Regarding regulation, insurance, and taxation, the platforms are mobilizing political support, and, my experience suggests that they seem to be generally accepting of the idea that some regulation is necessary. Because most of the action is at the local and state level, there is a great deal of variation. But the trend seems to be towards a light regulatory touch that will allow the platforms to operate and grow.<br />
<br />
There is less clarity about how the platforms are affecting labor conditions. Critics see them as architects of a growing “precariat,” a class on the precarious edge of economic security, and argue that the impetus for sharing is not trust, but desperation.22 From the perspective of drivers, errand-runners, and hosts, they describe a race to the bottom, with risk-shifting from companies to individual “microentrepreneurs.”<br />
<br />
Part of the difficulty in assessing the impact of these new earning opportunities is that they are being introduced during a period of high unemployment and rapid labor market restructuring. Working conditions and protections are already being eroded, real wages are declining, and labor’s share of national income in the US has declined to historic lows. If the labor market continues to worsen for workers, their conditions will continue to erode, and it will not be because of sharing opportunities. Alternatively, if labor markets improve, sharers can demand more of the platforms because they have better alternatives. The two effects will work in opposite directions: with destruction of demand for legacy businesses and growth for sharing companies.<br />
<br />
We also need to consider the diversity of industries in which sharing platforms are operating. Some sectors are characterized by high rents that are easy to capture with disruptive technologies. Consider taxis. The biggest impact is likely the erosion in the value of medallions, the licenses they must possess to operate, because these medallions yield pure rents. While drivers in conventional operations may be capturing some of this excess profit, they are already facing adverse market conditions and, in many places, earning low hourly wages, as they are forced to pay high leasing and other fees to the owners of the medallions and vehicles. Union members fare better, but could they do better with Uber? Many have switched in hopes that they can. So far, though, the results are mixed, in part because they face increasing competition from platforms like UberX and Lyft, on which drivers use their own cars. And early high returns have been reduced by Uber’s fare cuts, which have led to driver protests and organizing efforts.<br />
An online platform with a good rating system should improve labor conditions. Consider the market for home health aides, where agencies currently take an enormous fraction of hourly fees, sometimes more than half. A P2P matching platform would take a lower fraction, enabling low-paid workers to earn considerably more and have more autonomy over which jobs they accept. Where owners, agencies, or other actors are extracting rents, P2P platforms should do what they claim—distribute value to consumers and producers and away from gatekeepers and rent extractors.<br />
<br />
Ultimately, the question is about how much value providers on these platforms can capture. This depends partly on whether they can organize themselves, a question the next section will explore. But there is another dimension, which is whether there is competition among platforms. Will they come to monopolize a given space, as we have seen in the areas of search, social media, and retail (Google, Facebook, Amazon)? Or are these P2P enterprises different? What they are offering is software, insurance, ratings, and a critical mass of participants. These are functions that can be replicated. For example, if the volume of users continues to grow, then critical mass may be achievable on multiple platforms. The ratings systems are not yet very good, and there are already start-ups attempting to delink ratings from individual platforms. Insurance can also be unbundled. At the May conference, venture capitalist Brad Burnham predicted a coming round of cost-squeezing akin to the cost-squeezing that the start-ups are inflicting on legacy businesses. On the other hand, the more the platforms are backed by and integrated with the large corporations that dominate the economy, the more monopolized the sector will be, and the less likely value will flow to providers and consumers."<br />
(http://www.greattransition.org/publication/debating-the-sharing-economy)<br />
<br />
==How Green is the Sharing Economy?==<br />
<br />
Juliet Schorr:<br />
<br />
"Most sharing economy websites advertise their green credentials, and many users care about their ecological impact. The ecological benefits of sharing are often seen as obvious: secondary markets reduce demand for new goods, so footprints go down. Staying in existing homes reduces the demand for new hotels just as toolsharing reduces new tool purchases. However, despite the widespread belief that the sector helps to reduce carbon emissions, there are almost no comprehensive studies of its impact. At this point, they are long overdue.<br />
<br />
An exception is a recent study of carsharing. It found a measurable reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, but only because of substantial reductions from a small fraction of households. For the majority, carsharing, by expanding access to cars, increased emissions.<br />
<br />
The ordinary assumptions about ecological impacts are generally about the first, visible shifts made by a consumer—purchasing used products rather than new ones, or staying in a private home rather than a hotel. To assess overall ecological impacts, however, we have to consider ripple effects. What does the seller or the host do with the money earned? She may use the money to buy high-impact products. Does the appearance of a market for used goods lead people to buy more new things that they intend to sell later? If travel becomes less expensive, do people do more of it? All of these effects raise ecological and carbon footprints.<br />
<br />
There is also the question of impacts at the level of the economy as a whole. The platforms are creating new markets that expand the volume of commerce and boost purchasing power. The larger, for-profit companies are claiming to generate substantial business and income for their providers. If so, they are likely creating economic activity that would not have existed otherwise—more travel, more private automobile rides—and not just shifting purchasing from one type of provider to another. My students and I have found that Airbnb users are taking more trips now and that the availablity of cheap ride services is diverting some people from public transportation. That means the platforms result in higher carbon emissions, because their services use energy. The companies can’t have it both ways—creating new economic activity and reducing carbon emissions—because the two are closely linked."<br />
(http://www.greattransition.org/publication/debating-the-sharing-economy)<br />
<br />
=Discussion 2=<br />
<br />
===There is no such thing as a sharing economy===<br />
<br />
Matthew Yglesias:<br />
<br />
"This is a dumb term and it deserves to die.<br />
<br />
It started, as best I can tell, with Zipcar which predates most of these companies and from the get-go described its product as "car sharing." The main problem with that description is that it wasn't car sharing. Zipcar was not and is not a service that facilitates the formation of automobile co-ops in which multiple households combine to collectively own and share a fleet of vehicles. That would be an interesting idea for a business, but it's not Zipcar's business. The way Zipcar's business works is that a firm owns a fleet of vehicles and then offers them as short-term rentals to its customers. They made up the word "car sharing" because the rental car business was well-established already and Zipcar wanted to rent cars in a different kind of way, so they needed a way to signal to people that it wasn't a head-to-head competitor with Hertz.<br />
<br />
But of course things metastasized. So when cities started creating municipally chartered short-term bicycle rental entities, those were known as "bike sharing." Things really got nasty when AirBNB launched a short-term rental platform for residential housing, because both the housing and hotel sectors are heavily regulated and taxed in different kinds of ways. Wouldn't it be better to just say we're sharing rather than running a hotel? Tom Friedman's latest sharing economy column is about a website that seems to be a platform for selling used clothing.<br />
<br />
These are mostly great businesses. The sale of used durable goods has always played a role in the economy, and insofar as the Internet lower search and transaction costs its role will grow. For rentals I think the case is even stronger. Traditionally, in order to make renting viable the goods-available-for-rent had to be stockpiled in huge centralized depots that were easily discoverable. Thanks to digitial technology, it's now feasible to do what Zipcar does and disperse the cars throughout the city. Since the cars are dispersed, they're more convenient. But none of this is sharing."<br />
(http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/12/26/myth_of_the_sharing_economy_there_s_no_such_thing.html)<br />
<br />
<br />
==The [[Exploitative Business Logics Behind the Sharing Economy]]==<br />
<br />
Andrew Leonard:<br />
<br />
"Here are eight prime reasons why the sharing economy is just a cover for Silicon Valley greed.<br />
<br />
1. When sharing becomes gouging<br />
<br />
Uber made plenty of headlines during a huge winter storm in New York in December, when riders found themselves paying three times the normal price to hail a car in the middle of the snow and frozen rain. Uber founder Travis Kalanick defended the “surge pricing” as a way to provide an incentive to drivers to stay out on the streets; but to many riders, the experience didn’t feel a whole lot like sharing. And as I learned all too well when I tried to use AirBnB to find a room in Austin, Texas, during the SXSW festival last year, Austin’s AirBnB hosts weren’t a bunch of Good Samaritans looking to lend out their couches — they were cold hard capitalists dedicated to charge as much as the market could possibly bear.<br />
<br />
2. Venture capitalists do not give a damn about sharing. They are looking for big returns on their investment<br />
<br />
Go over to the website for Peers.org, an advocacy group that describes itself as “a member-driven organization that supports the sharing economy movement.” First, scroll down to the bottom of the page and review the list of Peers’ “partners”: It’s a who’s who of “sharing economy all-stars.” Now go one step further, and look at where these companies are raising their money from: It’s a who’s who of Silicon Valley venture capital firms.<br />
<br />
AirBnB has raised money from Benchmark Capital, Greylock, Sequoia Capital and Founders Fund (featuring Peter Thiel and Sean Parker). Lyft is backed by Andreesen-Horowitz, Mayfield Fund and Founders Fund. Homejoy (a cleaning service coordination app) has raised cash from Google Ventures, Redpoint Ventures and First Round Capital. Sidecar is backed by Lightspeed Venture Partners and Google Ventures. Yerdle — which purports to help you clear out your closet — is a Kleiner-Perkins play.<br />
<br />
What other “movements” do you know that are massively funded by venture capitalists?<br />
<br />
3. Peers — the aforementioned sharing-economy advocate that pretends not to be a lobbyist — has a vested interest in the industry’s growth<br />
<br />
Peers.org originally described itself as a “grassroots” organization. Now it’s “member-driven.” Peers director Natalie Foster also made a bid deal, in the past, of stressing how Peers is not technically a “lobbying” organization. And yet, ever since its founding, Peers has been vigorously organizing citizen support for sharing-economy companies who’ve been fighting regulatory battles against local governments. Peers has been particularly active in support of AirBnB’s struggles against municipal laws restricting short-term rentals. One of Peers’ cofounders is Douglas Atkin, an AirBnB executive.<br />
<br />
4. When “sharing” means not paying your fair share of taxes<br />
<br />
One reason that Silicon Valley sees profit potential from the sharing economy is that sharing-economy startups are often able to avoid crucial costs that burden their competitors. Like, for example, taxes.<br />
<br />
In San Francisco, the city raised $191 million in 2013 from a “transient occupancy tax.” Technically, AirBnB hosts are required to pay that tax, but most just skip it. As a result, not only is the city’s tax base undermined, but AirBnB ends up with a distinct competitive advantage against the established hotel industry.<br />
<br />
5. The sharing economy equals low wages!<br />
<br />
What do TaskRabbit, Fancy Hands and Amazon’s Mechanical Turk have in common? They provide ways for people to get paid as little as possible for temp labor broken down into the smallest possible jobs (getting your cable service cancelled, making a dentist appointment, cleaning out the junk in your basement. Hooray for Silicon Valley: These startups have managed to create a truly efficient labor market. Workers get no benefits and aren’t covered by minimum-wage laws. The sharing economy: Where everyone is an independent contractor competing against everyone else for crumbs.<br />
<br />
6. Insurance<br />
<br />
Who is responsible when something goes wrong? This is a huge issue for ride-sharing services. On New Year’s Eve, an Uber driver who was in between fares hit and killed a 6-year-old child. As Marcus Wohlsen explained in Wired, Uber is trying to make the case that since it was not “’providing services on the Uber system’ at the time of the accident,” and, as such, the company is not liable for the accident. Again, avoiding having to carry the cost of insurance for its drivers gives Uber and other car-sharing services an obvious competitive advantage against established taxi companies.<br />
<br />
7. Regulation<br />
<br />
Many municipalities have laws on the books forbidding homeowners from renting out their rooms for less than 30 or 60 days. The reason? To prevent landlords from operating unregulated hotels. Real hotels are required to adhere to a raft of safety regulations designed to protect the public welfare. Apartments rented out through AirBnB avoid those regulations, even if they are, for all intents and purposes, used for the same purposes.<br />
<br />
In New York, for example, some apartment landlords have employed AirBnB as a booking operation for short-term hotel rentals. New numbers released this week revealed that most of the rooms rented on AirBnB in New York were in homes or apartments that were never occupied by their owner. Not a whole lot of “sharing” going on here — just a bunch of subletting.<br />
<br />
8. The true meaning of “disruption”<br />
<br />
Taxes, regulations, insurance — what entrepreneur wouldn’t jump at the chance to escape their heavy load? The most important lesson here is this: The next time you hear about a sharing-economy startup that is going to “disrupt” an industry sector, turn on your translator. What they’re really saying is that sharing-economy businesses will extract profits from their given sector, because their competitors can’t match their prices. By “sharing,” they have successfully made an end run around the existing costs of doing business."<br />
(http://www.salon.com/2014/02/17/youre_not_fooling_us_uber_8_reasons_why_the_sharing_economy_is_all_about_corporate_greed/)<br />
<br />
<br />
==The so-called sharing economy should really be called [[Platform Capitalism]]==<br />
<br />
By sebastian olma:<br />
<br />
"Sascha Lobo, a German technology blogger for Der Spiegel, has recently suggested to drop the obscure notion of “sharing” altogether. “What is called sharing economy,” he argues, “is merely one aspect of a more general development, i.e., a new quality of the the digital economy: platform capitalism.” As Lobo emphasizes, platforms like Uber and AirBnB are more than just internet marketplaces. While marketplaces connect supply and demand between customers and companies, digital platforms connect customers to whatever. The platform is a generic ‘ecosystem’ able to link potential customers to anything and anyone, from private individuals to multinational corporations. Everyone can become a supplier for all sorts of products and services at the click of a button. This is the real innovation that companies of the platform capitalism variety have introduced. Again, this is miles away from sharing but instead represents an interesting mutation of the economic system due to the application of digital technology.<br />
<br />
It should be clear that understanding the “sharing economy” in terms of platform capitalism is by no means a matter of linguistic nitpicking. Calling this crucial development by its proper name is an important step towards a more sober assessment of the claims made by the proponents of “sharing.” Take, for instance, the notion that everyone benefits from the disruptive force of the “sharing economy” because it cuts out the middleman. Sharing models, the argument goes, facilitate a more direct exchange between economic agents, thus eliminating the inefficient middle layers and making market exchange simpler and fairer. While it is absolutely true that internet marketplaces and digital platforms can reduce transaction costs, the claim that they cut out the middleman is pure fantasy. As one blogger puts it: “Sure, many of the old middlemen and retailers disappear but only to be replaced by much more powerful gatekeepers.”<br />
<br />
In fact, the argument is quite an obscene one, particularly if it is made by the stakeholders of platform capitalism themselves. As globally operating digital platforms, these companies have the unique ability to cut across many regional markets and reconfigure traditionally specific markets for goods and services as generic customer-to-whatever ‘ecosystems’. It seems fairly obvious that the entire purpose of the platform business model is to reach a monopoly position, as this enables the respective platform to set and control the (considerably lower) standards upon which someone (preferably anyone) could become a supplier in the respective market. Instead of cutting out the middleman, digital platforms have the inherent tendency to become veritable Über-middlemen, i.e., monopolies with an unprecedented control over the markets they themselves create. In fact, calling these customer-to-whatever ecosystems “markets” often turns out to be a bit of a joke. For the clients of Uber & Co., price is not the result of the free play of supply and demand but of specific algorithms supposedly simulating the market mechanism. The effect of such algorithmic tampering with the market is demonstrated for instance by Uber’s surge pricing during periods of peak demand. It is not very difficult to see where this might be leading. Taking a cab to the hospital in, say, New York City during a snow storm might become unaffordable for some under conditions of mature platform capitalism. For those who believe this to be overly pessimistic and a bit of an exaggeration, just ask your local taxi driver what percentage of her work is already coming from one of the digital platforms.<br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
As Sacha Lobo puts it succinctly:<br />
<br />
“By controlling their ecosystems, platforms create a stage on which every economic transaction can be turned into an auction. Nothing minimizes cost better than an auction – including the cost of labour. That’s why labour is the crucial societal aspect of platform capitalism. It is exactly here that we will have to decide whether to harness the enormous advantages of platform capitalism and the sharing economy or to create a ‘dumping market’ where the exploited amateurs only have the function to push professional prices down."<br />
<br />
I agree. The basis for such a decision needs to be a proper understanding of the reality of platform capitalism. The anger we have seen over the last few months directed against the “sharing economy” has a lot to do with the utterly unsubstantial claims and stories that are constantly churned out by the marketing machine of platform capitalism. Take John Zimmer, co-founder of Lyft, who told Wired earlier this year that the sharing economy bestows on us the gift of a revived community spirit. Referring to his visit to the Oglala Sioux reservation, he writes: “Their sense of community, of connection to each other and to their land, made me feel more happy and alive than I’ve ever felt. We now have the opportunity to use technology to help us get there.” No question, the pompous impertinence of this comparison is truly breathtaking. And yet, neither is this kind of rhetorical gymnastics the exception in the sharing-scene nor does it come unmotivated. <br />
<br />
<br />
Noam Scheiber of the New Republic explains the rationale behind the obscenities of Zimmer (and his kind) with great lucidity :<br />
<br />
“For-profit “sharing” represents by far the fastest-growing source of un- and under-regulated commercial activity in the country. Calling it the modern equivalent of an ancient tribal custom is a rather ingenious rationale for keeping it that way. After all, if you’re a regulator, it’s easy to crack down on the commercial use of improperly zoned and insured property. But what kind of knuckle-dragger would crack down on making friends?”<br />
(http://networkcultures.org/mycreativity/2014/10/16/never-mind-the-sharing-economy-heres-platform-capitalism/)<br />
<br />
==The Sharing Economy is using your assets==<br />
<br />
Trebor Scholz:<br />
<br />
"I am all there with Arun Sundararajan, professor at Stern School of Business at NYU, who describes walking down the street in New York City, musing on all the parked cars that remain unused ninety-two percent of the time. He gets it right; it seems awfully inefficient, even wasteful. Why couldn’t he just pick up one of those vehicles, run an errand, return the car to that same spot thirty minutes later, clip a twenty dollar bill under the sunshade, and be done?<br />
<br />
But then he claims that such emerging marketplaces can perfectly self-regulate and should be left to their own devices. Sharon Ciarella, Vice President of Amazon Mechanical Turk, made a similar argument: Mechanical Turk workers would just vote with their feet — they could not be tricked into performing exploitative work. All good here; no intervention needed.<br />
<br />
Not so fast. It is surprising that crowdmilking practices on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk still have not raised red flags in the offices of regulators. Based on these examples, it should be clear how sorely regulation is needed. I agree with Evgeny Morozov who pointed out that the so-called “sharing economy” is nothing but the logical continuation of crowdsourcing. A company like Uber is not free from those dynamics. There is a reason that taxi fares are regulated; it prevents abuse. I rode in a town car recently and was quoted $16 for my trip. Through Uber, the same trip would have cost between $21 and $27.<br />
<br />
But it is also all so electrifying. Uber is valued at 10 billion dollars and Airbnb, a company founded in 2008, is valued higher than the Hyatt hotel chain. Airbnb offers as many rooms as Intercontinental, which has 4600 hotels with 120,000 employees in over 100 countries. It took Intercontinental sixty years to build this business empire. Hyatt and Intercontinental had to hire architects and build up an enormous infrastructure. And then here comes Airbnb, which offers an impressive 500,000 listings in 33,000 cities in more than 192 countries. So far, Airbnb has hosted 8.5 million guests without ever turning a brick. All they got is an app; it’s a logistics company. Are we looking at a secret plot, a covert p2p takeover? Companies in the “sharing economy” can only function because they are using your “assets,” your resources: your car (Bla Bla Car, Getaround), your apartment (Airbnb), and your computing power (Skype).<br />
<br />
But the exploitative basis of such business ventures is overshadowed by their obvious appeal to consumers. In the sharing economy, surviving without a job suddenly seems to be in reach; people can now rent out all of their “assets.” The rush to wield unused capacity (“Buy a bigger car because now you’ll be able to rent it out!”) can quickly move from a bit of welcome extra cash to being a requirement. "<br />
(http://blogs.newschool.edu/heilbroner-center/2014/10/15/the-politics-of-the-sharing-economy/)<br />
<br />
==Most of the Sharing Economy is a Rental Economy and should be regulated as such==<br />
<br />
Giorgos Kallis:<br />
<br />
"AirBnb, and other sites such as Uber , where drivers car-share with passengers for short routes in town or, Greek-origin Cookisto , where amateur cooks deliver home-cooked meals, are part of a phenomenon that has been dubbed “the sharing economy”. As the title of Rachel Botsman´s book tellingly puts it, in this new economy “what´s mine is yours ”. I offer my house, and you offer yours. You cook for me, or I can cook for someone else. Use takes the place of ownership.<br />
<br />
Instead of buying new consumer goods, in this “sharing economy” we collaborate to share goods that we already have, when we do not need them: from rooms, houses, cars and bikes, to appliances, drills, or even dogs (in BorrowMyDoggy ). Of course, borrowing, lending and doing small favours are not new phenomena. What is new is the scale in which these can now take place. The new online social networking platforms allow exchanges not only between friends and neighbours, but between complete strangers, from different parts of the world. <br />
<br />
As with everything new under capitalism, creation brings destruction. The new economy is disrupting existing industries. Last June, London grinded to a halt by a strike held by 10 thousand taxi drivers who demonstrated with their vehicles on the city centre against Uber, whose low prices are threatening to put them out of business. In theory, Uber drivers were supposed to be everyday people who decide to make an extra buck by taking a passenger with them in their rides. In reality, most drivers are former taxi drivers who are exploiting the legal gap and drive without having to pay for insurance or for a license.<br />
<br />
For similar reasons, in New York or San Francisco, hoteliers accuse AirBnb of unfair competition. Its hosts do not pay municipal taxes, do not have to meet expensive safety regulations, and can operate wherever they want, and outside the zones set out by planning authorities for tourism activities. <br />
<br />
It is hard to sympathize with taxi drivers or hoteliers, or lament that the prices of these, often overpriced, services are going down as a result of the “sharing economy”. However, there is a deeper issue at stake here. Laws and regulations exist for a reason. Municipal taxes finance the public infrastructure that is then used by tourists. Planning authorities limit the number of “room to let” or the taxis in a city, because otherwise life can become unbearable for the inhabitants of the city.<br />
<br />
I have many friends in Barcelona who have experienced a total transformation of their apartment blocks, suddenly finding themselves alone within AirBnb rentals, unable to sleep from the parties of weekend travelers. Rental prices in the centre of Barcelona are sky-rocketing, as owners find it more profitable to rent on AirBnb than hold long-term leases. New “entrepreneurs” bid prices up, renting apartments that they then sublet at AirBnb.<br />
<br />
Zoning restrictions for new hotels was a key site of struggle for Barcelona´s neighbourhoods’ movements. But all this has become now irrelevant by the unregulated avalanche of AirBnb houses popping up literally everywhere and changing the form and composition of the city.<br />
<br />
Regulatory authorities are slowly catching up. In Barcelona, municipal authorities fined AirBnb with the symbolic sum of €30 thousand for advertising apartments that did not have rental permits. After a public backlash against unregulated rentals in the neighbourhood of Barceloneta this August, with spontaneous citizens´ protests, the municipality has started a door-to-door check, closing down rented apartments that lack a permit. In New York, authorities have begun evicting people who sublet apartments that do not belong to them, whereas in San Francisco authorities file lawsuits against short-term rentals that violate the law.<br />
<br />
AirBnb, and other companies such as Uber, which have come under the attention of regulators respond that over-legislation is threatening to kill innovation at its birth. If, in order to rent out a room or give a ride, one has to get a license like a hotel or a taxi, then this becomes an economically impossible proposition.<br />
<br />
AirBnb is running a huge advertising campaign in New York , reminding New Yorkers the benefits it offers to them, not least income. Mobilizing their so-called “communities”, companies like AirBnb or Uber are organizing counter-protests, involving their users. This discourse of “community” and “sharing” is instrumental not only for mobilizing people in regulatory battles, under the guise of a romantic battle for a different economy, but is also essential in building up a case, that these ventures are not like any other capitalist venture, and therefore merit a different treatment from the regulators. <br />
<br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
<br />
the case for a special treatment by regulators seems weak, if one considers other factors. First, AirBnb itself is a capitalistic corporation like any other, valued at $10 billion. Its profits - dozens of millions today- are forecast to reach an estimated $1 billion per year in the coming years. AirBnb is a company with only 600 employees, with relatively low costs (related to software development and operation), but with a potentially huge market under its reach.<br />
<br />
This is a company that can potentially control the global market for short-term rentals, charging a 10-15% commission in each and every exchange. Online social networks are not only bringing people from faraway together, but also are creating global markets, where only local segmented markets existed before. The profits from these markets are astronomical unlike anything a real estate agent would ever dream of and concentrate in the pockets of a few entrepreneurs and venture capitalists, a concentration with probably precedent in history. Tellingly, but somewhat exaggeratingly, this has led some to call companies like AirBnb, a “mafia of intermediaries”.<br />
<br />
Second, most of the transactions taking place under AirBnb are pure rentals, involving money. It is a euphemism to call them “sharing” and hence argue that they should not be regulated or taxed. They are normal economic transactions. Where is the sharing in renting at AirBnb, and why is it “peer-to-peer” when you rent at AirBnb but not when you rent in the rental market?<br />
<br />
In the rental economy of AirBnb a whole suit of small scale intermediaries are popping up, from those who rent houses and then sublet them through AirBnb, to companies who take care of everything that needs to be done for renting your house at AirBnb (from furnishing it, to managing the listing), for a cut on the deal. It’s one thing to host someone in your home with the prospect of someday being hosted in theirs too, as is the case with Couchsurfing , or to exchange your home, as in HomeExchange (in both cases without the mediation of money), and another one to rent or pay to rent. <br />
<br />
Third, and worse of all, under a rhetoric guise of “sharing”, websites like AirBnb or Uber are creating a new informal economy of uninsured workers whose entire life is up for rent, from cars and homes, to their own hands available to perform chores for a fee in sites like “taskrabbit ”. Entire professions - cab drivers, cleaners etc- are passing in this way into a new black economy- unregulated, tax free and uninsured. And instead of (or alongside) the much-touted socialization and community, the result is the commodification of the final shreds of social life that had remained outside the economy.<br />
<br />
Everything now is available to rent, at the right price; from empty rooms to an unused frying pan. Nothing any more is available for free. Hosting a friend at your house has an “opportunity cost”, eroding the value of hospitality.<br />
<br />
The rental economy of AirBnb is not the same as the real sharing economy of urban gardens, time banks or couchsurfing, where users truly share their work, their resources and their assets, without the intermediation of money, and crucially without profit. The rental economy is the inevitable, within capitalism, commodified version of the sharing economy. As the crisis opened opportunities for new forms of mutual aid and sharing, enterprises such as AirBnb saw the opportunity to monetise them and profit.<br />
<br />
As for the environment, I am not sure that leaving nothing idle is good for the environment. The “sharing economy” mobilizes and puts everything into circulation, retaining at all costs an unsustainable consumption model. Not my view of a sustainable future.<br />
<br />
In conclusion: AirBnb is a rental intermediary. It is a capitalistic enterprise like any other and a very innovative and successful one in that. It should be treated, regulated, zoned and taxed as such. The same applies for those who profit from it. Exemptions could be made for those who do not use it professionally or do not make money from it (this can easily be ascertained by the frequency, duration and value of the services offered as the websites document everything).<br />
<br />
Renting is not sharing: it should be regulated and taxed."<br />
(http://www.thepressproject.net/article/68073/AirBnb-is-a-rental-economy-not-a-sharing-economy)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Work Conditions under a sharing economy==<br />
<br />
Ursula Huws:<br />
<br />
"It appears a new kind of working life is emerging.<br />
<br />
It is a life in which who you are and what you can do are displayed to the world in the form of a standardized profile: your skills and the tasks you can perform listed in standard tick-box form, perhaps embellished with some self-promotional text. The strangers with the power to hire you can assess the quality of your work through user ratings that may reflect informed judgement but might equally be an indication of poor taste or a rationale for not paying you.<br />
<br />
You don’t know from one week, day, or even hour to the next when or whether you will have work: so keep the smartphone always at hand, ready to hit “accept” at a moment’s notice. You are, in short, permanently logged on.<br />
<br />
And since your work is largely carried out online, your every activity is recorded. You are thus continuously generating the data that makes it possible for you to be monitored even more closely, with increasingly precise performance indicators, reducing still further any wiggle room for individual autonomy.<br />
<br />
You become part of an atomized workforce, in which individuals are increasingly interchangeable. Their labor is logged: logged in the sense of being chopped up into standardized units; logged in the sense of being connected online, and logged in the sense of being recorded for future analysis. You could call it triply logged.<br />
<br />
This might seem overly dystopian. After all, it can be argued, the kinds of work that are now increasingly managed by online platforms have always been precarious. When was taxi-driving or freelance copy-editing ever secure? By what stretch of the imagination was cleaning or running errands ever regarded as a regular job?<br />
<br />
One way of looking at the recent exponential growth of online platforms in service delivery is to see it as a formalization of the informal economy, with the transparency of an open market replacing the old word-of-mouth methods of finding work, and the replacement of unrecorded cash-in-hand payments by trackable online payments, opening up at least the possibility for taxes to be collected and fairness to prevail."<br />
(https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/01/huws-sharing-economy-crowdsource-precarity-uber-workers/)<br />
<br />
=More Information=<br />
<br />
* [http://www.greattransition.org/publication/debating-the-sharing-economy Debating the Sharing Economy] By Juliet Schor.<br />
<br />
==The Book==<br />
<br />
* Book: The sharing economy: [[Solidarity Networks Transforming Globalisation]]. By Lorna Gold. Ashgate, 2004<br />
<br />
Google Books version at [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=HtzAwhWYv4YC&printsec=frontcover&hl=nl&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false]<br />
<br />
<br />
=Visualizations=<br />
<br />
[[File:DXS-9pfWAAE-hv1.jpg]]<br />
<br />
[[File:DXS-iEvWAAICK2z.jpg]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Business]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Encyclopedia]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Books]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Economics]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Collaborative Economy]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Sharing]]</div>Vasilis.niaroshttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=File:DXS-iEvWAAICK2z.jpg&diff=111606File:DXS-iEvWAAICK2z.jpg2018-03-06T18:19:22Z<p>Vasilis.niaros: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Vasilis.niaroshttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=File:DXS-9pfWAAE-hv1.jpg&diff=111605File:DXS-9pfWAAE-hv1.jpg2018-03-06T18:18:45Z<p>Vasilis.niaros: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Vasilis.niaroshttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Fab_Mob_Reciprocal_License_for_the_Legal_Contractualisation_of_Commons&diff=111518Fab Mob Reciprocal License for the Legal Contractualisation of Commons2018-02-20T08:16:41Z<p>Vasilis.niaros: /* A. Open licences */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
=Source=<br />
<br />
'''* Source: The legal contractualisation of commons: Towards a model of reciprocal licence for "La Fabrique des Mobilités" .'''<br />
<br />
=Status=<br />
<br />
Intro and part I-II, without tables, translated by Pascale Garbaye, January-February 2018<br />
<br />
Note the translation is still subject to corrections and improvements.<br />
<br />
Still to be translated:<br />
<br />
* end of Part II - Chapter Reciprocal Licences (5 pages)<br />
<br />
* Part III - Recommandation for "La Fabrique des Mobilités" (5 pages) <br />
<br />
* the 2 appendix (charter of values and reciprocal licence) (6 pages) - idem<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=Text=<br />
<br />
The subject of this study is to consider the possible terms of a contractual frame for the commons provided, created and developed within "La Fabrique des Mobilités" framework, in collaboration with all the players involved.<br />
<br />
This study follows an initial reflection conducted in the "Livre Blanc", published in June 2015, under section "Establishing a common law for "La Fabrique des Mobilités".<br />
<br />
Among the recommendations in this first article, we particularly considered that the "Fabrique des Mobilités" could be a regulatory body, by offering legal tools to its members that would enable them to govern the terms and conditions for their participation in the creation, use or even exploitation of commons.<br />
<br />
Thus, a contractual scheme was proposed, depending on the level of commitment intended by the protagonists and the interactions that might exist between them. This scheme foresaw a "funnel-shaped" contractualisation: from a simple approval to a Charter of Values towards "open" licences contractualisation, to the possible development of suitable bipartite or multiparty partnerships, favouring reciprocity.<br />
<br />
Since then, our aim has been to compare this contractual scheme with the needs expressed by the members of "La Fabrique des Mobilités" on current practical projects, to validate the analysis in relation to emerging contractual practices, particularly in the field of reciprocal licensing and finally, to propose possible and original contractualisation models.<br />
<br />
This note is the restitution of this work.<br />
<br />
It leads to the proposal of two documents:<br />
<br />
'''(i) A "Charter of Values", designed for all members of "La Fabrique des Mobilités".''' <br />
<br />
This Charter displays the conditions under which the resources are drived and managed within La Fabrique, for exclusively non-commercial purposes and on condition of sharing all copies and versions derived from these resources with<br />
other members.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''(ii) An operating licence of the resources,''' <br />
<br />
including commercial, available for members who contributed to their creation, enrichment, improvement or development, subject to an equitable remuneration to other contributors.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The existence of commons in our positive law is enshrined in article 714 of the Civil Code, which wording remained unchanged since the law of April 1803 the 19th. Since the general definition given by this article, the acceptation of commons was enriched, both by the law, which regulated certain categories of commons, and by schools, groups and/or communities which tried to implement licences to administer their use or even commercial exploitation, under conditions of reciprocity.<br />
<br />
Thus, there is a kind of "taxonomy" of the commons, which can be identified according to their nature and mode of governance.<br />
<br />
As for their governance, the only issue we consider in this study, two main contractualisation models coexist<br />
<br />
(i) Public access to commons under open licences, generally the widest possible, <br />
<br />
(ii) Conditional sharing of commons within a community of interest, in the context of reciprocal licences.<br />
<br />
In our opinion, as soon as the "Fabrique des Mobilités" purpose is to create a platform for sharing information and resources between the different mobility actors, with the institution of respective rights and duties between the parties, the reciprocal licencing model, rather than open licences, should be choose.<br />
<br />
Then, the question is "how" we can propose possible contractual terms.<br />
<br />
<br />
After reminding the current acceptations of commons (I), this study looks into ongoing licences proposed or implemented to regulate the use of commons in view of the double objective to safeguard openness and reciprocity (II) and makes recommendations on potential contractual tools for "La Fabrique des Mobilités" so that emerging commons can be exchanged between members, on a non-commercial or commercial basis (III).<br />
<br />
<br />
==I. DIFFERENT ACCEPTATIONS OF COMMONS==<br />
<br />
In addition to the "classic" conception which, in general, applies to all commons (A), there is a specific category of commons to the transport and mobility field, recently recognised by the legislator: data of general interest (B).<br />
<br />
<br />
===A. Commons, in general===<br />
<br />
Today, the concept of commons can take many legal meanings, provided both by the law and by the choices of communities. It can be something that belongs to no one and its use is common to all (1), a good whose use is allowed to the many (2) or any results coming from an altruistic action conducted by a community of persons (3).<br />
<br />
<br />
'''1. Thing that belongs to no one and its use is common to all'''<br />
<br />
The first definition of common goods is given in article 714 of the Civil Code<br />
<br />
"There are things that belong to no one and whose use is common to all"<br />
<br />
Res communes usually referred to in Article 714 are natural things, such as air, seawater or running water, and some physical resources, such as pastures or fisheries.<br />
<br />
This classic definition can also cover resources established more recently by contemporary legislators.<br />
Thus, public data perfectly match with the legal regime of common things, in that they do not belong to the public person, who physically holds them but must be open to the many, according to a legal redistribution mechanism.<br />
<br />
Established since the CADA law of 17 July 1978, the policy of open access to public data is enjoying a new boom. <br />
<br />
The law n° 2016-1321 of October 2016 the 7th, referred as "Law for a digital Republic", obliges all administrations (ministries, local and regional authorities, public institutions, etc.) to make any administrative document published in electronic format generally and systematically available to the public, "in an open standard, easily reusable and exploitable by an automated processing system".<br />
<br />
<br />
'''2. A good whose use is allowed to the many'''<br />
<br />
In addition to the definition of the Civil Code, another acceptation of commons appeared, based on the idea that commons are not necessarily defined by their essence but also by their function: all things which are freely accessible and usable would be common.<br />
<br />
This applies when a property owner transfers its ownership to others, either fully or in part, temporarily or permanently, according to a predetermined and non-discriminatory manner.<br />
<br />
Thus, according to this line of thinking which underpins the "open-source" concept, ownership itself becomes an alternative source of commons. Software, data or other content distributed "under free licenses" is the result of the willingness of its authors to share its use but remain their property<br />
<br />
An "open-source" license is always open under certain predetermine conditions and reservations. Thus, the violation of the free licence terms is an infringement on the authors' intellectual property rights by counterfeiting them.<br />
<br />
Therefore, contrary to popular belief, open licences are not the negation of ownership but an altruistic and disinterested development of it.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''3. Any results coming from an altruistic action conducted by a community of persons'''<br />
<br />
With the growing and structuring commons movement, the concept of "collaborative commons" appeared, according to which commons become not only natural things but also "human things".<br />
<br />
In a society where donation and participation, sharing and feedback of experience, as well as collaboration, are favoured, human activities are now released from the grip of individual appropriation to become things that can be exchanged and even valued within communities of persons or interests.<br />
<br />
Besides these three traditional conceptions, a new acceptation appeared in the field of transport: data of general interest, which definition appears to be a new typology of commons.<br />
<br />
<br />
===B. Data of general interest in the field of transport ===<br />
<br />
Submitted to the Secretary of State for Transport, Sea and Fisheries in March 2015, the report called for the creation of a new category of data, data of general interest. <br />
<br />
This report has been implemented in the law n° 2015-990 of August 2015 the 6th, referred as the Macron law. This law introduced a new article L1115-1 in the Transport Code, which provides that data, on regular public transport services for passengers and mobility, must be available for users information freely, immediately and free of charge.<br />
<br />
Subject to the decree implementing this provision of the Macron law, which is still being reviewed by the Council of State, public transport services, as well as private companies, mobility services and AOT route planners should be subject to this obligation of free and open dissemination and access to the above-mentioned data.<br />
<br />
Therefore, this law, implementing the recommendations of Jutland report, creates the new category of data of general interest, understood as private data in nature but their publication can be justified due to their interest to improve public policies. <br />
<br />
<br />
These data of general interest come from three sources<br />
<br />
* Data from public service delegations;<br />
* Key data coming from grant agreements;<br />
* Data from private companies necessary to INSEE surveys.<br />
<br />
Since their objective is to be distributed and shared as widely as possible, data of general interest are undoubtedly equivalent to new commons.<br />
<br />
Thus, commons would not be only determined by common use or a property rights but also by a purpose, the one whose pursues an objective of general interest.<br />
<br />
<br />
***<br />
<br />
These commons existing in various ways, can their administration, i.e. how they are used in common, be subject to contractual modelling? According to their nature? The communities who use and exploit them? And possible operational modes, allowed, conditioned or prohibited?<br />
<br />
There are currently different licenses that govern the use of commons. Some of them are still looking for. Others have to be invented...<br />
<br />
<br />
==II. ON-GOING LICENCES PROPOSED TO REGULATE THE USE OF COMMONS==<br />
<br />
The conditions for the governance of commons by the contract are subject to two main models of licenses: open licenses, making commons available to all (A) and reciprocal licenses, making the use of commons under conditions of sharing and remuneration rules, within a community of users (B).<br />
<br />
===A. Open licences===<br />
<br />
As stated above, the "open source" model is based on a conception of commons as properties belonging to a sole owner but which use is allowed to all, by the altruistic will of the latter.<br />
<br />
From this point of view, a "proprietary" property can be considered as a common if the owner allows its use to the many.<br />
<br />
Thus, there are two possible concepts leading to this opening up. A good that, by nature, doesn't belong to anybody or a good which owner "leaves" his property can be opened. <br />
<br />
And in each of these two schemes, there can be several degrees of opening: from the most closed to the most open or vice versa, from the most open to the most closed. In the first case, the owner decides to open a property that, by nature, is closed and in the second case, the community can decide to close a resource by nature open, according to a progressive scheme and criteria which can be the same.<br />
<br />
These criteria could be the user identity, the nature of the open matter, and intensity of its intended use, a particular territory, the period of use, an investment to protect, an expected compensation or reciprocity or the commercial or non-commercial nature of the use.<br />
<br />
[[File:2 potential concepts.jpg]]<br />
<br />
In all cases, contract is the tool of opening up or closing up. Usually considered to be a licence, this contract can, depending on the acceptation used, be an exclusive, open or reciprocal licence. <br />
<br />
In this study, we 'll focus not about "proprietary" licence but about open or reciprocal licences.<br />
<br />
Several categories of open licences include software (1), other creative works (2) and public data (3). However, principle of these licences is criticised (4).<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
====1. "Open source" software====<br />
<br />
The "Proprietary" scheme above applies perfectly to the logic of software granted in "open source".<br />
<br />
Some "proprietary" software can indeed be freely distributed, for non-commercial use, under:<br />
- "Freeware" model, when authors have abandoned their intellectual property rights, software is free to use, without financial compensation or specific obligations,<br />
- "Shareware" model, when users are, first, invited to test software and choose to make a financial contribution if they are satisfied.<br />
<br />
There, opening-up operates within a conditioned scheme.<br />
<br />
The concept of "free" software has been set up by Linus TORVALDS (Finnish), and, in order to fight against office software companies' monopolies, the sources of Linux software have been publicly available, free of charge. <br />
<br />
This free software model, also called "copyleft", is based on the principle that software should not be considered as a saleable product, but as a resource. Thus, its source code is available for free to everyone, while utilities services, maintenance, consultation, integration, etc. attached to this software are generally provided against payment.<br />
<br />
The conditions for the use of free software are governed by an "accessible source" or "open source" licence, which main models are:<br />
<br />
- GNU GPL (General Public Licence) and GNU LGPL (Lesser General Public Licence), both designed by Free Software Foundation,<br />
<br />
- NPL (Netscape Public License), offered by NETSCAPE Society on its browser Communicator.<br />
<br />
The features of the main "open source" licences are detailed in the following table.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
====2. Extension to other creative works : Creative Commons' model====<br />
<br />
"Open source" user licences have been proposed for other works than software, but they only apply to a specific category of works: Cecill for software, LEL Licence for art work, Free Music Licence for musical works.<br />
<br />
In 2001, Professor Lawrence LESSIG, from University of Stanford, created the "Creative Commons" model, in order to offer authors of creative works an alternative to the traditional patterns for their communication towards the public and, thus, further their sharing while keeping their protection.<br />
<br />
Owners of intellectual property rights can, currently, select six licences for their works, according to exploitation they intend to give them.<br />
<br />
<br />
1. Attribution (BY): The rights owner authorises any exploitation of the work, including for commercial purposes, as well as creation of derivative works, which distribution is also allowed without restriction, provided that the name of the author is quoted.<br />
<br />
2. Attribution + No Derivatives (BY ND) : The rights owner authorizes any use of the original work (including for commercial purposes), but doesn't allow the creation of derivative works.<br />
<br />
3. Attribution + Non Commercial + No Derivatives (BY NC ND) : The rights owner authorizes any use of the original work for non commercial purposes, but doesn't allow the creation of derivative works.<br />
<br />
4. Attribution + Non Commercial (BY NC) : The rights owner authorizes any exploitation of the work, as well as creation of derivative works, only for non commercial purposes (commercial uses are subject to his approval).<br />
<br />
5. Attribution + Non Commercial + Sharealike (BY NC SA): The rights owner authorizes any exploitation of the original work for non commercial purposes, as well as creation of derivative works, provided that there are distributed under the same licence than the original work.<br />
<br />
6. Attribution + Sharealike (BY SA) : The rights owner authorises any exploitation of the work, including for commercial purposes, as well as creation of derivative works, provided that there are distributed under the same licence than the original work.<br />
<br />
<br />
====3. Public data user licences====<br />
<br />
Under the above CADA law and "For a Digital Republic" French law, access to and reuse of public data may be subject to licences laying out their associated rights and obligations, on the basis of licences more or less open.<br />
<br />
To date, several licences coexist:<br />
<br />
ETALAB mission promotes a fully open, free, non-exclusive and free of charge licence, which promotes the broadest possible re-use, by allowing the transformation, reproduction and commercial redistribution of data, including their adaptation and combination with other data, subject to the mention of the source and last update of the data.<br />
<br />
As for data defects and irregularities, the "producer" does not offer any guarantee, nor does he insure that their supply can be continuous. However, he guarantees that data does not contain any intellectual property rights belonging to third party. If it owns them, he shall transfer the rights on a non-exclusive basis, free of charge, for the whole world and for the entire duration of the rights.<br />
<br />
Recently, ETALAB licence was updated, to include the updated provisions of the law "For a Digital Republic". Particularly, it takes the re-use of public information containing personal data into account, subject to the "Informatique et Libertés" law n°78-17 of January 1978 the 6th.<br />
<br />
Other types of open licences – such as « Open Government Licence (OGL) », « Creative Commons », described above, and « Open Data Commons » – not initially foreseen for open data but for the release of intellectual property rights, can be easily adapted to opening data.<br />
<br />
Some French institutions shall adopt these licences. OBdL et ODC-By licences appear to be the more commonly used.<br />
<br />
"L'Agence du Patrimoine Immateriel de l'Etat" (APIE), provides Public Information Licenses (PIL) which are not "free licenses". Subject to a fee for the public person, it allows the re-use of public data under certain conditions.<br />
<br />
The duration of these licenses may be unlimited or limited.<br />
<br />
These licenses seem to fall into disuse in favour for "open" models.<br />
<br />
Even so, it has to be said that, in France public data access and re-use have been partially achieved: few public persons released their data and its reusing modes is facing resistances.<br />
<br />
This is why, the law "For a Digital Republic" created a public service for data.<br />
<br />
According to Article 11 of this law, administrations should not hinder re-use of their published public databases, except for data which have been produced or received in the exercise of a public service mission, of an industrial or commercial nature, subject to competition.<br />
<br />
To this end, a list of free re-use licences for these public data will be proposed, determined by decree and revised every five years.<br />
<br />
When an administration wishes to use a license that is not on this list, this licence has to be, first, approved by the State, under conditions determined by decree.<br />
<br />
To date, these two decrees have not been published yet.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
====4. Criticisms of the "open source" model====<br />
<br />
Theorists and practitioners of commons have criticized the "open source" model.<br />
<br />
This model was first criticized for being inadequate in relation to the concept of commons, which is based on the idea of resources "governed" by a community of interest.<br />
<br />
Valérie Peugeot, researcher and chairwoman of VECAM, defines commons by the three dimensions that characterize them: commons are (i) resources (ii) subject to a collective rights and obligations system (iii) which use is governed by a community.<br />
<br />
Yet, open licences, previously described, are unilateral licences which opening-up, terms and conditions of the opening-up, are decided by the only will of the initial holder of the resource.<br />
<br />
Moreover, an "open source" licence aim to disseminate the work to the many, without keeping in mind the idea of reciprocity from licences' users, neither interaction between them and the initial holder of the resource.<br />
<br />
Imposing certain conditions on the opening-up of a resource, as in the open licences scheme, is not the same thing as agreeing on the opening-up conditions, that require, of those who benefit of the opening-up, a positive action of reciprocity, whether material, financial or ethical.<br />
<br />
"Open" Licence model has also been criticised for not distinguishing non-commercial or commercial exploitation. This allows commercial entities, which have not contributed to resources or financed their creation and development, to use them for free, even to make their own, thus creating a state of unregulated competition and a new form of parasitism.<br />
<br />
Paying close attention to these practices, the article 8 of the "For a Digital Republic" law provided protection for a new class of commons, the common informational domain. The aim of these provisions was to "protect the common resources of the public domain from ownership practices that lead to denying access to them", by allowing authorized associations to take legal proceeding to defend this common domain and to put an end to any attempt to exclusive reappropriation.<br />
<br />
However, these provisions have not been taken up in the law that was finally approved, due to the opposition of several actors in the literary and artistic property field (SEPM, SACD, SNEP, FNPS, SNE …), who argued that there were imprecise and dangerous for copyright protection.<br />
<br />
Whatever, criticism against "open source" licenses is now the basis for the current thinking of reciprocal licences.<br />
<br />
===B - Reciprocal Licences===<br />
<br />
In opposition to the "open source" model, promoting the dissemination to everyone, reciprocal licences set up principle and conditions for the sharing of common. It's restricted to members of a community and depends on respective contributions for the common.<br />
<br />
Reciprocal licences usually provide for increasing restrictions, depending on the categories of common users, in order to ensure reciprocity on the conditions of this sharing.<br />
<br />
Those restrictions are usually based on the following main principles:<br />
<br />
a) The common can be used by all members of the community for non-commercial use<br />
<br />
b) Commercial exploitation of the common by members is possible, under the condition of a remuneration to the contributors of this common<br />
<br />
c) Commercial exploitation of the common is prohibited to third parties, non-contributors, unless they pay a fee under a specific license<br />
<br />
Based on four different philosophies, four major types of reciprocal licences can be implemented<br />
<br />
<br />
====1. "Copyfarleft" model====<br />
<br />
Dmytri Kleiner has developed the "Copyfarleft" licence model, especially in his publication “The Telekommunist Manifesto” (2010).<br />
<br />
The principle is that only a non-commercial use of a resource is free<br />
In the case of a commercial use, only certain legal entities may effectively exploit it.<br />
<br />
Thus, commercial use of the resource is restricted to companies owned by its employees and cooperatives, provided that all financial gains, surpluses, profits and benefits generated by the enterprise or cooperative are redistributed to employee-owners.<br />
<br />
Therefore, any use of the resource is not allowed to private, non-cooperative companies that seek to generate a profit from this resource.<br />
<br />
Commercial entities may use the common provided they pay a fee, under an ad hoc licence, apart from free licence.<br />
<br />
Therefore, the main criterion of this licence is the cooperative nature of the resource users.<br />
<br />
To date, the "Copyfarleft" model is illustrated in the "Peer Production License" model.<br />
<br />
It's intended to apply to all literary, scientific and artistic creation protectable by intellectual property right, whatever the mode or form of expression, including digitally.<br />
<br />
This licence can be modelled as follows:<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Copyfarleft.jpg]]<br />
<br />
<br />
The main objective of the "copyfarleft" model is to prevent the risk of fierce competition from economic entities, which may take advantage for themselves of a common achieved by others.<br />
<br />
However, it introduces a bias in that commercial exploitation is reserved for categories of entities, based on their legal status and not on their effective contributions. Thus, any commercial entities are excluded even those that would have contributed to the common.<br />
<br />
In their article "une nouvelle proposition de Commons » (online « Journal of Peer Production » -n° 4 jan. 2014), Miguel Said Viera and Primavera de Filipi highlighted that this approach was too reductive<br />
<br />
====2. "Commons Reciprocity Licence" model====<br />
<br />
In the article mentioned above, Miguel Said Viera and Primavera de Filipi propose to include a reciprocity clause as an alternative to "copyfarleft". Only contributors of the common may commercially or not exploit common, regardless of their legal status.<br />
<br />
The main criterion of this licence is to contribute to the resource.<br />
<br />
For a non-commercial use, any contributor to the resource benefits from a free licence. Their contribution is measured by a virtual currency, the "Peer-Currency". <br />
<br />
This currency must, also, allow assessing remuneration of all the common's contributors when the resource is used for commercial purposes. "Open Value Accounting" model is a variation of "Commons Reciprocity Licence" model. The contributions are measured by a rating that each contributor receives from his or her peers.<br />
<br />
Non-contributors may only commercially exploit a common under an ad hoc licence concluded with the contributors in return for payment of a fee.<br />
<br />
To date, "Commons Reciprocity License" model has not given rise to the writing of a standard license. However, it can be modelled as follows:<br />
<br />
[[File:Commons reciprocity licence.jpg]]<br />
<br />
The main advantage of the "Common Reciprocity Licence" model is to allow contributors to commercially exploit the common and receive remuneration commensurate with their contribution, without exclusion because of their status.<br />
<br />
In this model, the complexity lies in how the contributions are assessed. A virtual currency measurement system could be too complex to implement and manage. It might, also, introduce an element of arbitrariness in the assessment of the different modes of contribution.<br />
<br />
The initiators of the "Commons Reciprocity License" are aware of this risk, which they mention in their article:<br />
<br />
"One of the most important is the determination of the "exchange rate" between different types of works. In other words, how can we measure individual contributions (in different fields) through tokens? How many token would be allocated to a user who contributes to the commons through an image, video or text? Should derivative works or improvements be rewarded with fewer token? Should the system have to take into account a measure of the quality or artistic merit of these works? And if so, who would be competent to carry out such evaluation?"<br />
<br />
However, unlike rating system of "Open Value Accounting" model, the advantage of an "exchange currency" system is to confer an objective system for measuring the contributions.<br />
<br />
====3. "Fair source Licence"====<br />
<br />
Other licenses have been developed to allow common goods sharing so that right holders can receive remuneration, while supervising their exploitation.<br />
Thus, "Fair Source Licence" is based on sharing source code of software or software development, while allowing right holder(s) to receive income from the exploitation of this property.<br />
<br />
This licence is granted free of charge to private individuals and companies, subject to a limited number of end-users within an enterprise (including its affiliates).<br />
<br />
In a company, if the number of users exceeds the above-mentioned ceiling, the licence is subject to payment of a fee.<br />
<br />
Therefore, the main criterion of this licence is the nature of the user (private individual or company), and, for companies, the number of the resource users.<br />
<br />
The mechanism of this licence can be modelled as follows:<br />
<br />
[[File:Fair source.jpg]]<br />
<br />
Therefore, the "Fair Source" license corresponds with much more liberal organization of the community constituted around the common. Indeed, there are no specific compensation obligation between contributors and users, except for companies, above a certain size, which would pay a fee.<br />
<br />
Besides, as it is, this licence doesn't have a system for measuring the contributions and assessing remuneration that would be owed to contributors.<br />
<br />
====4. Fairly Share Licence====<br />
<br />
The other licence implemented, in order to ensure remuneration for the holders of common rights, is the "FairlyShare" licence. The object is to give free access to commons in the contributory community, but subject to a fee in the commercial sphere.<br />
<br />
Therefore, the licence holder undertakes to do his best to define an area and a limited period for exploiting its rights, and to identify the contributions and their authors. This things being done, he must define and distribute the profit share allocated to contributors, according to best practices (failing that, the share is 50%).<br />
<br />
Finally, he must commit to a number of societal and environmental values, including the UN Global Compact, Social and Environmental Responsibility and the journalists' code of ethics.<br />
<br />
The "FairlyShare" licence is quite similar to the above-mentioned "Commons Reciprocity License" model. The operator of a common must elaborate and implement a system in order to distribute profit share to contributors, for the commercial exploitation of the common.<br />
<br />
This licence can be modelled as follows:<br />
<br />
[[File:Fairlyshare.jpg]]<br />
<br />
However, the system implemented is more liberal. The allocation system is not defined by the community, but is left to operator's free choice and responsibility. Thus, in this licence, there is no system for measuring contributions, through virtual currency or any other means<br />
<br />
=More information=<br />
<br />
* [[Copyfair]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Licensing]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:P2P Law]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Transportation]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:France]]</div>Vasilis.niaroshttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=File:2_potential_concepts.jpg&diff=111517File:2 potential concepts.jpg2018-02-20T08:15:46Z<p>Vasilis.niaros: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Vasilis.niaroshttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Fab_Mob_Reciprocal_License_for_the_Legal_Contractualisation_of_Commons&diff=111516Fab Mob Reciprocal License for the Legal Contractualisation of Commons2018-02-20T07:34:50Z<p>Vasilis.niaros: /* 4. Fairly Share Licence */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
=Source=<br />
<br />
'''* Source: The legal contractualisation of commons: Towards a model of reciprocal licence for "La Fabrique des Mobilités" .'''<br />
<br />
=Status=<br />
<br />
Intro and part I-II, without tables, translated by Pascale Garbaye, January-February 2018<br />
<br />
Note the translation is still subject to corrections and improvements.<br />
<br />
Still to be translated:<br />
<br />
* end of Part II - Chapter Reciprocal Licences (5 pages)<br />
<br />
* Part III - Recommandation for "La Fabrique des Mobilités" (5 pages) <br />
<br />
* the 2 appendix (charter of values and reciprocal licence) (6 pages) - idem<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=Text=<br />
<br />
The subject of this study is to consider the possible terms of a contractual frame for the commons provided, created and developed within "La Fabrique des Mobilités" framework, in collaboration with all the players involved.<br />
<br />
This study follows an initial reflection conducted in the "Livre Blanc", published in June 2015, under section "Establishing a common law for "La Fabrique des Mobilités".<br />
<br />
Among the recommendations in this first article, we particularly considered that the "Fabrique des Mobilités" could be a regulatory body, by offering legal tools to its members that would enable them to govern the terms and conditions for their participation in the creation, use or even exploitation of commons.<br />
<br />
Thus, a contractual scheme was proposed, depending on the level of commitment intended by the protagonists and the interactions that might exist between them. This scheme foresaw a "funnel-shaped" contractualisation: from a simple approval to a Charter of Values towards "open" licences contractualisation, to the possible development of suitable bipartite or multiparty partnerships, favouring reciprocity.<br />
<br />
Since then, our aim has been to compare this contractual scheme with the needs expressed by the members of "La Fabrique des Mobilités" on current practical projects, to validate the analysis in relation to emerging contractual practices, particularly in the field of reciprocal licensing and finally, to propose possible and original contractualisation models.<br />
<br />
This note is the restitution of this work.<br />
<br />
It leads to the proposal of two documents:<br />
<br />
'''(i) A "Charter of Values", designed for all members of "La Fabrique des Mobilités".''' <br />
<br />
This Charter displays the conditions under which the resources are drived and managed within La Fabrique, for exclusively non-commercial purposes and on condition of sharing all copies and versions derived from these resources with<br />
other members.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''(ii) An operating licence of the resources,''' <br />
<br />
including commercial, available for members who contributed to their creation, enrichment, improvement or development, subject to an equitable remuneration to other contributors.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The existence of commons in our positive law is enshrined in article 714 of the Civil Code, which wording remained unchanged since the law of April 1803 the 19th. Since the general definition given by this article, the acceptation of commons was enriched, both by the law, which regulated certain categories of commons, and by schools, groups and/or communities which tried to implement licences to administer their use or even commercial exploitation, under conditions of reciprocity.<br />
<br />
Thus, there is a kind of "taxonomy" of the commons, which can be identified according to their nature and mode of governance.<br />
<br />
As for their governance, the only issue we consider in this study, two main contractualisation models coexist<br />
<br />
(i) Public access to commons under open licences, generally the widest possible, <br />
<br />
(ii) Conditional sharing of commons within a community of interest, in the context of reciprocal licences.<br />
<br />
In our opinion, as soon as the "Fabrique des Mobilités" purpose is to create a platform for sharing information and resources between the different mobility actors, with the institution of respective rights and duties between the parties, the reciprocal licencing model, rather than open licences, should be choose.<br />
<br />
Then, the question is "how" we can propose possible contractual terms.<br />
<br />
<br />
After reminding the current acceptations of commons (I), this study looks into ongoing licences proposed or implemented to regulate the use of commons in view of the double objective to safeguard openness and reciprocity (II) and makes recommendations on potential contractual tools for "La Fabrique des Mobilités" so that emerging commons can be exchanged between members, on a non-commercial or commercial basis (III).<br />
<br />
<br />
==I. DIFFERENT ACCEPTATIONS OF COMMONS==<br />
<br />
In addition to the "classic" conception which, in general, applies to all commons (A), there is a specific category of commons to the transport and mobility field, recently recognised by the legislator: data of general interest (B).<br />
<br />
<br />
===A. Commons, in general===<br />
<br />
Today, the concept of commons can take many legal meanings, provided both by the law and by the choices of communities. It can be something that belongs to no one and its use is common to all (1), a good whose use is allowed to the many (2) or any results coming from an altruistic action conducted by a community of persons (3).<br />
<br />
<br />
'''1. Thing that belongs to no one and its use is common to all'''<br />
<br />
The first definition of common goods is given in article 714 of the Civil Code<br />
<br />
"There are things that belong to no one and whose use is common to all"<br />
<br />
Res communes usually referred to in Article 714 are natural things, such as air, seawater or running water, and some physical resources, such as pastures or fisheries.<br />
<br />
This classic definition can also cover resources established more recently by contemporary legislators.<br />
Thus, public data perfectly match with the legal regime of common things, in that they do not belong to the public person, who physically holds them but must be open to the many, according to a legal redistribution mechanism.<br />
<br />
Established since the CADA law of 17 July 1978, the policy of open access to public data is enjoying a new boom. <br />
<br />
The law n° 2016-1321 of October 2016 the 7th, referred as "Law for a digital Republic", obliges all administrations (ministries, local and regional authorities, public institutions, etc.) to make any administrative document published in electronic format generally and systematically available to the public, "in an open standard, easily reusable and exploitable by an automated processing system".<br />
<br />
<br />
'''2. A good whose use is allowed to the many'''<br />
<br />
In addition to the definition of the Civil Code, another acceptation of commons appeared, based on the idea that commons are not necessarily defined by their essence but also by their function: all things which are freely accessible and usable would be common.<br />
<br />
This applies when a property owner transfers its ownership to others, either fully or in part, temporarily or permanently, according to a predetermined and non-discriminatory manner.<br />
<br />
Thus, according to this line of thinking which underpins the "open-source" concept, ownership itself becomes an alternative source of commons. Software, data or other content distributed "under free licenses" is the result of the willingness of its authors to share its use but remain their property<br />
<br />
An "open-source" license is always open under certain predetermine conditions and reservations. Thus, the violation of the free licence terms is an infringement on the authors' intellectual property rights by counterfeiting them.<br />
<br />
Therefore, contrary to popular belief, open licences are not the negation of ownership but an altruistic and disinterested development of it.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''3. Any results coming from an altruistic action conducted by a community of persons'''<br />
<br />
With the growing and structuring commons movement, the concept of "collaborative commons" appeared, according to which commons become not only natural things but also "human things".<br />
<br />
In a society where donation and participation, sharing and feedback of experience, as well as collaboration, are favoured, human activities are now released from the grip of individual appropriation to become things that can be exchanged and even valued within communities of persons or interests.<br />
<br />
Besides these three traditional conceptions, a new acceptation appeared in the field of transport: data of general interest, which definition appears to be a new typology of commons.<br />
<br />
<br />
===B. Data of general interest in the field of transport ===<br />
<br />
Submitted to the Secretary of State for Transport, Sea and Fisheries in March 2015, the report called for the creation of a new category of data, data of general interest. <br />
<br />
This report has been implemented in the law n° 2015-990 of August 2015 the 6th, referred as the Macron law. This law introduced a new article L1115-1 in the Transport Code, which provides that data, on regular public transport services for passengers and mobility, must be available for users information freely, immediately and free of charge.<br />
<br />
Subject to the decree implementing this provision of the Macron law, which is still being reviewed by the Council of State, public transport services, as well as private companies, mobility services and AOT route planners should be subject to this obligation of free and open dissemination and access to the above-mentioned data.<br />
<br />
Therefore, this law, implementing the recommendations of Jutland report, creates the new category of data of general interest, understood as private data in nature but their publication can be justified due to their interest to improve public policies. <br />
<br />
<br />
These data of general interest come from three sources<br />
<br />
* Data from public service delegations;<br />
* Key data coming from grant agreements;<br />
* Data from private companies necessary to INSEE surveys.<br />
<br />
Since their objective is to be distributed and shared as widely as possible, data of general interest are undoubtedly equivalent to new commons.<br />
<br />
Thus, commons would not be only determined by common use or a property rights but also by a purpose, the one whose pursues an objective of general interest.<br />
<br />
<br />
***<br />
<br />
These commons existing in various ways, can their administration, i.e. how they are used in common, be subject to contractual modelling? According to their nature? The communities who use and exploit them? And possible operational modes, allowed, conditioned or prohibited?<br />
<br />
There are currently different licenses that govern the use of commons. Some of them are still looking for. Others have to be invented...<br />
<br />
<br />
==II. ON-GOING LICENCES PROPOSED TO REGULATE THE USE OF COMMONS==<br />
<br />
The conditions for the governance of commons by the contract are subject to two main models of licenses: open licenses, making commons available to all (A) and reciprocal licenses, making the use of commons under conditions of sharing and remuneration rules, within a community of users (B).<br />
<br />
===A. Open licences===<br />
<br />
As stated above, the "open source" model is based on a conception of commons as properties belonging to a sole owner but which use is allowed to all, by the altruistic will of the latter.<br />
<br />
From this point of view, a "proprietary" property can be considered as a common if the owner allows its use to the many.<br />
<br />
Thus, there are two possible concepts leading to this opening up. A good that, by nature, doesn't belong to anybody or a good which owner "leaves" his property can be opened. <br />
<br />
And in each of these two schemes, there can be several degrees of opening: from the most closed to the most open or vice versa, from the most open to the most closed. In the first case, the owner decides to open a property that, by nature, is closed and in the second case, the community can decide to close a resource by nature open, according to a progressive scheme and criteria which can be the same.<br />
<br />
These criteria could be the user identity, the nature of the open matter, and intensity of its intended use, a particular territory, the period of use, an investment to protect, an expected compensation or reciprocity or the commercial or non-commercial nature of the use.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
In all cases, contract is the tool of opening up or closing up. Usually considered to be a licence, this contract can, depending on the acceptation used, be an exclusive, open or reciprocal licence. <br />
<br />
In this study, we 'll focus not about "proprietary" licence but about open or reciprocal licences.<br />
<br />
Several categories of open licences include software (1), other creative works (2) and public data (3). However, principle of these licences is criticised (4).<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
====1. "Open source" software====<br />
<br />
The "Proprietary" scheme above applies perfectly to the logic of software granted in "open source".<br />
<br />
Some "proprietary" software can indeed be freely distributed, for non-commercial use, under:<br />
- "Freeware" model, when authors have abandoned their intellectual property rights, software is free to use, without financial compensation or specific obligations,<br />
- "Shareware" model, when users are, first, invited to test software and choose to make a financial contribution if they are satisfied.<br />
<br />
There, opening-up operates within a conditioned scheme.<br />
<br />
The concept of "free" software has been set up by Linus TORVALDS (Finnish), and, in order to fight against office software companies' monopolies, the sources of Linux software have been publicly available, free of charge. <br />
<br />
This free software model, also called "copyleft", is based on the principle that software should not be considered as a saleable product, but as a resource. Thus, its source code is available for free to everyone, while utilities services, maintenance, consultation, integration, etc. attached to this software are generally provided against payment.<br />
<br />
The conditions for the use of free software are governed by an "accessible source" or "open source" licence, which main models are:<br />
<br />
- GNU GPL (General Public Licence) and GNU LGPL (Lesser General Public Licence), both designed by Free Software Foundation,<br />
<br />
- NPL (Netscape Public License), offered by NETSCAPE Society on its browser Communicator.<br />
<br />
The features of the main "open source" licences are detailed in the following table.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
====2. Extension to other creative works : Creative Commons' model====<br />
<br />
"Open source" user licences have been proposed for other works than software, but they only apply to a specific category of works: Cecill for software, LEL Licence for art work, Free Music Licence for musical works.<br />
<br />
In 2001, Professor Lawrence LESSIG, from University of Stanford, created the "Creative Commons" model, in order to offer authors of creative works an alternative to the traditional patterns for their communication towards the public and, thus, further their sharing while keeping their protection.<br />
<br />
Owners of intellectual property rights can, currently, select six licences for their works, according to exploitation they intend to give them.<br />
<br />
<br />
1. Attribution (BY): The rights owner authorises any exploitation of the work, including for commercial purposes, as well as creation of derivative works, which distribution is also allowed without restriction, provided that the name of the author is quoted.<br />
<br />
2. Attribution + No Derivatives (BY ND) : The rights owner authorizes any use of the original work (including for commercial purposes), but doesn't allow the creation of derivative works.<br />
<br />
3. Attribution + Non Commercial + No Derivatives (BY NC ND) : The rights owner authorizes any use of the original work for non commercial purposes, but doesn't allow the creation of derivative works.<br />
<br />
4. Attribution + Non Commercial (BY NC) : The rights owner authorizes any exploitation of the work, as well as creation of derivative works, only for non commercial purposes (commercial uses are subject to his approval).<br />
<br />
5. Attribution + Non Commercial + Sharealike (BY NC SA): The rights owner authorizes any exploitation of the original work for non commercial purposes, as well as creation of derivative works, provided that there are distributed under the same licence than the original work.<br />
<br />
6. Attribution + Sharealike (BY SA) : The rights owner authorises any exploitation of the work, including for commercial purposes, as well as creation of derivative works, provided that there are distributed under the same licence than the original work.<br />
<br />
<br />
====3. Public data user licences====<br />
<br />
Under the above CADA law and "For a Digital Republic" French law, access to and reuse of public data may be subject to licences laying out their associated rights and obligations, on the basis of licences more or less open.<br />
<br />
To date, several licences coexist:<br />
<br />
ETALAB mission promotes a fully open, free, non-exclusive and free of charge licence, which promotes the broadest possible re-use, by allowing the transformation, reproduction and commercial redistribution of data, including their adaptation and combination with other data, subject to the mention of the source and last update of the data.<br />
<br />
As for data defects and irregularities, the "producer" does not offer any guarantee, nor does he insure that their supply can be continuous. However, he guarantees that data does not contain any intellectual property rights belonging to third party. If it owns them, he shall transfer the rights on a non-exclusive basis, free of charge, for the whole world and for the entire duration of the rights.<br />
<br />
Recently, ETALAB licence was updated, to include the updated provisions of the law "For a Digital Republic". Particularly, it takes the re-use of public information containing personal data into account, subject to the "Informatique et Libertés" law n°78-17 of January 1978 the 6th.<br />
<br />
Other types of open licences – such as « Open Government Licence (OGL) », « Creative Commons », described above, and « Open Data Commons » – not initially foreseen for open data but for the release of intellectual property rights, can be easily adapted to opening data.<br />
<br />
Some French institutions shall adopt these licences. OBdL et ODC-By licences appear to be the more commonly used.<br />
<br />
"L'Agence du Patrimoine Immateriel de l'Etat" (APIE), provides Public Information Licenses (PIL) which are not "free licenses". Subject to a fee for the public person, it allows the re-use of public data under certain conditions.<br />
<br />
The duration of these licenses may be unlimited or limited.<br />
<br />
These licenses seem to fall into disuse in favour for "open" models.<br />
<br />
Even so, it has to be said that, in France public data access and re-use have been partially achieved: few public persons released their data and its reusing modes is facing resistances.<br />
<br />
This is why, the law "For a Digital Republic" created a public service for data.<br />
<br />
According to Article 11 of this law, administrations should not hinder re-use of their published public databases, except for data which have been produced or received in the exercise of a public service mission, of an industrial or commercial nature, subject to competition.<br />
<br />
To this end, a list of free re-use licences for these public data will be proposed, determined by decree and revised every five years.<br />
<br />
When an administration wishes to use a license that is not on this list, this licence has to be, first, approved by the State, under conditions determined by decree.<br />
<br />
To date, these two decrees have not been published yet.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
====4. Criticisms of the "open source" model====<br />
<br />
Theorists and practitioners of commons have criticized the "open source" model.<br />
<br />
This model was first criticized for being inadequate in relation to the concept of commons, which is based on the idea of resources "governed" by a community of interest.<br />
<br />
Valérie Peugeot, researcher and chairwoman of VECAM, defines commons by the three dimensions that characterize them: commons are (i) resources (ii) subject to a collective rights and obligations system (iii) which use is governed by a community.<br />
<br />
Yet, open licences, previously described, are unilateral licences which opening-up, terms and conditions of the opening-up, are decided by the only will of the initial holder of the resource.<br />
<br />
Moreover, an "open source" licence aim to disseminate the work to the many, without keeping in mind the idea of reciprocity from licences' users, neither interaction between them and the initial holder of the resource.<br />
<br />
Imposing certain conditions on the opening-up of a resource, as in the open licences scheme, is not the same thing as agreeing on the opening-up conditions, that require, of those who benefit of the opening-up, a positive action of reciprocity, whether material, financial or ethical.<br />
<br />
"Open" Licence model has also been criticised for not distinguishing non-commercial or commercial exploitation. This allows commercial entities, which have not contributed to resources or financed their creation and development, to use them for free, even to make their own, thus creating a state of unregulated competition and a new form of parasitism.<br />
<br />
Paying close attention to these practices, the article 8 of the "For a Digital Republic" law provided protection for a new class of commons, the common informational domain. The aim of these provisions was to "protect the common resources of the public domain from ownership practices that lead to denying access to them", by allowing authorized associations to take legal proceeding to defend this common domain and to put an end to any attempt to exclusive reappropriation.<br />
<br />
However, these provisions have not been taken up in the law that was finally approved, due to the opposition of several actors in the literary and artistic property field (SEPM, SACD, SNEP, FNPS, SNE …), who argued that there were imprecise and dangerous for copyright protection.<br />
<br />
Whatever, criticism against "open source" licenses is now the basis for the current thinking of reciprocal licences.<br />
<br />
<br />
===B - Reciprocal Licences===<br />
<br />
In opposition to the "open source" model, promoting the dissemination to everyone, reciprocal licences set up principle and conditions for the sharing of common. It's restricted to members of a community and depends on respective contributions for the common.<br />
<br />
Reciprocal licences usually provide for increasing restrictions, depending on the categories of common users, in order to ensure reciprocity on the conditions of this sharing.<br />
<br />
Those restrictions are usually based on the following main principles:<br />
<br />
a) The common can be used by all members of the community for non-commercial use<br />
<br />
b) Commercial exploitation of the common by members is possible, under the condition of a remuneration to the contributors of this common<br />
<br />
c) Commercial exploitation of the common is prohibited to third parties, non-contributors, unless they pay a fee under a specific license<br />
<br />
Based on four different philosophies, four major types of reciprocal licences can be implemented<br />
<br />
<br />
====1. "Copyfarleft" model====<br />
<br />
Dmytri Kleiner has developed the "Copyfarleft" licence model, especially in his publication “The Telekommunist Manifesto” (2010).<br />
<br />
The principle is that only a non-commercial use of a resource is free<br />
In the case of a commercial use, only certain legal entities may effectively exploit it.<br />
<br />
Thus, commercial use of the resource is restricted to companies owned by its employees and cooperatives, provided that all financial gains, surpluses, profits and benefits generated by the enterprise or cooperative are redistributed to employee-owners.<br />
<br />
Therefore, any use of the resource is not allowed to private, non-cooperative companies that seek to generate a profit from this resource.<br />
<br />
Commercial entities may use the common provided they pay a fee, under an ad hoc licence, apart from free licence.<br />
<br />
Therefore, the main criterion of this licence is the cooperative nature of the resource users.<br />
<br />
To date, the "Copyfarleft" model is illustrated in the "Peer Production License" model.<br />
<br />
It's intended to apply to all literary, scientific and artistic creation protectable by intellectual property right, whatever the mode or form of expression, including digitally.<br />
<br />
This licence can be modelled as follows:<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Copyfarleft.jpg]]<br />
<br />
<br />
The main objective of the "copyfarleft" model is to prevent the risk of fierce competition from economic entities, which may take advantage for themselves of a common achieved by others.<br />
<br />
However, it introduces a bias in that commercial exploitation is reserved for categories of entities, based on their legal status and not on their effective contributions. Thus, any commercial entities are excluded even those that would have contributed to the common.<br />
<br />
In their article "une nouvelle proposition de Commons » (online « Journal of Peer Production » -n° 4 jan. 2014), Miguel Said Viera and Primavera de Filipi highlighted that this approach was too reductive<br />
<br />
====2. "Commons Reciprocity Licence" model====<br />
<br />
In the article mentioned above, Miguel Said Viera and Primavera de Filipi propose to include a reciprocity clause as an alternative to "copyfarleft". Only contributors of the common may commercially or not exploit common, regardless of their legal status.<br />
<br />
The main criterion of this licence is to contribute to the resource.<br />
<br />
For a non-commercial use, any contributor to the resource benefits from a free licence. Their contribution is measured by a virtual currency, the "Peer-Currency". <br />
<br />
This currency must, also, allow assessing remuneration of all the common's contributors when the resource is used for commercial purposes. "Open Value Accounting" model is a variation of "Commons Reciprocity Licence" model. The contributions are measured by a rating that each contributor receives from his or her peers.<br />
<br />
Non-contributors may only commercially exploit a common under an ad hoc licence concluded with the contributors in return for payment of a fee.<br />
<br />
To date, "Commons Reciprocity License" model has not given rise to the writing of a standard license. However, it can be modelled as follows:<br />
<br />
[[File:Commons reciprocity licence.jpg]]<br />
<br />
The main advantage of the "Common Reciprocity Licence" model is to allow contributors to commercially exploit the common and receive remuneration commensurate with their contribution, without exclusion because of their status.<br />
<br />
In this model, the complexity lies in how the contributions are assessed. A virtual currency measurement system could be too complex to implement and manage. It might, also, introduce an element of arbitrariness in the assessment of the different modes of contribution.<br />
<br />
The initiators of the "Commons Reciprocity License" are aware of this risk, which they mention in their article:<br />
<br />
"One of the most important is the determination of the "exchange rate" between different types of works. In other words, how can we measure individual contributions (in different fields) through tokens? How many token would be allocated to a user who contributes to the commons through an image, video or text? Should derivative works or improvements be rewarded with fewer token? Should the system have to take into account a measure of the quality or artistic merit of these works? And if so, who would be competent to carry out such evaluation?"<br />
<br />
However, unlike rating system of "Open Value Accounting" model, the advantage of an "exchange currency" system is to confer an objective system for measuring the contributions.<br />
<br />
====3. "Fair source Licence"====<br />
<br />
Other licenses have been developed to allow common goods sharing so that right holders can receive remuneration, while supervising their exploitation.<br />
Thus, "Fair Source Licence" is based on sharing source code of software or software development, while allowing right holder(s) to receive income from the exploitation of this property.<br />
<br />
This licence is granted free of charge to private individuals and companies, subject to a limited number of end-users within an enterprise (including its affiliates).<br />
<br />
In a company, if the number of users exceeds the above-mentioned ceiling, the licence is subject to payment of a fee.<br />
<br />
Therefore, the main criterion of this licence is the nature of the user (private individual or company), and, for companies, the number of the resource users.<br />
<br />
The mechanism of this licence can be modelled as follows:<br />
<br />
[[File:Fair source.jpg]]<br />
<br />
Therefore, the "Fair Source" license corresponds with much more liberal organization of the community constituted around the common. Indeed, there are no specific compensation obligation between contributors and users, except for companies, above a certain size, which would pay a fee.<br />
<br />
Besides, as it is, this licence doesn't have a system for measuring the contributions and assessing remuneration that would be owed to contributors.<br />
<br />
====4. Fairly Share Licence====<br />
<br />
The other licence implemented, in order to ensure remuneration for the holders of common rights, is the "FairlyShare" licence. The object is to give free access to commons in the contributory community, but subject to a fee in the commercial sphere.<br />
<br />
Therefore, the licence holder undertakes to do his best to define an area and a limited period for exploiting its rights, and to identify the contributions and their authors. This things being done, he must define and distribute the profit share allocated to contributors, according to best practices (failing that, the share is 50%).<br />
<br />
Finally, he must commit to a number of societal and environmental values, including the UN Global Compact, Social and Environmental Responsibility and the journalists' code of ethics.<br />
<br />
The "FairlyShare" licence is quite similar to the above-mentioned "Commons Reciprocity License" model. The operator of a common must elaborate and implement a system in order to distribute profit share to contributors, for the commercial exploitation of the common.<br />
<br />
This licence can be modelled as follows:<br />
<br />
[[File:Fairlyshare.jpg]]<br />
<br />
However, the system implemented is more liberal. The allocation system is not defined by the community, but is left to operator's free choice and responsibility. Thus, in this licence, there is no system for measuring contributions, through virtual currency or any other means<br />
<br />
=More information=<br />
<br />
* [[Copyfair]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Licensing]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:P2P Law]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Transportation]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:France]]</div>Vasilis.niaroshttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=File:Fairlyshare.jpg&diff=111515File:Fairlyshare.jpg2018-02-20T07:34:37Z<p>Vasilis.niaros: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Vasilis.niaroshttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Fab_Mob_Reciprocal_License_for_the_Legal_Contractualisation_of_Commons&diff=111514Fab Mob Reciprocal License for the Legal Contractualisation of Commons2018-02-20T07:33:54Z<p>Vasilis.niaros: /* 3. "Fair source Licence" */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
=Source=<br />
<br />
'''* Source: The legal contractualisation of commons: Towards a model of reciprocal licence for "La Fabrique des Mobilités" .'''<br />
<br />
=Status=<br />
<br />
Intro and part I-II, without tables, translated by Pascale Garbaye, January-February 2018<br />
<br />
Note the translation is still subject to corrections and improvements.<br />
<br />
Still to be translated:<br />
<br />
* end of Part II - Chapter Reciprocal Licences (5 pages)<br />
<br />
* Part III - Recommandation for "La Fabrique des Mobilités" (5 pages) <br />
<br />
* the 2 appendix (charter of values and reciprocal licence) (6 pages) - idem<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=Text=<br />
<br />
The subject of this study is to consider the possible terms of a contractual frame for the commons provided, created and developed within "La Fabrique des Mobilités" framework, in collaboration with all the players involved.<br />
<br />
This study follows an initial reflection conducted in the "Livre Blanc", published in June 2015, under section "Establishing a common law for "La Fabrique des Mobilités".<br />
<br />
Among the recommendations in this first article, we particularly considered that the "Fabrique des Mobilités" could be a regulatory body, by offering legal tools to its members that would enable them to govern the terms and conditions for their participation in the creation, use or even exploitation of commons.<br />
<br />
Thus, a contractual scheme was proposed, depending on the level of commitment intended by the protagonists and the interactions that might exist between them. This scheme foresaw a "funnel-shaped" contractualisation: from a simple approval to a Charter of Values towards "open" licences contractualisation, to the possible development of suitable bipartite or multiparty partnerships, favouring reciprocity.<br />
<br />
Since then, our aim has been to compare this contractual scheme with the needs expressed by the members of "La Fabrique des Mobilités" on current practical projects, to validate the analysis in relation to emerging contractual practices, particularly in the field of reciprocal licensing and finally, to propose possible and original contractualisation models.<br />
<br />
This note is the restitution of this work.<br />
<br />
It leads to the proposal of two documents:<br />
<br />
'''(i) A "Charter of Values", designed for all members of "La Fabrique des Mobilités".''' <br />
<br />
This Charter displays the conditions under which the resources are drived and managed within La Fabrique, for exclusively non-commercial purposes and on condition of sharing all copies and versions derived from these resources with<br />
other members.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''(ii) An operating licence of the resources,''' <br />
<br />
including commercial, available for members who contributed to their creation, enrichment, improvement or development, subject to an equitable remuneration to other contributors.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The existence of commons in our positive law is enshrined in article 714 of the Civil Code, which wording remained unchanged since the law of April 1803 the 19th. Since the general definition given by this article, the acceptation of commons was enriched, both by the law, which regulated certain categories of commons, and by schools, groups and/or communities which tried to implement licences to administer their use or even commercial exploitation, under conditions of reciprocity.<br />
<br />
Thus, there is a kind of "taxonomy" of the commons, which can be identified according to their nature and mode of governance.<br />
<br />
As for their governance, the only issue we consider in this study, two main contractualisation models coexist<br />
<br />
(i) Public access to commons under open licences, generally the widest possible, <br />
<br />
(ii) Conditional sharing of commons within a community of interest, in the context of reciprocal licences.<br />
<br />
In our opinion, as soon as the "Fabrique des Mobilités" purpose is to create a platform for sharing information and resources between the different mobility actors, with the institution of respective rights and duties between the parties, the reciprocal licencing model, rather than open licences, should be choose.<br />
<br />
Then, the question is "how" we can propose possible contractual terms.<br />
<br />
<br />
After reminding the current acceptations of commons (I), this study looks into ongoing licences proposed or implemented to regulate the use of commons in view of the double objective to safeguard openness and reciprocity (II) and makes recommendations on potential contractual tools for "La Fabrique des Mobilités" so that emerging commons can be exchanged between members, on a non-commercial or commercial basis (III).<br />
<br />
<br />
==I. DIFFERENT ACCEPTATIONS OF COMMONS==<br />
<br />
In addition to the "classic" conception which, in general, applies to all commons (A), there is a specific category of commons to the transport and mobility field, recently recognised by the legislator: data of general interest (B).<br />
<br />
<br />
===A. Commons, in general===<br />
<br />
Today, the concept of commons can take many legal meanings, provided both by the law and by the choices of communities. It can be something that belongs to no one and its use is common to all (1), a good whose use is allowed to the many (2) or any results coming from an altruistic action conducted by a community of persons (3).<br />
<br />
<br />
'''1. Thing that belongs to no one and its use is common to all'''<br />
<br />
The first definition of common goods is given in article 714 of the Civil Code<br />
<br />
"There are things that belong to no one and whose use is common to all"<br />
<br />
Res communes usually referred to in Article 714 are natural things, such as air, seawater or running water, and some physical resources, such as pastures or fisheries.<br />
<br />
This classic definition can also cover resources established more recently by contemporary legislators.<br />
Thus, public data perfectly match with the legal regime of common things, in that they do not belong to the public person, who physically holds them but must be open to the many, according to a legal redistribution mechanism.<br />
<br />
Established since the CADA law of 17 July 1978, the policy of open access to public data is enjoying a new boom. <br />
<br />
The law n° 2016-1321 of October 2016 the 7th, referred as "Law for a digital Republic", obliges all administrations (ministries, local and regional authorities, public institutions, etc.) to make any administrative document published in electronic format generally and systematically available to the public, "in an open standard, easily reusable and exploitable by an automated processing system".<br />
<br />
<br />
'''2. A good whose use is allowed to the many'''<br />
<br />
In addition to the definition of the Civil Code, another acceptation of commons appeared, based on the idea that commons are not necessarily defined by their essence but also by their function: all things which are freely accessible and usable would be common.<br />
<br />
This applies when a property owner transfers its ownership to others, either fully or in part, temporarily or permanently, according to a predetermined and non-discriminatory manner.<br />
<br />
Thus, according to this line of thinking which underpins the "open-source" concept, ownership itself becomes an alternative source of commons. Software, data or other content distributed "under free licenses" is the result of the willingness of its authors to share its use but remain their property<br />
<br />
An "open-source" license is always open under certain predetermine conditions and reservations. Thus, the violation of the free licence terms is an infringement on the authors' intellectual property rights by counterfeiting them.<br />
<br />
Therefore, contrary to popular belief, open licences are not the negation of ownership but an altruistic and disinterested development of it.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''3. Any results coming from an altruistic action conducted by a community of persons'''<br />
<br />
With the growing and structuring commons movement, the concept of "collaborative commons" appeared, according to which commons become not only natural things but also "human things".<br />
<br />
In a society where donation and participation, sharing and feedback of experience, as well as collaboration, are favoured, human activities are now released from the grip of individual appropriation to become things that can be exchanged and even valued within communities of persons or interests.<br />
<br />
Besides these three traditional conceptions, a new acceptation appeared in the field of transport: data of general interest, which definition appears to be a new typology of commons.<br />
<br />
<br />
===B. Data of general interest in the field of transport ===<br />
<br />
Submitted to the Secretary of State for Transport, Sea and Fisheries in March 2015, the report called for the creation of a new category of data, data of general interest. <br />
<br />
This report has been implemented in the law n° 2015-990 of August 2015 the 6th, referred as the Macron law. This law introduced a new article L1115-1 in the Transport Code, which provides that data, on regular public transport services for passengers and mobility, must be available for users information freely, immediately and free of charge.<br />
<br />
Subject to the decree implementing this provision of the Macron law, which is still being reviewed by the Council of State, public transport services, as well as private companies, mobility services and AOT route planners should be subject to this obligation of free and open dissemination and access to the above-mentioned data.<br />
<br />
Therefore, this law, implementing the recommendations of Jutland report, creates the new category of data of general interest, understood as private data in nature but their publication can be justified due to their interest to improve public policies. <br />
<br />
<br />
These data of general interest come from three sources<br />
<br />
* Data from public service delegations;<br />
* Key data coming from grant agreements;<br />
* Data from private companies necessary to INSEE surveys.<br />
<br />
Since their objective is to be distributed and shared as widely as possible, data of general interest are undoubtedly equivalent to new commons.<br />
<br />
Thus, commons would not be only determined by common use or a property rights but also by a purpose, the one whose pursues an objective of general interest.<br />
<br />
<br />
***<br />
<br />
These commons existing in various ways, can their administration, i.e. how they are used in common, be subject to contractual modelling? According to their nature? The communities who use and exploit them? And possible operational modes, allowed, conditioned or prohibited?<br />
<br />
There are currently different licenses that govern the use of commons. Some of them are still looking for. Others have to be invented...<br />
<br />
<br />
==II. ON-GOING LICENCES PROPOSED TO REGULATE THE USE OF COMMONS==<br />
<br />
The conditions for the governance of commons by the contract are subject to two main models of licenses: open licenses, making commons available to all (A) and reciprocal licenses, making the use of commons under conditions of sharing and remuneration rules, within a community of users (B).<br />
<br />
===A. Open licences===<br />
<br />
As stated above, the "open source" model is based on a conception of commons as properties belonging to a sole owner but which use is allowed to all, by the altruistic will of the latter.<br />
<br />
From this point of view, a "proprietary" property can be considered as a common if the owner allows its use to the many.<br />
<br />
Thus, there are two possible concepts leading to this opening up. A good that, by nature, doesn't belong to anybody or a good which owner "leaves" his property can be opened. <br />
<br />
And in each of these two schemes, there can be several degrees of opening: from the most closed to the most open or vice versa, from the most open to the most closed. In the first case, the owner decides to open a property that, by nature, is closed and in the second case, the community can decide to close a resource by nature open, according to a progressive scheme and criteria which can be the same.<br />
<br />
These criteria could be the user identity, the nature of the open matter, and intensity of its intended use, a particular territory, the period of use, an investment to protect, an expected compensation or reciprocity or the commercial or non-commercial nature of the use.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
In all cases, contract is the tool of opening up or closing up. Usually considered to be a licence, this contract can, depending on the acceptation used, be an exclusive, open or reciprocal licence. <br />
<br />
In this study, we 'll focus not about "proprietary" licence but about open or reciprocal licences.<br />
<br />
Several categories of open licences include software (1), other creative works (2) and public data (3). However, principle of these licences is criticised (4).<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
====1. "Open source" software====<br />
<br />
The "Proprietary" scheme above applies perfectly to the logic of software granted in "open source".<br />
<br />
Some "proprietary" software can indeed be freely distributed, for non-commercial use, under:<br />
- "Freeware" model, when authors have abandoned their intellectual property rights, software is free to use, without financial compensation or specific obligations,<br />
- "Shareware" model, when users are, first, invited to test software and choose to make a financial contribution if they are satisfied.<br />
<br />
There, opening-up operates within a conditioned scheme.<br />
<br />
The concept of "free" software has been set up by Linus TORVALDS (Finnish), and, in order to fight against office software companies' monopolies, the sources of Linux software have been publicly available, free of charge. <br />
<br />
This free software model, also called "copyleft", is based on the principle that software should not be considered as a saleable product, but as a resource. Thus, its source code is available for free to everyone, while utilities services, maintenance, consultation, integration, etc. attached to this software are generally provided against payment.<br />
<br />
The conditions for the use of free software are governed by an "accessible source" or "open source" licence, which main models are:<br />
<br />
- GNU GPL (General Public Licence) and GNU LGPL (Lesser General Public Licence), both designed by Free Software Foundation,<br />
<br />
- NPL (Netscape Public License), offered by NETSCAPE Society on its browser Communicator.<br />
<br />
The features of the main "open source" licences are detailed in the following table.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
====2. Extension to other creative works : Creative Commons' model====<br />
<br />
"Open source" user licences have been proposed for other works than software, but they only apply to a specific category of works: Cecill for software, LEL Licence for art work, Free Music Licence for musical works.<br />
<br />
In 2001, Professor Lawrence LESSIG, from University of Stanford, created the "Creative Commons" model, in order to offer authors of creative works an alternative to the traditional patterns for their communication towards the public and, thus, further their sharing while keeping their protection.<br />
<br />
Owners of intellectual property rights can, currently, select six licences for their works, according to exploitation they intend to give them.<br />
<br />
<br />
1. Attribution (BY): The rights owner authorises any exploitation of the work, including for commercial purposes, as well as creation of derivative works, which distribution is also allowed without restriction, provided that the name of the author is quoted.<br />
<br />
2. Attribution + No Derivatives (BY ND) : The rights owner authorizes any use of the original work (including for commercial purposes), but doesn't allow the creation of derivative works.<br />
<br />
3. Attribution + Non Commercial + No Derivatives (BY NC ND) : The rights owner authorizes any use of the original work for non commercial purposes, but doesn't allow the creation of derivative works.<br />
<br />
4. Attribution + Non Commercial (BY NC) : The rights owner authorizes any exploitation of the work, as well as creation of derivative works, only for non commercial purposes (commercial uses are subject to his approval).<br />
<br />
5. Attribution + Non Commercial + Sharealike (BY NC SA): The rights owner authorizes any exploitation of the original work for non commercial purposes, as well as creation of derivative works, provided that there are distributed under the same licence than the original work.<br />
<br />
6. Attribution + Sharealike (BY SA) : The rights owner authorises any exploitation of the work, including for commercial purposes, as well as creation of derivative works, provided that there are distributed under the same licence than the original work.<br />
<br />
<br />
====3. Public data user licences====<br />
<br />
Under the above CADA law and "For a Digital Republic" French law, access to and reuse of public data may be subject to licences laying out their associated rights and obligations, on the basis of licences more or less open.<br />
<br />
To date, several licences coexist:<br />
<br />
ETALAB mission promotes a fully open, free, non-exclusive and free of charge licence, which promotes the broadest possible re-use, by allowing the transformation, reproduction and commercial redistribution of data, including their adaptation and combination with other data, subject to the mention of the source and last update of the data.<br />
<br />
As for data defects and irregularities, the "producer" does not offer any guarantee, nor does he insure that their supply can be continuous. However, he guarantees that data does not contain any intellectual property rights belonging to third party. If it owns them, he shall transfer the rights on a non-exclusive basis, free of charge, for the whole world and for the entire duration of the rights.<br />
<br />
Recently, ETALAB licence was updated, to include the updated provisions of the law "For a Digital Republic". Particularly, it takes the re-use of public information containing personal data into account, subject to the "Informatique et Libertés" law n°78-17 of January 1978 the 6th.<br />
<br />
Other types of open licences – such as « Open Government Licence (OGL) », « Creative Commons », described above, and « Open Data Commons » – not initially foreseen for open data but for the release of intellectual property rights, can be easily adapted to opening data.<br />
<br />
Some French institutions shall adopt these licences. OBdL et ODC-By licences appear to be the more commonly used.<br />
<br />
"L'Agence du Patrimoine Immateriel de l'Etat" (APIE), provides Public Information Licenses (PIL) which are not "free licenses". Subject to a fee for the public person, it allows the re-use of public data under certain conditions.<br />
<br />
The duration of these licenses may be unlimited or limited.<br />
<br />
These licenses seem to fall into disuse in favour for "open" models.<br />
<br />
Even so, it has to be said that, in France public data access and re-use have been partially achieved: few public persons released their data and its reusing modes is facing resistances.<br />
<br />
This is why, the law "For a Digital Republic" created a public service for data.<br />
<br />
According to Article 11 of this law, administrations should not hinder re-use of their published public databases, except for data which have been produced or received in the exercise of a public service mission, of an industrial or commercial nature, subject to competition.<br />
<br />
To this end, a list of free re-use licences for these public data will be proposed, determined by decree and revised every five years.<br />
<br />
When an administration wishes to use a license that is not on this list, this licence has to be, first, approved by the State, under conditions determined by decree.<br />
<br />
To date, these two decrees have not been published yet.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
====4. Criticisms of the "open source" model====<br />
<br />
Theorists and practitioners of commons have criticized the "open source" model.<br />
<br />
This model was first criticized for being inadequate in relation to the concept of commons, which is based on the idea of resources "governed" by a community of interest.<br />
<br />
Valérie Peugeot, researcher and chairwoman of VECAM, defines commons by the three dimensions that characterize them: commons are (i) resources (ii) subject to a collective rights and obligations system (iii) which use is governed by a community.<br />
<br />
Yet, open licences, previously described, are unilateral licences which opening-up, terms and conditions of the opening-up, are decided by the only will of the initial holder of the resource.<br />
<br />
Moreover, an "open source" licence aim to disseminate the work to the many, without keeping in mind the idea of reciprocity from licences' users, neither interaction between them and the initial holder of the resource.<br />
<br />
Imposing certain conditions on the opening-up of a resource, as in the open licences scheme, is not the same thing as agreeing on the opening-up conditions, that require, of those who benefit of the opening-up, a positive action of reciprocity, whether material, financial or ethical.<br />
<br />
"Open" Licence model has also been criticised for not distinguishing non-commercial or commercial exploitation. This allows commercial entities, which have not contributed to resources or financed their creation and development, to use them for free, even to make their own, thus creating a state of unregulated competition and a new form of parasitism.<br />
<br />
Paying close attention to these practices, the article 8 of the "For a Digital Republic" law provided protection for a new class of commons, the common informational domain. The aim of these provisions was to "protect the common resources of the public domain from ownership practices that lead to denying access to them", by allowing authorized associations to take legal proceeding to defend this common domain and to put an end to any attempt to exclusive reappropriation.<br />
<br />
However, these provisions have not been taken up in the law that was finally approved, due to the opposition of several actors in the literary and artistic property field (SEPM, SACD, SNEP, FNPS, SNE …), who argued that there were imprecise and dangerous for copyright protection.<br />
<br />
Whatever, criticism against "open source" licenses is now the basis for the current thinking of reciprocal licences.<br />
<br />
<br />
===B - Reciprocal Licences===<br />
<br />
In opposition to the "open source" model, promoting the dissemination to everyone, reciprocal licences set up principle and conditions for the sharing of common. It's restricted to members of a community and depends on respective contributions for the common.<br />
<br />
Reciprocal licences usually provide for increasing restrictions, depending on the categories of common users, in order to ensure reciprocity on the conditions of this sharing.<br />
<br />
Those restrictions are usually based on the following main principles:<br />
<br />
a) The common can be used by all members of the community for non-commercial use<br />
<br />
b) Commercial exploitation of the common by members is possible, under the condition of a remuneration to the contributors of this common<br />
<br />
c) Commercial exploitation of the common is prohibited to third parties, non-contributors, unless they pay a fee under a specific license<br />
<br />
Based on four different philosophies, four major types of reciprocal licences can be implemented<br />
<br />
<br />
====1. "Copyfarleft" model====<br />
<br />
Dmytri Kleiner has developed the "Copyfarleft" licence model, especially in his publication “The Telekommunist Manifesto” (2010).<br />
<br />
The principle is that only a non-commercial use of a resource is free<br />
In the case of a commercial use, only certain legal entities may effectively exploit it.<br />
<br />
Thus, commercial use of the resource is restricted to companies owned by its employees and cooperatives, provided that all financial gains, surpluses, profits and benefits generated by the enterprise or cooperative are redistributed to employee-owners.<br />
<br />
Therefore, any use of the resource is not allowed to private, non-cooperative companies that seek to generate a profit from this resource.<br />
<br />
Commercial entities may use the common provided they pay a fee, under an ad hoc licence, apart from free licence.<br />
<br />
Therefore, the main criterion of this licence is the cooperative nature of the resource users.<br />
<br />
To date, the "Copyfarleft" model is illustrated in the "Peer Production License" model.<br />
<br />
It's intended to apply to all literary, scientific and artistic creation protectable by intellectual property right, whatever the mode or form of expression, including digitally.<br />
<br />
This licence can be modelled as follows:<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Copyfarleft.jpg]]<br />
<br />
<br />
The main objective of the "copyfarleft" model is to prevent the risk of fierce competition from economic entities, which may take advantage for themselves of a common achieved by others.<br />
<br />
However, it introduces a bias in that commercial exploitation is reserved for categories of entities, based on their legal status and not on their effective contributions. Thus, any commercial entities are excluded even those that would have contributed to the common.<br />
<br />
In their article "une nouvelle proposition de Commons » (online « Journal of Peer Production » -n° 4 jan. 2014), Miguel Said Viera and Primavera de Filipi highlighted that this approach was too reductive<br />
<br />
====2. "Commons Reciprocity Licence" model====<br />
<br />
In the article mentioned above, Miguel Said Viera and Primavera de Filipi propose to include a reciprocity clause as an alternative to "copyfarleft". Only contributors of the common may commercially or not exploit common, regardless of their legal status.<br />
<br />
The main criterion of this licence is to contribute to the resource.<br />
<br />
For a non-commercial use, any contributor to the resource benefits from a free licence. Their contribution is measured by a virtual currency, the "Peer-Currency". <br />
<br />
This currency must, also, allow assessing remuneration of all the common's contributors when the resource is used for commercial purposes. "Open Value Accounting" model is a variation of "Commons Reciprocity Licence" model. The contributions are measured by a rating that each contributor receives from his or her peers.<br />
<br />
Non-contributors may only commercially exploit a common under an ad hoc licence concluded with the contributors in return for payment of a fee.<br />
<br />
To date, "Commons Reciprocity License" model has not given rise to the writing of a standard license. However, it can be modelled as follows:<br />
<br />
[[File:Commons reciprocity licence.jpg]]<br />
<br />
The main advantage of the "Common Reciprocity Licence" model is to allow contributors to commercially exploit the common and receive remuneration commensurate with their contribution, without exclusion because of their status.<br />
<br />
In this model, the complexity lies in how the contributions are assessed. A virtual currency measurement system could be too complex to implement and manage. It might, also, introduce an element of arbitrariness in the assessment of the different modes of contribution.<br />
<br />
The initiators of the "Commons Reciprocity License" are aware of this risk, which they mention in their article:<br />
<br />
"One of the most important is the determination of the "exchange rate" between different types of works. In other words, how can we measure individual contributions (in different fields) through tokens? How many token would be allocated to a user who contributes to the commons through an image, video or text? Should derivative works or improvements be rewarded with fewer token? Should the system have to take into account a measure of the quality or artistic merit of these works? And if so, who would be competent to carry out such evaluation?"<br />
<br />
However, unlike rating system of "Open Value Accounting" model, the advantage of an "exchange currency" system is to confer an objective system for measuring the contributions.<br />
<br />
====3. "Fair source Licence"====<br />
<br />
Other licenses have been developed to allow common goods sharing so that right holders can receive remuneration, while supervising their exploitation.<br />
Thus, "Fair Source Licence" is based on sharing source code of software or software development, while allowing right holder(s) to receive income from the exploitation of this property.<br />
<br />
This licence is granted free of charge to private individuals and companies, subject to a limited number of end-users within an enterprise (including its affiliates).<br />
<br />
In a company, if the number of users exceeds the above-mentioned ceiling, the licence is subject to payment of a fee.<br />
<br />
Therefore, the main criterion of this licence is the nature of the user (private individual or company), and, for companies, the number of the resource users.<br />
<br />
The mechanism of this licence can be modelled as follows:<br />
<br />
[[File:Fair source.jpg]]<br />
<br />
Therefore, the "Fair Source" license corresponds with much more liberal organization of the community constituted around the common. Indeed, there are no specific compensation obligation between contributors and users, except for companies, above a certain size, which would pay a fee.<br />
<br />
Besides, as it is, this licence doesn't have a system for measuring the contributions and assessing remuneration that would be owed to contributors.<br />
<br />
====4. Fairly Share Licence====<br />
<br />
The other licence implemented, in order to ensure remuneration for the holders of common rights, is the "FairlyShare" licence. The object is to give free access to commons in the contributory community, but subject to a fee in the commercial sphere.<br />
<br />
Therefore, the licence holder undertakes to do his best to define an area and a limited period for exploiting its rights, and to identify the contributions and their authors. This things being done, he must define and distribute the profit share allocated to contributors, according to best practices (failing that, the share is 50%).<br />
<br />
Finally, he must commit to a number of societal and environmental values, including the UN Global Compact, Social and Environmental Responsibility and the journalists' code of ethics.<br />
<br />
The "FairlyShare" licence is quite similar to the above-mentioned "Commons Reciprocity License" model. The operator of a common must elaborate and implement a system in order to distribute profit share to contributors, for the commercial exploitation of the common.<br />
<br />
This licence can be modelled as follows:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
However, the system implemented is more liberal. The allocation system is not defined by the community, but is left to operator's free choice and responsibility. Thus, in this licence, there is no system for measuring contributions, through virtual currency or any other means<br />
<br />
=More information=<br />
<br />
* [[Copyfair]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Licensing]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:P2P Law]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Transportation]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:France]]</div>Vasilis.niaroshttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=File:Fair_source.jpg&diff=111513File:Fair source.jpg2018-02-20T07:33:38Z<p>Vasilis.niaros: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Vasilis.niaroshttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Fab_Mob_Reciprocal_License_for_the_Legal_Contractualisation_of_Commons&diff=111512Fab Mob Reciprocal License for the Legal Contractualisation of Commons2018-02-20T07:32:55Z<p>Vasilis.niaros: /* 2. "Commons Reciprocity Licence" model */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
=Source=<br />
<br />
'''* Source: The legal contractualisation of commons: Towards a model of reciprocal licence for "La Fabrique des Mobilités" .'''<br />
<br />
=Status=<br />
<br />
Intro and part I-II, without tables, translated by Pascale Garbaye, January-February 2018<br />
<br />
Note the translation is still subject to corrections and improvements.<br />
<br />
Still to be translated:<br />
<br />
* end of Part II - Chapter Reciprocal Licences (5 pages)<br />
<br />
* Part III - Recommandation for "La Fabrique des Mobilités" (5 pages) <br />
<br />
* the 2 appendix (charter of values and reciprocal licence) (6 pages) - idem<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=Text=<br />
<br />
The subject of this study is to consider the possible terms of a contractual frame for the commons provided, created and developed within "La Fabrique des Mobilités" framework, in collaboration with all the players involved.<br />
<br />
This study follows an initial reflection conducted in the "Livre Blanc", published in June 2015, under section "Establishing a common law for "La Fabrique des Mobilités".<br />
<br />
Among the recommendations in this first article, we particularly considered that the "Fabrique des Mobilités" could be a regulatory body, by offering legal tools to its members that would enable them to govern the terms and conditions for their participation in the creation, use or even exploitation of commons.<br />
<br />
Thus, a contractual scheme was proposed, depending on the level of commitment intended by the protagonists and the interactions that might exist between them. This scheme foresaw a "funnel-shaped" contractualisation: from a simple approval to a Charter of Values towards "open" licences contractualisation, to the possible development of suitable bipartite or multiparty partnerships, favouring reciprocity.<br />
<br />
Since then, our aim has been to compare this contractual scheme with the needs expressed by the members of "La Fabrique des Mobilités" on current practical projects, to validate the analysis in relation to emerging contractual practices, particularly in the field of reciprocal licensing and finally, to propose possible and original contractualisation models.<br />
<br />
This note is the restitution of this work.<br />
<br />
It leads to the proposal of two documents:<br />
<br />
'''(i) A "Charter of Values", designed for all members of "La Fabrique des Mobilités".''' <br />
<br />
This Charter displays the conditions under which the resources are drived and managed within La Fabrique, for exclusively non-commercial purposes and on condition of sharing all copies and versions derived from these resources with<br />
other members.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''(ii) An operating licence of the resources,''' <br />
<br />
including commercial, available for members who contributed to their creation, enrichment, improvement or development, subject to an equitable remuneration to other contributors.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The existence of commons in our positive law is enshrined in article 714 of the Civil Code, which wording remained unchanged since the law of April 1803 the 19th. Since the general definition given by this article, the acceptation of commons was enriched, both by the law, which regulated certain categories of commons, and by schools, groups and/or communities which tried to implement licences to administer their use or even commercial exploitation, under conditions of reciprocity.<br />
<br />
Thus, there is a kind of "taxonomy" of the commons, which can be identified according to their nature and mode of governance.<br />
<br />
As for their governance, the only issue we consider in this study, two main contractualisation models coexist<br />
<br />
(i) Public access to commons under open licences, generally the widest possible, <br />
<br />
(ii) Conditional sharing of commons within a community of interest, in the context of reciprocal licences.<br />
<br />
In our opinion, as soon as the "Fabrique des Mobilités" purpose is to create a platform for sharing information and resources between the different mobility actors, with the institution of respective rights and duties between the parties, the reciprocal licencing model, rather than open licences, should be choose.<br />
<br />
Then, the question is "how" we can propose possible contractual terms.<br />
<br />
<br />
After reminding the current acceptations of commons (I), this study looks into ongoing licences proposed or implemented to regulate the use of commons in view of the double objective to safeguard openness and reciprocity (II) and makes recommendations on potential contractual tools for "La Fabrique des Mobilités" so that emerging commons can be exchanged between members, on a non-commercial or commercial basis (III).<br />
<br />
<br />
==I. DIFFERENT ACCEPTATIONS OF COMMONS==<br />
<br />
In addition to the "classic" conception which, in general, applies to all commons (A), there is a specific category of commons to the transport and mobility field, recently recognised by the legislator: data of general interest (B).<br />
<br />
<br />
===A. Commons, in general===<br />
<br />
Today, the concept of commons can take many legal meanings, provided both by the law and by the choices of communities. It can be something that belongs to no one and its use is common to all (1), a good whose use is allowed to the many (2) or any results coming from an altruistic action conducted by a community of persons (3).<br />
<br />
<br />
'''1. Thing that belongs to no one and its use is common to all'''<br />
<br />
The first definition of common goods is given in article 714 of the Civil Code<br />
<br />
"There are things that belong to no one and whose use is common to all"<br />
<br />
Res communes usually referred to in Article 714 are natural things, such as air, seawater or running water, and some physical resources, such as pastures or fisheries.<br />
<br />
This classic definition can also cover resources established more recently by contemporary legislators.<br />
Thus, public data perfectly match with the legal regime of common things, in that they do not belong to the public person, who physically holds them but must be open to the many, according to a legal redistribution mechanism.<br />
<br />
Established since the CADA law of 17 July 1978, the policy of open access to public data is enjoying a new boom. <br />
<br />
The law n° 2016-1321 of October 2016 the 7th, referred as "Law for a digital Republic", obliges all administrations (ministries, local and regional authorities, public institutions, etc.) to make any administrative document published in electronic format generally and systematically available to the public, "in an open standard, easily reusable and exploitable by an automated processing system".<br />
<br />
<br />
'''2. A good whose use is allowed to the many'''<br />
<br />
In addition to the definition of the Civil Code, another acceptation of commons appeared, based on the idea that commons are not necessarily defined by their essence but also by their function: all things which are freely accessible and usable would be common.<br />
<br />
This applies when a property owner transfers its ownership to others, either fully or in part, temporarily or permanently, according to a predetermined and non-discriminatory manner.<br />
<br />
Thus, according to this line of thinking which underpins the "open-source" concept, ownership itself becomes an alternative source of commons. Software, data or other content distributed "under free licenses" is the result of the willingness of its authors to share its use but remain their property<br />
<br />
An "open-source" license is always open under certain predetermine conditions and reservations. Thus, the violation of the free licence terms is an infringement on the authors' intellectual property rights by counterfeiting them.<br />
<br />
Therefore, contrary to popular belief, open licences are not the negation of ownership but an altruistic and disinterested development of it.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''3. Any results coming from an altruistic action conducted by a community of persons'''<br />
<br />
With the growing and structuring commons movement, the concept of "collaborative commons" appeared, according to which commons become not only natural things but also "human things".<br />
<br />
In a society where donation and participation, sharing and feedback of experience, as well as collaboration, are favoured, human activities are now released from the grip of individual appropriation to become things that can be exchanged and even valued within communities of persons or interests.<br />
<br />
Besides these three traditional conceptions, a new acceptation appeared in the field of transport: data of general interest, which definition appears to be a new typology of commons.<br />
<br />
<br />
===B. Data of general interest in the field of transport ===<br />
<br />
Submitted to the Secretary of State for Transport, Sea and Fisheries in March 2015, the report called for the creation of a new category of data, data of general interest. <br />
<br />
This report has been implemented in the law n° 2015-990 of August 2015 the 6th, referred as the Macron law. This law introduced a new article L1115-1 in the Transport Code, which provides that data, on regular public transport services for passengers and mobility, must be available for users information freely, immediately and free of charge.<br />
<br />
Subject to the decree implementing this provision of the Macron law, which is still being reviewed by the Council of State, public transport services, as well as private companies, mobility services and AOT route planners should be subject to this obligation of free and open dissemination and access to the above-mentioned data.<br />
<br />
Therefore, this law, implementing the recommendations of Jutland report, creates the new category of data of general interest, understood as private data in nature but their publication can be justified due to their interest to improve public policies. <br />
<br />
<br />
These data of general interest come from three sources<br />
<br />
* Data from public service delegations;<br />
* Key data coming from grant agreements;<br />
* Data from private companies necessary to INSEE surveys.<br />
<br />
Since their objective is to be distributed and shared as widely as possible, data of general interest are undoubtedly equivalent to new commons.<br />
<br />
Thus, commons would not be only determined by common use or a property rights but also by a purpose, the one whose pursues an objective of general interest.<br />
<br />
<br />
***<br />
<br />
These commons existing in various ways, can their administration, i.e. how they are used in common, be subject to contractual modelling? According to their nature? The communities who use and exploit them? And possible operational modes, allowed, conditioned or prohibited?<br />
<br />
There are currently different licenses that govern the use of commons. Some of them are still looking for. Others have to be invented...<br />
<br />
<br />
==II. ON-GOING LICENCES PROPOSED TO REGULATE THE USE OF COMMONS==<br />
<br />
The conditions for the governance of commons by the contract are subject to two main models of licenses: open licenses, making commons available to all (A) and reciprocal licenses, making the use of commons under conditions of sharing and remuneration rules, within a community of users (B).<br />
<br />
===A. Open licences===<br />
<br />
As stated above, the "open source" model is based on a conception of commons as properties belonging to a sole owner but which use is allowed to all, by the altruistic will of the latter.<br />
<br />
From this point of view, a "proprietary" property can be considered as a common if the owner allows its use to the many.<br />
<br />
Thus, there are two possible concepts leading to this opening up. A good that, by nature, doesn't belong to anybody or a good which owner "leaves" his property can be opened. <br />
<br />
And in each of these two schemes, there can be several degrees of opening: from the most closed to the most open or vice versa, from the most open to the most closed. In the first case, the owner decides to open a property that, by nature, is closed and in the second case, the community can decide to close a resource by nature open, according to a progressive scheme and criteria which can be the same.<br />
<br />
These criteria could be the user identity, the nature of the open matter, and intensity of its intended use, a particular territory, the period of use, an investment to protect, an expected compensation or reciprocity or the commercial or non-commercial nature of the use.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
In all cases, contract is the tool of opening up or closing up. Usually considered to be a licence, this contract can, depending on the acceptation used, be an exclusive, open or reciprocal licence. <br />
<br />
In this study, we 'll focus not about "proprietary" licence but about open or reciprocal licences.<br />
<br />
Several categories of open licences include software (1), other creative works (2) and public data (3). However, principle of these licences is criticised (4).<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
====1. "Open source" software====<br />
<br />
The "Proprietary" scheme above applies perfectly to the logic of software granted in "open source".<br />
<br />
Some "proprietary" software can indeed be freely distributed, for non-commercial use, under:<br />
- "Freeware" model, when authors have abandoned their intellectual property rights, software is free to use, without financial compensation or specific obligations,<br />
- "Shareware" model, when users are, first, invited to test software and choose to make a financial contribution if they are satisfied.<br />
<br />
There, opening-up operates within a conditioned scheme.<br />
<br />
The concept of "free" software has been set up by Linus TORVALDS (Finnish), and, in order to fight against office software companies' monopolies, the sources of Linux software have been publicly available, free of charge. <br />
<br />
This free software model, also called "copyleft", is based on the principle that software should not be considered as a saleable product, but as a resource. Thus, its source code is available for free to everyone, while utilities services, maintenance, consultation, integration, etc. attached to this software are generally provided against payment.<br />
<br />
The conditions for the use of free software are governed by an "accessible source" or "open source" licence, which main models are:<br />
<br />
- GNU GPL (General Public Licence) and GNU LGPL (Lesser General Public Licence), both designed by Free Software Foundation,<br />
<br />
- NPL (Netscape Public License), offered by NETSCAPE Society on its browser Communicator.<br />
<br />
The features of the main "open source" licences are detailed in the following table.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
====2. Extension to other creative works : Creative Commons' model====<br />
<br />
"Open source" user licences have been proposed for other works than software, but they only apply to a specific category of works: Cecill for software, LEL Licence for art work, Free Music Licence for musical works.<br />
<br />
In 2001, Professor Lawrence LESSIG, from University of Stanford, created the "Creative Commons" model, in order to offer authors of creative works an alternative to the traditional patterns for their communication towards the public and, thus, further their sharing while keeping their protection.<br />
<br />
Owners of intellectual property rights can, currently, select six licences for their works, according to exploitation they intend to give them.<br />
<br />
<br />
1. Attribution (BY): The rights owner authorises any exploitation of the work, including for commercial purposes, as well as creation of derivative works, which distribution is also allowed without restriction, provided that the name of the author is quoted.<br />
<br />
2. Attribution + No Derivatives (BY ND) : The rights owner authorizes any use of the original work (including for commercial purposes), but doesn't allow the creation of derivative works.<br />
<br />
3. Attribution + Non Commercial + No Derivatives (BY NC ND) : The rights owner authorizes any use of the original work for non commercial purposes, but doesn't allow the creation of derivative works.<br />
<br />
4. Attribution + Non Commercial (BY NC) : The rights owner authorizes any exploitation of the work, as well as creation of derivative works, only for non commercial purposes (commercial uses are subject to his approval).<br />
<br />
5. Attribution + Non Commercial + Sharealike (BY NC SA): The rights owner authorizes any exploitation of the original work for non commercial purposes, as well as creation of derivative works, provided that there are distributed under the same licence than the original work.<br />
<br />
6. Attribution + Sharealike (BY SA) : The rights owner authorises any exploitation of the work, including for commercial purposes, as well as creation of derivative works, provided that there are distributed under the same licence than the original work.<br />
<br />
<br />
====3. Public data user licences====<br />
<br />
Under the above CADA law and "For a Digital Republic" French law, access to and reuse of public data may be subject to licences laying out their associated rights and obligations, on the basis of licences more or less open.<br />
<br />
To date, several licences coexist:<br />
<br />
ETALAB mission promotes a fully open, free, non-exclusive and free of charge licence, which promotes the broadest possible re-use, by allowing the transformation, reproduction and commercial redistribution of data, including their adaptation and combination with other data, subject to the mention of the source and last update of the data.<br />
<br />
As for data defects and irregularities, the "producer" does not offer any guarantee, nor does he insure that their supply can be continuous. However, he guarantees that data does not contain any intellectual property rights belonging to third party. If it owns them, he shall transfer the rights on a non-exclusive basis, free of charge, for the whole world and for the entire duration of the rights.<br />
<br />
Recently, ETALAB licence was updated, to include the updated provisions of the law "For a Digital Republic". Particularly, it takes the re-use of public information containing personal data into account, subject to the "Informatique et Libertés" law n°78-17 of January 1978 the 6th.<br />
<br />
Other types of open licences – such as « Open Government Licence (OGL) », « Creative Commons », described above, and « Open Data Commons » – not initially foreseen for open data but for the release of intellectual property rights, can be easily adapted to opening data.<br />
<br />
Some French institutions shall adopt these licences. OBdL et ODC-By licences appear to be the more commonly used.<br />
<br />
"L'Agence du Patrimoine Immateriel de l'Etat" (APIE), provides Public Information Licenses (PIL) which are not "free licenses". Subject to a fee for the public person, it allows the re-use of public data under certain conditions.<br />
<br />
The duration of these licenses may be unlimited or limited.<br />
<br />
These licenses seem to fall into disuse in favour for "open" models.<br />
<br />
Even so, it has to be said that, in France public data access and re-use have been partially achieved: few public persons released their data and its reusing modes is facing resistances.<br />
<br />
This is why, the law "For a Digital Republic" created a public service for data.<br />
<br />
According to Article 11 of this law, administrations should not hinder re-use of their published public databases, except for data which have been produced or received in the exercise of a public service mission, of an industrial or commercial nature, subject to competition.<br />
<br />
To this end, a list of free re-use licences for these public data will be proposed, determined by decree and revised every five years.<br />
<br />
When an administration wishes to use a license that is not on this list, this licence has to be, first, approved by the State, under conditions determined by decree.<br />
<br />
To date, these two decrees have not been published yet.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
====4. Criticisms of the "open source" model====<br />
<br />
Theorists and practitioners of commons have criticized the "open source" model.<br />
<br />
This model was first criticized for being inadequate in relation to the concept of commons, which is based on the idea of resources "governed" by a community of interest.<br />
<br />
Valérie Peugeot, researcher and chairwoman of VECAM, defines commons by the three dimensions that characterize them: commons are (i) resources (ii) subject to a collective rights and obligations system (iii) which use is governed by a community.<br />
<br />
Yet, open licences, previously described, are unilateral licences which opening-up, terms and conditions of the opening-up, are decided by the only will of the initial holder of the resource.<br />
<br />
Moreover, an "open source" licence aim to disseminate the work to the many, without keeping in mind the idea of reciprocity from licences' users, neither interaction between them and the initial holder of the resource.<br />
<br />
Imposing certain conditions on the opening-up of a resource, as in the open licences scheme, is not the same thing as agreeing on the opening-up conditions, that require, of those who benefit of the opening-up, a positive action of reciprocity, whether material, financial or ethical.<br />
<br />
"Open" Licence model has also been criticised for not distinguishing non-commercial or commercial exploitation. This allows commercial entities, which have not contributed to resources or financed their creation and development, to use them for free, even to make their own, thus creating a state of unregulated competition and a new form of parasitism.<br />
<br />
Paying close attention to these practices, the article 8 of the "For a Digital Republic" law provided protection for a new class of commons, the common informational domain. The aim of these provisions was to "protect the common resources of the public domain from ownership practices that lead to denying access to them", by allowing authorized associations to take legal proceeding to defend this common domain and to put an end to any attempt to exclusive reappropriation.<br />
<br />
However, these provisions have not been taken up in the law that was finally approved, due to the opposition of several actors in the literary and artistic property field (SEPM, SACD, SNEP, FNPS, SNE …), who argued that there were imprecise and dangerous for copyright protection.<br />
<br />
Whatever, criticism against "open source" licenses is now the basis for the current thinking of reciprocal licences.<br />
<br />
<br />
===B - Reciprocal Licences===<br />
<br />
In opposition to the "open source" model, promoting the dissemination to everyone, reciprocal licences set up principle and conditions for the sharing of common. It's restricted to members of a community and depends on respective contributions for the common.<br />
<br />
Reciprocal licences usually provide for increasing restrictions, depending on the categories of common users, in order to ensure reciprocity on the conditions of this sharing.<br />
<br />
Those restrictions are usually based on the following main principles:<br />
<br />
a) The common can be used by all members of the community for non-commercial use<br />
<br />
b) Commercial exploitation of the common by members is possible, under the condition of a remuneration to the contributors of this common<br />
<br />
c) Commercial exploitation of the common is prohibited to third parties, non-contributors, unless they pay a fee under a specific license<br />
<br />
Based on four different philosophies, four major types of reciprocal licences can be implemented<br />
<br />
<br />
====1. "Copyfarleft" model====<br />
<br />
Dmytri Kleiner has developed the "Copyfarleft" licence model, especially in his publication “The Telekommunist Manifesto” (2010).<br />
<br />
The principle is that only a non-commercial use of a resource is free<br />
In the case of a commercial use, only certain legal entities may effectively exploit it.<br />
<br />
Thus, commercial use of the resource is restricted to companies owned by its employees and cooperatives, provided that all financial gains, surpluses, profits and benefits generated by the enterprise or cooperative are redistributed to employee-owners.<br />
<br />
Therefore, any use of the resource is not allowed to private, non-cooperative companies that seek to generate a profit from this resource.<br />
<br />
Commercial entities may use the common provided they pay a fee, under an ad hoc licence, apart from free licence.<br />
<br />
Therefore, the main criterion of this licence is the cooperative nature of the resource users.<br />
<br />
To date, the "Copyfarleft" model is illustrated in the "Peer Production License" model.<br />
<br />
It's intended to apply to all literary, scientific and artistic creation protectable by intellectual property right, whatever the mode or form of expression, including digitally.<br />
<br />
This licence can be modelled as follows:<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Copyfarleft.jpg]]<br />
<br />
<br />
The main objective of the "copyfarleft" model is to prevent the risk of fierce competition from economic entities, which may take advantage for themselves of a common achieved by others.<br />
<br />
However, it introduces a bias in that commercial exploitation is reserved for categories of entities, based on their legal status and not on their effective contributions. Thus, any commercial entities are excluded even those that would have contributed to the common.<br />
<br />
In their article "une nouvelle proposition de Commons » (online « Journal of Peer Production » -n° 4 jan. 2014), Miguel Said Viera and Primavera de Filipi highlighted that this approach was too reductive<br />
<br />
====2. "Commons Reciprocity Licence" model====<br />
<br />
In the article mentioned above, Miguel Said Viera and Primavera de Filipi propose to include a reciprocity clause as an alternative to "copyfarleft". Only contributors of the common may commercially or not exploit common, regardless of their legal status.<br />
<br />
The main criterion of this licence is to contribute to the resource.<br />
<br />
For a non-commercial use, any contributor to the resource benefits from a free licence. Their contribution is measured by a virtual currency, the "Peer-Currency". <br />
<br />
This currency must, also, allow assessing remuneration of all the common's contributors when the resource is used for commercial purposes. "Open Value Accounting" model is a variation of "Commons Reciprocity Licence" model. The contributions are measured by a rating that each contributor receives from his or her peers.<br />
<br />
Non-contributors may only commercially exploit a common under an ad hoc licence concluded with the contributors in return for payment of a fee.<br />
<br />
To date, "Commons Reciprocity License" model has not given rise to the writing of a standard license. However, it can be modelled as follows:<br />
<br />
[[File:Commons reciprocity licence.jpg]]<br />
<br />
The main advantage of the "Common Reciprocity Licence" model is to allow contributors to commercially exploit the common and receive remuneration commensurate with their contribution, without exclusion because of their status.<br />
<br />
In this model, the complexity lies in how the contributions are assessed. A virtual currency measurement system could be too complex to implement and manage. It might, also, introduce an element of arbitrariness in the assessment of the different modes of contribution.<br />
<br />
The initiators of the "Commons Reciprocity License" are aware of this risk, which they mention in their article:<br />
<br />
"One of the most important is the determination of the "exchange rate" between different types of works. In other words, how can we measure individual contributions (in different fields) through tokens? How many token would be allocated to a user who contributes to the commons through an image, video or text? Should derivative works or improvements be rewarded with fewer token? Should the system have to take into account a measure of the quality or artistic merit of these works? And if so, who would be competent to carry out such evaluation?"<br />
<br />
However, unlike rating system of "Open Value Accounting" model, the advantage of an "exchange currency" system is to confer an objective system for measuring the contributions.<br />
<br />
====3. "Fair source Licence"====<br />
<br />
Other licenses have been developed to allow common goods sharing so that right holders can receive remuneration, while supervising their exploitation.<br />
Thus, "Fair Source Licence" is based on sharing source code of software or software development, while allowing right holder(s) to receive income from the exploitation of this property.<br />
<br />
This licence is granted free of charge to private individuals and companies, subject to a limited number of end-users within an enterprise (including its affiliates).<br />
<br />
In a company, if the number of users exceeds the above-mentioned ceiling, the licence is subject to payment of a fee.<br />
<br />
Therefore, the main criterion of this licence is the nature of the user (private individual or company), and, for companies, the number of the resource users.<br />
<br />
The mechanism of this licence can be modelled as follows:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Therefore, the "Fair Source" license corresponds with much more liberal organization of the community constituted around the common. Indeed, there are no specific compensation obligation between contributors and users, except for companies, above a certain size, which would pay a fee.<br />
<br />
Besides, as it is, this licence doesn't have a system for measuring the contributions and assessing remuneration that would be owed to contributors.<br />
<br />
<br />
====4. Fairly Share Licence====<br />
<br />
The other licence implemented, in order to ensure remuneration for the holders of common rights, is the "FairlyShare" licence. The object is to give free access to commons in the contributory community, but subject to a fee in the commercial sphere.<br />
<br />
Therefore, the licence holder undertakes to do his best to define an area and a limited period for exploiting its rights, and to identify the contributions and their authors. This things being done, he must define and distribute the profit share allocated to contributors, according to best practices (failing that, the share is 50%).<br />
<br />
Finally, he must commit to a number of societal and environmental values, including the UN Global Compact, Social and Environmental Responsibility and the journalists' code of ethics.<br />
<br />
The "FairlyShare" licence is quite similar to the above-mentioned "Commons Reciprocity License" model. The operator of a common must elaborate and implement a system in order to distribute profit share to contributors, for the commercial exploitation of the common.<br />
<br />
This licence can be modelled as follows:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
However, the system implemented is more liberal. The allocation system is not defined by the community, but is left to operator's free choice and responsibility. Thus, in this licence, there is no system for measuring contributions, through virtual currency or any other means<br />
<br />
=More information=<br />
<br />
* [[Copyfair]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Licensing]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:P2P Law]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Transportation]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:France]]</div>Vasilis.niaroshttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=File:Commons_reciprocity_licence.jpg&diff=111511File:Commons reciprocity licence.jpg2018-02-20T07:32:39Z<p>Vasilis.niaros: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Vasilis.niaroshttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Fab_Mob_Reciprocal_License_for_the_Legal_Contractualisation_of_Commons&diff=111510Fab Mob Reciprocal License for the Legal Contractualisation of Commons2018-02-20T07:32:06Z<p>Vasilis.niaros: /* 1. "Copyfarleft" model */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
=Source=<br />
<br />
'''* Source: The legal contractualisation of commons: Towards a model of reciprocal licence for "La Fabrique des Mobilités" .'''<br />
<br />
=Status=<br />
<br />
Intro and part I-II, without tables, translated by Pascale Garbaye, January-February 2018<br />
<br />
Note the translation is still subject to corrections and improvements.<br />
<br />
Still to be translated:<br />
<br />
* end of Part II - Chapter Reciprocal Licences (5 pages)<br />
<br />
* Part III - Recommandation for "La Fabrique des Mobilités" (5 pages) <br />
<br />
* the 2 appendix (charter of values and reciprocal licence) (6 pages) - idem<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=Text=<br />
<br />
The subject of this study is to consider the possible terms of a contractual frame for the commons provided, created and developed within "La Fabrique des Mobilités" framework, in collaboration with all the players involved.<br />
<br />
This study follows an initial reflection conducted in the "Livre Blanc", published in June 2015, under section "Establishing a common law for "La Fabrique des Mobilités".<br />
<br />
Among the recommendations in this first article, we particularly considered that the "Fabrique des Mobilités" could be a regulatory body, by offering legal tools to its members that would enable them to govern the terms and conditions for their participation in the creation, use or even exploitation of commons.<br />
<br />
Thus, a contractual scheme was proposed, depending on the level of commitment intended by the protagonists and the interactions that might exist between them. This scheme foresaw a "funnel-shaped" contractualisation: from a simple approval to a Charter of Values towards "open" licences contractualisation, to the possible development of suitable bipartite or multiparty partnerships, favouring reciprocity.<br />
<br />
Since then, our aim has been to compare this contractual scheme with the needs expressed by the members of "La Fabrique des Mobilités" on current practical projects, to validate the analysis in relation to emerging contractual practices, particularly in the field of reciprocal licensing and finally, to propose possible and original contractualisation models.<br />
<br />
This note is the restitution of this work.<br />
<br />
It leads to the proposal of two documents:<br />
<br />
'''(i) A "Charter of Values", designed for all members of "La Fabrique des Mobilités".''' <br />
<br />
This Charter displays the conditions under which the resources are drived and managed within La Fabrique, for exclusively non-commercial purposes and on condition of sharing all copies and versions derived from these resources with<br />
other members.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''(ii) An operating licence of the resources,''' <br />
<br />
including commercial, available for members who contributed to their creation, enrichment, improvement or development, subject to an equitable remuneration to other contributors.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The existence of commons in our positive law is enshrined in article 714 of the Civil Code, which wording remained unchanged since the law of April 1803 the 19th. Since the general definition given by this article, the acceptation of commons was enriched, both by the law, which regulated certain categories of commons, and by schools, groups and/or communities which tried to implement licences to administer their use or even commercial exploitation, under conditions of reciprocity.<br />
<br />
Thus, there is a kind of "taxonomy" of the commons, which can be identified according to their nature and mode of governance.<br />
<br />
As for their governance, the only issue we consider in this study, two main contractualisation models coexist<br />
<br />
(i) Public access to commons under open licences, generally the widest possible, <br />
<br />
(ii) Conditional sharing of commons within a community of interest, in the context of reciprocal licences.<br />
<br />
In our opinion, as soon as the "Fabrique des Mobilités" purpose is to create a platform for sharing information and resources between the different mobility actors, with the institution of respective rights and duties between the parties, the reciprocal licencing model, rather than open licences, should be choose.<br />
<br />
Then, the question is "how" we can propose possible contractual terms.<br />
<br />
<br />
After reminding the current acceptations of commons (I), this study looks into ongoing licences proposed or implemented to regulate the use of commons in view of the double objective to safeguard openness and reciprocity (II) and makes recommendations on potential contractual tools for "La Fabrique des Mobilités" so that emerging commons can be exchanged between members, on a non-commercial or commercial basis (III).<br />
<br />
<br />
==I. DIFFERENT ACCEPTATIONS OF COMMONS==<br />
<br />
In addition to the "classic" conception which, in general, applies to all commons (A), there is a specific category of commons to the transport and mobility field, recently recognised by the legislator: data of general interest (B).<br />
<br />
<br />
===A. Commons, in general===<br />
<br />
Today, the concept of commons can take many legal meanings, provided both by the law and by the choices of communities. It can be something that belongs to no one and its use is common to all (1), a good whose use is allowed to the many (2) or any results coming from an altruistic action conducted by a community of persons (3).<br />
<br />
<br />
'''1. Thing that belongs to no one and its use is common to all'''<br />
<br />
The first definition of common goods is given in article 714 of the Civil Code<br />
<br />
"There are things that belong to no one and whose use is common to all"<br />
<br />
Res communes usually referred to in Article 714 are natural things, such as air, seawater or running water, and some physical resources, such as pastures or fisheries.<br />
<br />
This classic definition can also cover resources established more recently by contemporary legislators.<br />
Thus, public data perfectly match with the legal regime of common things, in that they do not belong to the public person, who physically holds them but must be open to the many, according to a legal redistribution mechanism.<br />
<br />
Established since the CADA law of 17 July 1978, the policy of open access to public data is enjoying a new boom. <br />
<br />
The law n° 2016-1321 of October 2016 the 7th, referred as "Law for a digital Republic", obliges all administrations (ministries, local and regional authorities, public institutions, etc.) to make any administrative document published in electronic format generally and systematically available to the public, "in an open standard, easily reusable and exploitable by an automated processing system".<br />
<br />
<br />
'''2. A good whose use is allowed to the many'''<br />
<br />
In addition to the definition of the Civil Code, another acceptation of commons appeared, based on the idea that commons are not necessarily defined by their essence but also by their function: all things which are freely accessible and usable would be common.<br />
<br />
This applies when a property owner transfers its ownership to others, either fully or in part, temporarily or permanently, according to a predetermined and non-discriminatory manner.<br />
<br />
Thus, according to this line of thinking which underpins the "open-source" concept, ownership itself becomes an alternative source of commons. Software, data or other content distributed "under free licenses" is the result of the willingness of its authors to share its use but remain their property<br />
<br />
An "open-source" license is always open under certain predetermine conditions and reservations. Thus, the violation of the free licence terms is an infringement on the authors' intellectual property rights by counterfeiting them.<br />
<br />
Therefore, contrary to popular belief, open licences are not the negation of ownership but an altruistic and disinterested development of it.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''3. Any results coming from an altruistic action conducted by a community of persons'''<br />
<br />
With the growing and structuring commons movement, the concept of "collaborative commons" appeared, according to which commons become not only natural things but also "human things".<br />
<br />
In a society where donation and participation, sharing and feedback of experience, as well as collaboration, are favoured, human activities are now released from the grip of individual appropriation to become things that can be exchanged and even valued within communities of persons or interests.<br />
<br />
Besides these three traditional conceptions, a new acceptation appeared in the field of transport: data of general interest, which definition appears to be a new typology of commons.<br />
<br />
<br />
===B. Data of general interest in the field of transport ===<br />
<br />
Submitted to the Secretary of State for Transport, Sea and Fisheries in March 2015, the report called for the creation of a new category of data, data of general interest. <br />
<br />
This report has been implemented in the law n° 2015-990 of August 2015 the 6th, referred as the Macron law. This law introduced a new article L1115-1 in the Transport Code, which provides that data, on regular public transport services for passengers and mobility, must be available for users information freely, immediately and free of charge.<br />
<br />
Subject to the decree implementing this provision of the Macron law, which is still being reviewed by the Council of State, public transport services, as well as private companies, mobility services and AOT route planners should be subject to this obligation of free and open dissemination and access to the above-mentioned data.<br />
<br />
Therefore, this law, implementing the recommendations of Jutland report, creates the new category of data of general interest, understood as private data in nature but their publication can be justified due to their interest to improve public policies. <br />
<br />
<br />
These data of general interest come from three sources<br />
<br />
* Data from public service delegations;<br />
* Key data coming from grant agreements;<br />
* Data from private companies necessary to INSEE surveys.<br />
<br />
Since their objective is to be distributed and shared as widely as possible, data of general interest are undoubtedly equivalent to new commons.<br />
<br />
Thus, commons would not be only determined by common use or a property rights but also by a purpose, the one whose pursues an objective of general interest.<br />
<br />
<br />
***<br />
<br />
These commons existing in various ways, can their administration, i.e. how they are used in common, be subject to contractual modelling? According to their nature? The communities who use and exploit them? And possible operational modes, allowed, conditioned or prohibited?<br />
<br />
There are currently different licenses that govern the use of commons. Some of them are still looking for. Others have to be invented...<br />
<br />
<br />
==II. ON-GOING LICENCES PROPOSED TO REGULATE THE USE OF COMMONS==<br />
<br />
The conditions for the governance of commons by the contract are subject to two main models of licenses: open licenses, making commons available to all (A) and reciprocal licenses, making the use of commons under conditions of sharing and remuneration rules, within a community of users (B).<br />
<br />
===A. Open licences===<br />
<br />
As stated above, the "open source" model is based on a conception of commons as properties belonging to a sole owner but which use is allowed to all, by the altruistic will of the latter.<br />
<br />
From this point of view, a "proprietary" property can be considered as a common if the owner allows its use to the many.<br />
<br />
Thus, there are two possible concepts leading to this opening up. A good that, by nature, doesn't belong to anybody or a good which owner "leaves" his property can be opened. <br />
<br />
And in each of these two schemes, there can be several degrees of opening: from the most closed to the most open or vice versa, from the most open to the most closed. In the first case, the owner decides to open a property that, by nature, is closed and in the second case, the community can decide to close a resource by nature open, according to a progressive scheme and criteria which can be the same.<br />
<br />
These criteria could be the user identity, the nature of the open matter, and intensity of its intended use, a particular territory, the period of use, an investment to protect, an expected compensation or reciprocity or the commercial or non-commercial nature of the use.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
In all cases, contract is the tool of opening up or closing up. Usually considered to be a licence, this contract can, depending on the acceptation used, be an exclusive, open or reciprocal licence. <br />
<br />
In this study, we 'll focus not about "proprietary" licence but about open or reciprocal licences.<br />
<br />
Several categories of open licences include software (1), other creative works (2) and public data (3). However, principle of these licences is criticised (4).<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
====1. "Open source" software====<br />
<br />
The "Proprietary" scheme above applies perfectly to the logic of software granted in "open source".<br />
<br />
Some "proprietary" software can indeed be freely distributed, for non-commercial use, under:<br />
- "Freeware" model, when authors have abandoned their intellectual property rights, software is free to use, without financial compensation or specific obligations,<br />
- "Shareware" model, when users are, first, invited to test software and choose to make a financial contribution if they are satisfied.<br />
<br />
There, opening-up operates within a conditioned scheme.<br />
<br />
The concept of "free" software has been set up by Linus TORVALDS (Finnish), and, in order to fight against office software companies' monopolies, the sources of Linux software have been publicly available, free of charge. <br />
<br />
This free software model, also called "copyleft", is based on the principle that software should not be considered as a saleable product, but as a resource. Thus, its source code is available for free to everyone, while utilities services, maintenance, consultation, integration, etc. attached to this software are generally provided against payment.<br />
<br />
The conditions for the use of free software are governed by an "accessible source" or "open source" licence, which main models are:<br />
<br />
- GNU GPL (General Public Licence) and GNU LGPL (Lesser General Public Licence), both designed by Free Software Foundation,<br />
<br />
- NPL (Netscape Public License), offered by NETSCAPE Society on its browser Communicator.<br />
<br />
The features of the main "open source" licences are detailed in the following table.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
====2. Extension to other creative works : Creative Commons' model====<br />
<br />
"Open source" user licences have been proposed for other works than software, but they only apply to a specific category of works: Cecill for software, LEL Licence for art work, Free Music Licence for musical works.<br />
<br />
In 2001, Professor Lawrence LESSIG, from University of Stanford, created the "Creative Commons" model, in order to offer authors of creative works an alternative to the traditional patterns for their communication towards the public and, thus, further their sharing while keeping their protection.<br />
<br />
Owners of intellectual property rights can, currently, select six licences for their works, according to exploitation they intend to give them.<br />
<br />
<br />
1. Attribution (BY): The rights owner authorises any exploitation of the work, including for commercial purposes, as well as creation of derivative works, which distribution is also allowed without restriction, provided that the name of the author is quoted.<br />
<br />
2. Attribution + No Derivatives (BY ND) : The rights owner authorizes any use of the original work (including for commercial purposes), but doesn't allow the creation of derivative works.<br />
<br />
3. Attribution + Non Commercial + No Derivatives (BY NC ND) : The rights owner authorizes any use of the original work for non commercial purposes, but doesn't allow the creation of derivative works.<br />
<br />
4. Attribution + Non Commercial (BY NC) : The rights owner authorizes any exploitation of the work, as well as creation of derivative works, only for non commercial purposes (commercial uses are subject to his approval).<br />
<br />
5. Attribution + Non Commercial + Sharealike (BY NC SA): The rights owner authorizes any exploitation of the original work for non commercial purposes, as well as creation of derivative works, provided that there are distributed under the same licence than the original work.<br />
<br />
6. Attribution + Sharealike (BY SA) : The rights owner authorises any exploitation of the work, including for commercial purposes, as well as creation of derivative works, provided that there are distributed under the same licence than the original work.<br />
<br />
<br />
====3. Public data user licences====<br />
<br />
Under the above CADA law and "For a Digital Republic" French law, access to and reuse of public data may be subject to licences laying out their associated rights and obligations, on the basis of licences more or less open.<br />
<br />
To date, several licences coexist:<br />
<br />
ETALAB mission promotes a fully open, free, non-exclusive and free of charge licence, which promotes the broadest possible re-use, by allowing the transformation, reproduction and commercial redistribution of data, including their adaptation and combination with other data, subject to the mention of the source and last update of the data.<br />
<br />
As for data defects and irregularities, the "producer" does not offer any guarantee, nor does he insure that their supply can be continuous. However, he guarantees that data does not contain any intellectual property rights belonging to third party. If it owns them, he shall transfer the rights on a non-exclusive basis, free of charge, for the whole world and for the entire duration of the rights.<br />
<br />
Recently, ETALAB licence was updated, to include the updated provisions of the law "For a Digital Republic". Particularly, it takes the re-use of public information containing personal data into account, subject to the "Informatique et Libertés" law n°78-17 of January 1978 the 6th.<br />
<br />
Other types of open licences – such as « Open Government Licence (OGL) », « Creative Commons », described above, and « Open Data Commons » – not initially foreseen for open data but for the release of intellectual property rights, can be easily adapted to opening data.<br />
<br />
Some French institutions shall adopt these licences. OBdL et ODC-By licences appear to be the more commonly used.<br />
<br />
"L'Agence du Patrimoine Immateriel de l'Etat" (APIE), provides Public Information Licenses (PIL) which are not "free licenses". Subject to a fee for the public person, it allows the re-use of public data under certain conditions.<br />
<br />
The duration of these licenses may be unlimited or limited.<br />
<br />
These licenses seem to fall into disuse in favour for "open" models.<br />
<br />
Even so, it has to be said that, in France public data access and re-use have been partially achieved: few public persons released their data and its reusing modes is facing resistances.<br />
<br />
This is why, the law "For a Digital Republic" created a public service for data.<br />
<br />
According to Article 11 of this law, administrations should not hinder re-use of their published public databases, except for data which have been produced or received in the exercise of a public service mission, of an industrial or commercial nature, subject to competition.<br />
<br />
To this end, a list of free re-use licences for these public data will be proposed, determined by decree and revised every five years.<br />
<br />
When an administration wishes to use a license that is not on this list, this licence has to be, first, approved by the State, under conditions determined by decree.<br />
<br />
To date, these two decrees have not been published yet.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
====4. Criticisms of the "open source" model====<br />
<br />
Theorists and practitioners of commons have criticized the "open source" model.<br />
<br />
This model was first criticized for being inadequate in relation to the concept of commons, which is based on the idea of resources "governed" by a community of interest.<br />
<br />
Valérie Peugeot, researcher and chairwoman of VECAM, defines commons by the three dimensions that characterize them: commons are (i) resources (ii) subject to a collective rights and obligations system (iii) which use is governed by a community.<br />
<br />
Yet, open licences, previously described, are unilateral licences which opening-up, terms and conditions of the opening-up, are decided by the only will of the initial holder of the resource.<br />
<br />
Moreover, an "open source" licence aim to disseminate the work to the many, without keeping in mind the idea of reciprocity from licences' users, neither interaction between them and the initial holder of the resource.<br />
<br />
Imposing certain conditions on the opening-up of a resource, as in the open licences scheme, is not the same thing as agreeing on the opening-up conditions, that require, of those who benefit of the opening-up, a positive action of reciprocity, whether material, financial or ethical.<br />
<br />
"Open" Licence model has also been criticised for not distinguishing non-commercial or commercial exploitation. This allows commercial entities, which have not contributed to resources or financed their creation and development, to use them for free, even to make their own, thus creating a state of unregulated competition and a new form of parasitism.<br />
<br />
Paying close attention to these practices, the article 8 of the "For a Digital Republic" law provided protection for a new class of commons, the common informational domain. The aim of these provisions was to "protect the common resources of the public domain from ownership practices that lead to denying access to them", by allowing authorized associations to take legal proceeding to defend this common domain and to put an end to any attempt to exclusive reappropriation.<br />
<br />
However, these provisions have not been taken up in the law that was finally approved, due to the opposition of several actors in the literary and artistic property field (SEPM, SACD, SNEP, FNPS, SNE …), who argued that there were imprecise and dangerous for copyright protection.<br />
<br />
Whatever, criticism against "open source" licenses is now the basis for the current thinking of reciprocal licences.<br />
<br />
<br />
===B - Reciprocal Licences===<br />
<br />
In opposition to the "open source" model, promoting the dissemination to everyone, reciprocal licences set up principle and conditions for the sharing of common. It's restricted to members of a community and depends on respective contributions for the common.<br />
<br />
Reciprocal licences usually provide for increasing restrictions, depending on the categories of common users, in order to ensure reciprocity on the conditions of this sharing.<br />
<br />
Those restrictions are usually based on the following main principles:<br />
<br />
a) The common can be used by all members of the community for non-commercial use<br />
<br />
b) Commercial exploitation of the common by members is possible, under the condition of a remuneration to the contributors of this common<br />
<br />
c) Commercial exploitation of the common is prohibited to third parties, non-contributors, unless they pay a fee under a specific license<br />
<br />
Based on four different philosophies, four major types of reciprocal licences can be implemented<br />
<br />
<br />
====1. "Copyfarleft" model====<br />
<br />
Dmytri Kleiner has developed the "Copyfarleft" licence model, especially in his publication “The Telekommunist Manifesto” (2010).<br />
<br />
The principle is that only a non-commercial use of a resource is free<br />
In the case of a commercial use, only certain legal entities may effectively exploit it.<br />
<br />
Thus, commercial use of the resource is restricted to companies owned by its employees and cooperatives, provided that all financial gains, surpluses, profits and benefits generated by the enterprise or cooperative are redistributed to employee-owners.<br />
<br />
Therefore, any use of the resource is not allowed to private, non-cooperative companies that seek to generate a profit from this resource.<br />
<br />
Commercial entities may use the common provided they pay a fee, under an ad hoc licence, apart from free licence.<br />
<br />
Therefore, the main criterion of this licence is the cooperative nature of the resource users.<br />
<br />
To date, the "Copyfarleft" model is illustrated in the "Peer Production License" model.<br />
<br />
It's intended to apply to all literary, scientific and artistic creation protectable by intellectual property right, whatever the mode or form of expression, including digitally.<br />
<br />
This licence can be modelled as follows:<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Copyfarleft.jpg]]<br />
<br />
<br />
The main objective of the "copyfarleft" model is to prevent the risk of fierce competition from economic entities, which may take advantage for themselves of a common achieved by others.<br />
<br />
However, it introduces a bias in that commercial exploitation is reserved for categories of entities, based on their legal status and not on their effective contributions. Thus, any commercial entities are excluded even those that would have contributed to the common.<br />
<br />
In their article "une nouvelle proposition de Commons » (online « Journal of Peer Production » -n° 4 jan. 2014), Miguel Said Viera and Primavera de Filipi highlighted that this approach was too reductive<br />
<br />
====2. "Commons Reciprocity Licence" model====<br />
<br />
In the article mentioned above, Miguel Said Viera and Primavera de Filipi propose to include a reciprocity clause as an alternative to "copyfarleft". Only contributors of the common may commercially or not exploit common, regardless of their legal status.<br />
<br />
The main criterion of this licence is to contribute to the resource.<br />
<br />
For a non-commercial use, any contributor to the resource benefits from a free licence. Their contribution is measured by a virtual currency, the "Peer-Currency". <br />
<br />
This currency must, also, allow assessing remuneration of all the common's contributors when the resource is used for commercial purposes. "Open Value Accounting" model is a variation of "Commons Reciprocity Licence" model. The contributions are measured by a rating that each contributor receives from his or her peers.<br />
<br />
Non-contributors may only commercially exploit a common under an ad hoc licence concluded with the contributors in return for payment of a fee.<br />
<br />
To date, "Commons Reciprocity License" model has not given rise to the writing of a standard license. However, it can be modelled as follows:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The main advantage of the "Common Reciprocity Licence" model is to allow contributors to commercially exploit the common and receive remuneration commensurate with their contribution, without exclusion because of their status.<br />
<br />
In this model, the complexity lies in how the contributions are assessed. A virtual currency measurement system could be too complex to implement and manage. It might, also, introduce an element of arbitrariness in the assessment of the different modes of contribution.<br />
<br />
The initiators of the "Commons Reciprocity License" are aware of this risk, which they mention in their article:<br />
<br />
"One of the most important is the determination of the "exchange rate" between different types of works. In other words, how can we measure individual contributions (in different fields) through tokens? How many token would be allocated to a user who contributes to the commons through an image, video or text? Should derivative works or improvements be rewarded with fewer token? Should the system have to take into account a measure of the quality or artistic merit of these works? And if so, who would be competent to carry out such evaluation?"<br />
<br />
However, unlike rating system of "Open Value Accounting" model, the advantage of an "exchange currency" system is to confer an objective system for measuring the contributions. <br />
<br />
<br />
====3. "Fair source Licence"====<br />
<br />
Other licenses have been developed to allow common goods sharing so that right holders can receive remuneration, while supervising their exploitation.<br />
Thus, "Fair Source Licence" is based on sharing source code of software or software development, while allowing right holder(s) to receive income from the exploitation of this property.<br />
<br />
This licence is granted free of charge to private individuals and companies, subject to a limited number of end-users within an enterprise (including its affiliates).<br />
<br />
In a company, if the number of users exceeds the above-mentioned ceiling, the licence is subject to payment of a fee.<br />
<br />
Therefore, the main criterion of this licence is the nature of the user (private individual or company), and, for companies, the number of the resource users.<br />
<br />
The mechanism of this licence can be modelled as follows:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Therefore, the "Fair Source" license corresponds with much more liberal organization of the community constituted around the common. Indeed, there are no specific compensation obligation between contributors and users, except for companies, above a certain size, which would pay a fee.<br />
<br />
Besides, as it is, this licence doesn't have a system for measuring the contributions and assessing remuneration that would be owed to contributors.<br />
<br />
<br />
====4. Fairly Share Licence====<br />
<br />
The other licence implemented, in order to ensure remuneration for the holders of common rights, is the "FairlyShare" licence. The object is to give free access to commons in the contributory community, but subject to a fee in the commercial sphere.<br />
<br />
Therefore, the licence holder undertakes to do his best to define an area and a limited period for exploiting its rights, and to identify the contributions and their authors. This things being done, he must define and distribute the profit share allocated to contributors, according to best practices (failing that, the share is 50%).<br />
<br />
Finally, he must commit to a number of societal and environmental values, including the UN Global Compact, Social and Environmental Responsibility and the journalists' code of ethics.<br />
<br />
The "FairlyShare" licence is quite similar to the above-mentioned "Commons Reciprocity License" model. The operator of a common must elaborate and implement a system in order to distribute profit share to contributors, for the commercial exploitation of the common.<br />
<br />
This licence can be modelled as follows:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
However, the system implemented is more liberal. The allocation system is not defined by the community, but is left to operator's free choice and responsibility. Thus, in this licence, there is no system for measuring contributions, through virtual currency or any other means<br />
<br />
=More information=<br />
<br />
* [[Copyfair]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Licensing]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:P2P Law]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Transportation]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:France]]</div>Vasilis.niaroshttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Fab_Mob_Reciprocal_License_for_the_Legal_Contractualisation_of_Commons&diff=111509Fab Mob Reciprocal License for the Legal Contractualisation of Commons2018-02-20T07:31:28Z<p>Vasilis.niaros: /* 1. "Copyfarleft" model */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
=Source=<br />
<br />
'''* Source: The legal contractualisation of commons: Towards a model of reciprocal licence for "La Fabrique des Mobilités" .'''<br />
<br />
=Status=<br />
<br />
Intro and part I-II, without tables, translated by Pascale Garbaye, January-February 2018<br />
<br />
Note the translation is still subject to corrections and improvements.<br />
<br />
Still to be translated:<br />
<br />
* end of Part II - Chapter Reciprocal Licences (5 pages)<br />
<br />
* Part III - Recommandation for "La Fabrique des Mobilités" (5 pages) <br />
<br />
* the 2 appendix (charter of values and reciprocal licence) (6 pages) - idem<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=Text=<br />
<br />
The subject of this study is to consider the possible terms of a contractual frame for the commons provided, created and developed within "La Fabrique des Mobilités" framework, in collaboration with all the players involved.<br />
<br />
This study follows an initial reflection conducted in the "Livre Blanc", published in June 2015, under section "Establishing a common law for "La Fabrique des Mobilités".<br />
<br />
Among the recommendations in this first article, we particularly considered that the "Fabrique des Mobilités" could be a regulatory body, by offering legal tools to its members that would enable them to govern the terms and conditions for their participation in the creation, use or even exploitation of commons.<br />
<br />
Thus, a contractual scheme was proposed, depending on the level of commitment intended by the protagonists and the interactions that might exist between them. This scheme foresaw a "funnel-shaped" contractualisation: from a simple approval to a Charter of Values towards "open" licences contractualisation, to the possible development of suitable bipartite or multiparty partnerships, favouring reciprocity.<br />
<br />
Since then, our aim has been to compare this contractual scheme with the needs expressed by the members of "La Fabrique des Mobilités" on current practical projects, to validate the analysis in relation to emerging contractual practices, particularly in the field of reciprocal licensing and finally, to propose possible and original contractualisation models.<br />
<br />
This note is the restitution of this work.<br />
<br />
It leads to the proposal of two documents:<br />
<br />
'''(i) A "Charter of Values", designed for all members of "La Fabrique des Mobilités".''' <br />
<br />
This Charter displays the conditions under which the resources are drived and managed within La Fabrique, for exclusively non-commercial purposes and on condition of sharing all copies and versions derived from these resources with<br />
other members.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''(ii) An operating licence of the resources,''' <br />
<br />
including commercial, available for members who contributed to their creation, enrichment, improvement or development, subject to an equitable remuneration to other contributors.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The existence of commons in our positive law is enshrined in article 714 of the Civil Code, which wording remained unchanged since the law of April 1803 the 19th. Since the general definition given by this article, the acceptation of commons was enriched, both by the law, which regulated certain categories of commons, and by schools, groups and/or communities which tried to implement licences to administer their use or even commercial exploitation, under conditions of reciprocity.<br />
<br />
Thus, there is a kind of "taxonomy" of the commons, which can be identified according to their nature and mode of governance.<br />
<br />
As for their governance, the only issue we consider in this study, two main contractualisation models coexist<br />
<br />
(i) Public access to commons under open licences, generally the widest possible, <br />
<br />
(ii) Conditional sharing of commons within a community of interest, in the context of reciprocal licences.<br />
<br />
In our opinion, as soon as the "Fabrique des Mobilités" purpose is to create a platform for sharing information and resources between the different mobility actors, with the institution of respective rights and duties between the parties, the reciprocal licencing model, rather than open licences, should be choose.<br />
<br />
Then, the question is "how" we can propose possible contractual terms.<br />
<br />
<br />
After reminding the current acceptations of commons (I), this study looks into ongoing licences proposed or implemented to regulate the use of commons in view of the double objective to safeguard openness and reciprocity (II) and makes recommendations on potential contractual tools for "La Fabrique des Mobilités" so that emerging commons can be exchanged between members, on a non-commercial or commercial basis (III).<br />
<br />
<br />
==I. DIFFERENT ACCEPTATIONS OF COMMONS==<br />
<br />
In addition to the "classic" conception which, in general, applies to all commons (A), there is a specific category of commons to the transport and mobility field, recently recognised by the legislator: data of general interest (B).<br />
<br />
<br />
===A. Commons, in general===<br />
<br />
Today, the concept of commons can take many legal meanings, provided both by the law and by the choices of communities. It can be something that belongs to no one and its use is common to all (1), a good whose use is allowed to the many (2) or any results coming from an altruistic action conducted by a community of persons (3).<br />
<br />
<br />
'''1. Thing that belongs to no one and its use is common to all'''<br />
<br />
The first definition of common goods is given in article 714 of the Civil Code<br />
<br />
"There are things that belong to no one and whose use is common to all"<br />
<br />
Res communes usually referred to in Article 714 are natural things, such as air, seawater or running water, and some physical resources, such as pastures or fisheries.<br />
<br />
This classic definition can also cover resources established more recently by contemporary legislators.<br />
Thus, public data perfectly match with the legal regime of common things, in that they do not belong to the public person, who physically holds them but must be open to the many, according to a legal redistribution mechanism.<br />
<br />
Established since the CADA law of 17 July 1978, the policy of open access to public data is enjoying a new boom. <br />
<br />
The law n° 2016-1321 of October 2016 the 7th, referred as "Law for a digital Republic", obliges all administrations (ministries, local and regional authorities, public institutions, etc.) to make any administrative document published in electronic format generally and systematically available to the public, "in an open standard, easily reusable and exploitable by an automated processing system".<br />
<br />
<br />
'''2. A good whose use is allowed to the many'''<br />
<br />
In addition to the definition of the Civil Code, another acceptation of commons appeared, based on the idea that commons are not necessarily defined by their essence but also by their function: all things which are freely accessible and usable would be common.<br />
<br />
This applies when a property owner transfers its ownership to others, either fully or in part, temporarily or permanently, according to a predetermined and non-discriminatory manner.<br />
<br />
Thus, according to this line of thinking which underpins the "open-source" concept, ownership itself becomes an alternative source of commons. Software, data or other content distributed "under free licenses" is the result of the willingness of its authors to share its use but remain their property<br />
<br />
An "open-source" license is always open under certain predetermine conditions and reservations. Thus, the violation of the free licence terms is an infringement on the authors' intellectual property rights by counterfeiting them.<br />
<br />
Therefore, contrary to popular belief, open licences are not the negation of ownership but an altruistic and disinterested development of it.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''3. Any results coming from an altruistic action conducted by a community of persons'''<br />
<br />
With the growing and structuring commons movement, the concept of "collaborative commons" appeared, according to which commons become not only natural things but also "human things".<br />
<br />
In a society where donation and participation, sharing and feedback of experience, as well as collaboration, are favoured, human activities are now released from the grip of individual appropriation to become things that can be exchanged and even valued within communities of persons or interests.<br />
<br />
Besides these three traditional conceptions, a new acceptation appeared in the field of transport: data of general interest, which definition appears to be a new typology of commons.<br />
<br />
<br />
===B. Data of general interest in the field of transport ===<br />
<br />
Submitted to the Secretary of State for Transport, Sea and Fisheries in March 2015, the report called for the creation of a new category of data, data of general interest. <br />
<br />
This report has been implemented in the law n° 2015-990 of August 2015 the 6th, referred as the Macron law. This law introduced a new article L1115-1 in the Transport Code, which provides that data, on regular public transport services for passengers and mobility, must be available for users information freely, immediately and free of charge.<br />
<br />
Subject to the decree implementing this provision of the Macron law, which is still being reviewed by the Council of State, public transport services, as well as private companies, mobility services and AOT route planners should be subject to this obligation of free and open dissemination and access to the above-mentioned data.<br />
<br />
Therefore, this law, implementing the recommendations of Jutland report, creates the new category of data of general interest, understood as private data in nature but their publication can be justified due to their interest to improve public policies. <br />
<br />
<br />
These data of general interest come from three sources<br />
<br />
* Data from public service delegations;<br />
* Key data coming from grant agreements;<br />
* Data from private companies necessary to INSEE surveys.<br />
<br />
Since their objective is to be distributed and shared as widely as possible, data of general interest are undoubtedly equivalent to new commons.<br />
<br />
Thus, commons would not be only determined by common use or a property rights but also by a purpose, the one whose pursues an objective of general interest.<br />
<br />
<br />
***<br />
<br />
These commons existing in various ways, can their administration, i.e. how they are used in common, be subject to contractual modelling? According to their nature? The communities who use and exploit them? And possible operational modes, allowed, conditioned or prohibited?<br />
<br />
There are currently different licenses that govern the use of commons. Some of them are still looking for. Others have to be invented...<br />
<br />
<br />
==II. ON-GOING LICENCES PROPOSED TO REGULATE THE USE OF COMMONS==<br />
<br />
The conditions for the governance of commons by the contract are subject to two main models of licenses: open licenses, making commons available to all (A) and reciprocal licenses, making the use of commons under conditions of sharing and remuneration rules, within a community of users (B).<br />
<br />
===A. Open licences===<br />
<br />
As stated above, the "open source" model is based on a conception of commons as properties belonging to a sole owner but which use is allowed to all, by the altruistic will of the latter.<br />
<br />
From this point of view, a "proprietary" property can be considered as a common if the owner allows its use to the many.<br />
<br />
Thus, there are two possible concepts leading to this opening up. A good that, by nature, doesn't belong to anybody or a good which owner "leaves" his property can be opened. <br />
<br />
And in each of these two schemes, there can be several degrees of opening: from the most closed to the most open or vice versa, from the most open to the most closed. In the first case, the owner decides to open a property that, by nature, is closed and in the second case, the community can decide to close a resource by nature open, according to a progressive scheme and criteria which can be the same.<br />
<br />
These criteria could be the user identity, the nature of the open matter, and intensity of its intended use, a particular territory, the period of use, an investment to protect, an expected compensation or reciprocity or the commercial or non-commercial nature of the use.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
In all cases, contract is the tool of opening up or closing up. Usually considered to be a licence, this contract can, depending on the acceptation used, be an exclusive, open or reciprocal licence. <br />
<br />
In this study, we 'll focus not about "proprietary" licence but about open or reciprocal licences.<br />
<br />
Several categories of open licences include software (1), other creative works (2) and public data (3). However, principle of these licences is criticised (4).<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
====1. "Open source" software====<br />
<br />
The "Proprietary" scheme above applies perfectly to the logic of software granted in "open source".<br />
<br />
Some "proprietary" software can indeed be freely distributed, for non-commercial use, under:<br />
- "Freeware" model, when authors have abandoned their intellectual property rights, software is free to use, without financial compensation or specific obligations,<br />
- "Shareware" model, when users are, first, invited to test software and choose to make a financial contribution if they are satisfied.<br />
<br />
There, opening-up operates within a conditioned scheme.<br />
<br />
The concept of "free" software has been set up by Linus TORVALDS (Finnish), and, in order to fight against office software companies' monopolies, the sources of Linux software have been publicly available, free of charge. <br />
<br />
This free software model, also called "copyleft", is based on the principle that software should not be considered as a saleable product, but as a resource. Thus, its source code is available for free to everyone, while utilities services, maintenance, consultation, integration, etc. attached to this software are generally provided against payment.<br />
<br />
The conditions for the use of free software are governed by an "accessible source" or "open source" licence, which main models are:<br />
<br />
- GNU GPL (General Public Licence) and GNU LGPL (Lesser General Public Licence), both designed by Free Software Foundation,<br />
<br />
- NPL (Netscape Public License), offered by NETSCAPE Society on its browser Communicator.<br />
<br />
The features of the main "open source" licences are detailed in the following table.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
====2. Extension to other creative works : Creative Commons' model====<br />
<br />
"Open source" user licences have been proposed for other works than software, but they only apply to a specific category of works: Cecill for software, LEL Licence for art work, Free Music Licence for musical works.<br />
<br />
In 2001, Professor Lawrence LESSIG, from University of Stanford, created the "Creative Commons" model, in order to offer authors of creative works an alternative to the traditional patterns for their communication towards the public and, thus, further their sharing while keeping their protection.<br />
<br />
Owners of intellectual property rights can, currently, select six licences for their works, according to exploitation they intend to give them.<br />
<br />
<br />
1. Attribution (BY): The rights owner authorises any exploitation of the work, including for commercial purposes, as well as creation of derivative works, which distribution is also allowed without restriction, provided that the name of the author is quoted.<br />
<br />
2. Attribution + No Derivatives (BY ND) : The rights owner authorizes any use of the original work (including for commercial purposes), but doesn't allow the creation of derivative works.<br />
<br />
3. Attribution + Non Commercial + No Derivatives (BY NC ND) : The rights owner authorizes any use of the original work for non commercial purposes, but doesn't allow the creation of derivative works.<br />
<br />
4. Attribution + Non Commercial (BY NC) : The rights owner authorizes any exploitation of the work, as well as creation of derivative works, only for non commercial purposes (commercial uses are subject to his approval).<br />
<br />
5. Attribution + Non Commercial + Sharealike (BY NC SA): The rights owner authorizes any exploitation of the original work for non commercial purposes, as well as creation of derivative works, provided that there are distributed under the same licence than the original work.<br />
<br />
6. Attribution + Sharealike (BY SA) : The rights owner authorises any exploitation of the work, including for commercial purposes, as well as creation of derivative works, provided that there are distributed under the same licence than the original work.<br />
<br />
<br />
====3. Public data user licences====<br />
<br />
Under the above CADA law and "For a Digital Republic" French law, access to and reuse of public data may be subject to licences laying out their associated rights and obligations, on the basis of licences more or less open.<br />
<br />
To date, several licences coexist:<br />
<br />
ETALAB mission promotes a fully open, free, non-exclusive and free of charge licence, which promotes the broadest possible re-use, by allowing the transformation, reproduction and commercial redistribution of data, including their adaptation and combination with other data, subject to the mention of the source and last update of the data.<br />
<br />
As for data defects and irregularities, the "producer" does not offer any guarantee, nor does he insure that their supply can be continuous. However, he guarantees that data does not contain any intellectual property rights belonging to third party. If it owns them, he shall transfer the rights on a non-exclusive basis, free of charge, for the whole world and for the entire duration of the rights.<br />
<br />
Recently, ETALAB licence was updated, to include the updated provisions of the law "For a Digital Republic". Particularly, it takes the re-use of public information containing personal data into account, subject to the "Informatique et Libertés" law n°78-17 of January 1978 the 6th.<br />
<br />
Other types of open licences – such as « Open Government Licence (OGL) », « Creative Commons », described above, and « Open Data Commons » – not initially foreseen for open data but for the release of intellectual property rights, can be easily adapted to opening data.<br />
<br />
Some French institutions shall adopt these licences. OBdL et ODC-By licences appear to be the more commonly used.<br />
<br />
"L'Agence du Patrimoine Immateriel de l'Etat" (APIE), provides Public Information Licenses (PIL) which are not "free licenses". Subject to a fee for the public person, it allows the re-use of public data under certain conditions.<br />
<br />
The duration of these licenses may be unlimited or limited.<br />
<br />
These licenses seem to fall into disuse in favour for "open" models.<br />
<br />
Even so, it has to be said that, in France public data access and re-use have been partially achieved: few public persons released their data and its reusing modes is facing resistances.<br />
<br />
This is why, the law "For a Digital Republic" created a public service for data.<br />
<br />
According to Article 11 of this law, administrations should not hinder re-use of their published public databases, except for data which have been produced or received in the exercise of a public service mission, of an industrial or commercial nature, subject to competition.<br />
<br />
To this end, a list of free re-use licences for these public data will be proposed, determined by decree and revised every five years.<br />
<br />
When an administration wishes to use a license that is not on this list, this licence has to be, first, approved by the State, under conditions determined by decree.<br />
<br />
To date, these two decrees have not been published yet.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
====4. Criticisms of the "open source" model====<br />
<br />
Theorists and practitioners of commons have criticized the "open source" model.<br />
<br />
This model was first criticized for being inadequate in relation to the concept of commons, which is based on the idea of resources "governed" by a community of interest.<br />
<br />
Valérie Peugeot, researcher and chairwoman of VECAM, defines commons by the three dimensions that characterize them: commons are (i) resources (ii) subject to a collective rights and obligations system (iii) which use is governed by a community.<br />
<br />
Yet, open licences, previously described, are unilateral licences which opening-up, terms and conditions of the opening-up, are decided by the only will of the initial holder of the resource.<br />
<br />
Moreover, an "open source" licence aim to disseminate the work to the many, without keeping in mind the idea of reciprocity from licences' users, neither interaction between them and the initial holder of the resource.<br />
<br />
Imposing certain conditions on the opening-up of a resource, as in the open licences scheme, is not the same thing as agreeing on the opening-up conditions, that require, of those who benefit of the opening-up, a positive action of reciprocity, whether material, financial or ethical.<br />
<br />
"Open" Licence model has also been criticised for not distinguishing non-commercial or commercial exploitation. This allows commercial entities, which have not contributed to resources or financed their creation and development, to use them for free, even to make their own, thus creating a state of unregulated competition and a new form of parasitism.<br />
<br />
Paying close attention to these practices, the article 8 of the "For a Digital Republic" law provided protection for a new class of commons, the common informational domain. The aim of these provisions was to "protect the common resources of the public domain from ownership practices that lead to denying access to them", by allowing authorized associations to take legal proceeding to defend this common domain and to put an end to any attempt to exclusive reappropriation.<br />
<br />
However, these provisions have not been taken up in the law that was finally approved, due to the opposition of several actors in the literary and artistic property field (SEPM, SACD, SNEP, FNPS, SNE …), who argued that there were imprecise and dangerous for copyright protection.<br />
<br />
Whatever, criticism against "open source" licenses is now the basis for the current thinking of reciprocal licences.<br />
<br />
<br />
===B - Reciprocal Licences===<br />
<br />
In opposition to the "open source" model, promoting the dissemination to everyone, reciprocal licences set up principle and conditions for the sharing of common. It's restricted to members of a community and depends on respective contributions for the common.<br />
<br />
Reciprocal licences usually provide for increasing restrictions, depending on the categories of common users, in order to ensure reciprocity on the conditions of this sharing.<br />
<br />
Those restrictions are usually based on the following main principles:<br />
<br />
a) The common can be used by all members of the community for non-commercial use<br />
<br />
b) Commercial exploitation of the common by members is possible, under the condition of a remuneration to the contributors of this common<br />
<br />
c) Commercial exploitation of the common is prohibited to third parties, non-contributors, unless they pay a fee under a specific license<br />
<br />
Based on four different philosophies, four major types of reciprocal licences can be implemented<br />
<br />
<br />
====1. "Copyfarleft" model====<br />
<br />
Dmytri Kleiner has developed the "Copyfarleft" licence model, especially in his publication “The Telekommunist Manifesto” (2010).<br />
<br />
The principle is that only a non-commercial use of a resource is free<br />
In the case of a commercial use, only certain legal entities may effectively exploit it.<br />
<br />
Thus, commercial use of the resource is restricted to companies owned by its employees and cooperatives, provided that all financial gains, surpluses, profits and benefits generated by the enterprise or cooperative are redistributed to employee-owners.<br />
<br />
Therefore, any use of the resource is not allowed to private, non-cooperative companies that seek to generate a profit from this resource.<br />
<br />
Commercial entities may use the common provided they pay a fee, under an ad hoc licence, apart from free licence.<br />
<br />
Therefore, the main criterion of this licence is the cooperative nature of the resource users.<br />
<br />
To date, the "Copyfarleft" model is illustrated in the "Peer Production License" model.<br />
<br />
It's intended to apply to all literary, scientific and artistic creation protectable by intellectual property right, whatever the mode or form of expression, including digitally.<br />
<br />
This licence can be modelled as follows:<br />
<br />
[File:Copyfarleft.jpg]<br />
<br />
The main objective of the "copyfarleft" model is to prevent the risk of fierce competition from economic entities, which may take advantage for themselves of a common achieved by others.<br />
<br />
However, it introduces a bias in that commercial exploitation is reserved for categories of entities, based on their legal status and not on their effective contributions. Thus, any commercial entities are excluded even those that would have contributed to the common.<br />
<br />
In their article "une nouvelle proposition de Commons » (online « Journal of Peer Production » -n° 4 jan. 2014), Miguel Said Viera and Primavera de Filipi highlighted that this approach was too reductive<br />
<br />
====2. "Commons Reciprocity Licence" model====<br />
<br />
In the article mentioned above, Miguel Said Viera and Primavera de Filipi propose to include a reciprocity clause as an alternative to "copyfarleft". Only contributors of the common may commercially or not exploit common, regardless of their legal status.<br />
<br />
The main criterion of this licence is to contribute to the resource.<br />
<br />
For a non-commercial use, any contributor to the resource benefits from a free licence. Their contribution is measured by a virtual currency, the "Peer-Currency". <br />
<br />
This currency must, also, allow assessing remuneration of all the common's contributors when the resource is used for commercial purposes. "Open Value Accounting" model is a variation of "Commons Reciprocity Licence" model. The contributions are measured by a rating that each contributor receives from his or her peers.<br />
<br />
Non-contributors may only commercially exploit a common under an ad hoc licence concluded with the contributors in return for payment of a fee.<br />
<br />
To date, "Commons Reciprocity License" model has not given rise to the writing of a standard license. However, it can be modelled as follows:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The main advantage of the "Common Reciprocity Licence" model is to allow contributors to commercially exploit the common and receive remuneration commensurate with their contribution, without exclusion because of their status.<br />
<br />
In this model, the complexity lies in how the contributions are assessed. A virtual currency measurement system could be too complex to implement and manage. It might, also, introduce an element of arbitrariness in the assessment of the different modes of contribution.<br />
<br />
The initiators of the "Commons Reciprocity License" are aware of this risk, which they mention in their article:<br />
<br />
"One of the most important is the determination of the "exchange rate" between different types of works. In other words, how can we measure individual contributions (in different fields) through tokens? How many token would be allocated to a user who contributes to the commons through an image, video or text? Should derivative works or improvements be rewarded with fewer token? Should the system have to take into account a measure of the quality or artistic merit of these works? And if so, who would be competent to carry out such evaluation?"<br />
<br />
However, unlike rating system of "Open Value Accounting" model, the advantage of an "exchange currency" system is to confer an objective system for measuring the contributions. <br />
<br />
<br />
====3. "Fair source Licence"====<br />
<br />
Other licenses have been developed to allow common goods sharing so that right holders can receive remuneration, while supervising their exploitation.<br />
Thus, "Fair Source Licence" is based on sharing source code of software or software development, while allowing right holder(s) to receive income from the exploitation of this property.<br />
<br />
This licence is granted free of charge to private individuals and companies, subject to a limited number of end-users within an enterprise (including its affiliates).<br />
<br />
In a company, if the number of users exceeds the above-mentioned ceiling, the licence is subject to payment of a fee.<br />
<br />
Therefore, the main criterion of this licence is the nature of the user (private individual or company), and, for companies, the number of the resource users.<br />
<br />
The mechanism of this licence can be modelled as follows:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Therefore, the "Fair Source" license corresponds with much more liberal organization of the community constituted around the common. Indeed, there are no specific compensation obligation between contributors and users, except for companies, above a certain size, which would pay a fee.<br />
<br />
Besides, as it is, this licence doesn't have a system for measuring the contributions and assessing remuneration that would be owed to contributors.<br />
<br />
<br />
====4. Fairly Share Licence====<br />
<br />
The other licence implemented, in order to ensure remuneration for the holders of common rights, is the "FairlyShare" licence. The object is to give free access to commons in the contributory community, but subject to a fee in the commercial sphere.<br />
<br />
Therefore, the licence holder undertakes to do his best to define an area and a limited period for exploiting its rights, and to identify the contributions and their authors. This things being done, he must define and distribute the profit share allocated to contributors, according to best practices (failing that, the share is 50%).<br />
<br />
Finally, he must commit to a number of societal and environmental values, including the UN Global Compact, Social and Environmental Responsibility and the journalists' code of ethics.<br />
<br />
The "FairlyShare" licence is quite similar to the above-mentioned "Commons Reciprocity License" model. The operator of a common must elaborate and implement a system in order to distribute profit share to contributors, for the commercial exploitation of the common.<br />
<br />
This licence can be modelled as follows:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
However, the system implemented is more liberal. The allocation system is not defined by the community, but is left to operator's free choice and responsibility. Thus, in this licence, there is no system for measuring contributions, through virtual currency or any other means<br />
<br />
=More information=<br />
<br />
* [[Copyfair]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Licensing]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:P2P Law]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Transportation]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:France]]</div>Vasilis.niaroshttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=File:Copyfarleft.jpg&diff=111508File:Copyfarleft.jpg2018-02-20T07:29:54Z<p>Vasilis.niaros: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Vasilis.niaroshttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=FairCoop&diff=111016FairCoop2018-01-05T14:27:24Z<p>Vasilis.niaros: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
'''= "an open global cooperative which organizes itself through the Internet and remains off-limits from nation-state control".'''<br />
<br />
URL = https://fair.coop/<br />
<br />
=Description=<br />
<br />
'''1. Earth’s cooperative for economic fairness:'''<br />
<br />
"Fair.coop is an open global cooperative which organizes itself through the Internet and remains off-limits from nation-state control.<br />
<br />
Its aim is to make the transition to a new world by reducing as much as possible the economic and social inequalities among human beings, and at the same time gradually contribute to a new global wealth, accessible to all mankind as commons.<br />
<br />
Fair.coop understands that the transformation to a fairer monetary system is a key element. Therefore, it proposes Faircoin as the cryptocurrency upon which to base its resource-redistribution actions and building of a new global economic system."<br />
(https://fair.coop/who/faircoop/)<br />
<br />
<br />
'''2. Cat Johnson:'''<br />
<br />
"Imagine an online cooperative that supports economic equality around the world and is free from state control. This is the vision for Fair.coop. First envisioned by Enric Duran, cofounder of the Catalan Integral Cooperative, Fair.coop is an extension of peer-to-peer values, open cooperation, and hacker ethics. If Fair.coop's lofty ideals are realized in a concrete way, it could prove revolutionary.<br />
<br />
Using [[Faircoin]], a cryptocurrency, Fair.coop's goal is to reduce inequality as much as possible by using market forces to, as stated on the website, “hack the foreign exchange market by inserting the cooperation virus.”<br />
<br />
The main objective of Fair.coop is to provide a means by which collectives in the Global South may receive donations in, and save, Faircoin. As the value of Faircoin increases, so too does the collective wealth of these communities. To start, Fair.coop has been supplied with 10,000,000 Faircoins, which represents 20 percent of total existing coins. The project marks the beginning of a concrete plan to alleviate economic inequity without going through the channels of nation-states. It is driven exclusively by civil society.<br />
<br />
Alleviating economic injustice is no small undertaking, to be sure, but as Stacco Troncoso of the P2P Foundation writes, “The punk rock spirit that underlies the Fair.Coop initiative is admirable. Infused with an attitude transcending punk’s DIY ethos and arriving at a DIWO (Do it with Others) position, Fair.Coop has decided to tackle the big picture, reaching out to people and collectives who want practical action to offset the abundance of rhetoric.”"<br />
(http://www.shareable.net/blog/faircoop-using-cryptocurrency-to-bring-economic-justice-to-the-world)<br />
<br />
=Principles=<br />
<br />
Via [https://fair.coop/principles/]:<br />
<br />
#Equitable relationships based on freedom<br />
#Self-organization and sovereign popular assemblies<br />
#Public and commons<br />
#Retrieve common property as the common good, under popular possession and control<br />
#Build a cooperative and self-managed public system from mutual support<br />
#Freeing up access to information and knowledge<br />
#A new economy based on cooperation and close relationships<br />
#Cooperate with life and nature<br />
<br />
<br />
=Governance=<br />
<br />
* see the discussion at https://fair.coop/decisions-process/<br />
<br />
<br />
==Decision making in fair.coop== <br />
<br />
"Although we started off with different groups linked by an assembly as the organ for decision making, with fair.coop we sought other ways, as a global assembly could be really inconvenient for reaching agreements, however without losing any key features such as open participation, decentralization, respect for minority opinions and autonomy.<br />
<br />
The proposed method consists of a combination of three methodologies which are usually separated but in fair.coop they complement each other: the Council, collaborative decision making through the social network, and voting.<br />
<br />
Each of the three forms has its strengths and weaknesses, so it comes to making each of them reinforce and control the others.<br />
<br />
The council has an advantage on having a visible group behind, trusted by the members, and with the responsibility of making decisions. But it also has the disadvantages of being a closed, small group, implying that by default it does not include the wealth of ideas and points of view from all members.<br />
<br />
Open participation on Fairnetwork allows collective intelligence to be put to work to produce the best ideas and refine the arguments, plus it’s the closest thing to an assembly in which any dissenting opinion can enrich the commons to generate new consensus; its disadvantage is that, with this virtual format it may become too difficult to reach and implement agreements. Furthermore mistrust, which is often greater in virtual spaces, can hinder its efficiency.<br />
<br />
Voting‘s disadvantage is to not allow the constructive work of the participants, nor to do qualitative improvements or take responsibility, but it allows a greater numbers participating than any other method, and results are clear and unambiguous. Also, they can be called by different subjects in accordance with the corresponding methodological agreements.<br />
<br />
None of the three tools could face this challenge by itself, but the three together and can do the job if well employed!<br />
<br />
To get down to work, first step is to define the game rules in each area of the cooperative which, as it is decentralized, it will start off with 4 provisional councils.<br />
<br />
Their members will be responsible for developing strategies and making decisions, but only on those topics previously approved by the cooperative.<br />
<br />
For this end, each provisional council’s first task will be to define a methodology document on how decisions are taken in their field, and especially which topics are decided by the council and which are subjected to cooperative voting.<br />
<br />
Its first draft will be published on the social network and members will be able to make contributions to it, which the council may or may not include, and once they have a more solid proposal it will be voted.<br />
<br />
For this document to be approved it must receive at least 75% of votes. It needs a very qualified majority because it is the ground for all other decisions.<br />
<br />
If approved, the community can start working hereunder, otherwise it will have to keep searching for community proposals that serve to generate a new, better consensus document to be voted again.<br />
<br />
Likewise for participation to be continuous and avoid any position with community support from being silenced; at any time a group of members will be able to gather support for a voting proposal on FairNetwork and if they get enough support they will be able to call a vote.<br />
<br />
This minimum number is by default 10% of members but in any case it will be included in the methodology document submitted by the Ecosystem Council. The draft will also make clear whether, how, and under which conditions any council or node is entitled to ban a proposal. This is a possibility about which this promoter group has no specific proposal, but we realize the need for some decision-making space to reflect on how to create balance between the risk of situations that may go against the interest of fair.coop, and centralization of power.<br />
<br />
Thus, the decision-making process is open and yet to be defined by all of us together.<br />
<br />
We, as the Faircoop promoter group, provide two tools for decision making: first, debate and discussion groups to share drafts and generate consensus, and second, voting tools. We let councils and the community that elects them define their own decision-making methodology, given it is consistent with the fair.coop principles.<br />
<br />
Finally, remember that in order to access the scoring tools, and be able to vote you must be a full member of the cooperative. However open this is, we understand that, given the ease of access, fully involved participants should be actual cooperativists."<br />
(https://fair.coop/decisions-process/)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=Money=<br />
<br />
see:<br />
<br />
#[[FairCoin]]<br />
#[[FairCredit]]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=Interview=<br />
<br />
Stacco Troncoso interviewed by Cat Johnson:<br />
<br />
"What's the importance of Fair.Coop? Can you briefly describe your vision for the coop?<br />
<br />
Our long term vision is to create a means for constructing a new social and economic system based on decentralized cooperation, bypassing the need for nation-states and central banks. In the short term, we are creating a space for a real collaborative, commons-oriented economy, mutually generated by projects worldwide and destined for humanity as a whole. We're compiling the sum of the knowledge distributed among different collectives for a cohesive impact.<br />
<br />
What's the relationship between Fair.Coop and Faircoin? How will they intersect and/or interact?<br />
<br />
Our intention is to be “Fair in name, fair in practice.” Fair.Coop uses Faircoin as its social capital and store of value. Fair.Coop is Faircoin's conscience—it's a cryptocurrency attached to commons-oriented responsibility.<br />
<br />
Fair.Coop already holds 20 percent of all Faircoins in existence, which guarantees that the growth of the currency's value will go to the common good. This is guaranteed by Fair.Coop's democratic accountability system<br />
What's the CIC's involvement in the project? Is it the driving force behind Fair.Coop and Faircoin?<br />
<br />
A lot of the same people are involved with Fair.Coop, but the CIC as an entity is not the central leader or motor for the project. The CIC is an example of one collective attached to local bio-regional realities, but there are many more in the world, which are being united by Fair.Coop. The CIC could be thought of one more local participant, and one of many true peers in the P2P network making up the global Fair.Coop.<br />
<br />
Do you see Fair.Coop and Faircoin working on a global scale? What could that look like?<br />
<br />
In fact, Fair.Coop can't be anything but global; it's been specifically designed to be global; for this reason, we call it the Earth Cooperative. It's not a scaled-up local project. One of Fair.Coop's key objectives is to facilitate a global body of knowledge, capable of generating concrete impact locally.<br />
<br />
At any rate, we could make a working distinction between two sets of mechanisms that'd be produced by Fair.Coop: global and local. At the local level we'd be seeing local, specialized mechanisms and knowledge which, in turn, would feed into a global open knowledge economy comprised of, among other things, valuable data and monetary and economic tools. This will be a bidirectional relationship, as both parts will nourish one another for the benefit of the whole."<br />
(http://www.shareable.net/blog/faircoop-using-cryptocurrency-to-bring-economic-justice-to-the-world)<br />
<br />
<br />
=Discussion=<br />
<br />
"One of the priority objectives of Fair.coop is to build a new global economic system based on cooperation, ethics, solidarity and justice in our economic relations.<br />
<br />
For this great goal to be possible, it is very important to have a clear strategic path which is well understood and shared by Fair.coop’s members. This article explains the strategy we have considered.<br />
<br />
Faircoin is the cryptocurrency we have chosen to monetarily support our economic system. In addition to the advantages discussed in other sections, it’s a cryptocurrency with features that make it suitable for saving money at a very low ecological cost, because the energy expenditure needed for mining is not necessary. Faircoin was previously created; 50 million were distributed at first and since then, a small percentage have grown through savings.<br />
<br />
Faircoin is traded in currency markets just as any other cryptocurrency or State currency.<br />
<br />
Foreign exchange markets exchanging cryptocurrencies (alone or with State currencies) have been expanding rapidly in the past two years.<br />
<br />
The evolution of the foreign exchange markets has always had an impact on the purchasing power of citizens of the world, with serious consequences such as impoverishment, cheap labor and the exploitation of natural resources. The reason for this was not only the imbalance of trade but also speculative movements that tend to benefit the rich.<br />
<br />
Knowing this, our plan here is to restore the greatest level of global economic justice that we can, by using something that has usually played against the global south: market forces (supply – demand).<br />
<br />
In short, as we say at fair.coop, the point is to hack the foreign exchange market by inserting the cooperation virus as a tool for global economic justice.<br />
<br />
To this end, in this first phase, we will promote the market’s demand for Faircoin through cooperative actions, and at the same time, we will encourage the reduction of the amount that is for sale.<br />
<br />
There will be no “buying for the sake of it”, which would not be sustainable or coherent. Instead, we want to promote Faircoin as an option for ethical savings, facilitated by multiple services making it a useful tool for initiatives working toward the economic empowerment of active subjects of social change.<br />
<br />
In order to understand our plan, an essential concept to learn about is the properties of currency.<br />
<br />
<br />
Currency has different functions, among the best known are:<br />
<br />
* Medium of exchange of goods and services.<br />
<br />
* Value storage<br />
<br />
* Reference value (price system)<br />
<br />
<br />
Through these functions, currency contributes to meeting important needs in the economy; for instance, the “value storing” function is a key for the use of money as capital.<br />
<br />
Economists have usually designed economic systems which attempt to get one single currency to fulfill all functions at the same time. In the case of fiat money, the formal banking system is offered as the only mechanism to act as a store of value, through interest, since the value of these currencies is itself devalued over time, due to inflation. And banks are increasingly forcing people to use their networks in order to access the “exchange of goods and services” role of money.<br />
<br />
In the case of social and complementary currencies, until now existing projects have generally met with varying degrees of success in the function of “medium of exchange”, but with their value being referenced to a fiat currency, they have also been victims of same inflation as the currencies to which they refer (except, at least directly, in cases such as time banks).<br />
<br />
The case of Bitcoin, because it is a cryptocurrency, must be followed closely as it evolves. So far it has shown great success as a store of value over the long term, despite fluctuations in the short and medium term, and it is growing rapidly as a means of exchange. Still, certain contradictions between both functions have been spotted as its growing acceptance by businesses that turn it directly into fiat currency has put a significant selling pressure on the money market.<br />
<br />
With Fair.coop we plan to build an autonomous economic system over the current system, and for that we picture a set of free economic tools to use in order to generate new social dynamics. We’re building a series of coins and resources that play complementary roles, instead of trying to get a single currency to fit all needs at once.<br />
<br />
<br />
To do this, we are focusing on the following currencies:<br />
<br />
* Faircoin for the value storage role, starting now and with the long term objective of using it as a price reference.<br />
<br />
* Faircredit, a worldwide mutual credit system as a means of exchange of goods and services, supported by Faircoin.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
And the following resources:<br />
<br />
* Fairfunds: Faircoin funds for donations to various types of projects. The Global South Fund will be used for local collective empowerment projects at various levels, while the Commons Fund and the Technology Infrastructure Fund will fund global projects, which may also include globally coordinated networks of local projects.<br />
<br />
* Fairsavings as a source of faircoin savings for those members who aren’t security experts.<br />
<br />
* [[Fairmarket]], fair.coop’s virtual market that will allow members to use Faircredit, and anyone to use Faircoin.<br />
<br />
* Fairbag as a resource to support backup encrypted savings and wallet management for advanced users who want to keep their savings in case of an emergency.<br />
<br />
* Coopfunding as a permanent platform to raise donations in any faircoin-convertible currency, which feed the Fairfunds.<br />
<br />
<br />
These, together with other projects presently in discussion which will be announced and launched in the near future, will serve to build the fundamentals of the Fair.coop economic system.<br />
<br />
This system is meant to be fractal, ie, from the experience in the root platform it can be moved and replicated to different regional and local scales around the globe, with interoperability at different levels for the entire Fair.coop ecosystem."<br />
(https://fair.coop/building-a-new-economy/)<br />
<br />
<br />
=Status=<br />
<br />
==May 2016 Summary==<br />
<br />
By Guy James:<br />
<br />
"The Fairmarket is up and running in beta version at https://market.fair.coop, you can see the current businesses accepting Faircoin at https://use.fair-coin.org, Faircoin can be bought at http://getfaircoin.net or on the Bittrex exchange, or using the Bitsquare app, Faircoin2 is on the horizon and there is a crowdinvestment campaign here to fund its development: https://coopfunding.net/.../faircoin-2-crowdinvestment/<br />
<br />
You can exchange between currencies using the http://fairtoearth.com/ app, and there are two wallet apps for desktop and one for Android.<br />
<br />
The social network at https://fair.coop/social-network/ is still going strong and in addition we now have many groups on Telegram for day-to-day communication which are open to all those who feel an affinity with the FC principles: https://fair.coop/faircoop-has-a-new-telegram-channel/<br />
<br />
There is also a Refugees Fund to which we invite contributions in Faircoin or fiat money:<br />
https://coopfunding.net/en/campaigns/refugees-fund-faircoop/ - this is the first outward-facing fund to be active, as opposed to funds sustaining FairCoop itself.<br />
<br />
The infrastructure of the FairCoop is now sufficiently in place for it to be useful, the next step is getting more participation from the public and creating a 'network effect' which will multiply its usefulness."<br />
<br />
<br />
==Phased Introduction Planned in Three Phases==<br />
<br />
===1st phase: Increase Faircoin price and prioritize savings, in order to increase capital of Fairfunds (September 2014 – November 2014)===<br />
<br />
"The key concept for understanding the project’s potential to generate economic resources is the market cap, or market capitalization, which equals the amount of existing coins times the value of one unit.<br />
<br />
Some of the activists promoting this project bought large quantities of Faircoin at a very reduced price with the intention of redistributing to Fairfunds projects and revalue by generating real value in a cooperative way through Fair.coop.<br />
<br />
As explained on the Funds page, a primary goal of this phase is for Global South collectives and important pro-commons projects to receive Faircoin capital which could be useful to their development, together with the free knowledge resources and other types of support they will find in the social network (link).<br />
<br />
That is, to generate exactly the opposite dynamic as with that of the global financial power, which devalues people’s goods in order to keep their resources.<br />
<br />
Initiatives to prioritize at this stage will be:<br />
<br />
- Fairsaving. Fair.coop’s multi-signature digital wallet, which forces a minimum saving period of 6 months.<br />
<br />
- Faircoop wallet. Linked p2p multi-sig wallet.<br />
<br />
- Fairbag. Faircoop wallet service that will allow a trustworthy encrypted backup which can be recovered in an emergency situation.<br />
<br />
- Fairfunds. At the starting phase, it is important to spread the word and get projects to begin joining and feeding the various funds. In this sense we already have Coopfunding (link) for crowdfunding campaigns for Fairfunds, exchangeable for Faircoins.<br />
<br />
Coopfunding will soon have a mixed option: 50% grant + 50% Fairsavings.<br />
<br />
<br />
===2 Economic activity: moving products and services all around (December 2014 – December 2015)===<br />
<br />
In this second phase, when the market cap reaches an amount that makes Faircoin generate commercial interest, and while the growth curve of this market cap becomes more moderate, it will grow in importance, creating economic activity both among fair.coop members and worldwide.<br />
<br />
It is important to understand that the ability to purchase a community’s products and services depends on its total market cap, and therefore trade expansion depends largely on the success of the cryptocurrency vehicle used as a store of value.<br />
<br />
The projects to be prioritized in this phase will be:<br />
<br />
- Fairfunds: This will be the time to start distributing funds in the form of already-available Faircoin capital, to support participation of projects in the coop’s economic activity during the first year, and to be used freely from the second year on.<br />
<br />
- Faircredit: Global mutual loan system, supported by Faircoin, the currency to promote its use for production and consumption in the Fair.coop ecosystem.<br />
<br />
- Fairmarket: Virtual market that will accept Faircoin and Faircredit, allowing Fair.coop members to open their shops with the technological support of the entire platform.<br />
<br />
- Other projects underway related to generating an autonomous banking system, and facilitating exchange processing tools and the ability to exchange other currencies to Faircoin and Faircredit.<br />
<br />
<br />
===3 A fair economic system consolidated worldwide (January 2016 – … …..)===<br />
<br />
This third phase, of course still further ahead, will be characterized by the consolidation of the ecosystem and its expansion to as many levels as possible.<br />
<br />
It is important to note that for this to happen, the value of Faircoin should consolidate so it can serve as a reference value, allowing us to stop depending on the prices drawn by fiat currencies. This may be the most difficult priority to achieve.<br />
<br />
In order to generate the reference value, it will be necessary to create very broad collaboration dynamics among many different people who can build large cooperative networks to defend the value of Faircoin as a benchmark of our ecosystem.<br />
<br />
Regarding other Fair.coop objectives, we will try to increasingly multiply the cooperation and solidarity dynamics in every sense, leveraging the shared knowledge and the projects implemented at Fair.coop, as well as the collectives that were part of it."<br />
(https://fair.coop/building-a-new-economy/)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Status 2016==<br />
<br />
By Enric Duran:<br />
<br />
"The timeline that was envisioned has been delayed, but one<br />
month ago was launched Fairmarket beta version which was a main tool<br />
pending for deploy that second phase. You can see it ongoing on http://<br />
market.fair.coop<br />
<br />
<br />
The marketplace is being improved step by step. Shipping personalization<br />
and territorial fairmarkets, are the next to be deployed.<br />
<br />
Now, Faircoop is working at different level for increase progressively<br />
the real use of faircoin for exchanges<br />
<br />
The most importants:<br />
<br />
- Fairmarket related projects. For example collaboration between nodes<br />
of different countries for organizing exchange of product<br />
<br />
- Refugee fund first projects. See about Refugee fund here:<br />
https://coopfunding.net/en/campaigns/refugees-fund-faircoop/<br />
<br />
- Freedom Coop. European cooperative society, which will facilite any<br />
project in Europe to have a legal platform which can use<br />
for making activity, just like Catalan integral Cooperative do.<br />
<br />
At the same time, Faircoin 2, with an important blockchain innovation is<br />
being developed currently.<br />
<br />
The white paper which already was published last<br />
year: https://fair.coop/groups/faircoop-community/faircoin/faircoin2/<br />
<br />
<br />
=Visualizations=<br />
[[File:DOG7ZsPXUAE1z5n.jpg]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Cooperatives]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:P2P Economic Networks]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Platform Cooperatives]]</div>Vasilis.niaroshttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=FairCoop&diff=111015FairCoop2018-01-05T14:26:47Z<p>Vasilis.niaros: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
'''= "an open global cooperative which organizes itself through the Internet and remains off-limits from nation-state control".'''<br />
<br />
URL = https://fair.coop/<br />
<br />
=Description=<br />
<br />
'''1. Earth’s cooperative for economic fairness:'''<br />
<br />
"Fair.coop is an open global cooperative which organizes itself through the Internet and remains off-limits from nation-state control.<br />
<br />
Its aim is to make the transition to a new world by reducing as much as possible the economic and social inequalities among human beings, and at the same time gradually contribute to a new global wealth, accessible to all mankind as commons.<br />
<br />
Fair.coop understands that the transformation to a fairer monetary system is a key element. Therefore, it proposes Faircoin as the cryptocurrency upon which to base its resource-redistribution actions and building of a new global economic system."<br />
(https://fair.coop/who/faircoop/)<br />
<br />
<br />
'''2. Cat Johnson:'''<br />
<br />
"Imagine an online cooperative that supports economic equality around the world and is free from state control. This is the vision for Fair.coop. First envisioned by Enric Duran, cofounder of the Catalan Integral Cooperative, Fair.coop is an extension of peer-to-peer values, open cooperation, and hacker ethics. If Fair.coop's lofty ideals are realized in a concrete way, it could prove revolutionary.<br />
<br />
Using [[Faircoin]], a cryptocurrency, Fair.coop's goal is to reduce inequality as much as possible by using market forces to, as stated on the website, “hack the foreign exchange market by inserting the cooperation virus.”<br />
<br />
The main objective of Fair.coop is to provide a means by which collectives in the Global South may receive donations in, and save, Faircoin. As the value of Faircoin increases, so too does the collective wealth of these communities. To start, Fair.coop has been supplied with 10,000,000 Faircoins, which represents 20 percent of total existing coins. The project marks the beginning of a concrete plan to alleviate economic inequity without going through the channels of nation-states. It is driven exclusively by civil society.<br />
<br />
Alleviating economic injustice is no small undertaking, to be sure, but as Stacco Troncoso of the P2P Foundation writes, “The punk rock spirit that underlies the Fair.Coop initiative is admirable. Infused with an attitude transcending punk’s DIY ethos and arriving at a DIWO (Do it with Others) position, Fair.Coop has decided to tackle the big picture, reaching out to people and collectives who want practical action to offset the abundance of rhetoric.”"<br />
(http://www.shareable.net/blog/faircoop-using-cryptocurrency-to-bring-economic-justice-to-the-world)<br />
<br />
=Principles=<br />
<br />
Via [https://fair.coop/principles/]:<br />
<br />
#Equitable relationships based on freedom<br />
#Self-organization and sovereign popular assemblies<br />
#Public and commons<br />
#Retrieve common property as the common good, under popular possession and control<br />
#Build a cooperative and self-managed public system from mutual support<br />
#Freeing up access to information and knowledge<br />
#A new economy based on cooperation and close relationships<br />
#Cooperate with life and nature<br />
<br />
<br />
=Governance=<br />
<br />
* see the discussion at https://fair.coop/decisions-process/<br />
<br />
<br />
==Decision making in fair.coop== <br />
<br />
"Although we started off with different groups linked by an assembly as the organ for decision making, with fair.coop we sought other ways, as a global assembly could be really inconvenient for reaching agreements, however without losing any key features such as open participation, decentralization, respect for minority opinions and autonomy.<br />
<br />
The proposed method consists of a combination of three methodologies which are usually separated but in fair.coop they complement each other: the Council, collaborative decision making through the social network, and voting.<br />
<br />
Each of the three forms has its strengths and weaknesses, so it comes to making each of them reinforce and control the others.<br />
<br />
The council has an advantage on having a visible group behind, trusted by the members, and with the responsibility of making decisions. But it also has the disadvantages of being a closed, small group, implying that by default it does not include the wealth of ideas and points of view from all members.<br />
<br />
Open participation on Fairnetwork allows collective intelligence to be put to work to produce the best ideas and refine the arguments, plus it’s the closest thing to an assembly in which any dissenting opinion can enrich the commons to generate new consensus; its disadvantage is that, with this virtual format it may become too difficult to reach and implement agreements. Furthermore mistrust, which is often greater in virtual spaces, can hinder its efficiency.<br />
<br />
Voting‘s disadvantage is to not allow the constructive work of the participants, nor to do qualitative improvements or take responsibility, but it allows a greater numbers participating than any other method, and results are clear and unambiguous. Also, they can be called by different subjects in accordance with the corresponding methodological agreements.<br />
<br />
None of the three tools could face this challenge by itself, but the three together and can do the job if well employed!<br />
<br />
To get down to work, first step is to define the game rules in each area of the cooperative which, as it is decentralized, it will start off with 4 provisional councils.<br />
<br />
Their members will be responsible for developing strategies and making decisions, but only on those topics previously approved by the cooperative.<br />
<br />
For this end, each provisional council’s first task will be to define a methodology document on how decisions are taken in their field, and especially which topics are decided by the council and which are subjected to cooperative voting.<br />
<br />
Its first draft will be published on the social network and members will be able to make contributions to it, which the council may or may not include, and once they have a more solid proposal it will be voted.<br />
<br />
For this document to be approved it must receive at least 75% of votes. It needs a very qualified majority because it is the ground for all other decisions.<br />
<br />
If approved, the community can start working hereunder, otherwise it will have to keep searching for community proposals that serve to generate a new, better consensus document to be voted again.<br />
<br />
Likewise for participation to be continuous and avoid any position with community support from being silenced; at any time a group of members will be able to gather support for a voting proposal on FairNetwork and if they get enough support they will be able to call a vote.<br />
<br />
This minimum number is by default 10% of members but in any case it will be included in the methodology document submitted by the Ecosystem Council. The draft will also make clear whether, how, and under which conditions any council or node is entitled to ban a proposal. This is a possibility about which this promoter group has no specific proposal, but we realize the need for some decision-making space to reflect on how to create balance between the risk of situations that may go against the interest of fair.coop, and centralization of power.<br />
<br />
Thus, the decision-making process is open and yet to be defined by all of us together.<br />
<br />
We, as the Faircoop promoter group, provide two tools for decision making: first, debate and discussion groups to share drafts and generate consensus, and second, voting tools. We let councils and the community that elects them define their own decision-making methodology, given it is consistent with the fair.coop principles.<br />
<br />
Finally, remember that in order to access the scoring tools, and be able to vote you must be a full member of the cooperative. However open this is, we understand that, given the ease of access, fully involved participants should be actual cooperativists."<br />
(https://fair.coop/decisions-process/)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=Money=<br />
<br />
see:<br />
<br />
#[[FairCoin]]<br />
#[[FairCredit]]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=Interview=<br />
<br />
Stacco Troncoso interviewed by Cat Johnson:<br />
<br />
"What's the importance of Fair.Coop? Can you briefly describe your vision for the coop?<br />
<br />
Our long term vision is to create a means for constructing a new social and economic system based on decentralized cooperation, bypassing the need for nation-states and central banks. In the short term, we are creating a space for a real collaborative, commons-oriented economy, mutually generated by projects worldwide and destined for humanity as a whole. We're compiling the sum of the knowledge distributed among different collectives for a cohesive impact.<br />
<br />
What's the relationship between Fair.Coop and Faircoin? How will they intersect and/or interact?<br />
<br />
Our intention is to be “Fair in name, fair in practice.” Fair.Coop uses Faircoin as its social capital and store of value. Fair.Coop is Faircoin's conscience—it's a cryptocurrency attached to commons-oriented responsibility.<br />
<br />
Fair.Coop already holds 20 percent of all Faircoins in existence, which guarantees that the growth of the currency's value will go to the common good. This is guaranteed by Fair.Coop's democratic accountability system<br />
What's the CIC's involvement in the project? Is it the driving force behind Fair.Coop and Faircoin?<br />
<br />
A lot of the same people are involved with Fair.Coop, but the CIC as an entity is not the central leader or motor for the project. The CIC is an example of one collective attached to local bio-regional realities, but there are many more in the world, which are being united by Fair.Coop. The CIC could be thought of one more local participant, and one of many true peers in the P2P network making up the global Fair.Coop.<br />
<br />
Do you see Fair.Coop and Faircoin working on a global scale? What could that look like?<br />
<br />
In fact, Fair.Coop can't be anything but global; it's been specifically designed to be global; for this reason, we call it the Earth Cooperative. It's not a scaled-up local project. One of Fair.Coop's key objectives is to facilitate a global body of knowledge, capable of generating concrete impact locally.<br />
<br />
At any rate, we could make a working distinction between two sets of mechanisms that'd be produced by Fair.Coop: global and local. At the local level we'd be seeing local, specialized mechanisms and knowledge which, in turn, would feed into a global open knowledge economy comprised of, among other things, valuable data and monetary and economic tools. This will be a bidirectional relationship, as both parts will nourish one another for the benefit of the whole."<br />
(http://www.shareable.net/blog/faircoop-using-cryptocurrency-to-bring-economic-justice-to-the-world)<br />
<br />
<br />
=Discussion=<br />
<br />
"One of the priority objectives of Fair.coop is to build a new global economic system based on cooperation, ethics, solidarity and justice in our economic relations.<br />
<br />
For this great goal to be possible, it is very important to have a clear strategic path which is well understood and shared by Fair.coop’s members. This article explains the strategy we have considered.<br />
<br />
Faircoin is the cryptocurrency we have chosen to monetarily support our economic system. In addition to the advantages discussed in other sections, it’s a cryptocurrency with features that make it suitable for saving money at a very low ecological cost, because the energy expenditure needed for mining is not necessary. Faircoin was previously created; 50 million were distributed at first and since then, a small percentage have grown through savings.<br />
<br />
Faircoin is traded in currency markets just as any other cryptocurrency or State currency.<br />
<br />
Foreign exchange markets exchanging cryptocurrencies (alone or with State currencies) have been expanding rapidly in the past two years.<br />
<br />
The evolution of the foreign exchange markets has always had an impact on the purchasing power of citizens of the world, with serious consequences such as impoverishment, cheap labor and the exploitation of natural resources. The reason for this was not only the imbalance of trade but also speculative movements that tend to benefit the rich.<br />
<br />
Knowing this, our plan here is to restore the greatest level of global economic justice that we can, by using something that has usually played against the global south: market forces (supply – demand).<br />
<br />
In short, as we say at fair.coop, the point is to hack the foreign exchange market by inserting the cooperation virus as a tool for global economic justice.<br />
<br />
To this end, in this first phase, we will promote the market’s demand for Faircoin through cooperative actions, and at the same time, we will encourage the reduction of the amount that is for sale.<br />
<br />
There will be no “buying for the sake of it”, which would not be sustainable or coherent. Instead, we want to promote Faircoin as an option for ethical savings, facilitated by multiple services making it a useful tool for initiatives working toward the economic empowerment of active subjects of social change.<br />
<br />
In order to understand our plan, an essential concept to learn about is the properties of currency.<br />
<br />
<br />
Currency has different functions, among the best known are:<br />
<br />
* Medium of exchange of goods and services.<br />
<br />
* Value storage<br />
<br />
* Reference value (price system)<br />
<br />
<br />
Through these functions, currency contributes to meeting important needs in the economy; for instance, the “value storing” function is a key for the use of money as capital.<br />
<br />
Economists have usually designed economic systems which attempt to get one single currency to fulfill all functions at the same time. In the case of fiat money, the formal banking system is offered as the only mechanism to act as a store of value, through interest, since the value of these currencies is itself devalued over time, due to inflation. And banks are increasingly forcing people to use their networks in order to access the “exchange of goods and services” role of money.<br />
<br />
In the case of social and complementary currencies, until now existing projects have generally met with varying degrees of success in the function of “medium of exchange”, but with their value being referenced to a fiat currency, they have also been victims of same inflation as the currencies to which they refer (except, at least directly, in cases such as time banks).<br />
<br />
The case of Bitcoin, because it is a cryptocurrency, must be followed closely as it evolves. So far it has shown great success as a store of value over the long term, despite fluctuations in the short and medium term, and it is growing rapidly as a means of exchange. Still, certain contradictions between both functions have been spotted as its growing acceptance by businesses that turn it directly into fiat currency has put a significant selling pressure on the money market.<br />
<br />
With Fair.coop we plan to build an autonomous economic system over the current system, and for that we picture a set of free economic tools to use in order to generate new social dynamics. We’re building a series of coins and resources that play complementary roles, instead of trying to get a single currency to fit all needs at once.<br />
<br />
<br />
To do this, we are focusing on the following currencies:<br />
<br />
* Faircoin for the value storage role, starting now and with the long term objective of using it as a price reference.<br />
<br />
* Faircredit, a worldwide mutual credit system as a means of exchange of goods and services, supported by Faircoin.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
And the following resources:<br />
<br />
* Fairfunds: Faircoin funds for donations to various types of projects. The Global South Fund will be used for local collective empowerment projects at various levels, while the Commons Fund and the Technology Infrastructure Fund will fund global projects, which may also include globally coordinated networks of local projects.<br />
<br />
* Fairsavings as a source of faircoin savings for those members who aren’t security experts.<br />
<br />
* [[Fairmarket]], fair.coop’s virtual market that will allow members to use Faircredit, and anyone to use Faircoin.<br />
<br />
* Fairbag as a resource to support backup encrypted savings and wallet management for advanced users who want to keep their savings in case of an emergency.<br />
<br />
* Coopfunding as a permanent platform to raise donations in any faircoin-convertible currency, which feed the Fairfunds.<br />
<br />
<br />
These, together with other projects presently in discussion which will be announced and launched in the near future, will serve to build the fundamentals of the Fair.coop economic system.<br />
<br />
This system is meant to be fractal, ie, from the experience in the root platform it can be moved and replicated to different regional and local scales around the globe, with interoperability at different levels for the entire Fair.coop ecosystem."<br />
(https://fair.coop/building-a-new-economy/)<br />
<br />
<br />
=Status=<br />
<br />
==May 2016 Summary==<br />
<br />
By Guy James:<br />
<br />
"The Fairmarket is up and running in beta version at https://market.fair.coop, you can see the current businesses accepting Faircoin at https://use.fair-coin.org, Faircoin can be bought at http://getfaircoin.net or on the Bittrex exchange, or using the Bitsquare app, Faircoin2 is on the horizon and there is a crowdinvestment campaign here to fund its development: https://coopfunding.net/.../faircoin-2-crowdinvestment/<br />
<br />
You can exchange between currencies using the http://fairtoearth.com/ app, and there are two wallet apps for desktop and one for Android.<br />
<br />
The social network at https://fair.coop/social-network/ is still going strong and in addition we now have many groups on Telegram for day-to-day communication which are open to all those who feel an affinity with the FC principles: https://fair.coop/faircoop-has-a-new-telegram-channel/<br />
<br />
There is also a Refugees Fund to which we invite contributions in Faircoin or fiat money:<br />
https://coopfunding.net/en/campaigns/refugees-fund-faircoop/ - this is the first outward-facing fund to be active, as opposed to funds sustaining FairCoop itself.<br />
<br />
The infrastructure of the FairCoop is now sufficiently in place for it to be useful, the next step is getting more participation from the public and creating a 'network effect' which will multiply its usefulness."<br />
<br />
<br />
==Phased Introduction Planned in Three Phases==<br />
<br />
===1st phase: Increase Faircoin price and prioritize savings, in order to increase capital of Fairfunds (September 2014 – November 2014)===<br />
<br />
"The key concept for understanding the project’s potential to generate economic resources is the market cap, or market capitalization, which equals the amount of existing coins times the value of one unit.<br />
<br />
Some of the activists promoting this project bought large quantities of Faircoin at a very reduced price with the intention of redistributing to Fairfunds projects and revalue by generating real value in a cooperative way through Fair.coop.<br />
<br />
As explained on the Funds page, a primary goal of this phase is for Global South collectives and important pro-commons projects to receive Faircoin capital which could be useful to their development, together with the free knowledge resources and other types of support they will find in the social network (link).<br />
<br />
That is, to generate exactly the opposite dynamic as with that of the global financial power, which devalues people’s goods in order to keep their resources.<br />
<br />
Initiatives to prioritize at this stage will be:<br />
<br />
- Fairsaving. Fair.coop’s multi-signature digital wallet, which forces a minimum saving period of 6 months.<br />
<br />
- Faircoop wallet. Linked p2p multi-sig wallet.<br />
<br />
- Fairbag. Faircoop wallet service that will allow a trustworthy encrypted backup which can be recovered in an emergency situation.<br />
<br />
- Fairfunds. At the starting phase, it is important to spread the word and get projects to begin joining and feeding the various funds. In this sense we already have Coopfunding (link) for crowdfunding campaigns for Fairfunds, exchangeable for Faircoins.<br />
<br />
Coopfunding will soon have a mixed option: 50% grant + 50% Fairsavings.<br />
<br />
<br />
===2 Economic activity: moving products and services all around (December 2014 – December 2015)===<br />
<br />
In this second phase, when the market cap reaches an amount that makes Faircoin generate commercial interest, and while the growth curve of this market cap becomes more moderate, it will grow in importance, creating economic activity both among fair.coop members and worldwide.<br />
<br />
It is important to understand that the ability to purchase a community’s products and services depends on its total market cap, and therefore trade expansion depends largely on the success of the cryptocurrency vehicle used as a store of value.<br />
<br />
The projects to be prioritized in this phase will be:<br />
<br />
- Fairfunds: This will be the time to start distributing funds in the form of already-available Faircoin capital, to support participation of projects in the coop’s economic activity during the first year, and to be used freely from the second year on.<br />
<br />
- Faircredit: Global mutual loan system, supported by Faircoin, the currency to promote its use for production and consumption in the Fair.coop ecosystem.<br />
<br />
- Fairmarket: Virtual market that will accept Faircoin and Faircredit, allowing Fair.coop members to open their shops with the technological support of the entire platform.<br />
<br />
- Other projects underway related to generating an autonomous banking system, and facilitating exchange processing tools and the ability to exchange other currencies to Faircoin and Faircredit.<br />
<br />
<br />
===3 A fair economic system consolidated worldwide (January 2016 – … …..)===<br />
<br />
This third phase, of course still further ahead, will be characterized by the consolidation of the ecosystem and its expansion to as many levels as possible.<br />
<br />
It is important to note that for this to happen, the value of Faircoin should consolidate so it can serve as a reference value, allowing us to stop depending on the prices drawn by fiat currencies. This may be the most difficult priority to achieve.<br />
<br />
In order to generate the reference value, it will be necessary to create very broad collaboration dynamics among many different people who can build large cooperative networks to defend the value of Faircoin as a benchmark of our ecosystem.<br />
<br />
Regarding other Fair.coop objectives, we will try to increasingly multiply the cooperation and solidarity dynamics in every sense, leveraging the shared knowledge and the projects implemented at Fair.coop, as well as the collectives that were part of it."<br />
(https://fair.coop/building-a-new-economy/)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Status 2016==<br />
<br />
By Enric Duran:<br />
<br />
"The timeline that was envisioned has been delayed, but one<br />
month ago was launched Fairmarket beta version which was a main tool<br />
pending for deploy that second phase. You can see it ongoing on http://<br />
market.fair.coop<br />
<br />
<br />
The marketplace is being improved step by step. Shipping personalization<br />
and territorial fairmarkets, are the next to be deployed.<br />
<br />
Now, Faircoop is working at different level for increase progressively<br />
the real use of faircoin for exchanges<br />
<br />
The most importants:<br />
<br />
- Fairmarket related projects. For example collaboration between nodes<br />
of different countries for organizing exchange of product<br />
<br />
- Refugee fund first projects. See about Refugee fund here:<br />
https://coopfunding.net/en/campaigns/refugees-fund-faircoop/<br />
<br />
- Freedom Coop. European cooperative society, which will facilite any<br />
project in Europe to have a legal platform which can use<br />
for making activity, just like Catalan integral Cooperative do.<br />
<br />
At the same time, Faircoin 2, with an important blockchain innovation is<br />
being developed currently.<br />
<br />
The white paper which already was published last<br />
year: https://fair.coop/groups/faircoop-community/faircoin/faircoin2/<br />
<br />
=Visualizations=<br />
[[File:DOG7ZsPXUAE1z5n.jpg]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Cooperatives]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:P2P Economic Networks]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Platform Cooperatives]]</div>Vasilis.niaroshttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=File:DOG7ZsPXUAE1z5n.jpg&diff=111014File:DOG7ZsPXUAE1z5n.jpg2018-01-05T14:24:39Z<p>Vasilis.niaros: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Vasilis.niaroshttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Korean_Language&diff=110654Korean Language2017-12-12T10:41:28Z<p>Vasilis.niaros: </p>
<hr />
<div><div style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto; text-align: center; background: #ffffff; font-size: 10.5pt; padding: 10px; width: 96%; border: 0px solid #376a97;margin-center:10px;"><br />
<br /><br />
'''Welcome to the P2P Foundation Korea Wiki'''<br />
<br /><br />
<br /><br />
The P2P Foundation is an international organization focused on documenting, researching and promoting P2P practices. <br /><br />
The P2P Foundation Korea is involved in various fields as a network organization based in Korea.<br /><br />
This document is the first draft and will be continuously updated.<br />
<br /><br />
<br /><br />
'''Brief Introduction to the P2P Foundation Korea(Korean Language)''' <br /><br />
'''[[Media:What_does_the_P2P_Foundation_do_Brochure_korean.pdf|What does the P2P Foundation do?]]'''<br />
</div><br /><br />
<br />
== P2P Foundation Korea Introduction ==<br />
<br />
<br /><br />
The P2P Foundation Korea supports the core value of P2P. We build communities in the real world and we are an open network which is filled with individuals and groups who have ideas and self-activated on spreading commons.<br /><br />
<br />
Korea has some outstanding cultural values and about five thousand years of history. But, we lost many of our traditions and communities from the colonial era and division of the Korean Peninsula. Consequently, theoretical researches and actual practices are occurring. In such condition, philosophy and value of P2P will make a big wave to provide an alternative solution.<br /><br />
<br />
In addition, our mission is to gather individuals and groups who are already acting as members, to spread commons and to strengthen our relationship with global P2P Foundation.<br /><br />
<br />
The P2P Foundation Korea is open to everyone. So, please contact us to the e-mail if you are interested in joining us. kookminproject@gmail.com <br /><br />
<br /><br />
<br />
== P2P Foundation Korea Objectives ==<br />
<br /><br />
Our present society is based on the absurd idea that material resources are abundant and immaterial ideas should be kept artificially scarce. The dominant paradigm behaves as if the planet contains infinite resources and it exploits the earth in a way that endangers survival of both animal species and humanity while building artificial walls around human knowledge to prevent and impede sharing as much as possible.<br /><br />
<br />
Our aims can be summarized under the following maxims:<br /><br />
<br />
1. Ending biosphere destruction by exposing dangerous and exploitative conceptions of pseudo-abundance in the natural world (based on the assumption that natural resources are infinite)<br /><br />
<br />
2. Promoting the free exchange of knowledge both scientific and cultural by abandoning innovation inhibiting conceptions of pseudo-scarcity (based on the assumption that the flow of knowledge must be restricted, made scarce, through excessive copyrights)<br /><br />
<br />
3. Studying and creating a comprehensive knowledge commons about P2P developments that can be used by the general public, researchers and business<br /><br />
<br />
4. Curating the best content on P2P and the Commons from around the globe<br /><br />
<br />
5. Offering a pluralistic understanding of this emerging field by representing diverse critical discourse<br /><br />
<br />
6. Connecting advocates, innovators, entrepreneurs and policy makers, as well as artists and cultural producers<br /><br />
<br/><br/><br />
<br />
== P2P Foundation Korea Members ==<br />
<br /><br />
Representatives of the Activist : [[Yongkwan Choi]] - email : youngpower21@gmail.com<br />
<br /><br />
Activist : Yezune Choi - email : yezune@actus.kr<br />
<br /><br />
Activist : Tai Kersten - email : kerstentw@gmail.com<br />
<br /><br />
Activist : Sungho Hong - email : icarus@actus.kr<br />
<br /><br />
Activist : Mino Choi - email : heymino@gmail.com<br />
<br /><br />
Activist : Jae Kwon [https://twitter.com/jaekwon] - email : jae@tendermint.com<br />
<br /><br />
Activist : Inhwan Kim - email : mfea@naver.com<br />
<br /><br />
Cooperation NGO : Opennet [https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Opennet]<br />
<br /><br />
Cooperation NGO : JinboNet [https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/JinboNet]<br />
<br /><br />
Cooperation NGO : IPLeft [https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/IPLeft]<br />
<br /><br />
Cooperation NGO : NPO ICT Support Center [https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/NPO_ICT_Support_Center]<br />
<br/><br/><br />
<br />
== P2P Project ==<br />
<br />
===Open Vaccine Project===<br />
<br /><br />
'''Open Vaccine is, now, available on google playstore and downloaded by many users. It checks whether the smartphone is exposed to RCS spyware.'''<br /><br />
<br /><br />
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.p2plab.openvaccine <br /><br />
Related link : http://p2pfoundation.net/Korea_NIS_Civilian_Oversight_2015<br />
<br /><br /><br />
===BlockchainOS Development Project===<br />
<br/><br />
BlockchainOS is a company which provides blockchain developing news and also operates the actual development project.<br/><br />
Two meetups were held in 2015, and several blockchain forums were proceeded in 2016. We have started a company, and we are now getting ready for related service projects.<br/><br />
<br/><br />
https://www.boscoin.io/ <br/><br />
https://www.facebook.com/blockchainOS/<br />
<br /><br /><br />
<br />
===Guerilla translation===<br />
<br/><br />
중앙은행 디지털 통화 ― 은행업의 혁명인가?(Central Bank Digital Currencies: A Revolution in Banking? : Ellen Brown) [http://minamjah.tistory.com/135] <br/><br />
국가권력과 커머닝(New Report: State Power and Commoning : David Bollier) [http://minamjah.tistory.com/124] <br/><br />
P2P거래와 커먼즈경제를 앞당길 수 있는 10가지 방법 (10 Ways to Accelerate the Peer-to-Peer and Commons Economy : Michel Bauwens) [http://sharehub.kr/696654/]<br/><br />
사회변형 패러다임으로서의 커머닝 (Commoning as a Transformative Social Paradigm : David Bollier) [http://minamjah.tistory.com/122] <br/><br />
민주적 화폐와 커먼즈를 위한 자본 (Democratic Money and Capital for the Commons : David Bollier) [http://minamjah.tistory.com/117] <br/><br />
클린에너지가 우리를 구할 수 있는가? (Clean energy won’t save us – only a new economic system can : Jason Hickel) [http://minamjah.tistory.com/133] <br/><br />
<br/><br/><br />
<br />
== P2P Interviews ==<br />
=== 때를 만난 아이디어의 실행과 구현을 위하여 ― 기본소득 전문가들과의 인터뷰 ===<br />
<br />
Michel Bauwens on ‘Social Knowledge Economy and Urban Commons’. Published on The Left Monthly (in Korean: “월간 시대”) (Vol. 54, pp. 73-76). 2017<br />
<br />
http://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/images/Michel_Bauwens_-_Interview.pdf<br />
<br />
<br />
== P2P Books ==<br />
[[File:1_korea.jpg|100px|thumb|left]]<br />
=== 전환의 키워드, 회복력 위기의 시대를 살아가기 위한 12가지 이야기 ===<br />
<br />
『전환의 키워드, 회복력』은 두 저자 마이클 루이스와 팻 코너티는 RESILIENCE, 즉 회복력을 우리 시대의 핵심가치로 내세운다. 그들이 진단하는 우리 시대는 어떠한가. 불안정한 기후로 인해 식량 사정은 갈수록 악화되고 있으며, 잦은 자연재해는 일상의 안전을 위협하고 있다. 이런 기후변화에 결정적인 기여를 하는 것으로 알려진 화석연료는 현대를 인류 역사상 가장 풍족한 시대로 만들었지만, 무분별한 채굴과 남용으로 인해 고갈을 앞두고 있다.<br/><br />
<br />
http://book.naver.com/bookdb/book_detail.nhn?bid=9137730<br /><br />
http://commonstransition.org/community-land-trusts-urban-land-reform-and-the-commons/<br /><br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:koreabook2.jpg|100px|thumb|left]]<br />
=== 공유인으로 사고하라 (글쓴이 : David Bollier) ===<br />
<br />
『공유인으로 사고하라』는 공유[재](commons)가 어떻게 현대 시장 경제학의 기본 논리에 도전하는지를 설명한다. 또 공유[재]가 어떻게 신자유주의적 자본주의를 넘어 나아가기 위한 노력을 뒷받침할 수 있는 법과 사회적 행위의 틀을 제공하는지, 공유[재]가 어째서 위키피디아에서부터 종자 공유, 공동체 삼림, 협업적 소비 등에 이르기까지, 폭발적으로 팽창하는 DIY 혁신의 한 분야가 되고 있는지를 보여 준다.<br /><br />
<br />
http://www.aladin.co.kr/shop/wproduct.aspx?ItemId=68352518<br /><br />
http://thinklikeacommoner.com/<br /><br />
<br />
[[File:K422531270 f.jpg|100px|thumb|left]]<br />
<br/><br />
=== 블록체인 거번먼트 - 4차 산업혁명의 물결 ===<br />
<br />
<br />
블록체인은 최초의 암호화폐 비트코인의 기반기술로 등장했다. 그런데《블록체인 거번먼트》에서 저자는 블록체인이 단순히 ‘암호화폐’를 만들어주는 기술에 그치지 않고, 관료제와 같은 조직을 대체하는 기술이 될 것이라고 주장한다. 또한 관료제가 담당하는 기능들 중 상당 부분을 블록체인 기반의 기술이 대체한다면 지금보다 훨씬 투명하고 효율적인 정부가 탄생할 수 있다는 것이다.<br /><br />
<br />
http://www.aladin.co.kr/shop/wproduct.aspx?ItemId=110487241<br/><br />
http://book.naver.com/bookdb/book_detail.nhn?bid=12109129<br/><br />
<br />
[[Category:South Korea]]<br />
[[Category:Korean]]<br />
[[Category:Languages]]</div>Vasilis.niaroshttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=File:Michel_Bauwens_-_Interview.pdf&diff=110653File:Michel Bauwens - Interview.pdf2017-12-12T10:40:30Z<p>Vasilis.niaros: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Vasilis.niaroshttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Korean_Language&diff=110652Korean Language2017-12-12T10:39:16Z<p>Vasilis.niaros: </p>
<hr />
<div><div style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto; text-align: center; background: #ffffff; font-size: 10.5pt; padding: 10px; width: 96%; border: 0px solid #376a97;margin-center:10px;"><br />
<br /><br />
'''Welcome to the P2P Foundation Korea Wiki'''<br />
<br /><br />
<br /><br />
The P2P Foundation is an international organization focused on documenting, researching and promoting P2P practices. <br /><br />
The P2P Foundation Korea is involved in various fields as a network organization based in Korea.<br /><br />
This document is the first draft and will be continuously updated.<br />
<br /><br />
<br /><br />
'''Brief Introduction to the P2P Foundation Korea(Korean Language)''' <br /><br />
'''[[Media:What_does_the_P2P_Foundation_do_Brochure_korean.pdf|What does the P2P Foundation do?]]'''<br />
</div><br /><br />
<br />
== P2P Foundation Korea Introduction ==<br />
<br />
<br /><br />
The P2P Foundation Korea supports the core value of P2P. We build communities in the real world and we are an open network which is filled with individuals and groups who have ideas and self-activated on spreading commons.<br /><br />
<br />
Korea has some outstanding cultural values and about five thousand years of history. But, we lost many of our traditions and communities from the colonial era and division of the Korean Peninsula. Consequently, theoretical researches and actual practices are occurring. In such condition, philosophy and value of P2P will make a big wave to provide an alternative solution.<br /><br />
<br />
In addition, our mission is to gather individuals and groups who are already acting as members, to spread commons and to strengthen our relationship with global P2P Foundation.<br /><br />
<br />
The P2P Foundation Korea is open to everyone. So, please contact us to the e-mail if you are interested in joining us. kookminproject@gmail.com <br /><br />
<br /><br />
<br />
== P2P Foundation Korea Objectives ==<br />
<br /><br />
Our present society is based on the absurd idea that material resources are abundant and immaterial ideas should be kept artificially scarce. The dominant paradigm behaves as if the planet contains infinite resources and it exploits the earth in a way that endangers survival of both animal species and humanity while building artificial walls around human knowledge to prevent and impede sharing as much as possible.<br /><br />
<br />
Our aims can be summarized under the following maxims:<br /><br />
<br />
1. Ending biosphere destruction by exposing dangerous and exploitative conceptions of pseudo-abundance in the natural world (based on the assumption that natural resources are infinite)<br /><br />
<br />
2. Promoting the free exchange of knowledge both scientific and cultural by abandoning innovation inhibiting conceptions of pseudo-scarcity (based on the assumption that the flow of knowledge must be restricted, made scarce, through excessive copyrights)<br /><br />
<br />
3. Studying and creating a comprehensive knowledge commons about P2P developments that can be used by the general public, researchers and business<br /><br />
<br />
4. Curating the best content on P2P and the Commons from around the globe<br /><br />
<br />
5. Offering a pluralistic understanding of this emerging field by representing diverse critical discourse<br /><br />
<br />
6. Connecting advocates, innovators, entrepreneurs and policy makers, as well as artists and cultural producers<br /><br />
<br/><br/><br />
<br />
== P2P Foundation Korea Members ==<br />
<br /><br />
Representatives of the Activist : [[Yongkwan Choi]] - email : youngpower21@gmail.com<br />
<br /><br />
Activist : Yezune Choi - email : yezune@actus.kr<br />
<br /><br />
Activist : Tai Kersten - email : kerstentw@gmail.com<br />
<br /><br />
Activist : Sungho Hong - email : icarus@actus.kr<br />
<br /><br />
Activist : Mino Choi - email : heymino@gmail.com<br />
<br /><br />
Activist : Jae Kwon [https://twitter.com/jaekwon] - email : jae@tendermint.com<br />
<br /><br />
Activist : Inhwan Kim - email : mfea@naver.com<br />
<br /><br />
Cooperation NGO : Opennet [https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Opennet]<br />
<br /><br />
Cooperation NGO : JinboNet [https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/JinboNet]<br />
<br /><br />
Cooperation NGO : IPLeft [https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/IPLeft]<br />
<br /><br />
Cooperation NGO : NPO ICT Support Center [https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/NPO_ICT_Support_Center]<br />
<br/><br/><br />
<br />
== P2P Project ==<br />
<br />
===Open Vaccine Project===<br />
<br /><br />
'''Open Vaccine is, now, available on google playstore and downloaded by many users. It checks whether the smartphone is exposed to RCS spyware.'''<br /><br />
<br /><br />
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.p2plab.openvaccine <br /><br />
Related link : http://p2pfoundation.net/Korea_NIS_Civilian_Oversight_2015<br />
<br /><br /><br />
===BlockchainOS Development Project===<br />
<br/><br />
BlockchainOS is a company which provides blockchain developing news and also operates the actual development project.<br/><br />
Two meetups were held in 2015, and several blockchain forums were proceeded in 2016. We have started a company, and we are now getting ready for related service projects.<br/><br />
<br/><br />
https://www.boscoin.io/ <br/><br />
https://www.facebook.com/blockchainOS/<br />
<br /><br /><br />
<br />
===Guerilla translation===<br />
<br/><br />
중앙은행 디지털 통화 ― 은행업의 혁명인가?(Central Bank Digital Currencies: A Revolution in Banking? : Ellen Brown) [http://minamjah.tistory.com/135] <br/><br />
국가권력과 커머닝(New Report: State Power and Commoning : David Bollier) [http://minamjah.tistory.com/124] <br/><br />
P2P거래와 커먼즈경제를 앞당길 수 있는 10가지 방법 (10 Ways to Accelerate the Peer-to-Peer and Commons Economy : Michel Bauwens) [http://sharehub.kr/696654/]<br/><br />
사회변형 패러다임으로서의 커머닝 (Commoning as a Transformative Social Paradigm : David Bollier) [http://minamjah.tistory.com/122] <br/><br />
민주적 화폐와 커먼즈를 위한 자본 (Democratic Money and Capital for the Commons : David Bollier) [http://minamjah.tistory.com/117] <br/><br />
클린에너지가 우리를 구할 수 있는가? (Clean energy won’t save us – only a new economic system can : Jason Hickel) [http://minamjah.tistory.com/133] <br/><br />
<br/><br/><br />
<br />
== P2P Interviews ==<br />
=== 때를 만난 아이디어의 실행과 구현을 위하여 ― 기본소득 전문가들과의 인터뷰 ===<br />
<br />
Michel Bauwens on ‘Social Knowledge Economy and Urban Commons’. Published on The Left Monthly (in Korean: “월간 시대”) (Vol. 54, pp. 73-76). 2017<br />
<br />
<br />
== P2P Books ==<br />
[[File:1_korea.jpg|100px|thumb|left]]<br />
=== 전환의 키워드, 회복력 위기의 시대를 살아가기 위한 12가지 이야기 ===<br />
<br />
『전환의 키워드, 회복력』은 두 저자 마이클 루이스와 팻 코너티는 RESILIENCE, 즉 회복력을 우리 시대의 핵심가치로 내세운다. 그들이 진단하는 우리 시대는 어떠한가. 불안정한 기후로 인해 식량 사정은 갈수록 악화되고 있으며, 잦은 자연재해는 일상의 안전을 위협하고 있다. 이런 기후변화에 결정적인 기여를 하는 것으로 알려진 화석연료는 현대를 인류 역사상 가장 풍족한 시대로 만들었지만, 무분별한 채굴과 남용으로 인해 고갈을 앞두고 있다.<br/><br />
<br />
http://book.naver.com/bookdb/book_detail.nhn?bid=9137730<br /><br />
http://commonstransition.org/community-land-trusts-urban-land-reform-and-the-commons/<br /><br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:koreabook2.jpg|100px|thumb|left]]<br />
=== 공유인으로 사고하라 (글쓴이 : David Bollier) ===<br />
<br />
『공유인으로 사고하라』는 공유[재](commons)가 어떻게 현대 시장 경제학의 기본 논리에 도전하는지를 설명한다. 또 공유[재]가 어떻게 신자유주의적 자본주의를 넘어 나아가기 위한 노력을 뒷받침할 수 있는 법과 사회적 행위의 틀을 제공하는지, 공유[재]가 어째서 위키피디아에서부터 종자 공유, 공동체 삼림, 협업적 소비 등에 이르기까지, 폭발적으로 팽창하는 DIY 혁신의 한 분야가 되고 있는지를 보여 준다.<br /><br />
<br />
http://www.aladin.co.kr/shop/wproduct.aspx?ItemId=68352518<br /><br />
http://thinklikeacommoner.com/<br /><br />
<br />
[[File:K422531270 f.jpg|100px|thumb|left]]<br />
<br/><br />
=== 블록체인 거번먼트 - 4차 산업혁명의 물결 ===<br />
<br />
<br />
블록체인은 최초의 암호화폐 비트코인의 기반기술로 등장했다. 그런데《블록체인 거번먼트》에서 저자는 블록체인이 단순히 ‘암호화폐’를 만들어주는 기술에 그치지 않고, 관료제와 같은 조직을 대체하는 기술이 될 것이라고 주장한다. 또한 관료제가 담당하는 기능들 중 상당 부분을 블록체인 기반의 기술이 대체한다면 지금보다 훨씬 투명하고 효율적인 정부가 탄생할 수 있다는 것이다.<br /><br />
<br />
http://www.aladin.co.kr/shop/wproduct.aspx?ItemId=110487241<br/><br />
http://book.naver.com/bookdb/book_detail.nhn?bid=12109129<br/><br />
<br />
[[Category:South Korea]]<br />
[[Category:Korean]]<br />
[[Category:Languages]]</div>Vasilis.niaroshttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Korean_Language&diff=110651Korean Language2017-12-12T10:38:13Z<p>Vasilis.niaros: </p>
<hr />
<div><div style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto; text-align: center; background: #ffffff; font-size: 10.5pt; padding: 10px; width: 96%; border: 0px solid #376a97;margin-center:10px;"><br />
<br /><br />
'''Welcome to the P2P Foundation Korea Wiki'''<br />
<br /><br />
<br /><br />
The P2P Foundation is an international organization focused on documenting, researching and promoting P2P practices. <br /><br />
The P2P Foundation Korea is involved in various fields as a network organization based in Korea.<br /><br />
This document is the first draft and will be continuously updated.<br />
<br /><br />
<br /><br />
'''Brief Introduction to the P2P Foundation Korea(Korean Language)''' <br /><br />
'''[[Media:What_does_the_P2P_Foundation_do_Brochure_korean.pdf|What does the P2P Foundation do?]]'''<br />
</div><br /><br />
<br />
== P2P Foundation Korea Introduction ==<br />
<br />
<br /><br />
The P2P Foundation Korea supports the core value of P2P. We build communities in the real world and we are an open network which is filled with individuals and groups who have ideas and self-activated on spreading commons.<br /><br />
<br />
Korea has some outstanding cultural values and about five thousand years of history. But, we lost many of our traditions and communities from the colonial era and division of the Korean Peninsula. Consequently, theoretical researches and actual practices are occurring. In such condition, philosophy and value of P2P will make a big wave to provide an alternative solution.<br /><br />
<br />
In addition, our mission is to gather individuals and groups who are already acting as members, to spread commons and to strengthen our relationship with global P2P Foundation.<br /><br />
<br />
The P2P Foundation Korea is open to everyone. So, please contact us to the e-mail if you are interested in joining us. kookminproject@gmail.com <br /><br />
<br /><br />
<br />
== P2P Foundation Korea Objectives ==<br />
<br /><br />
Our present society is based on the absurd idea that material resources are abundant and immaterial ideas should be kept artificially scarce. The dominant paradigm behaves as if the planet contains infinite resources and it exploits the earth in a way that endangers survival of both animal species and humanity while building artificial walls around human knowledge to prevent and impede sharing as much as possible.<br /><br />
<br />
Our aims can be summarized under the following maxims:<br /><br />
<br />
1. Ending biosphere destruction by exposing dangerous and exploitative conceptions of pseudo-abundance in the natural world (based on the assumption that natural resources are infinite)<br /><br />
<br />
2. Promoting the free exchange of knowledge both scientific and cultural by abandoning innovation inhibiting conceptions of pseudo-scarcity (based on the assumption that the flow of knowledge must be restricted, made scarce, through excessive copyrights)<br /><br />
<br />
3. Studying and creating a comprehensive knowledge commons about P2P developments that can be used by the general public, researchers and business<br /><br />
<br />
4. Curating the best content on P2P and the Commons from around the globe<br /><br />
<br />
5. Offering a pluralistic understanding of this emerging field by representing diverse critical discourse<br /><br />
<br />
6. Connecting advocates, innovators, entrepreneurs and policy makers, as well as artists and cultural producers<br /><br />
<br/><br/><br />
<br />
== P2P Foundation Korea Members ==<br />
<br /><br />
Representatives of the Activist : [[Yongkwan Choi]] - email : youngpower21@gmail.com<br />
<br /><br />
Activist : Yezune Choi - email : yezune@actus.kr<br />
<br /><br />
Activist : Tai Kersten - email : kerstentw@gmail.com<br />
<br /><br />
Activist : Sungho Hong - email : icarus@actus.kr<br />
<br /><br />
Activist : Mino Choi - email : heymino@gmail.com<br />
<br /><br />
Activist : Jae Kwon [https://twitter.com/jaekwon] - email : jae@tendermint.com<br />
<br /><br />
Activist : Inhwan Kim - email : mfea@naver.com<br />
<br /><br />
Cooperation NGO : Opennet [https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Opennet]<br />
<br /><br />
Cooperation NGO : JinboNet [https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/JinboNet]<br />
<br /><br />
Cooperation NGO : IPLeft [https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/IPLeft]<br />
<br /><br />
Cooperation NGO : NPO ICT Support Center [https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/NPO_ICT_Support_Center]<br />
<br/><br/><br />
<br />
== P2P Project ==<br />
<br />
===Open Vaccine Project===<br />
<br /><br />
'''Open Vaccine is, now, available on google playstore and downloaded by many users. It checks whether the smartphone is exposed to RCS spyware.'''<br /><br />
<br /><br />
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.p2plab.openvaccine <br /><br />
Related link : http://p2pfoundation.net/Korea_NIS_Civilian_Oversight_2015<br />
<br /><br /><br />
===BlockchainOS Development Project===<br />
<br/><br />
BlockchainOS is a company which provides blockchain developing news and also operates the actual development project.<br/><br />
Two meetups were held in 2015, and several blockchain forums were proceeded in 2016. We have started a company, and we are now getting ready for related service projects.<br/><br />
<br/><br />
https://www.boscoin.io/ <br/><br />
https://www.facebook.com/blockchainOS/<br />
<br /><br /><br />
<br />
===Guerilla translation===<br />
<br/><br />
중앙은행 디지털 통화 ― 은행업의 혁명인가?(Central Bank Digital Currencies: A Revolution in Banking? : Ellen Brown) [http://minamjah.tistory.com/135] <br/><br />
국가권력과 커머닝(New Report: State Power and Commoning : David Bollier) [http://minamjah.tistory.com/124] <br/><br />
P2P거래와 커먼즈경제를 앞당길 수 있는 10가지 방법 (10 Ways to Accelerate the Peer-to-Peer and Commons Economy : Michel Bauwens) [http://sharehub.kr/696654/]<br/><br />
사회변형 패러다임으로서의 커머닝 (Commoning as a Transformative Social Paradigm : David Bollier) [http://minamjah.tistory.com/122] <br/><br />
민주적 화폐와 커먼즈를 위한 자본 (Democratic Money and Capital for the Commons : David Bollier) [http://minamjah.tistory.com/117] <br/><br />
클린에너지가 우리를 구할 수 있는가? (Clean energy won’t save us – only a new economic system can : Jason Hickel) [http://minamjah.tistory.com/133] <br/><br />
<br/><br/><br />
<br />
== P2P Books ==<br />
[[File:1_korea.jpg|100px|thumb|left]]<br />
=== 전환의 키워드, 회복력 위기의 시대를 살아가기 위한 12가지 이야기 ===<br />
<br />
『전환의 키워드, 회복력』은 두 저자 마이클 루이스와 팻 코너티는 RESILIENCE, 즉 회복력을 우리 시대의 핵심가치로 내세운다. 그들이 진단하는 우리 시대는 어떠한가. 불안정한 기후로 인해 식량 사정은 갈수록 악화되고 있으며, 잦은 자연재해는 일상의 안전을 위협하고 있다. 이런 기후변화에 결정적인 기여를 하는 것으로 알려진 화석연료는 현대를 인류 역사상 가장 풍족한 시대로 만들었지만, 무분별한 채굴과 남용으로 인해 고갈을 앞두고 있다.<br/><br />
<br />
http://book.naver.com/bookdb/book_detail.nhn?bid=9137730<br /><br />
http://commonstransition.org/community-land-trusts-urban-land-reform-and-the-commons/<br /><br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:koreabook2.jpg|100px|thumb|left]]<br />
=== 공유인으로 사고하라 (글쓴이 : David Bollier) ===<br />
<br />
『공유인으로 사고하라』는 공유[재](commons)가 어떻게 현대 시장 경제학의 기본 논리에 도전하는지를 설명한다. 또 공유[재]가 어떻게 신자유주의적 자본주의를 넘어 나아가기 위한 노력을 뒷받침할 수 있는 법과 사회적 행위의 틀을 제공하는지, 공유[재]가 어째서 위키피디아에서부터 종자 공유, 공동체 삼림, 협업적 소비 등에 이르기까지, 폭발적으로 팽창하는 DIY 혁신의 한 분야가 되고 있는지를 보여 준다.<br /><br />
<br />
http://www.aladin.co.kr/shop/wproduct.aspx?ItemId=68352518<br /><br />
http://thinklikeacommoner.com/<br /><br />
<br />
[[File:K422531270 f.jpg|100px|thumb|left]]<br />
<br/><br />
=== 블록체인 거번먼트 - 4차 산업혁명의 물결 ===<br />
<br />
<br />
블록체인은 최초의 암호화폐 비트코인의 기반기술로 등장했다. 그런데《블록체인 거번먼트》에서 저자는 블록체인이 단순히 ‘암호화폐’를 만들어주는 기술에 그치지 않고, 관료제와 같은 조직을 대체하는 기술이 될 것이라고 주장한다. 또한 관료제가 담당하는 기능들 중 상당 부분을 블록체인 기반의 기술이 대체한다면 지금보다 훨씬 투명하고 효율적인 정부가 탄생할 수 있다는 것이다.<br /><br />
<br />
http://www.aladin.co.kr/shop/wproduct.aspx?ItemId=110487241<br/><br />
http://book.naver.com/bookdb/book_detail.nhn?bid=12109129<br/><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== P2P Interviews ==<br />
<br />
=== 때를 만난 아이디어의 실행과 구현을 위하여 ― 기본소득 전문가들과의 인터뷰 ===<br />
<br />
Michel Bauwens on ‘Social Knowledge Economy and Urban Commons’. Published on The Left Monthly (in Korean: “월간 시대”) (Vol. 54, pp. 73-76). 2017<br />
<br />
[[Category:South Korea]]<br />
[[Category:Korean]]<br />
[[Category:Languages]]</div>Vasilis.niaroshttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Korean_Language&diff=110650Korean Language2017-12-12T10:36:18Z<p>Vasilis.niaros: </p>
<hr />
<div><div style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto; text-align: center; background: #ffffff; font-size: 10.5pt; padding: 10px; width: 96%; border: 0px solid #376a97;margin-center:10px;"><br />
<br /><br />
'''Welcome to the P2P Foundation Korea Wiki'''<br />
<br /><br />
<br /><br />
The P2P Foundation is an international organization focused on documenting, researching and promoting P2P practices. <br /><br />
The P2P Foundation Korea is involved in various fields as a network organization based in Korea.<br /><br />
This document is the first draft and will be continuously updated.<br />
<br /><br />
<br /><br />
'''Brief Introduction to the P2P Foundation Korea(Korean Language)''' <br /><br />
'''[[Media:What_does_the_P2P_Foundation_do_Brochure_korean.pdf|What does the P2P Foundation do?]]'''<br />
</div><br /><br />
<br />
== P2P Foundation Korea Introduction ==<br />
<br />
<br /><br />
The P2P Foundation Korea supports the core value of P2P. We build communities in the real world and we are an open network which is filled with individuals and groups who have ideas and self-activated on spreading commons.<br /><br />
<br />
Korea has some outstanding cultural values and about five thousand years of history. But, we lost many of our traditions and communities from the colonial era and division of the Korean Peninsula. Consequently, theoretical researches and actual practices are occurring. In such condition, philosophy and value of P2P will make a big wave to provide an alternative solution.<br /><br />
<br />
In addition, our mission is to gather individuals and groups who are already acting as members, to spread commons and to strengthen our relationship with global P2P Foundation.<br /><br />
<br />
The P2P Foundation Korea is open to everyone. So, please contact us to the e-mail if you are interested in joining us. kookminproject@gmail.com <br /><br />
<br /><br />
<br />
== P2P Foundation Korea Objectives ==<br />
<br /><br />
Our present society is based on the absurd idea that material resources are abundant and immaterial ideas should be kept artificially scarce. The dominant paradigm behaves as if the planet contains infinite resources and it exploits the earth in a way that endangers survival of both animal species and humanity while building artificial walls around human knowledge to prevent and impede sharing as much as possible.<br /><br />
<br />
Our aims can be summarized under the following maxims:<br /><br />
<br />
1. Ending biosphere destruction by exposing dangerous and exploitative conceptions of pseudo-abundance in the natural world (based on the assumption that natural resources are infinite)<br /><br />
<br />
2. Promoting the free exchange of knowledge both scientific and cultural by abandoning innovation inhibiting conceptions of pseudo-scarcity (based on the assumption that the flow of knowledge must be restricted, made scarce, through excessive copyrights)<br /><br />
<br />
3. Studying and creating a comprehensive knowledge commons about P2P developments that can be used by the general public, researchers and business<br /><br />
<br />
4. Curating the best content on P2P and the Commons from around the globe<br /><br />
<br />
5. Offering a pluralistic understanding of this emerging field by representing diverse critical discourse<br /><br />
<br />
6. Connecting advocates, innovators, entrepreneurs and policy makers, as well as artists and cultural producers<br /><br />
<br/><br/><br />
<br />
== P2P Foundation Korea Members ==<br />
<br /><br />
Representatives of the Activist : [[Yongkwan Choi]] - email : youngpower21@gmail.com<br />
<br /><br />
Activist : Yezune Choi - email : yezune@actus.kr<br />
<br /><br />
Activist : Tai Kersten - email : kerstentw@gmail.com<br />
<br /><br />
Activist : Sungho Hong - email : icarus@actus.kr<br />
<br /><br />
Activist : Mino Choi - email : heymino@gmail.com<br />
<br /><br />
Activist : Jae Kwon [https://twitter.com/jaekwon] - email : jae@tendermint.com<br />
<br /><br />
Activist : Inhwan Kim - email : mfea@naver.com<br />
<br /><br />
Cooperation NGO : Opennet [https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Opennet]<br />
<br /><br />
Cooperation NGO : JinboNet [https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/JinboNet]<br />
<br /><br />
Cooperation NGO : IPLeft [https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/IPLeft]<br />
<br /><br />
Cooperation NGO : NPO ICT Support Center [https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/NPO_ICT_Support_Center]<br />
<br/><br/><br />
<br />
== P2P Project ==<br />
<br />
===Open Vaccine Project===<br />
<br /><br />
'''Open Vaccine is, now, available on google playstore and downloaded by many users. It checks whether the smartphone is exposed to RCS spyware.'''<br /><br />
<br /><br />
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.p2plab.openvaccine <br /><br />
Related link : http://p2pfoundation.net/Korea_NIS_Civilian_Oversight_2015<br />
<br /><br /><br />
===BlockchainOS Development Project===<br />
<br/><br />
BlockchainOS is a company which provides blockchain developing news and also operates the actual development project.<br/><br />
Two meetups were held in 2015, and several blockchain forums were proceeded in 2016. We have started a company, and we are now getting ready for related service projects.<br/><br />
<br/><br />
https://www.boscoin.io/ <br/><br />
https://www.facebook.com/blockchainOS/<br />
<br /><br /><br />
<br />
===Guerilla translation===<br />
<br/><br />
중앙은행 디지털 통화 ― 은행업의 혁명인가?(Central Bank Digital Currencies: A Revolution in Banking? : Ellen Brown) [http://minamjah.tistory.com/135] <br/><br />
국가권력과 커머닝(New Report: State Power and Commoning : David Bollier) [http://minamjah.tistory.com/124] <br/><br />
P2P거래와 커먼즈경제를 앞당길 수 있는 10가지 방법 (10 Ways to Accelerate the Peer-to-Peer and Commons Economy : Michel Bauwens) [http://sharehub.kr/696654/]<br/><br />
사회변형 패러다임으로서의 커머닝 (Commoning as a Transformative Social Paradigm : David Bollier) [http://minamjah.tistory.com/122] <br/><br />
민주적 화폐와 커먼즈를 위한 자본 (Democratic Money and Capital for the Commons : David Bollier) [http://minamjah.tistory.com/117] <br/><br />
클린에너지가 우리를 구할 수 있는가? (Clean energy won’t save us – only a new economic system can : Jason Hickel) [http://minamjah.tistory.com/133] <br/><br />
<br/><br/><br />
<br />
== P2P Books ==<br />
[[File:1_korea.jpg|100px|thumb|left]]<br />
=== 전환의 키워드, 회복력 위기의 시대를 살아가기 위한 12가지 이야기 ===<br />
<br />
『전환의 키워드, 회복력』은 두 저자 마이클 루이스와 팻 코너티는 RESILIENCE, 즉 회복력을 우리 시대의 핵심가치로 내세운다. 그들이 진단하는 우리 시대는 어떠한가. 불안정한 기후로 인해 식량 사정은 갈수록 악화되고 있으며, 잦은 자연재해는 일상의 안전을 위협하고 있다. 이런 기후변화에 결정적인 기여를 하는 것으로 알려진 화석연료는 현대를 인류 역사상 가장 풍족한 시대로 만들었지만, 무분별한 채굴과 남용으로 인해 고갈을 앞두고 있다.<br/><br />
<br />
http://book.naver.com/bookdb/book_detail.nhn?bid=9137730<br /><br />
http://commonstransition.org/community-land-trusts-urban-land-reform-and-the-commons/<br /><br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:koreabook2.jpg|100px|thumb|left]]<br />
=== 공유인으로 사고하라 (글쓴이 : David Bollier) ===<br />
<br />
『공유인으로 사고하라』는 공유[재](commons)가 어떻게 현대 시장 경제학의 기본 논리에 도전하는지를 설명한다. 또 공유[재]가 어떻게 신자유주의적 자본주의를 넘어 나아가기 위한 노력을 뒷받침할 수 있는 법과 사회적 행위의 틀을 제공하는지, 공유[재]가 어째서 위키피디아에서부터 종자 공유, 공동체 삼림, 협업적 소비 등에 이르기까지, 폭발적으로 팽창하는 DIY 혁신의 한 분야가 되고 있는지를 보여 준다.<br /><br />
<br />
http://www.aladin.co.kr/shop/wproduct.aspx?ItemId=68352518<br /><br />
http://thinklikeacommoner.com/<br /><br />
<br />
[[File:K422531270 f.jpg|100px|thumb|left]]<br />
<br/><br />
=== 블록체인 거번먼트 - 4차 산업혁명의 물결 ===<br />
<br />
<br />
블록체인은 최초의 암호화폐 비트코인의 기반기술로 등장했다. 그런데《블록체인 거번먼트》에서 저자는 블록체인이 단순히 ‘암호화폐’를 만들어주는 기술에 그치지 않고, 관료제와 같은 조직을 대체하는 기술이 될 것이라고 주장한다. 또한 관료제가 담당하는 기능들 중 상당 부분을 블록체인 기반의 기술이 대체한다면 지금보다 훨씬 투명하고 효율적인 정부가 탄생할 수 있다는 것이다.<br /><br />
<br />
http://www.aladin.co.kr/shop/wproduct.aspx?ItemId=110487241<br/><br />
http://book.naver.com/bookdb/book_detail.nhn?bid=12109129<br/><br />
<br />
<br />
== P2P Interviews ==<br />
=== 때를 만난 아이디어의 실행과 구현을 위하여 ― 기본소득 전문가들과의 인터뷰 ===<br />
<br />
[[Category:South Korea]]<br />
[[Category:Korean]]<br />
[[Category:Languages]]</div>Vasilis.niaroshttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Blockchain_and_Holochain&diff=110649Blockchain and Holochain2017-12-12T09:38:21Z<p>Vasilis.niaros: </p>
<hr />
<div>By Arthur Brock, David Atkinson, Emaline Friedman, Eric Harris-Braun, Erin McGuire, Jean M Russell, Nicholas Perrin, Nicolas Luck, Will Harris-Braun. Holo Green Paper (2017). Retrieved from: https://files.holo.host/2017/12/Holo-Green-Paper.pdf<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|+ Comparing Blockchain and Holochain<br />
! <br />
! Blockchain<br />
! Holochain<br />
|-<br />
! Hash-chain approach<br />
| Data-centric, a single global dataset-one shared reality across all nodes.|| Agent-centric, allows nodes to act independently, or in tight coordination only with counterparties, and then share independently evolving data realities that come to agreement over time.<br />
|-<br />
! Energy Use<br />
| Bitcoin consumes more than 0.1% of the world’s electricity to powerless than 0.0001% of the world’s money.<br />
| Since no mining is required, no specialized processors are needed, making it feasible to run full nodes on low-power computers or cellphones.<br />
|-<br />
! Transaction Volume<br />
| Neo currently processes +1000 transactions per second. Bitcoin and Ethereum considerably less at a handful per second.<br />
| Expected to surpass financial exchange backbones like the Visa network, with a max of 56,000 transactions per second.<br />
|-<br />
! Scalability<br />
| Even ignoring proof-of-work, there are serious scalability limits on synchronizing a global ledger across many nodes.<br />
| With a sharded DHT, the transaction load per node gets lighter as the network grows.<br />
|-<br />
! Platform<br />
| Can now only run effectively with special mining rigs or wasteful staking algorithms.<br />
| Can run on a Raspberry Pi or a mobile phone.<br />
|-<br />
! Computational efficiency of architecture (not 1 machine)<br />
| O(n*m) for validating transactions on blockchain as a whole distributed architecture.<br />
| O(n/m*logm) for validating transactions.<br />
|-<br />
! Consensus Effects<br />
| Core consensus algorithms centralize power (make the rich richer). Proof-of-Work results in infinitely growing computational over head for finite dataset.<br />
| No mining or staking. No consensus. Not vulnerable to majority attacks. You only have to trust the code on your own node and can validate counterparty’s history directly.<br />
|}</div>Vasilis.niaroshttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Blockchain_and_Holochain&diff=110648Blockchain and Holochain2017-12-12T09:38:05Z<p>Vasilis.niaros: </p>
<hr />
<div>By Arthur Brock, David Atkinson, Emaline Friedman, Eric Harris-Braun, Erin McGuire, Jean M Russell, Nicholas Perrin, Nicolas Luck, Will Harris-Braun. Holo Green Paper. Retrieved from: https://files.holo.host/2017/12/Holo-Green-Paper.pdf<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|+ Comparing Blockchain and Holochain<br />
! <br />
! Blockchain<br />
! Holochain<br />
|-<br />
! Hash-chain approach<br />
| Data-centric, a single global dataset-one shared reality across all nodes.|| Agent-centric, allows nodes to act independently, or in tight coordination only with counterparties, and then share independently evolving data realities that come to agreement over time.<br />
|-<br />
! Energy Use<br />
| Bitcoin consumes more than 0.1% of the world’s electricity to powerless than 0.0001% of the world’s money.<br />
| Since no mining is required, no specialized processors are needed, making it feasible to run full nodes on low-power computers or cellphones.<br />
|-<br />
! Transaction Volume<br />
| Neo currently processes +1000 transactions per second. Bitcoin and Ethereum considerably less at a handful per second.<br />
| Expected to surpass financial exchange backbones like the Visa network, with a max of 56,000 transactions per second.<br />
|-<br />
! Scalability<br />
| Even ignoring proof-of-work, there are serious scalability limits on synchronizing a global ledger across many nodes.<br />
| With a sharded DHT, the transaction load per node gets lighter as the network grows.<br />
|-<br />
! Platform<br />
| Can now only run effectively with special mining rigs or wasteful staking algorithms.<br />
| Can run on a Raspberry Pi or a mobile phone.<br />
|-<br />
! Computational efficiency of architecture (not 1 machine)<br />
| O(n*m) for validating transactions on blockchain as a whole distributed architecture.<br />
| O(n/m*logm) for validating transactions.<br />
|-<br />
! Consensus Effects<br />
| Core consensus algorithms centralize power (make the rich richer). Proof-of-Work results in infinitely growing computational over head for finite dataset.<br />
| No mining or staking. No consensus. Not vulnerable to majority attacks. You only have to trust the code on your own node and can validate counterparty’s history directly.<br />
|}</div>Vasilis.niaroshttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Blockchain_and_Holochain&diff=110647Blockchain and Holochain2017-12-12T09:34:20Z<p>Vasilis.niaros: </p>
<hr />
<div>{| class="wikitable"<br />
|+ Comparing Blockchain and Holochain<br />
! <br />
! Blockchain<br />
! Holochain<br />
|-<br />
! Hash-chain approach<br />
| Data-centric, a single global dataset-one shared reality across all nodes.|| Agent-centric, allows nodes to act independently, or in tight coordination only with counterparties, and then share independently evolving data realities that come to agreement over time.<br />
|-<br />
! Energy Use<br />
| Bitcoin consumes more than 0.1% of the world’s electricity to powerless than 0.0001% of the world’s money.<br />
| Since no mining is required, no specialized processors are needed, making it feasible to run full nodes on low-power computers or cellphones.<br />
|-<br />
! Transaction Volume<br />
| Neo currently processes +1000 transactions per second. Bitcoin and Ethereum considerably less at a handful per second.<br />
| Expected to surpass financial exchange backbones like the Visa network, with a max of 56,000 transactions per second.<br />
|-<br />
! Scalability<br />
| Even ignoring proof-of-work, there are serious scalability limits on synchronizing a global ledger across many nodes.<br />
| With a sharded DHT, the transaction load per node gets lighter as the network grows.<br />
|-<br />
! Platform<br />
| Can now only run effectively with special mining rigs or wasteful staking algorithms.<br />
| Can run on a Raspberry Pi or a mobile phone.<br />
|-<br />
! Computational efficiency of architecture (not 1 machine)<br />
| O(n*m) for validating transactions on blockchain as a whole distributed architecture.<br />
| O(n/m*logm) for validating transactions.<br />
|-<br />
! Consensus Effects<br />
| Core consensus algorithms centralize power (make the rich richer). Proof-of-Work results in infinitely growing computational over head for finite dataset.<br />
| No mining or staking. No consensus. Not vulnerable to majority attacks. You only have to trust the code on your own node and can validate counterparty’s history directly.<br />
|}</div>Vasilis.niaroshttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Blockchain_and_Holochain&diff=110646Blockchain and Holochain2017-12-12T09:27:38Z<p>Vasilis.niaros: </p>
<hr />
<div>{| class="wikitable"<br />
|+ Comparing Blockchain and Holochain<br />
! <br />
! Blockchain<br />
! Holochain<br />
|-<br />
! Hash-chain approach<br />
| Data-centric, a single global dataset-one shared reality across all nodes.|| Agent-centric, allows nodes to act independently, or in tight coordination only with counter parties, and then share independently evolving data realities that come to agreement over time.<br />
|-<br />
! Energy Use<br />
| Bitcoin consumes more than 0.1% of the world’s electricity to powerless than 0.0001% of the world’s money.<br />
| Since no mining is required, no specialized processors are needed, making it feasible to run full nodes on low-power computers or cellphones.<br />
|-<br />
! Transaction Volume<br />
| Neo currently processes +1000 transactions per second. Bitcoin and Ethereum considerably less at a handful per second.<br />
| Expected to surpass financial exchange backbones like the Visa network, with a max of 56,000 transactions per second.<br />
|-<br />
! Scalability<br />
| Even ignoring proof-of-work, there are serious scalability limits on synchronizing a global ledger across many nodes.<br />
| With a sharded DHT, the transaction load per node gets lighter as the network grows.<br />
|-<br />
! Energy Use<br />
| Bitcoin consumes more than 0.1% of the world’s electricity to powerless than 0.0001% of the world’s money.<br />
| Since no mining is required, no specialized processors are needed, making it feasible to run full nodes on low-power computers or cellphones.<br />
<br />
|}</div>Vasilis.niaroshttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Blockchain_and_Holochain&diff=110645Blockchain and Holochain2017-12-12T09:18:56Z<p>Vasilis.niaros: Created page with "{| class="wikitable" |+ Comparing Blockchain and Holochain ! ! Blockchain ! Holochain |- ! Hash-chain approach | Data-centric, a single..."</p>
<hr />
<div>{| class="wikitable"<br />
|+ Comparing Blockchain and Holochain<br />
! <br />
! Blockchain<br />
! Holochain<br />
|-<br />
! Hash-chain approach<br />
| Data-centric, a single global dataset-one shared reality across all nodes.|| Agent-centric, allows nodes to act independently, or in tight coordination only with counter parties, and then share independently evolving data realities that come to agreement over time.<br />
|-<br />
! Row header A<br />
| Cell B<br />
| Cell C<br />
|}</div>Vasilis.niaroshttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Towards_a_Global_Infrastructure_for_Commons-Based_Provisioning&diff=110348Towards a Global Infrastructure for Commons-Based Provisioning2017-10-24T20:02:24Z<p>Vasilis.niaros: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
=Discussion=<br />
<br />
Michel Bauwens:<br />
<br />
"We have argued in this overview that we are in a conjuncture in which commons-based mutualizing is one of the keys for sustainability, fairness and global-local well-being. In this conclusion, we suggest a global infrastructure, in which cities can play a crucial role.<br />
<br />
See the graphic below for the stacked layer that we propose, which is described as follows:<br />
<br />
The first layer is the cosmo-local institutional layer. Imagine global for-benefit associations which support the provisioning of infrastructures for urban and territorial commoning. These are structured as global public-commons partnerships, sustained by leagues of cities which are co-dependent and co-motivated to support these new infrastructures and overcome the fragmentation of effort that benefits the most extractive and centralized ‘netarchical’ firms. Instead, these infrastructural commons organizations co-support MuniRide, MuniBnB, and other applications necessary to commonify urban provisioning systems. These are the global “protocol cooperative” governance organizations.<br />
<br />
The second layer consists of the actual global depositories of the commons applications themselves, a global technical infrastructure for open sourcing provisioning systems. They consists of what is globally common, but allow contextualized local adaptations, which in turn can serve as innovations and examples for other locales. These are the actual ‘protocol cooperatives’, in their concrete manifestation as usable infrastructure.<br />
<br />
The third layer are the actual local (urban, territorial, bioregional) platform cooperatives, i.e. the local commons-based mechanisms that deliver access to services and exchange platforms, for the mutualized used of these provisioning systems. This is the layer where the Amsterdam FairBnb and the MuniRide application of the city of Ghent, organize the services for the local population and their visitors. It is where houses and cars are effectively shared.<br />
<br />
The potential fourth layer is the actual production-based open cooperatives, where distributed manufacturing of goods and services produces the actual material services that can be shared and mutualized on the platform cooperatives."<br />
<br />
[[File:Figure 8 (w).png | 800px]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Urban Commons]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Global Governance]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Platform Cooperatives]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Urbanism]]</div>Vasilis.niaroshttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Towards_a_Global_Infrastructure_for_Commons-Based_Provisioning&diff=110347Towards a Global Infrastructure for Commons-Based Provisioning2017-10-24T20:01:54Z<p>Vasilis.niaros: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
=Discussion=<br />
<br />
Michel Bauwens:<br />
<br />
"We have argued in this overview that we are in a conjuncture in which commons-based mutualizing is one of the keys for sustainability, fairness and global-local well-being. In this conclusion, we suggest a global infrastructure, in which cities can play a crucial role.<br />
<br />
See the graphic below for the stacked layer that we propose, which is described as follows:<br />
<br />
The first layer is the cosmo-local institutional layer. Imagine global for-benefit associations which support the provisioning of infrastructures for urban and territorial commoning. These are structured as global public-commons partnerships, sustained by leagues of cities which are co-dependent and co-motivated to support these new infrastructures and overcome the fragmentation of effort that benefits the most extractive and centralized ‘netarchical’ firms. Instead, these infrastructural commons organizations co-support MuniRide, MuniBnB, and other applications necessary to commonify urban provisioning systems. These are the global “protocol cooperative” governance organizations.<br />
<br />
The second layer consists of the actual global depositories of the commons applications themselves, a global technical infrastructure for open sourcing provisioning systems. They consists of what is globally common, but allow contextualized local adaptations, which in turn can serve as innovations and examples for other locales. These are the actual ‘protocol cooperatives’, in their concrete manifestation as usable infrastructure.<br />
<br />
The third layer are the actual local (urban, territorial, bioregional) platform cooperatives, i.e. the local commons-based mechanisms that deliver access to services and exchange platforms, for the mutualized used of these provisioning systems. This is the layer where the Amsterdam FairBnb and the MuniRide application of the city of Ghent, organize the services for the local population and their visitors. It is where houses and cars are effectively shared.<br />
<br />
The potential fourth layer is the actual production-based open cooperatives, where distributed manufacturing of goods and services produces the actual material services that can be shared and mutualized on the platform cooperatives."<br />
<br />
[[File:Figure 8 (w).png | 700px]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Urban Commons]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Global Governance]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Platform Cooperatives]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Urbanism]]</div>Vasilis.niaroshttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Towards_a_Global_Infrastructure_for_Commons-Based_Provisioning&diff=110346Towards a Global Infrastructure for Commons-Based Provisioning2017-10-24T20:01:33Z<p>Vasilis.niaros: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
=Discussion=<br />
<br />
Michel Bauwens:<br />
<br />
"We have argued in this overview that we are in a conjuncture in which commons-based mutualizing is one of the keys for sustainability, fairness and global-local well-being. In this conclusion, we suggest a global infrastructure, in which cities can play a crucial role.<br />
<br />
See the graphic below for the stacked layer that we propose, which is described as follows:<br />
<br />
The first layer is the cosmo-local institutional layer. Imagine global for-benefit associations which support the provisioning of infrastructures for urban and territorial commoning. These are structured as global public-commons partnerships, sustained by leagues of cities which are co-dependent and co-motivated to support these new infrastructures and overcome the fragmentation of effort that benefits the most extractive and centralized ‘netarchical’ firms. Instead, these infrastructural commons organizations co-support MuniRide, MuniBnB, and other applications necessary to commonify urban provisioning systems. These are the global “protocol cooperative” governance organizations.<br />
<br />
The second layer consists of the actual global depositories of the commons applications themselves, a global technical infrastructure for open sourcing provisioning systems. They consists of what is globally common, but allow contextualized local adaptations, which in turn can serve as innovations and examples for other locales. These are the actual ‘protocol cooperatives’, in their concrete manifestation as usable infrastructure.<br />
<br />
The third layer are the actual local (urban, territorial, bioregional) platform cooperatives, i.e. the local commons-based mechanisms that deliver access to services and exchange platforms, for the mutualized used of these provisioning systems. This is the layer where the Amsterdam FairBnb and the MuniRide application of the city of Ghent, organize the services for the local population and their visitors. It is where houses and cars are effectively shared.<br />
<br />
The potential fourth layer is the actual production-based open cooperatives, where distributed manufacturing of goods and services produces the actual material services that can be shared and mutualized on the platform cooperatives."<br />
<br />
[[File:Figure 8 (w).png | 200px]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Urban Commons]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Global Governance]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Platform Cooperatives]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Urbanism]]</div>Vasilis.niaroshttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Towards_a_Global_Infrastructure_for_Commons-Based_Provisioning&diff=110345Towards a Global Infrastructure for Commons-Based Provisioning2017-10-24T20:00:54Z<p>Vasilis.niaros: /* Discussion */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
=Discussion=<br />
<br />
Michel Bauwens:<br />
<br />
"We have argued in this overview that we are in a conjuncture in which commons-based mutualizing is one of the keys for sustainability, fairness and global-local well-being. In this conclusion, we suggest a global infrastructure, in which cities can play a crucial role.<br />
<br />
See the graphic below for the stacked layer that we propose, which is described as follows:<br />
<br />
The first layer is the cosmo-local institutional layer. Imagine global for-benefit associations which support the provisioning of infrastructures for urban and territorial commoning. These are structured as global public-commons partnerships, sustained by leagues of cities which are co-dependent and co-motivated to support these new infrastructures and overcome the fragmentation of effort that benefits the most extractive and centralized ‘netarchical’ firms. Instead, these infrastructural commons organizations co-support MuniRide, MuniBnB, and other applications necessary to commonify urban provisioning systems. These are the global “protocol cooperative” governance organizations.<br />
<br />
The second layer consists of the actual global depositories of the commons applications themselves, a global technical infrastructure for open sourcing provisioning systems. They consists of what is globally common, but allow contextualized local adaptations, which in turn can serve as innovations and examples for other locales. These are the actual ‘protocol cooperatives’, in their concrete manifestation as usable infrastructure.<br />
<br />
The third layer are the actual local (urban, territorial, bioregional) platform cooperatives, i.e. the local commons-based mechanisms that deliver access to services and exchange platforms, for the mutualized used of these provisioning systems. This is the layer where the Amsterdam FairBnb and the MuniRide application of the city of Ghent, organize the services for the local population and their visitors. It is where houses and cars are effectively shared.<br />
<br />
The potential fourth layer is the actual production-based open cooperatives, where distributed manufacturing of goods and services produces the actual material services that can be shared and mutualized on the platform cooperatives."<br />
<br />
[[File:Figure 8 (w).png]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Urban Commons]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Global Governance]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Platform Cooperatives]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Urbanism]]</div>Vasilis.niaroshttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=File:Figure_8_(w).png&diff=110344File:Figure 8 (w).png2017-10-24T20:00:20Z<p>Vasilis.niaros: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Vasilis.niaroshttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Green_Capitalism&diff=109479Green Capitalism2017-08-25T10:01:21Z<p>Vasilis.niaros: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
<br />
=Contextual Citation=<br />
<br />
Richard Smith:<br />
<br />
"All such market-based efforts are doomed to fail, and a sustainable economy is inconceivable without sweeping systemic economic change. The project of sustainable capitalism based on carbon taxes, green marketing, "dematerialization" and so forth was misconceived and doomed from the start because maximizing profit and saving the planet are inherently in conflict and cannot be systematically aligned even if, here and there, they might coincide for a moment. That's because under capitalism, CEOs and corporate boards are not responsible to society; they're responsible to private shareholders. CEOs can embrace environmentalism so long as this increases profits. But saving the world requires that the pursuit of profits be systematically subordinated to ecological concerns."<br />
(http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/21060-green-capitalism-the-god-that-failed?fref=gc)<br />
<br />
<br />
=Description=<br />
<br />
Richard Smith:<br />
<br />
"So business is destroying the world. But, for Hawken, the problem wasn't capitalism as such, but just bad "business practices" of corporations which, he thought, could be fundamentally "inverted" to save the world: <br />
<br />
- "[T]his behavior is not the inherent nature of business, nor the inevitable outcome of a free-market system." The problem was that "the expense of destroying the earth is largely absent from the prices set in the marketplace. A vital and key piece of information is therefore missing in all levels of the economy."<br />
<br />
The key was to get the market to "tell the ecological truth." <br />
<br />
<br />
In her Harvard Business School manifesto for green capitalism, "Costing the Earth," the Economist magazine's environmental editor, Francis Cairncross, said <br />
- "Governments need to step in to align private costs with social costs ... [as] embodied by the 'polluter pays' principle.' " <br />
<br />
<br />
And in his book Eco-Economy, Worldwatch Institute founder Lester Brown explained that <br />
<br />
- Ecologists and economists - working together - can calculate the ecological costs of various economic activities. These costs could then be incorporated into the market price of a product or service in the form of a tax." <br />
<br />
<br />
So carbon taxes and the like would "discourage such activities as coal burning, ... the generation of toxic waste, the use of virgin raw materials ... the use of pesticides, and the use of throwaway products." <br />
<br />
Paul Hawken even went so far as to claim that <br />
<br />
- "[T]here is no question that we could introduce a steady, incremental phase-in of a carbon tax on coal, one that would eventually tax coal out of business in two decades' time." "The whole key to redesigning the economy is to shift incrementally most, if not all, of the taxes presently derived from 'goods' to 'bads,' from income and payroll taxes to taxes on pollution, environmental degradation and nonrenewable energy consumption. ... The resulting changes in the marketplace would be dramatic. Every purchase would become more constructive and less destructive." <br />
<br />
<br />
Hawken described his vision of "Natural Capitalism" thusly:<br />
<br />
- The restorative economy described in this book ... unites ecology and commerce into one sustainable act of production and distribution that mimics and enhances natural processes. In such an economy ... restoring the environment and making money would be the same process. Business ... needs a plan, a vision, a basis - a broad social mandate that will turn it away from the linear, addictive, short-term economic activities in which it is enmeshed and trapped. ... Rather than argue about where to put our wastes, who will pay for it, and how long it will be before toxins leak out into the groundwater, we should be trying to design systems that are elegantly imitative of climax ecosystems found in nature. Companies must re-envision and re-imagine themselves as cyclical corporations, whose products either literally disappear into harmless components, or ... [produce] no waste [at all.]" <br />
<br />
<br />
NRDC founder and Yale Dean Gus Speth summed up this utopian vision of the market in green capitalism as well as anyone:<br />
<br />
- The market can be transformed into an instrument for environmental restoration; humanity's ecological footprint can be reduced to what can be sustained environmentally; the incentives that govern corporate behavior can be rewritten; growth can be focused on things that truly need to grow and consumption on having enough, not always on more; the rights of future generations and other species can be respected. <br />
<br />
The "sustainable" "green" "natural" capitalism movement took off in the 1980s and '90s: Organic farming came into the mainstream, and Whole Foods became the fastest-growing sector of the grocery industry. Green businesses sprouted up in every sector from renewable energy to organic cottons to eco-travel. Stores added green products in every aisle. Hip, eco-conscious businesses like Patagonia gave "1% to nature." (Ben & Jerry's gave 7½ percent!) "Sustainable investing" mutual funds looked to fund renewable energy. "Green certification" outfits sprung up to save the tropical forests and the sea turtles. Eventually, even big corporations like 3M and Walmart embraced green "business practices," cutting waste, recycling, and producing and adopting less toxic products. Europe introduced the first large-scale cap-and-trade system in January 2005. Finland introduced the first carbon tax in 1990, and many other countries followed suit, including Sweden, Germany, Britain, South Korea, South Africa, Korea, some provinces of Canada and even some American states, including Maryland, Colorado and California."<br />
(http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/21060-green-capitalism-the-god-that-failed?fref=gc)<br />
<br />
<br />
=Discussion=<br />
<br />
<br />
==Five Theses against green capitalism==<br />
<br />
Richard Smith:<br />
<br />
"To start with, I'm going to state five theses about green capitalism and then develop these arguments in the rest of this article. <br />
<br />
1. First, the project of "sustainable" "green" capitalism was misconceived and doomed from the start because maximizing profit and saving the planet are inherently in conflict and cannot be systematically aligned even if, here and there, they might coincide for a moment. That's because, under capitalism, CEOs and corporate boards are not responsible to society; they're responsible to private owners and shareholders. CEOs might embrace environmentalism so long as this also increases profits, but they're not free to subordinate profit maximizing to saving the world - because to do so would be to risk shareholder flight or worse. I claim that profit-maximization is an iron rule of capitalism, a rule that trumps all else and sets the possibilities and limits of ecological reform - and not the other way around, as green capitalism theorists suppose.<br />
<br />
2. Second, no capitalist government on Earth can impose "green taxes" that would drive the coal industry or any other industry out of business, or even force major retrenchments by suppressing production because, among other important reasons, given capitalism, this would just provoke recession and mass unemployment - if not worse. This means the carbon tax strategy to stop global warming is a non-starter. Without green taxes, the entire green capitalist project collapses.<br />
<br />
3. Third, green capitalism enthusiasts vastly underestimate the gravity, scope and speed of the global ecological collapse we face and thus unrealistically imagine that growth can continue forever if we just tweak the incentives and penalties a bit here and there with green taxes and such. But the capitalist market system is inherently eco-suicidal. Endless growth can end only in catastrophic eco-collapse. No amount of tinkering can alter the market system's suicidal trajectory. Therefore, like it or not, humanity has no choice but to try to find a way to replace capitalism with some kind of post-capitalist ecologically sustainable economy.<br />
<br />
4. Fourth, green capitalism theorists grossly overestimate the potential of "clean green" production and "dematerializing" the economy, whereas, in reality, much if not most, of the economy - from resource extraction like mining and drilling to metals smelting and chemicals production - as well as most manufacturing and many services cannot be greened in any meaningful sense at all. This means that the only way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by the 80 percent that scientists say we need to do to save the humans, is to enforce a drastic contraction of production in the industrialized countries, especially in the most polluting and wasteful sectors. Most industries will have to be sharply retrenched. Some, the very worst polluting and wasteful, will have to be closed entirely. Because, under capitalism, industries can't be expected to voluntarily commit economic suicide, even to save the humans, the only way to carry out these necessary contractions and closures is to nationalize industry and socialize the losses, redeploy labor to sectors society does actually need to develop, like renewable energy, public transit, decent housing for all and so on and shorten the working day to spread the remaining work around.<br />
<br />
5. Fifth, consumerism and overconsumption are not "dispensable" and cannot be exorcised because they're not just "cultural" or "habitual." They are built into capitalism and indispensable for the day-to-day reproduction of corporate producers in a competitive market system in which capitalists, workers, consumers and governments alike are dependent upon an endless cycle of perpetually increasing consumption to maintain profits, jobs and tax revenues. We can't shop our way to sustainability because the problems we face cannot be solved by individual choices in the marketplace. The global ecological crisis we face cannot be solved by even the largest individual companies. Problems such as global warming, overfishing and ocean chemistry are beyond the scope of nation states. They require national and international economic planning. That requires collective bottom-up democratic control over the entire world economy. And because global economic democracy could thrive only in the context of rough economic equality, this presupposes a global redistribution of wealth as well."<br />
(http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/21060-green-capitalism-the-god-that-failed?fref=gc)<br />
<br />
<br />
==20 Theses against green capitalism==<br />
<br />
URL = http://slash.autonomedia.org/node/11656<br />
<br />
By: Tadzio Mueller and Alexis Passadakis:<br />
<br />
1. The current world economic crisis marks the end of the neoliberal phase of capitalism. ‘Business as usual’ (financialisation, deregulation, privatisation…) is thus no longer an option: new spaces of accumulation and types of political regulation will need to be found by governments and corporations to keep capitalism going<br />
<br />
2. Alongside the economic and political as well as energy crises, there is another crisis rocking the world: the biocrisis, the result of a suicidal mismatch between the ecological life support system that guarantees our collective human survival and capital’s need for constant growth<br />
<br />
3. This biocrisis is an immense danger to our collective survival, but like all crises it also presents us, social movements, with a historic opportunity: to really go for capitalism's exposed jugular, its need for unceasing, destructive, insane growth<br />
<br />
4. Of the proposals that have emerged from global elites, the only one that promises to address all these crises is the ‘Green New Deal’. This is not the cuddly green capitalism 1.0 of organic agriculture and D.I.Y. windmills, but a proposal for a new ’green’ phase of capitalism that seeks to generate profits from the piecemeal ecological modernisation of certain key areas of production (cars, energy, etc.)<br />
<br />
5. Green capitalism 2.0 cannot solve the biocrisis (climate change and other ecological problems such as the dangerous reduction of biodiversity), but rather tries to profit from it. It therefore does not fundamentally alter the collision course on which any market-driven economy sets humanity with the biosphere.<br />
<br />
6. This isn’t the 1930s. Then, under the pressure of powerful social movements, the old ‘New Deal’ redistributed power and wealth downwards. The ‘New New’ and ‘Green New Deal’ discussed by Obama, green parties all around the world, and even some multinationals is more about welfare for corporations than for people<br />
<br />
7. Green Capitalism won't challenge the power of those who actually produce most greenhouse gases: the energy companies, airlines and carmakers, industrial agriculture, but will simply shower them with more money to help maintain their profit rates by making small ecological changes that will be too little, too late<br />
<br />
8. Because globally, working people have lost their power to bargain and demand rights and decent wages, in a green capitalist setup, wages will probably stagnate or even decline to offset the rising costs of ‘ecological modernisation’<br />
<br />
9. The 'green capitalist state' will be an authoritarian one. Justified by the threat of ecological crisis it will ‘manage’ the social unrest that will necessarily grow from the impoverishment that lies in the wake of rising cost of living (food, energy, etc.) and falling wages<br />
<br />
10. In green capitalism, the poor will have to be excluded from consumption, pushed to the margins, while the wealthy will get to ‘offset’ their continued environmentally destructive behaviour, shopping and saving the planet at the same time<br />
<br />
11. An authoritarian state, massive class inequalities, welfare given to corporations: from the point of view of social and ecological emancipation, green capitalism will be a disaster that we can never recover from. Today, we have a chance to get beyond the suicidal madness of constant growth. Tomorrow, by the time we’ve all gotten used to the new green regime, that chance may be gone<br />
<br />
12. In green capitalism, there is a danger that established, mainstream environmental groups will come to play the role that trade unions played in the Fordist era: acting as safety valves to make sure that demands for social change, that our collective rage remain within the boundaries set by the needs of capital and governments<br />
<br />
13. Albert Einstein defined ‘insanity’ as “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” In the past decade, in spite of Kyoto, not only has the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increased – so, too, has the rate of increase. Do we simply want more of the same? Wouldn’t that be insane?<br />
<br />
14. International climate agreements promote false solutions that are often more about energy security than climate change. Far from solving the crisis, emissions trading, CMD, joint implementation, offsets and so on, all provide a political shield for the continued production of greenhouse gases with impunity<br />
<br />
15. For many communities in the global South, these false solutions (agrofuels, ‘green deserts’, CDM-projects) are by now often a greater threat than climate change itself<br />
<br />
16. Real solutions to the climate crisis won't be dreamt up by governments or corporations. They can only emerge from below, from globally networked social movements for climate justice<br />
<br />
17. Such solutions include: no to free trade, no to privatisation, no to flexible mechanisms. Yes to food sovereignty, yes to degrowth, yes to radical democracy and to leaving the resources in the ground<br />
<br />
18. As an emerging global climate justice movement, we must fight two enemies: on one hand climate change and the fossilistic capitalism that causes it, and on the other, an emergent green capitalism that won’t stop it, but will limit our ability to do so<br />
<br />
19. Of course, climate change and free trade aren’t the same thing, but: the Copenhagen-protocol will be a central regulatory instance of green capitalism just as the WTO was central to neoliberal capitalism. So how to relate to it? The Danish group KlimaX argues: A good deal is better than no deal - but no deal is way better than a bad one<br />
<br />
20. The chance that governments will come up with a 'good deal' in Copenhagen is slim to none. Our aim must therefore be to demand agreement on real solutions. Failing that: to forget Kyoto, and shut down Copenhagen! (whatever the tactic)<br />
<br />
(http://slash.autonomedia.org/node/11656)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Critique by Richard Smith==<br />
<br />
Richard Smith [http://rwer.wordpress.com/2011/03/09/rwer-issue-56-richard-smith/]:<br />
<br />
"In rejecting the antigrowth approach of the first wave of environmentalists in the 1970s, pro-growth “green capitalism” theorists of the 1980s-90s like Paul Hawken, Lester Brown, and Francis Cairncross argued that green technology, green taxes, eco-conscious shopping and the like could “align” profit-seeking with environmental goals, even “invert many fundamentals” of business practice such that “restoring the environment and making money become one and the same process.” This strategy has clearly failed. I claim first, that the project of sustainable capitalism was misconceived and doomed from the start because maximizing profit and saving the planet are inherently in conflict and cannot be systematically aligned even if, here and there, they might coincide for a moment. That’s because under capitalism, CEOs and corporate boards are not responsible to society, they’re responsible to private shareholders. CEOs can embrace environmentalism so long as this increases profits. But saving the world requires that the pursuit of profits be systematically subordinated to ecological concerns: For example, the science says that to save the humans, we have to drastically cut fossil fuel consumption, even close down industries like coal, and massively retrench production across a broad range of unnecessary, resource-hogging and polluting industries. But no corporate board can sacrifice earnings to save the humans because to do so would be to risk shareholder flight or worse. I claim that profit-maximization is an iron rule of capitalism, a rule that trumps all else, and sets the limits to ecological reform -- and not the other way around as green capitalism theorists supposed<br />
<br />
Secondly, I contend that given capitalism, workers and governments have little choice but to support “their own” corporations’ drive for growth because this is not socialism: No one is promising new jobs to unemployed coal miners, oil-drillers, automakers, airline pilots, chemists, junk food producers, plastic bag makers, advertisers, credit card vendors and others whose jobs would be lost because their industries would have to be shut down or retrenched to save the humans -- and unemployed workers don’t pay taxes. So CEOs, workers, and governments find that they all “need” to maximize growth, overconsumption, even pollution, to destroy their children’s tomorrows in order to hold onto their jobs today, because, if they don’t, the system falls into crisis, or worse. We can’t “cut back” to save the planet because capitalism can’t solve the unemployment crisis any more than it can solve the ecological crisis. We’re all onboard the TGV of ravenous and ever-growing plunder and pollution. But as our locomotive races toward the cliff of ecological collapse, the only thoughts on the minds of our CEOS, capitalist economists, politicians and labor leaders, is how to stoke the locomotive to get us there faster. Corporations aren’t necessarily evil. They just can’t help themselves. They’re doing what they’re supposed to do for the benefit of their owners. But this means that, so long as the global economy is based on capitalist private/corporate property and competitive production for market, we’re doomed to collective social suicide and no amount of tinkering with the market can brake the drive to global ecological collapse. We can’t shop our way to sustainability because the problems we face cannot be solved by individual choices in the marketplace. They require collective democratic control over the economy to prioritize the needs of society and the environment. And they require national and international economic planning to re-organize the economy and redeploy labor and resources to these ends."<br />
(http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue56/Smith56.pdf)<br />
<br />
<br />
=Visualization=<br />
<br />
* By Kyla Tienhaara - Varieties of green capitalism: economy and environment in the wake of the global financial crisis<br />
<br />
[[File:Varieties of green capitalism.jpg]]<br />
<br />
<br />
* By Peter Ferguson - The green economy agenda: business as usual or transformational discourse?<br />
<br />
[[File:The green economy agenda.jpg]]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=More Information=<br />
<br />
Alexis is a member of attac Germany’s coordinating council, Tadzio a part of the Turbulence editorial collective (www.turbulence.org.uk). They are both active in the emerging climate justice movement, and can be reached at againstgreencapitalism (at) googlemail.com<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Ecology]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Business]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Movements]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Politics]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Policy]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Economics]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Post-Growth]]</div>Vasilis.niaroshttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=File:The_green_economy_agenda.jpg&diff=109478File:The green economy agenda.jpg2017-08-25T10:01:05Z<p>Vasilis.niaros: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Vasilis.niaroshttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=File:Varieties_of_green_capitalism.jpg&diff=109477File:Varieties of green capitalism.jpg2017-08-25T09:49:17Z<p>Vasilis.niaros: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Vasilis.niaroshttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Introduction_to_the_P2P_Foundation_Wiki_Material_about_the_Commons&diff=109476Introduction to the P2P Foundation Wiki Material about the Commons2017-08-25T09:44:16Z<p>Vasilis.niaros: /* Visualization */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''= What we share. Creations of both nature and society that belong to all of us equally, and should be maintained for future generations.''' The Commons has the potential to replace the commodity as the determining form of re-/producing societal living conditions. Such a replacement can only occur, if communities constitute themselves for every aspect of life, in order to take „their“ commons back and to reintegrate them into a new need-focused logic of re-/production. [http://www.onthecommons.org/content.php?id=2651]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''This new section exclusively devoted to the emergence of [[Commons]] in various fields.'''<br />
<br />
<br />
* Most commons fall into three general categories – gifts of nature, material creations, and intangible creations (i.e. the [[Three Commons]]. [http://www.boell.org/downloads/Bollier_Commons.pdf]. Here are the [[Four Rules against the False Abundance of the Eternal Growth Economy]].<br />
<br />
<br />
* Introduction by Paul Hartzog: [http://www.panarchy.com/Members/PaulBHartzog/Papers/Global%20Commons.pdf Defining the Global Commons]<br />
<br />
<br />
* David Bollier and Silke Helfrich: The [[Commons Beyond Market and State]]<br />
<br />
<br />
* In politics: [[Mapping a Coalition for the Commons]]. By Philippe Aigrain.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=Introduction=<br />
<br />
* Key Article from James Quilligan: [[Beyond State Capitalism]] The Commons Economy in our Lifetimes.[http://www.onthecommons.org/beyond-state-capitalism]<br />
<br />
* James Quilligan:<br />
<br />
"Our global economic system is now in grave crisis, threatening the entire planet, its institutions and species.<br />
<br />
A new kind of common wealth is needed to protect the assets of Earth, resolve our private and public debts, and create a global society of justice, sharing and sustainability for everyone.<br />
<br />
Our commons are the collective heritage of humanity — the shared resources of nature and society that we inherit, create and use. People across the world are now rediscovering these common goods and choosing to protect them for future generations.<br />
<br />
Whether our commons are traditional (rivers, forests, indigenous cultures) or emerging (solar energy, intellectual property, internet), communities are managing them through unique forms of self-governance, collaboration and collective action. And in working together to preserve these resources, we are generating new standards of responsibility, mutual aid and sustenance for all beings.<br />
<br />
Global Commons Trust promotes the creation of trusteeships, where the rights to our commons may be realized for the benefit of all."<br />
(http://globalcommonstrust.org/)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
* Key concepts [http://p2pfoundation.net/Toward_a_New_Multilateralism_of_the_Global_Commons] for a [[Global Common Wealth]]: 1) The [[Commons FAQ]] ; 2) The [[Commons Trusts FAQ]]; the [[Social Charters FAQ]]<br />
<br />
#[[Eight Points of Reference for Commoning]]. By Silke Helfrich.<br />
#Is there a difference between the [[Common]] and the [[Public]]?<br />
#Introduction to the [[Commons]], the [[Tragedy of the Commons]] and the [[Tragedy of the Tragedy of the Commons]]<br />
#The [[Commons - Typology]] of Stefan Meretz; [[Ten Theses About Global Commons Movement]] <br />
#Establishing [[Global Commons Trust]] , [[Global Common Goods]] and a [[Commons Reserve Currency]]<br />
#The [[Co-Governance]] and [[Co-Production]] of the [[Commons]] through [[Commons Trusts]] on the basis of [[Social Charters]]<br />
#Replacing the scarcity-engineering of capitalist markets by the abundance engineering of the commons, see the [[Abundance - Typology]] and the [[Wealth Typology]]<br />
#[http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/comparing-business-paradigms/2010/02/11 Introduction to Commons-centered economics]. By Sam Rose, Paul Hartzog et al.<br />
#Ryan Lanham proposes a set of [[P2P Commons Boundary Conditions]]<br />
#In this article on [[Use Communities]], Alex Steffen argues that sharing infrastructures are vital for sustainability<br />
#Darryl Birkenfield: [[What is the Meaning of Being a Commoner]]?<br />
<br />
<br />
* '''Tommasso Fattori''', proposals for Commons and politics/policy:<br />
<br />
#[[Towards a Legal Framework for the Commons]]<br />
#The [[Public - Commons Partnership and the Commonification of that which is Public]]<br />
<br />
<br />
==The Conceptual Field of the Common(s)==<br />
<br />
Aetzel Griffioen explains that:<br />
<br />
"There is a spectrum of commonality ranging from the ontological common to the multitude and the global commons. In Dutch only, the root of all these words is the same. It stems from ‘maneg’, meaning many. '''Commoning is an art of the many'''."<br />
<br />
Scale of organisation of commons Dutch translation<br />
<br />
1. The common (ontology) Het gemene<br />
<br />
2. The mean / the common (qualification) Gemeen<br />
<br />
3. Common sense (affect) Gemene zin<br />
<br />
4. Common ground (in-between) Gemeenschappelijkheid<br />
<br />
5. Community (social group) Gemeenschap<br />
<br />
6. Commons (organisation) Meentes<br />
<br />
7. Common property (law) Gemeengoed<br />
<br />
8. Municipality (embedding) Gemeente<br />
<br />
9. The commons (economical domain) De meent<br />
<br />
10. Multitude (population) Menigte<br />
<br />
11. Global commons (ecology) Gemeengoed<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==On the Importance of Distinguishing [[Sharing Private Property vs. Commons vs. Public Property]]==<br />
<br />
From Natalia Fernández, translated by Steve Herrick:<br />
<br />
"Municipal goods and services are not “commons,” and rental vehicle from a company-owed fleet is not “collaborative.” Confusing things only can lead to disillusionment and disappointment.<br />
<br />
Anglo culture and the absence of public policies in the US tended to distort the terms “commons” and collaborative consumption/”sharing.” Municipal bicycle or car-sharing services, even though they may be shared in the sense that there is one vehicle and many users, don’t create any kind of commons, nor are they collaborative consumption. They are mere extensions of transportation services, no different from other public utilities when they are publicly owned, or from a car-rental company when privately owned.<br />
<br />
The “commons,” that which is communal, is goods that belong to a community, a group of real people, a demos, that manages it jointly and directly. Public property is something else: it is State property.<br />
<br />
But, isn’t public property, by definition, the common property of all citizens? Wouldn’t municipal public goods be, by definition, “communal?” No. Publicly-owned goods are managed through specific institutions that decide how they are used and where the profits go. Citizens don’t take part directly in management and decisions about these goods and their use. They are not communal.<br />
<br />
The municipal bus business of any city can be a publicly-owned good, property of city hall, or of the wider region. But it is not a communal good. The classic example of communal goods would be the common lands of many towns, collectively owned by their users, who directly manage their use. The transportation business could be part of the urban commons if it was, simply, a cooperative of users.<br />
The “sharing economy” or collaborative consumption exists when the users share use of goods, while maintaining private ownership. If city hall or a company makes cars or bicycles publicly available (charging a rental fee) there’s no collaborative consumption. “Bike sharing” would be when you share the use of your bike(s) with others through a system of use management. If no one shares their personal property, there’s no “sharing” at all. In most municipal “biking” or “car-sharing” services, the bikes belong to a company or city hall itself. There is no collaborative consumption, but rather, hourly rental." (https://english.lasindias.com/how-to-put-an-end-to-the-urban-commons-and-sharing-once-and-for-all)<br />
<br />
=Visualization=<br />
<br />
==The [[Values of the Commons]]==<br />
<br />
Graphic via [http://www.onthecommons.org/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/Commons%20Framework%20copy.jpg?itok=W2DSuWqG]<br />
<br />
==Twelve Key Assets of Ogallala Commons==<br />
[[File:12keyassets.png]]<br />
* Source: http://www.onthecommons.org/stem-cord-web-relationships<br />
<br />
==Charlotte Hess: [[Mapping the New Commons]]==<br />
<br />
[[File:Mapping the NewCommons.png]]<br />
* Source: [http://ssrn.com/abstract=1356835 Hess, Charlotte, Mapping the New Commons (July 1, 2008)].<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== The [[Logic of the Market versus the Logic of the Commons]] ==<br />
<br />
{| width="625" border="1" cellpadding="4"<br />
|- valign="TOP"<br />
| width="153" |<br />
| width="237" | <span><font size="small">'''Market'''</font></span><br />
| width="209" | <span><font size="small">'''Commons'''</font></span><br />
|- valign="TOP"<br />
| width="153" | <span><font size="small">'''Focus '''</font></span><br />
| width="237" |<br />
<span><font size="small">What can I sell?</font></span><span><font size="small">Exchange value</font></span><br />
| width="209" |<br />
<span><font size="small">What do we need?</font></span><span><font size="small">Use value</font></span><br />
|- valign="TOP"<br />
| width="153" | <span><font size="small">'''Core beliefs'''</font></span><br />
| width="237" | <span><font size="small">Scarcity</font></span><br />
| width="209" | <span><font size="small">Plenty</font></span><br />
|- valign="TOP"<br />
| width="153" |<br />
| width="237" | <span><font size="small">Homo oeconomicus</font></span><br />
| width="209" | <span><font size="small">Homo cooperans</font></span><br />
|- valign="TOP"<br />
| width="153" |<br />
| width="237" | <span><font size="small">It's about resources (allocation)</font></span><span><font size="small">''.''</font></span><br />
| width="209" | <span><font size="small">It's about us.</font></span><br />
|- valign="TOP"<br />
| width="153" | <span><font size="small">'''Governance '''</font></span><br />
| width="237" | <span><font size="small">Market-State</font></span><br />
| width="209" | <span><font size="small">Polycentric / Peer-to-Peer Governance </font></span><br />
|- valign="TOP"<br />
| rowspan="2" width="153" | <span><font size="small">Decision making </font></span><br />
| width="237" | <span><font size="small">hierarchical</font></span><br />
| width="209" | <span><font size="small">horizontal</font></span><br />
|- valign="TOP"<br />
| width="237" | <span><font size="small">Command (Power, Law, Violence)</font></span><br />
| width="209" | <span><font size="small">Consensus, Free Cooperation, self-organization</font></span><br />
|- valign="TOP"<br />
| width="153" | <span><font size="small">'''Social relationships'''</font></span><br />
| width="237" | <span><font size="small">Centralization of power (monopoly)</font></span><br />
| width="209" |<br />
<span><font size="small">Decentralization of power</font></span><span><font size="small">(autonomy)</font></span><br />
|- valign="TOP"<br />
| width="153" |<br />
| width="237" | <span><font size="small">Property </font></span><br />
| width="209" | <span><font size="small">Possession </font></span><br />
|- valign="TOP"<br />
| width="153" | <span><font size="small">Access to rival resources</font></span><br />
| width="237" | <span><font size="small">Limited by boundaries & rules defined by owner</font></span><br />
| width="209" | <span><font size="small">Limited by boundaries & rules defined by usergroups</font></span><br />
|- valign="TOP"<br />
| width="153" | <span><font size="small">Access to nonrival resources</font></span><br />
| width="237" | <span><font size="small">Made scarce (to ensure profitability)</font></span><br />
| width="209" | <span><font size="small">Open access (to ensure social equity)</font></span><br />
|- valign="TOP"<br />
| width="153" | <span><font size="small">Use rights</font></span><br />
| width="237" | <span><font size="small">Granted by owner</font></span><br />
| width="209" | <span><font size="small">Co-decided by user groups</font></span><br />
|- valign="TOP"<br />
| width="153" | <span><font size="small">'''Dominant strategy'''</font></span><br />
| width="237" | <span><font size="small">Out-compete </font></span><br />
| width="209" | <span><font size="small">Out-cooperate</font></span><br />
|-<br />
| colspan="3" width="615" valign="TOP" | <span><font size="small">'''Results '''</font></span><br />
|- valign="TOP"<br />
| width="153" | <span><font size="small">For the resources</font></span><br />
| width="237" |<br />
<span><font size="small">Erosion</font></span><span><font size="small">Enclosure</font></span><br />
| width="209" |<br />
<span><font size="small">Conservation </font></span><span><font size="small">Reproduction & Multiplication</font></span><br />
|- valign="TOP"<br />
| width="153" | <span><font size="small">For the people</font></span><br />
| width="237" | <span><font size="small">Exlusion & Participation </font></span><br />
| width="209" | <span><font size="small">Inclusion & Emancipation</font></span><br />
|}<br />
<br />
* Source: [http://commonsblog.wordpress.com/2011/01/29/the-commons-year-one-of-the-global-commons-movement/ The Commons: Year One of the Global Commons Movement by Silke Helfrich (29. Januar 2011)]<br />
<br />
* A similar comparative table is [http://commonsblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/tabelle1.jpg here]<br />
<br />
== [http://www.onthecommons.org/ On the Commons] ==<br />
<br />
[[File:Commons Framework copy.jpg]]<br />
<br />
* Source: [http://www.onthecommons.org/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/Commons%20Framework%20copy.jpg?itok=W2DSuWqG here]<br />
<br />
== The Political Values of the Commons Movement ==<br />
<br />
According to "On The Commons":<br />
<br />
<br />
* '''Equity''' is at the center — Everyone deserves a fair share of social and natural resources that belong to us together.<br />
* '''Sustainability''' is a priority — Our common wealth must be cared for so that it can serve everyone, including future generations.<br />
* '''Interdependence''' is cultivated — Cooperation and connection in our communities, around our world and with our living planet is essential for the future.<br />
* '''We Govern Together''' — Everyone is involved in gathering information, making decisions and exercising power.<br />
* '''All Are Responsible''' — Together we claim the power to repair inequity, restore our common inheritance and expand opportunities for human fulfillment and planetary resilience.<br />
* '''Ownership is Expanded''' — A more expansive view of belonging fosters broader understandings of what ownership means and new structures for how it works.<br />
* '''We Create Collaboratively''' — A spirit of common purpose lets us realize that abundance, not scarcity, prevails when we invite wider participation in our endeavors.<br />
* And '''we name and claim the Commons that Exist All Around Us''' — Right here. Right now. We don’t need to invent or to recreate it. We can see it, name it, claim it, protect it and expand it.<br />
<br />
=Typology=<br />
<br />
'''0. Four outcomes:'''<br />
<br />
* Private ownership<br />
** Bad outcome/tragedy [[Tragedy of the Anticommons]]<br />
** Good outcome/cornucopia/comedy Successful capitalism <br />
<br />
* Common ownership<br />
** Bad outcome/tragedy [[Tragedy of the Commons]]<br />
** Good outcome/cornucopia/comedy Comedy of the commons ([[Cornucopia of the Commons]]<br />
<br />
'''1.''' See also: [[Commons - Typology]]<br />
<br />
<br />
'''2. Michel Bauwens, a threefold typology of the commons:'''<br />
<br />
<br />
1. Inherited Commons – e.g. earth, water, forests – are heavily under attack and becoming scarce commons. It doesn't have to be this way i.e. in Switzerland, Austria, Japan they are well managed under an agricultural commons, and have been protected for hundreds of years by good collective arrangements between the farmers.<br />
<br />
2. Immaterial Commons – e.g. Cultural, intellectual, enabled by the internet, makes it stronger and easier to do than before. Commoning in this sense can be abstract but when we do it around something we care about, whether its free software, open design or wikipedia this really creates a community of shared interest because its something that we all care about. <br />
<br />
3. Material Commons – that we which we co create e.g. common stock, common machinery. Think of zip-car, owned by a company but why not have the community own it. Then there is the Commons Car, claimed to be the first open source car, now one of many such projects." <br />
(http://www.schoolofcommoning.com/content/school-spreads-its-wings-graceful-inaugural-flight-sets-successful-precedence)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''3. From [[James Quilligan]]''' in ''People Sharing Resources" [http://www.kosmosjournal.org/kjo2/bm~doc/people-sharing-resources.pdf]<br />
<br />
* '''Noosphere''' : indigenous culture and traditions, community support systems, social connectedness, voluntary associations,<br />
labor relations, women and children's rights, family<br />
life, health, education, sacredness, religions and ethnicity,<br />
racial values, silence, creative works, languages, stores of<br />
human knowledge and wisdom, scientific knowledge, ethnobotanical<br />
knowledge, ideas, intellectual property, information,<br />
communication flows, airwaves, internet, free<br />
culture, cultural treasures, music, arts, purchasing power,<br />
the social right to issue money, security, risk management<br />
<br />
* '''Biosphere''' : fisheries, agriculture, forests, land, pastures, ecosystems, parks, gardens, seeds, food crops, genetic life<br />
forms and species, living creatures<br />
<br />
* '''Physiosphere''' : the elements, minerals, inorganic energy,water, climate, atmosphere, stratosphere<br />
<br />
<br />
'''3.''' Sam Rose and Paul Hartzog offer the following typology for Commons based on different distributed infrastructures:<br />
<br />
* [[Energy Commons]]<br />
* [[Food Commons]]<br />
* [[Thing Commons]]<br />
* [[Cultural Commons]]<br />
* [[Access Commons]]<br />
<br />
<br />
'''4.''' [[Seven Policy Switches]] By [[James Greyson]]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== A proposed institutional framework for governing the commons at all scales ==<br />
<br />
* In the book, The [[Power of Neighborhood and the Commons]], author PM makes the following proposals:<br />
<br />
#[[Six Modules for the Institutions of the Global Commons]] <br />
#[[Three Institutional Spheres of Commoning]] <br />
<br />
== Typology of Commons Regulation ==<br />
{| width="594" border="1" cellpadding="4"<br />
|- valign="TOP"<br />
| width="187" | <span><font size="small">'''things'''</font></span><br />
| width="200" | <span><font size="small">'''Access'''</font></span><br />
| width="182" | <span><font size="small">'''Regulation'''</font></span><br />
|- valign="TOP"<br />
| width="187" | <span><font size="small">Res nullius</font></span><br />
| width="200" | <span><font size="small">all</font></span><br />
| width="182" | <span><font size="small">non-regulated</font></span><br />
|- valign="TOP"<br />
| width="187" | <span><font size="small">Res privatae</font></span><br />
| width="200" | <span><font size="small">owner</font></span><br />
| width="182" | <span><font size="small">market-regulated</font></span><br />
|- valign="TOP"<br />
| width="187" | <span><font size="small">Res publicae </font></span><br />
| width="200" | <span><font size="small">public</font></span><br />
| width="182" | <span><font size="small">state-regulated</font></span><br />
|- valign="TOP"<br />
| width="187" | <span><font size="small">Res communes</font></span><br />
| width="200" | <span><font size="small">community</font></span><br />
| width="182" | <span><font size="small">peer-regulated</font></span><br />
|}<br />
<br />
* Source: [http://commonsblog.wordpress.com/2011/01/29/the-commons-year-one-of-the-global-commons-movement/ The Commons: Year One of the Global Commons Movement by Silke Helfrich (29. Januar 2011)]<br />
<br />
=Examples=<br />
<br />
See also: David Bollier maintains an updated list of [http://www.bollier.org/commons-resources/commons-projects Commons-oriented projects].<br />
<br />
Here are our articles on domain-specific commons, linked to the NORA model of Needs matched to Commons Provisioning:<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Physical Commons:'''<br />
<br />
#[[Agriculture Commons]]; [[Commons-Based Agricultural Innovation]]<br />
##[http://commonsabundance.net/wiki/urban-farming/ Urban farming]: Urban farming for a sustainable food supply in cities, especially in communities suffering from food insecurity; see also: [[Urban Farming]]<br />
##[http://commonsabundance.net/wiki/rooftop-gardening/ Rooftop gardening]: Rooftop gardening makes use of roofs (often an underutilized resource!) for the purpose of producing food where it is needed – and often by whom it is needed. Most appropriate in urban areas where there is little land available; see also:[[Rooftop_Gardening]]<br />
#[[Atmosphere Commons]] ; [[Atmospheric Commons]]<br />
##[http://commonsabundance.net/wiki/air-to-breathe/ Air to breathe]: This page focuses on the need to breathe clean air, and its relationships to other needs.<br />
##[http://commonsabundance.net/wiki/air-and-atmosphere/ Air and Atmosphere]: This page discusses air and atmosphere as a resource, and hence approaches to better management of pollution, and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.<br />
##See also: [[Sky Trust]]; [[Sky Charter]] <br />
#[[Energy as a Commons]] ; [[Energy Commons]] ; [[Energy from the Perspective of the Commons]]<br />
#[[Environment as a Commons]] ; [[Environmental Commons]]<br />
#[[Food Commons]] ; [[Food as Common and Community]] ; [[Food as a Commons]]<br />
##[http://commonsabundance.net/wiki/food/ Food]: How to make sure everyone has sufficient and nutritious food, appropriate to their cultural preferences and tastes.<br />
##[http://commonsabundance.net/wiki/local-food-systems/ Local food systems: Local food systems involve a combination of approaches to creating greater abundance of food, while also enhancing food security and providing for meaningful livelihoods.<br />
##[[Local_Food_Systems]]<br />
#[[Hunting Commons]]<br />
#[[Infrastructure Commons]]; see also: [[Developing the Meta Services for the Eco-Social Economy]]<br />
#[[Land as Commons]]<br />
#[[Marine Commons]]<br />
#[[Microbial Commons]]<br />
#[[Pasture Commons]], see the report: [[Crisis of the Pastoral Commons]]<br />
#[[Petroleum Commons]]<br />
#[[Seed Commons]]<br />
##[http://commonsabundance.net/wiki/seed-saving/ Seed Saving]: Seed saving to protect crop genetic diversity and farmer livelihoods, and for gardening.<br />
#[[Solar Commons]]<br />
#[[Water Commons]]<br />
##[http://commonsabundance.net/wiki/water-to-drink/ Water to Drink]: This page discusses the need for clean water, and approaches to equitable provisioning of water, especially in urban areas.<br />
##[http://commonsabundance.net/wiki/water-resources/ Water]: The issues faced in maintaining the quality and quantity of water resources. <br />
<br />
<br />
'''Knowledge/Culture Commons:'''<br />
<br />
#[[Aesthetic Commons]] [http://jordiclaramonte.blogspot.com/2009/10/aesthetic-commons.html]<br />
#[[Book Commons]]<br />
#[[Communication Commons]]<br />
#[[Cultural Commons]] [http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/research/cornell-law-review/upload/Madison-Frischmann-Strandburg-final.pdf]<br />
#[[Digital Commons]]<br />
#[[Educational Commons]]<br />
#[[FLOSS Commons]]: see [[FLOSS as Commons]]<br />
#[[Genome Commons]]<br />
#[[Global Innovation Commons]]<br />
#[[Global Integral-Spiritual Commons]]<br />
#[[History Commons]]<br />
#[[Information Commons]] ; [[Information as a Common-Pool Resource]]<br />
#[[Knowledge Commons]] ; [[Knowledge as a Commons]]<br />
#[[Learning Commons]]<br />
#[[Libraries as Commons]]<br />
#[[Media Commons]]<br />
#[[Medical and Health Commons]]<br />
#[[Museum as Commons]]<br />
#[[Music Commons]]<br />
#[[Open Education Commons]]<br />
#[[Open Scientific Software Commons]] ; [[Open Source Science Commons]]<br />
#[[Patent Commons]] ; [[Eco-Patent Commons]]<br />
#[[Psychological Commons]]<br />
#[[Public Education as a Commons]]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Institutional Commons:'''<br />
<br />
#[[Employment as a Common Pool Resource]]<br />
#[[Financial Commons]]<br />
#[[Global Legal Commons]]<br />
#[[Household as Commons]]<br />
#[[Infrastructure Commons]]<br />
#[[Internet Commons]]<br />
#[[Labor Commons]]<br />
#[[Market Commons]]<br />
#[[Money of the Commons]] ; [[How Can Crypto-Money Become a Money of the Commons]]<br />
#[[Neighborhood Commons]]<br />
#[[NonProfit Commons]]<br />
#[[Taxes as Commons]]<br />
#[[Thing Commons]]<br />
#[[Urban Commons]]<br />
#[[Wireless Commons]]<br />
<br />
=Citations=<br />
<br />
==Sam Rose on Transition Economics==<br />
<br />
"Where people work together to both share those resources that are shareable<br />
now (software, designs, knowledge, waste that can be used as food,<br />
surplus capacities and resources) and cooperate to produce items that<br />
are still based in scarcity, then re-invest the profits into creating<br />
more and more abundance-economy-based systems."<br />
<br />
- See Sam Rose on the need for [[Cooperative Wealth Building]] facilitators<br />
<br />
==Neoliberalism as the Anti-Commons==<br />
<br />
"As neoliberalism converts every political or social problem into market terms, it converts them to individual problems with market solutions. Examples in the United States are legion: bottled water as a response to contamination of the water table; private schools, charter schools, and voucher systems as a response to the collapse of quality public education; anti-theft devices, private security guards, and gated communities (and nations) as a response to the production of a throwaway class and intensifying economic inequality; boutique medicine as a response to crumbling health care provision; “V-chips” as a response to the explosion of violent and pornographic material on every type of household screen; ergonomic tools and technologies as a response to the work conditions of information capitalism; and, of course, finely differentiated and titrated pharmaceutical antidepressants as a response to lives of meaninglessness or despair amidst wealth and freedom. This conversion of socially, economically, and politically produced problems into consumer items depoliticizes what has been historically produced, and it especially depoliticizes capitalism itself. Moreover, as neoliberal political rationality devolves both political problems and solutions from public to private, it further dissipates political or public life: the project of navigating the social becomes entirely one of discerning, affording, and procuring a personal solution to every socially produced problem. This is depoliticization on an unprecedented level: the economy is tailored to it, citizenship is organized by it, the media are dominated by it, and the political rationality of neoliberalism frames and endorses it.”<br />
<br />
- Wendy Brown [http://unemployednegativity.blogspot.com/2010/06/methlab-of-democracy-more-on.html]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==The commons vs. commoditization==<br />
<br />
"The main way in which propaganda has been used to try and dull people's thinking about what water is, what food is, what the land is, is by first and foremost redefining everything that we get from the earth as purely raw materials and commodities. It's a denial of the capacity of human beings, of living resources, of equal systems, which is at the heart of the corporate propaganda that enables privatization, that enables takeover and the creation of property in that which should never be private property, that which should always belong to the commons."<br />
<br />
- Vandana Shiva on the commons vs. commoditization [http://lipmagazine.org/articles/featshiva_water.htmhttp://lipmagazine.org/articles/featshiva_water.htm]<br />
<br />
<br />
==Joan Subirats on the inalienability of the commons==<br />
<br />
Joan Subirats:<br />
<br />
"The commons breaks with the individualistic vision as conceived by the capitalist tradition, a vision that has progressively transferred the idea of rights to individual people. The commons take inclusion and everyone’s equal right to access as its starting point, while property and the idea of the state that upholds it is based on a rivalry of goods, and thus on exclusion and concentration of power in institutions that insure and protect it. The commons try to situate themselves outside the subject-object reductionism that would lead to their commodification. '''The commons cannot be commodified (because they cannot be transferred, or alienated), and they cannot be the object of individualised possession. And so they express a qualitative logic, not a quantitative one. We do not ‘have’ a common good, we ‘form part of’ the common good, in that we form part of an ecosystem, of a system of relations in an urban or rural environment; the subject is part of the object. Common goods are inseparably united, and they unite people as well as communities and the ecosystem itself'''."<br />
[http://www.opendemocracy.net/joan-subirats/commons-beyond-market-vs-state-dilemma]<br />
<br />
<br />
==Humanity is just a steward==<br />
<br />
Even an entire society, a nation, or all simultaneously existing<br />
societies taken together, are not the owners of the earth.<br />
They are simply its possessors, its beneficiaries, and have to<br />
bequeath it in an improved state to succeeding generations as<br />
boni patres familias [good heads of the household].<br />
<br />
- Marx (http://tiny.cc/xrHUv)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Land and Labor cannot be commodities, they are commons==<br />
<br />
"As Karl Polanyi (1944: 72) argued, labour and land are “fictitious commodities”, for “labour is only another name for a human activity which goes with life itself… nor can that activity be detached from the rest of life…; land is only another name for nature, which is not produced by man”.<br />
<br />
- Karl Polanyi [http://beta.epw.in/newsItem/comment/190743/]<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Occupy as a Peer Production of a Political Commons]]==<br />
<br />
"If you observe an occupation, you see a community that is producing its politics autonomously, not following hierarchical or authoritarian political movements with a pre-ordained program; you see for-benefit institutions in charge of the provisioning of the occupiers (food, healthcare), and the creation of an ethical economy around it (such as Occupy’s Street Vendor Project). This is prefigurative of a new form of society in which the commons is at the core of value creation; these commons’ are maintained by non-profit institutions, and the livelihoods are guaranteed through an ethical economy. Of course there are historical precedents, but what is new is the extraordinary organisational, mobilization and co-learning potential of their networks. Occupy works as an open API with modules, such as ‘protest camping’, ‘general assemblies’, which can be used as templates and modified by all, without the need for central leadership. We can now have global coordination and mutual alignment of a multitude of small-group dynamics, and this requires a new type of leadership. The realization of historical moment of Peak Hierarchy, the moment in which distributed networks asymmetrically challenge vertical institutions in a way they could not do before, forces social movements to look for new ways of governance… but these are not given, and have to be discovered experimentally, and of course, there will be valuable lessons to learn from predecessor movements!" <br />
<br />
- Michel Bauwens [http://seanfitz.tumblr.com/post/17485367172/michel-bauwens-of-the-p2p-foundation-on-the-occupy]<br />
<br />
<br />
==A revolution of the rich against the poor==<br />
<br />
"Enclosures have appropriately been called a revolution of the rich against the poor. The lords and nobles were upsetting the social order, breaking down ancient law and custom, sometimes by means of violence, often by pressure and intimidation. They were literally robbing the poor of their share in the common, tearing down the house which, by the hitherto unbreakable force of custom, the poor had long regarded as theirs and their heirs." <br />
<br />
- Karl Polanyi, The Great Transformation, 1944.<br />
<br />
==More [[Citations on the Commons by Contemporary Commoners]]==<br />
<br />
See: [[Citations on the Commons by Contemporary Commoners]]<br />
<br />
=Key Resources=<br />
<br />
Graphic: [[Choosing the Right Form of Common Property]]<br />
<br />
Film: [[This Land is Our Land]]. The Fight to Reclaim the Commons. Written by David Bollier et al.<br />
<br />
Delicious tag for updates: http://delicious.com/mbauwens/P2P-Commons<br />
<br />
<br />
==Key Articles==<br />
<br />
* [[Equity and the Commons]], the five principles of equitable sharing, as proposed by On The Commons.<br />
<br />
<br />
* '''[http://www.permanentculturenow.com/43-essential-essays-on-the-commons-and-peer-2-peer-theory/ 43 Essential essays on the commons and Peer 2 Peer theory]'''<br />
<br />
* The [[Commons as a Template for Transformation]]. By David Bollier.<br />
<br />
For beginners:<br />
<br />
* [[Twelve Benefits of a Commons-Based Approach]]. By Kevin Hansen, June 2011 <br />
* The [http://www.boell.org/downloads/commonsbook_helfrich_-_haas-neu.pdf Commons as New Narrative for Our Times]. Silke Helfrich and Jorge Haas.<br />
<br />
<br />
Key articles:<br />
<br />
* [http://www.transform-network.net/de/publikationen/jahrbuch/yearbook-2016/news/detail/Journal/towards-a-society-of-the-commons1.html Towards a Society of the Commons]. By Michel Bauwens, Vasilis Kostakis, Alex Pazaitis. Transform Europe, 2016<br />
<br />
* '''A strategy for the commons in the context of social transformation''': Massimo de Angelis, [[Crises, Movements and Commons]]. Borderlands e-journal, VOLUME 11 NUMBER 2, 2012. [http://www.borderlands.net.au/vol11no2_2012/deangelis_crises.pdf]<br />
* The [[Triune Peer Governance of the Digital Commons]]. By Michel Bauwens.<br />
* The [[State, the Market, and some Preliminary Question about the Commons]]. Ugo Mattei. [http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1040&context=ugo_mattei] An absolutely crucial text by Ugo Mattei on how the Western legal tradition needs to be fundamentally overturned in order for the common and the commons to emerge as core principle of a new legal-institutional system.<br />
* Aaron Peters: [[Establishing a Communication Commons]]: The other world that we believe is possible will require another media – one that MUST be commons-based. [http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/aaron-peters/communication-commons-resisting-recuperation-of-internet-by-capital]<br />
* Caffentzis, George: A Tale of Two Conferences:Globalization, the Crisis of Neoliberalism and Question of the Commons. [http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/georgecaffentzistaleoftwocommons1historyandrevival/2009/03/02]<br />
* [[Commons as a Challenge for Classical Economics]]. By the [[Commons Strategies Group]]<br />
* The [[Role of the Commons and Common Property in an Economy of Abundance]]. Wolfgang Hoeschele. [http://www.icape.org/b5-Hoeschele.pdf]<br />
* Wouter Tebbens: [[Producing Industrial Goods Through the Commons]]<br />
* [[Can We Liberate the Market through Commons Governance]]? By Wouter Tebbens. [http://freeknowledge.eu/blog/wouter/can-we-liberate-the-market-through-commons-governance] : "In the Barcelona-based Escola dels Commons we study the commons and right now we are discussing about the market, how current markets work and how they could work, if redefined under commons logic."<br />
* [[From Firms to Platforms to Commons]]. By Esko Kilpi.<br />
<br />
<br />
See also:<br />
<br />
#[[Top Ten Constituents of New Commons Economy]]<br />
#[[Twelve Contemporary Commons Observations]]<br />
<br />
==Righting Back the Fake Commons==<br />
<br />
Labor, Money, Nature:<br />
<br />
* The [[Co-Belongingness of Money and Community]]. By Luigi Doria and Luca Fantacci.<br />
<br />
* Maude Barlow: [[Private Property is Not the Right Solution for the Natural Commons]]<br />
<br />
==Key Blogs==<br />
<br />
* Commons coverage by the P2P Foundation blog via http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/category/p2p-commons [http://delicious.com/mbauwens/P2P-Commons]<br />
<br />
#[http://kimkleinandthecommons.blogspot.com/ Kim Klein and the Commons]<br />
#[http://www.onthecommons.org/format.php?format=blog On the Commons]<br />
#[http://www.bollier.org/ David Bollier]'s news and perspectives on the commons<br />
<br />
<br />
In German:<br />
<br />
#[http://www.commons.at/ Commons und solidarische Ökonomie]<br />
#[http://www.gemeingueter.de/ Gemeingüter]<br />
#[http://www.commonsblog.de Silke Helfrich's commons blog]<br />
#http://www.keimform.de/ Keimform]<br />
<br />
==Key Books==<br />
<br />
===Introductions===<br />
<br />
* [[Think Like a Commoner]]. A Short Introduction to the Life of the Commons. by David Bollier. New Society, 2014 [http://www.newsociety.com/Books/T/Think-Like-a-Commoner]<br />
<br />
* [[Sustaining the Commons]]. By John M. Anderies and Marco A. Janssen. Center for the Study of Institutional Diversity, 2013. [http://sustainingthecommons.asu.edu/]<br />
<br />
===The Trilogy by the [[Commons Strategies Group]]===<br />
<br />
* The [[Wealth of the Commons]]. A world beyond market and state. By David Bollier and Silke Helfrich. Levellers Press, 2012 [http://www.wealthofthecommons.org]<br />
<br />
* [[Patterns of Commoning]]. By David Bollier and Silke Helfrich. Commons Strategies Group, 2015<br />
<br />
<br />
===Other Books on the Commons===<br />
<br />
#Christian Siefkes (2007), [[From Exchange to Contributions]]: Generalizing Peer Production into the Physical World. [http://peerconomy.org/]: proposal for a commons-based economic system<br />
#Book: [[Common as Air]]. Lewis Hyde. 2010<br />
<br />
<br />
===On specialized commons:===<br />
<br />
#[[Nature as Commons versus Commodities]], book: Nature for sale. Commons versus Commodities. by giovanna ricoveri. Pluto, 2012: "Nature for Sale uncovers the rich heritage of common ownership which existed before the dominance of capitalist property relations. Giovanna Ricoveri argues that the subsistence commons of the past can be reinvented today to provide an alternative to the current destructive economic orde<br />
#The [[Common Thread]]. By John Sulston: a nuanced defense of treating knowledge of the genome as a commons.<br />
#Genes, Bytes and Emissions: [[To Whom Does the World Belong]]? Ed. by Silke Helfrich. Heinrich Boll Foundation, 2009 [http://www.boell.org/commons/Helfrich_Intro_.pdf Intro] ; [http://www.boell.org/web/148-576.html Online version]<br />
#On the [[Water Commons]]: [[Blue Gold]]: The Fight to Stop Corporate Theft of the World’s Water. By Maude Barlow.the Water Commons<br />
#[[Common Cause]]. Information Between Commons and Property. Philippe Aigrain.''' [http://grit-transversales.org/IMG/pdf/commoncause-extracts.pdf] Unpubished, select version of: [[Cause Commune]].<br />
<br />
<br />
===History of the Commons===<br />
<br />
* Stop, Thief! The [[Commons, Enclosures and Resistance]]. Peter Linebaugh. PM Press, 2014 [https://secure.pmpress.org/index.php?l=product_detail&p=568]<br />
<br />
<br />
===On Commons Economics===<br />
<br />
# Enrico Grazzini. The Good of Everyone. The [[Sharing Economy as a Way Out of the Crisis]] (Editori Internazionali Riuniti, 2011)<br />
# Plenitude: The [[New Economics of True Wealth]] Juliet B. Schor<br />
#Wolfgang Hoeschele. The [[Economics of Abundance[[: A Political Economy of Freedom, Equity, and Sustainability. Gower Publishing, 2010<br />
#[[Sustaining the Commons]]. By John M. Anderies and Marco A. Janssen. Center for the Study of Institutional Diversity, 2013.[http://sustainingthecommons.asu.edu/]: " a lucid, logically presented introduction to the key concepts of Ostrom’s research"<br />
<br />
==Key Conferences==<br />
<br />
* [[Making Worlds OWS Forum on the Commons]] to be organized in NYC, February 16-18, 2012<br />
<br />
* [[European Charter of the Commons Campaign]]. Second Meeting planned in Rome for Feb 11th <br />
<br />
* 17th General Meeting of the [[Common(s) Core of European Private Law 2011]], [http://www.common-core.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=96&Itemid=99]: In the wake of urgent global challenges to both the European Union and the global system, here we are particularly interested in opening the Common Core Project as a platform for '''exploring the extent to which the comparative law model offers space for understanding and advancing the ‘Commons’.'''<br />
<br />
==Key Essays==<br />
<br />
<br />
Introductory article:<br />
<br />
* [http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327225.700-triumph-of-the-commons-helping-the-world-to-share.html? Four conditions for successful commons]. by Mark van Vugt: "I have identified four key conditions for the successful management of shared environmental resources: information, identity, institutions and incentives. I believe we can and should use this 4i framework as the basis for a plan of action to combat local and global environmental catastrophe."<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Major essays:<br />
<br />
<br />
#Christian Siefkes (2009), [http://www.commoner.org.uk/?p=78 The Commons of the Future]. Building Blocks for a Commons-based Society. <br />
#'''The [[Circulation of the Common]] = Analytical concept proposed by Nick Dyer-Witheford related to the reproduction of the commons [http://www.geocities.com/immateriallabour/withefordpaper2006.html]<br />
#[[Information as a Common-Pool Resource]]. Charlotte Hess and Elinor Ostrom. 66 Law & Contemp. Probs. 111, Winter-Spring 2003. [http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?66+Law+&+Contemp.+Probs.+111+%28WinterSpring+2003%29]: a paper contextualizing knowledge commons and the study of other commons<br />
#[[Global Commons and Common Sense]]. Jorge Buzaglo. real-world economics review, issue no. 51 [http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue51/Buzaglo51.pdf] : policy proposals for a global governance of planetary commons<br />
#The [[Common in Commonism]]. Michael Hardt looks at what Marx had to say about the common. [http://seminaire.samizdat.net/IMG/pdf/Microsoft_Word_-_Michael_Hardt.pdf] <br />
#A typology for managing common resources: [[Wolfgang Hoeschele on Contributory Resource Use]]<br />
# The Five Commons - ( http://forwardfound.org/blog/?q=five-commons ) a “minimally necessary” set of practices to achieve a sustainable society. <br />
<br />
Also:<br />
<br />
#Philippe Aigrain: The [[Reinvention of the Commons in the Information Age]] (french)<br />
<br />
<br />
Manifesto's:<br />
<br />
#[http://commonsblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/17/commons-manifesto-strenghten-the-commons-now/ Strengthen the Commons Now!]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Special Authors: <br />
<br />
* [[James Quilligan]]<br />
<br />
# [http://www.kosmosjournal.org/kjo2/bm~doc/people-sharing-resources.pdf People Sharing Resources]. [[Toward a New Multilateralism of the Global Commons]]. James Bernard Quilligan Kosmos Journal, Fall | Winter 2009: this article frames what a global commons-based policy and governance structure should be.<br />
# James Quilligan: [[Toward a Commons-based Framework for Global Negotiations]]<br />
<br />
<br />
Special Topics:<br />
<br />
#[[Aesthetic Commons and the Enclosures of Instituting Autonomies]]. By Jordi Claramonte. [http://jordiclaramonte.blogspot.com/2009/10/aesthetic-commons.html]<br />
#Denis Postle: [[Psychological Commons, Peer to Peer Networks and Post-Professional Psychopractice]]<br />
<br />
<br />
==Key Events==<br />
<br />
<br />
* '''International Commons Conference, “[[Constructing a Commons-Based Policy Platform]]''',” Berlin, Germany, on November 1 and 2, 2010. Working document: [[Berlin Commons Conference]]<br />
<br />
* [[World Commons Day]], October 15, 2010.<br />
<br />
<br />
==Key Facts and Figures==<br />
<br />
'''1'''.<br />
<br />
"It is estimated that at least 66% of the total population of sub-Saharan Africa, or 552 million people, live in rural areas, and this will rise to 650 million people by 2025. If it is assumed that 90% are customary rather than statutory land holders, then currently there are some 500 million people in the customary sector in sub-Saharan Africa. With exceptions, most of these people have been affected by negative legal and policy treatment of customary land rights, especially as it relates to common resources. As a common resource, the fate of the commons is a concern of the majority"<br />
(http://www.landcoalition.org/sites/default/files/publication/901/WILY_Commons_web_11.03.11.pdf)<br />
<br />
<br />
'''2. LIZ ALDEN WILY on [[Community-Based Land Governance Systems]]:'''<br />
<br />
"Globally, between two and three billion people acquire and uphold rights through these regimes. Over half the world’s land mass is subject to such norms. Formal recognition has soared in recent decades, but still covering only one fifth of community lands [http://www.rightsandresources.org/publications/whoownstheland/]. These operate in all regions. One million villages in China and another one million in India govern both farms and common properties. Vast tracts of Latin America have been transferred to communities, most to those who define themselves as Indigenous Peoples. Seventy four per cent of the landmass of Australia, 40 per cent of Canada, significant proportions of forests in Eastern Europe, Sweden, Italy and Switzerland are also legally community property. Cast your eye over national level data at http://www.landmarkmap.org to see multiple other examples."<br />
(http://www.the-star.co.ke/news/2015/12/12/community-lands-less-about-saving-the-past-than-securing-the-future_c1258352)<br />
<br />
==Key Organizations==<br />
<br />
#[http://www.onthecommons.org/ On The Commons]]<br />
#[[Francophone Network for the Commons]]<br />
<br />
==Key Podcasts==<br />
<br />
* The [[Commons Podcast Series]]: podcasts accompagnying the syllabus by David Bollier, "The Rise of the Commons," <br />
<br />
#[[Property, Commons, and The Gift Economy]]: provides an overview of the philsophy behind private property rights, the fallacies of the "tragedy of the commons," and the moral and social dynamics of gift-exchange within communities. [http://bollier.org/audio/download/138/WK3-Bollier.mp3 download]<br />
#[[History of Commons and Enclosure]]: A review of medieval commons, Peter Linebaugh's history of Magna Carta, and Karl Polanyi's The Great Transformation.[http://bollier.org/audio/download/139/WK4-Bollier.mp3 download]<br />
#[[Dynamics of Modern Enclosure and Governing the Commons]]: A survey of modern enclosures as described by Bollier in Silent Theft; the human implicatiions of making resources alienable for market use; and an introduction to Elinor Ostrom's Governing the Commons. [http://bollier.org/audio/download/145/WK5-Bollier.mp3 download]<br />
#[[Land as a Commons and Water as a Commons]]: A look at property rights as applied to land and water, and how certain commons-based approaches such as New Mexican acequias avoid the adverse consequences of market enclosure. Readings by Eric Freyfogle, Maude Barlow, Adam Davidson-Harden and Jose A. Rivera. [http://bollier.org/audio/download/146/WK6-Bollier.mp3_.mp3 download]<br />
#[[Atmosphere and Commons Trusts]]: Peter Barnes has been a pioneering thinker about how stakeholder trusts might be used to manage the atmosphere more equitably and effectively. Readings from Barnes' Who Owns the Sky? and Capitalism 3.0: A Guide to Reclaiming the Commons. [http://bollier.org/audio/download/147/WK7-Bollier.mp3 download]<br />
#[[Second Enclosure Movement, Copyright, Trademarks and Patents]]: The copyright wars against the public domain and fair use have been raging for more than 20 years now. A review of its harm to culture and its general dynamics. Readings by William Patry, David Bollier, and James Beesen/Michael J. Meurer [http://bollier.org/audio/download/148/WK8-Bollier.mp3 download]<br />
#[[Internet as a Super-Commons]]: The end-to-end principles of the Internet and its shared protocols constitute a vital infrastructure for creating countless online commons. This lecture gives a brief overview of this history, with readings by Lawrence Lessig, Richard Stallman, Eben Moglen, David Bollier, Elinor Ostrom and Charlotte Hess. [http://bollier.org/audio/download/149/W09-Bollier.mp3 download]<br />
#[[New Genres of Collaborative Creativity and the Economics of Online Sharing]]: The Internet infrastructure, the GPL for software and the Creative Commons licenses have enabled the rise of rich new genres of collaborative creativity, from shared archives and wikis to remix music and the blogosphere. This lecture looks at the "Great Value Shift" catalyzed by distributed media, with readings by Yochai Benkler, Michel Bauwens, David Bollier. [http://bollier.org/audio/download/150/W10-Bollier.mp3 download]<br />
#[[Academia as a Commons]]: One of the more troubling market enclosures of the past generation is the croporate colonization of academia and its research. We review Jennifer Washburn's University Inc., and selected chapters from Bollier's Silent Theft and Viral Spiral. [http://bollier.org/audio/download/151/W11-Bollier.mp3 download]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Key Policy Proposals==<br />
<br />
* [[Securing the Commons]]. By Ruth Meinzen-Dick, Esther Mwangi, and Stephan Dohrn. CAPRi Policy Brief 4. [http://www.capri.cgiar.org/pdf/polbrief_04.pdf]<br />
* [[Developing the Meta Services for the Eco-Social Economy]]: on developing a framework for an eco-social economy - includings its arrangements to manage natural commons. Text proposed by Feasta, Ireland. By Brian Davey with the assistance of John Jopling.<br />
<br />
<br />
===Proposal for a Food Commons Policy, by [[Jose Luis Vivero Pol]]===<br />
<br />
* For a [[Tri-Centric Governance Model for the Food Commons]]<br />
* [[Food as a Commons]]: for a [[Food Commons Transition]] through [[Universal Food Coverage]]<br />
* Towards a [[Commons-Based International Food Treaty]]<br />
* [[Why Food Should be a Commons not a Commodity]]<br />
<br />
==Key Research==<br />
<br />
* Marco Giustini recommends: If you're interested in researching about ancient commons' organizations, look for terms "comuna", "comunanza agraria" and "partecipanza agraria" in Italy. Really very interesting field of research! http://www.usicivici.unitn.it/<br />
<br />
==Key Schools with commons-orientation==<br />
<br />
<br />
* [[School of Commoning]] - UK<br />
* [[University of the Commons]] - USA Bay Area<br />
* [[School of the Commons - Catalonia]]<br />
<br />
==Key Videos==<br />
<br />
<br />
* Documentary: The [[Promise of the Commons]]. By JOHN D. LIU & PATRICK AUGENSTEIN. [https://youtu.be/AFnNy0WkWbE]: "questions the orthodox opinion that only private ownership can protect the ecosystems. It discusses the thoughts and rights of people around the world and shows how landless people are protecting the common heritage." [http://commonstransition.org/the-promise-of-the-commons/]<br />
<br />
<br />
* The beautiful [http://www.common-sense.info/#video Common Sense] video documentary about the history and present of rural, urban and digital commons<br />
<br />
'''Introductions:'''<br />
<br />
#The [[Commons Video]] replaces the [[Story of Stuff]] with '''the Story of Sharing!''' [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otmrkhEFSZM&feature=player_embedded]<br />
#[[What are the Commons]], "does a good job of defining the commons and explaining why they're essential, whether digital or physical". [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7jaSjkd0jM&feature=player_embedded]<br />
#The [[Remix the Commons Video Series]] [http://remixthecommons.org/]<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Lectures:'''<br />
<br />
* [[David Bollier on the Commons]]<br />
<br />
#[[Anthony McCann on the Enclosure of the Information Commons]]<br />
#[[Brewster Kahle on Universal Access to All Knowledge]]<br />
#[[Business Models for the Commons]]<br />
#[[Emer O'Siochru on Reclaiming the Commons]]<br />
#[[Eben Moglen on the Commons as an Actor in Transforming the Global Political Economy]]<br />
<br />
<br />
All videos of the 2010 [[Berlin Commons Conference]] are presented via this consolidated link at http://www.boell.de/economysocial/economy/economy-commons-10451.html<br />
<br />
#[[Roberto Verzola and Stefan Meretz on the Generative Logic of the Commons]]<br />
#[[Multilateralism 2.0]];<br />
#[[Philippe Aigrain on the Commons as a Challenge for Classic Economic Patterns]]<br />
#[[Michel Bauwens: an Overview of the Commons as Transformation Paradigm]];<br />
#[[Ruth Meinzen-Dick: an Overview of the Commons as Transformation Paradigm]]<br />
<br />
=Commons Encyclopedia=<br />
<br />
[[Category:P2P Paradigms]]</div>Vasilis.niaroshttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=File:Commons_Framework_copy.jpg&diff=109475File:Commons Framework copy.jpg2017-08-25T09:40:15Z<p>Vasilis.niaros: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Vasilis.niaroshttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=DGML&diff=109427DGML2017-08-22T13:48:42Z<p>Vasilis.niaros: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
'''= "DGML describes the processes through which design is developed, shared and improved as a global digital commons, whereas the actual manufacturing takes place locally through shared infrastructures with local biophysical conditions in mind".'''<br />
<br />
Also used: DG-ML, [[Design Global, Manufacture Local]], [[Cosmo-Localization]]<br />
<br />
=Description=<br />
<br />
Chris Giotitsas and Jose Ramos:<br />
<br />
"The basic features of DG-ML are based on the conjunction of open source / open design production logics at the global scale, which are coupled with local-network production at a regional scale. Traditionally corporate enterprises have solely owned the intellectual property (IP) they employ in the production of goods. They source the materials for the goods through national or global supply chains. They manufacture those goods using economies of scale in a set number of manufacturing centres, whereupon those finished goods are delivered nationally or globally. DG-ML is an inversion of this production logic. First of all, the IP is open, whether open source or creative commons or copyfair, so it can be used by anyone. Secondly, manufacturing and production can be done independently of the IP, by any community or enterprise around the world that wants to. The democratization of increasingly powerful precision manufacturing technologies, such as 3D printers, laser cutters, CNC routers and automated systems / robots potentiate this. This does not follow the logic of economies of scale (yet), rather it is focused on producing value for a critical reference group (CRG), a community who require such goods. Thirdly, distribution is localized to the CRG, or affiliates of the CRG." (https://www.academia.edu/33661849/A_New_Model_of_Production_for_a_New_Economy)<br />
<br />
=Characteristics=<br />
<br />
Chris Giotitsas and Jose Ramos:<br />
<br />
==Diagonality==<br />
<br />
"the DG-ML process is neither top down nor bottom up. As mentioned, DG-ML is not top down because the CRG is critical in driving design and organisational iterations for mutualised community problem solving. Likewise, DG-ML is not just bottom up, because manufacturing without the aid of a global design commons and expert assistance is a recipe for a harsh survivalist / life boat development approach. This brings to bear the central role of gatherings (conferences and jams), for linking and mixing the local with the global - highlighting the role of the organizer and community building. Overall DG-ML is a co-production between an emerging global design commons, software, hardware, peer to peer platforms for circular economy, machinery and production equipment." <br />
<br />
==Scale==<br />
<br />
"DG-ML connects two scales of community: the global scale, interweaving the commons of design through software platforms, conferences and other modalities that pool de-territorialized resources for common use; and the scale of the local where people pool embodied resources and create localized commons which potentiate livelihoods. At both scales people are peer producing commons. The transformations in web technology and the emergence of Creative Commons and GNU licenses as legitimate formats has meant that it is fashionable to see commoning as digital and platform based. The case studies in this report, however, indicate that the localized process of commoning, revealed through processes similar to participatory action research, are both fundamental to an effective application of DG-ML, and they are co-constitutive of the global scale of commoning - that is to say that the global scale of commoning is not possible without the local/embodied. We can make the proposition that DG-ML co-mingles a very modern conception of commoning, the digital commons made possible by the network form, with an ancient conception of commoning reminiscent of early tribal peoples who depended on reciprocity and gifting systems for their survival."<br />
(https://www.academia.edu/33661849/A_New_Model_of_Production_for_a_New_Economy)<br />
<br />
=Discussion=<br />
<br />
Chris Giotitsas and Jose Ramos:<br />
<br />
"DG-ML is not just the advent of new technologies that can be simply strapped on to the neoliberal globalization machine. DG-ML in fact represents the instantiation and operationalization of a new economic system that draws from an emerging worldview. Drawing from relationships and experiences with people involved in DG-ML, we believe it represents a substantive cultural shift in the orientation of material producers/consumers. It rejects the way in which industrialization has decontextualized inputs and outputs and associated externalities. It is thus allied to the vision for building circular economies, the idea being that the production materials used in a DG-ML process are sourced as locally as possible, with waste outputs utilized as inputs elsewhere, eliminating unnecessary supply chain associated costs and impacts. It is also connected to calls for a post-growth economic model, sustaining livelihoods based on measures of wellbeing rather than corporate / economic growth. It is interwoven with the open source movement, a vision for a digital commons where the legacy of human creativity is shareable. It draws from a planetary imaginary where local development work is responsive to the planetary challenges we face. It is in fact part of a movement to create an alternative globalization, and an expression of an emergent worldview: global ecological integrity versus overshoot, peer worker solidarity versus national competition, value pluralism versus the monoculture of GDP."<br />
(https://www.academia.edu/33661849/A_New_Model_of_Production_for_a_New_Economy)<br />
<br />
=Visualization=<br />
<br />
==Comparison of Traditional vs [[DGML]]-based peer production==<br />
<br />
(CRG refers to: critical reference group)<br />
<br />
[[File:DGML - Giotitsas & Ramos.png]]<br />
<br />
=Examples=<br />
<br />
==A==<br />
<br />
* [[AbilityMate]], a company that supports people with disabilities to design and manufacture their own prosthetics and assistive devices,<br />
* [[Atelier Paysan]]<br />
<br />
==F==<br />
<br />
* [[FarmHack]]<br />
<br />
==O==<br />
<br />
* [[OSvehicle]], a company that supports the open source manufacture of vehicles.<br />
* [[OpenBionics Hands]]<br />
<br />
==R==<br />
<br />
* [[RepRap]], an open source organization that designs 3D printers designed to replicate themselves,<br />
<br />
==W==<br />
<br />
* [[WikiHouse]], a foundation which supports people to design and build sustainable housing,<br />
<br />
=More Information=<br />
<br />
* see the report: A [[New Model of Production for a New Economy]]. '''[https://www.academia.edu/33661849/A_New_Model_of_Production_for_a_New_Economy Two Cases of Agricultural Communities]'''. By Chris Giotitsas and Jose Ramos. New Economics Foundation, 2017<br />
<br />
==Bibliography==<br />
<br />
===Futures (2015)===<br />
<br />
The aim is to contribute to the ongoing dialogue on post-capitalist construction by exploring the contours of a commons-oriented productive model. On the basis of this model called “design global, manufacture local”, we argue that recent techno-economic developments around the emergence of commons-based peer production and local manufacturing technologies, may signal new alternative paths of social organization. We conclude by arguing that all commons-oriented narratives could converge, thereby supporting the creative communities which are building the world they want within the confines of the political economy they aspire to transcend.<br />
<br />
*Article: Design global, manufacture local: Exploring the contours of an emerging productive model. By Vasilis Kostakis, Vasilis Niaros, George Dafermos, Michel Bauwens. Futures, Volume 73, October 2015, Pages 126–135. [http://www.p2plab.gr/en/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Futures.pdf pdf] [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016328715001214 site]<br />
<br />
===Journal of Cleaner Production (2016)===<br />
<br />
The emerging discussion about the sustainability potential of distributed production is the starting point for this paper. The focus is on the “design global, manufacture local” model. This model builds on the conjunction of the digital commons of knowledge and design with desktop and benchtop manufacturing technologies (from three-dimensional printers and laser cutters to low-tech tools and crafts). Two case studies are presented to illustrate three interlocked practices of this model for degrowth. It is argued that a “design global, manufacture local” model, as exemplified by these case studies, seems to arise in a significantly different political economy from that of the conventional industrial model of mass pro- duction. “Design global, manufacture local” may be seen as a platform to bridge digital and knowledge commons with existing physical infrastructures and degrowth communities, in order to achieve distributed modes of collaborative production.<br />
<br />
*Article: The convergence of digital commons with local manufacturing from a degrowth perspective: Two illustrative cases. By Vasilis Kostakis, Kostas Latoufis, Minas Liarokapis, Michel Bauwens. Journal of Cleaner Production. [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652616314184 site] [http://www.p2plab.gr/en/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Journal-of-Cleaner-Production.pdf pdf]<br />
<br />
===Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions (2016)===<br />
<br />
This article explores the socio-environmental implications of two different value models currently competing for dominance in the digital economy: the neo-feudal cognitive capitalism (NFCC) and the hypothetical case of mature peer production (HMPP). Using a systematisation that considers environmental effects of information and communication technologies as direct, indirect and structural, this article discerns the future socio-environmental sce- narios indicative of each value model. We argue that the two value models share the same type of direct environmental effects associated with a similar technological infrastructure; however, their indirect effects differ in prospects of consumer behaviour, environmental awareness and product design. Likewise the difference in structural effects is significant as the NFCC is based on profit maximisation and an accumulation of capital, whereas the HMPP is agnostic to growth and oriented towards the commons. Hence, the latter is considered as the socio-environmentally auspicious choice, but comes not without transitional challenges of its own.<br />
<br />
*Article: Towards a political ecology of the digital economy: Socio-environmental implications of two competing value models. By Vasilis Kostakis, Andreas Roos, Michel Bauwens. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions. [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2210422415300150 site] [http://www.p2plab.gr/en/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Env-Innov-and-Soc-Trans.pdf pdf]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Manufacturing]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Peerproduction]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Encyclopedia]]</div>Vasilis.niaroshttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Rationale_for_a_Distributed_Energy_Transition&diff=108317Rationale for a Distributed Energy Transition2017-07-14T09:30:50Z<p>Vasilis.niaros: /* Grid Reforms that fail to Decentralize Power */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
'''* Article: A Toolkit for Community Shared Power. By CooperativeCulture (Ashley).'''<br />
<br />
URL = https://medium.com/@AshTayTweets/a-toolkit-for-community-shared-power-fef154347560<br />
<br />
A great and simple explanation of why we need distributed energy, with useful overview tables and some examples.<br />
<br />
<br />
=Text=<br />
<br />
By CooperativeCulture:<br />
<br />
"The centralized energy grid of today is moving towards a more decentralized architecture that distributes decision making to the grid edge, both technically and democratically.<br />
<br />
In the current system, physical power is centralized in power plants where energy is produced far away from where it is consumed. Economic power is centralized in the hands of too few investors and grid operators who decide what kind of power is produced and the cost of it. For specific examples and case studies that explain these problems, see the grids at the end.<br />
<br />
<br />
When we extrapolate into the future, a changing climate, increasing global population, and new distributed technologies like solar panels, battery storage, and demand response, all contribute to the necessity and possibility to redesign our power infrastructure and how we collectively determine the value of energy. There are many people working on projects that are implementing parts of the vision. However, there is a need to develop a more organized path for people, communities, businesses, and civil society to accelerate the process of shifting to a more sustainable system of producing and using energy.<br />
The U.S.’s decision to leave the Paris Climate Agreement is a sign that we the people cannot depend upon federal government regulation to be the driver. Likely we should also not depend upon regulatory structures in general to be the primary force, as it will be subject to the political quagmire generated from the U.S. withdrawal.<br />
<br />
We also cannot depend solely on industry to be the driver. On the surface it appears that oil and gas companies are now mobilizing around their solution to climate change. Exxon Mobile (the largest energy company in the world) and others are supporting a tax on carbon emitting fuel sources of $40-$80 per ton in exchange for lifting all government regulation on climate change. The money is then distributed to taxpayers as a carbon dividend at an average of $2k/year for a family.<br />
<br />
But the problem with such solution is that it fails to decentralize the decision making power of the energy source equation. There is still too few companies that will be the deciders of what energy sources get funded and built into the future infrastructure, and there will be no public regulation that can serve as a safeguard for their decisions that might conflict with the goals of mitigating climate change especially for the most vulnerable populations.<br />
<br />
Unless these companies shift their business models and corporate formations they will be responsible to shareholder value first before addressing the needs to transition the energy grid. They could end up funding an all renewable island that only the most wealthy can afford to live in and leave the rest of humanity to divvy up the last remaining coal plants. As Elon Musk says with the developments of SpaceX “a trip to Mars will soon cost you only $250k, and that’s little enough that anyone can save that much if they tried really hard.” Perhaps the carbon dividends could be saved up as a ticket to mars for the one lucky family member who draws a straw after waiting 125 years.<br />
Without distributing the economic ownership of the grid itself, then we will continue to encounter the same problems that come from designing for profit first rather than reforming the grid to meet the impending climate affair. We have seen thus far shareholder value tends to optimize for the needs of a small class of society and not for the planet’s global future. Continuing to adopt this business model then is deeply problematic if we are trying to build an infrastructure to mitigate against the mishaps of climate change and actually have a shot at creating a future built upon sharing, inclusion, and above all sustainability.<br />
<br />
Rather than wait for an unlikely trickle down solution, we can mobilize around a better approach, which is distributing ownership, economic participation, and governance of the grid to the users of energy as much as the operators and investors of the grid system. By distributing the stakeholders in our power system, we can achieve a future that is more sustainable, more resilient, more productive, and ultimately more valuable.<br />
Over the next few weeks we will be releasing a path forward based upon what what we have learned in Brooklyn as a toolkit for other communities to adapt and implement their own version. We hope this can become part of a global knowledge and best practice sharing network of how we can reach sustainability quickly by reshaping the grid.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''What is Working?'''<br />
<br />
There are case studies of today that decentralize control — however they do not develop easy to implement replicable models with templates and toolkits. In Fukushima in the aftermath of the nuclear disaster, there is a company called Aizu power, which is “is a corporation run as a cooperative, with buy-in from local municipalities. Its goal is to empower locals to control their power generation options and gain income from Fukushima’s vast renewable energy resources. In nearby Tsuchiyu Onsen Village — the same village that saw tourist numbers drop to zero after the quake — a new, community-owned, geothermal plant is now providing energy to residents and others through the grid. …. With more than 40 villagers having invested in the project, making them all part owners. All the plants’ revenues return to the village, providing a new source of income. It has also become a tourist attraction due to its unique visible binary design.” — Originally Reported in Shareable.<br />
<br />
There are also local examples of taking back control of the energy grid — <br />
<br />
I attended a DC Solar Congress on behalf of Brooklyn Microgrid and learned about an energy cooperative there. These local models can eventually comprise a resource sharing network to accelerate the process for communities to implement their own versions that fit their local needs.<br />
<br />
What we need, then, is a way for people to systematically engage with the process and build a movement for their local shift. I hope to hear about more examples and meet with activists that can work together on making the toolkit more robust."<br />
(https://medium.com/@AshTayTweets/a-toolkit-for-community-shared-power-fef154347560)<br />
<br />
<br />
=Visualization=<br />
<br />
Graphs via [https://medium.com/@AshTayTweets/a-toolkit-for-community-shared-power-fef154347560]:<br />
<br />
==Current Problems from Power Grid Centralization==<br />
[[File:Power grid centralization.png]]<br />
<br />
==Current Problems from a Centralized Energy Economy==<br />
<br />
[[File:Centralized energy economy.png]]<br />
<br />
==Grid Reforms that fail to Decentralize Power==<br />
<br />
[[File:Grid reforms.png]]<br />
<br />
=More Information=<br />
<br />
* author contact: Feel free to email me at ataylor@brooklynmicrogrid.com with suggestions</div>Vasilis.niaroshttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=File:Grid_reforms.png&diff=108316File:Grid reforms.png2017-07-14T09:30:23Z<p>Vasilis.niaros: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Vasilis.niaroshttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Rationale_for_a_Distributed_Energy_Transition&diff=108315Rationale for a Distributed Energy Transition2017-07-14T09:29:23Z<p>Vasilis.niaros: /* Current Problems from a Centralized Energy Economy */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
'''* Article: A Toolkit for Community Shared Power. By CooperativeCulture (Ashley).'''<br />
<br />
URL = https://medium.com/@AshTayTweets/a-toolkit-for-community-shared-power-fef154347560<br />
<br />
A great and simple explanation of why we need distributed energy, with useful overview tables and some examples.<br />
<br />
<br />
=Text=<br />
<br />
By CooperativeCulture:<br />
<br />
"The centralized energy grid of today is moving towards a more decentralized architecture that distributes decision making to the grid edge, both technically and democratically.<br />
<br />
In the current system, physical power is centralized in power plants where energy is produced far away from where it is consumed. Economic power is centralized in the hands of too few investors and grid operators who decide what kind of power is produced and the cost of it. For specific examples and case studies that explain these problems, see the grids at the end.<br />
<br />
<br />
When we extrapolate into the future, a changing climate, increasing global population, and new distributed technologies like solar panels, battery storage, and demand response, all contribute to the necessity and possibility to redesign our power infrastructure and how we collectively determine the value of energy. There are many people working on projects that are implementing parts of the vision. However, there is a need to develop a more organized path for people, communities, businesses, and civil society to accelerate the process of shifting to a more sustainable system of producing and using energy.<br />
The U.S.’s decision to leave the Paris Climate Agreement is a sign that we the people cannot depend upon federal government regulation to be the driver. Likely we should also not depend upon regulatory structures in general to be the primary force, as it will be subject to the political quagmire generated from the U.S. withdrawal.<br />
<br />
We also cannot depend solely on industry to be the driver. On the surface it appears that oil and gas companies are now mobilizing around their solution to climate change. Exxon Mobile (the largest energy company in the world) and others are supporting a tax on carbon emitting fuel sources of $40-$80 per ton in exchange for lifting all government regulation on climate change. The money is then distributed to taxpayers as a carbon dividend at an average of $2k/year for a family.<br />
<br />
But the problem with such solution is that it fails to decentralize the decision making power of the energy source equation. There is still too few companies that will be the deciders of what energy sources get funded and built into the future infrastructure, and there will be no public regulation that can serve as a safeguard for their decisions that might conflict with the goals of mitigating climate change especially for the most vulnerable populations.<br />
<br />
Unless these companies shift their business models and corporate formations they will be responsible to shareholder value first before addressing the needs to transition the energy grid. They could end up funding an all renewable island that only the most wealthy can afford to live in and leave the rest of humanity to divvy up the last remaining coal plants. As Elon Musk says with the developments of SpaceX “a trip to Mars will soon cost you only $250k, and that’s little enough that anyone can save that much if they tried really hard.” Perhaps the carbon dividends could be saved up as a ticket to mars for the one lucky family member who draws a straw after waiting 125 years.<br />
Without distributing the economic ownership of the grid itself, then we will continue to encounter the same problems that come from designing for profit first rather than reforming the grid to meet the impending climate affair. We have seen thus far shareholder value tends to optimize for the needs of a small class of society and not for the planet’s global future. Continuing to adopt this business model then is deeply problematic if we are trying to build an infrastructure to mitigate against the mishaps of climate change and actually have a shot at creating a future built upon sharing, inclusion, and above all sustainability.<br />
<br />
Rather than wait for an unlikely trickle down solution, we can mobilize around a better approach, which is distributing ownership, economic participation, and governance of the grid to the users of energy as much as the operators and investors of the grid system. By distributing the stakeholders in our power system, we can achieve a future that is more sustainable, more resilient, more productive, and ultimately more valuable.<br />
Over the next few weeks we will be releasing a path forward based upon what what we have learned in Brooklyn as a toolkit for other communities to adapt and implement their own version. We hope this can become part of a global knowledge and best practice sharing network of how we can reach sustainability quickly by reshaping the grid.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''What is Working?'''<br />
<br />
There are case studies of today that decentralize control — however they do not develop easy to implement replicable models with templates and toolkits. In Fukushima in the aftermath of the nuclear disaster, there is a company called Aizu power, which is “is a corporation run as a cooperative, with buy-in from local municipalities. Its goal is to empower locals to control their power generation options and gain income from Fukushima’s vast renewable energy resources. In nearby Tsuchiyu Onsen Village — the same village that saw tourist numbers drop to zero after the quake — a new, community-owned, geothermal plant is now providing energy to residents and others through the grid. …. With more than 40 villagers having invested in the project, making them all part owners. All the plants’ revenues return to the village, providing a new source of income. It has also become a tourist attraction due to its unique visible binary design.” — Originally Reported in Shareable.<br />
<br />
There are also local examples of taking back control of the energy grid — <br />
<br />
I attended a DC Solar Congress on behalf of Brooklyn Microgrid and learned about an energy cooperative there. These local models can eventually comprise a resource sharing network to accelerate the process for communities to implement their own versions that fit their local needs.<br />
<br />
What we need, then, is a way for people to systematically engage with the process and build a movement for their local shift. I hope to hear about more examples and meet with activists that can work together on making the toolkit more robust."<br />
(https://medium.com/@AshTayTweets/a-toolkit-for-community-shared-power-fef154347560)<br />
<br />
<br />
=Visualization=<br />
<br />
Graphs via [https://medium.com/@AshTayTweets/a-toolkit-for-community-shared-power-fef154347560]:<br />
<br />
==Current Problems from Power Grid Centralization==<br />
[[File:Power grid centralization.png]]<br />
<br />
==Current Problems from a Centralized Energy Economy==<br />
<br />
[[File:Centralized energy economy.png]]<br />
<br />
==Grid Reforms that fail to Decentralize Power==<br />
<br />
<br />
=More Information=<br />
<br />
* author contact: Feel free to email me at ataylor@brooklynmicrogrid.com with suggestions</div>Vasilis.niaroshttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=File:Centralized_energy_economy.png&diff=108313File:Centralized energy economy.png2017-07-14T09:28:19Z<p>Vasilis.niaros: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Vasilis.niaroshttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Rationale_for_a_Distributed_Energy_Transition&diff=108312Rationale for a Distributed Energy Transition2017-07-14T09:27:55Z<p>Vasilis.niaros: /* Current Problems from Power Grid Centralization */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
'''* Article: A Toolkit for Community Shared Power. By CooperativeCulture (Ashley).'''<br />
<br />
URL = https://medium.com/@AshTayTweets/a-toolkit-for-community-shared-power-fef154347560<br />
<br />
A great and simple explanation of why we need distributed energy, with useful overview tables and some examples.<br />
<br />
<br />
=Text=<br />
<br />
By CooperativeCulture:<br />
<br />
"The centralized energy grid of today is moving towards a more decentralized architecture that distributes decision making to the grid edge, both technically and democratically.<br />
<br />
In the current system, physical power is centralized in power plants where energy is produced far away from where it is consumed. Economic power is centralized in the hands of too few investors and grid operators who decide what kind of power is produced and the cost of it. For specific examples and case studies that explain these problems, see the grids at the end.<br />
<br />
<br />
When we extrapolate into the future, a changing climate, increasing global population, and new distributed technologies like solar panels, battery storage, and demand response, all contribute to the necessity and possibility to redesign our power infrastructure and how we collectively determine the value of energy. There are many people working on projects that are implementing parts of the vision. However, there is a need to develop a more organized path for people, communities, businesses, and civil society to accelerate the process of shifting to a more sustainable system of producing and using energy.<br />
The U.S.’s decision to leave the Paris Climate Agreement is a sign that we the people cannot depend upon federal government regulation to be the driver. Likely we should also not depend upon regulatory structures in general to be the primary force, as it will be subject to the political quagmire generated from the U.S. withdrawal.<br />
<br />
We also cannot depend solely on industry to be the driver. On the surface it appears that oil and gas companies are now mobilizing around their solution to climate change. Exxon Mobile (the largest energy company in the world) and others are supporting a tax on carbon emitting fuel sources of $40-$80 per ton in exchange for lifting all government regulation on climate change. The money is then distributed to taxpayers as a carbon dividend at an average of $2k/year for a family.<br />
<br />
But the problem with such solution is that it fails to decentralize the decision making power of the energy source equation. There is still too few companies that will be the deciders of what energy sources get funded and built into the future infrastructure, and there will be no public regulation that can serve as a safeguard for their decisions that might conflict with the goals of mitigating climate change especially for the most vulnerable populations.<br />
<br />
Unless these companies shift their business models and corporate formations they will be responsible to shareholder value first before addressing the needs to transition the energy grid. They could end up funding an all renewable island that only the most wealthy can afford to live in and leave the rest of humanity to divvy up the last remaining coal plants. As Elon Musk says with the developments of SpaceX “a trip to Mars will soon cost you only $250k, and that’s little enough that anyone can save that much if they tried really hard.” Perhaps the carbon dividends could be saved up as a ticket to mars for the one lucky family member who draws a straw after waiting 125 years.<br />
Without distributing the economic ownership of the grid itself, then we will continue to encounter the same problems that come from designing for profit first rather than reforming the grid to meet the impending climate affair. We have seen thus far shareholder value tends to optimize for the needs of a small class of society and not for the planet’s global future. Continuing to adopt this business model then is deeply problematic if we are trying to build an infrastructure to mitigate against the mishaps of climate change and actually have a shot at creating a future built upon sharing, inclusion, and above all sustainability.<br />
<br />
Rather than wait for an unlikely trickle down solution, we can mobilize around a better approach, which is distributing ownership, economic participation, and governance of the grid to the users of energy as much as the operators and investors of the grid system. By distributing the stakeholders in our power system, we can achieve a future that is more sustainable, more resilient, more productive, and ultimately more valuable.<br />
Over the next few weeks we will be releasing a path forward based upon what what we have learned in Brooklyn as a toolkit for other communities to adapt and implement their own version. We hope this can become part of a global knowledge and best practice sharing network of how we can reach sustainability quickly by reshaping the grid.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''What is Working?'''<br />
<br />
There are case studies of today that decentralize control — however they do not develop easy to implement replicable models with templates and toolkits. In Fukushima in the aftermath of the nuclear disaster, there is a company called Aizu power, which is “is a corporation run as a cooperative, with buy-in from local municipalities. Its goal is to empower locals to control their power generation options and gain income from Fukushima’s vast renewable energy resources. In nearby Tsuchiyu Onsen Village — the same village that saw tourist numbers drop to zero after the quake — a new, community-owned, geothermal plant is now providing energy to residents and others through the grid. …. With more than 40 villagers having invested in the project, making them all part owners. All the plants’ revenues return to the village, providing a new source of income. It has also become a tourist attraction due to its unique visible binary design.” — Originally Reported in Shareable.<br />
<br />
There are also local examples of taking back control of the energy grid — <br />
<br />
I attended a DC Solar Congress on behalf of Brooklyn Microgrid and learned about an energy cooperative there. These local models can eventually comprise a resource sharing network to accelerate the process for communities to implement their own versions that fit their local needs.<br />
<br />
What we need, then, is a way for people to systematically engage with the process and build a movement for their local shift. I hope to hear about more examples and meet with activists that can work together on making the toolkit more robust."<br />
(https://medium.com/@AshTayTweets/a-toolkit-for-community-shared-power-fef154347560)<br />
<br />
<br />
=Visualization=<br />
<br />
Graphs via [https://medium.com/@AshTayTweets/a-toolkit-for-community-shared-power-fef154347560]:<br />
<br />
==Current Problems from Power Grid Centralization==<br />
[[File:Power grid centralization.png]]<br />
<br />
==Current Problems from a Centralized Energy Economy==<br />
<br />
<br />
==Grid Reforms that fail to Decentralize Power==<br />
<br />
<br />
=More Information=<br />
<br />
* author contact: Feel free to email me at ataylor@brooklynmicrogrid.com with suggestions</div>Vasilis.niaroshttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=File:Power_grid_centralization.png&diff=108311File:Power grid centralization.png2017-07-14T09:27:38Z<p>Vasilis.niaros: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Vasilis.niaroshttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Faircoin&diff=108205Faircoin2017-07-10T07:15:07Z<p>Vasilis.niaros: /* Visualisation */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''= cryptocurrency for use in the [[Faircoop]] eco-system, initiated by the [[Catalan Integral Cooperative]]'''<br />
<br />
URL = http://fair-coin.org<br />
<br />
= Description=<br />
<br />
"Faircoin is the cryptocurrency we have chosen to monetarily support our economic system. In addition to the advantages discussed in other sections, it’s a cryptocurrency with features that make it suitable for saving money at a very low ecological cost, because the energy expenditure needed for mining is not necessary. Faircoin was previously created; 50 million were distributed at first and since then, a small percentage have grown through savings. Faircoin is traded in currency markets just as any other cryptocurrency or State currency. Foreign exchange markets exchanging cryptocurrencies (alone or with State currencies) have been expanding rapidly in the past two years. The evolution of the foreign exchange markets has always had an impact on the purchasing power of citizens of the world, with serious consequences such as impoverishment, cheap labour and the exploitation of natural resources. The reason for this was not only the imbalance of trade but also speculative movements that tend to benefit the rich. Knowing this, our plan here is to restore the greatest level of global economic justice that we can, by using something that has usually played against the global south: market forces (supply – demand). In short, as we say at FairCoop, the point is to hack the foreign exchange market by inserting the cooperation virus as a tool for global economic justice. To this end, in this first phase, we will promote the market’s demand for Faircoin through cooperative actions, and at the same time, we will encourage the reduction of the amount that is for sale. There will be no “buying for the sake of it”, which would not be sustainable or coherent. Instead, we want to promote Faircoin as an option for ethical savings, facilitated by multiple services making it a useful tool for initiatives working toward the economic empowerment of active subjects of social change."<br />
(https://fair.coop/building-a-new-economy/)<br />
<br />
<br />
=Details=<br />
<br />
By Lucia El Asri 04/05/2015, on Hojaderouter.com:<br />
<br />
"Enric Duran is working with a new electronic currency that seeks to contribute to the creation of a cooperative global ecosystem able to compete with capitalism. The currency is based on values of cooperation, solidarity and equality, and puts aside the individualism that, according to the activist, defines Bitcoin.<br />
<br />
Faircoin was created in early March 2014 by an anonymous developer who then left without a trace. 50 million coins were created and then distributed between the 6th and 8th of that month, at a rate of 1,000 units per hour; given as gifts to whoever signed up to receive them. It became the first virtual currency that did not initially have to be mined, and that was shared equitably in order to promote equality between participants.<br />
<br />
The currency was orphaned until last summer. Between April and May, Enric Duran, the famous Catalan Robin Hood, rescued it with the help of Thomas König, a software developer with over twenty years of experience.<br />
<br />
Faircoin is a cryptocurrency whose name refers to economic justice and fair trade, and that corresponds to the values that Duran has always advocated. An activist who went public after defrauding the banks between 2006 and 2008 for around 492,000 euros in loans. He claimed that he wanted to refurbish his apartment or buy a car, had payroll and other false documents and even created shell companies to support his scam.<br />
<br />
His intention was always to allocate that money to fund social movements in order to teach a lesson to the financial system and demonstrate its weakness. So he became known as ‘Robin Hood of the Banks‘, who swindled the rich to give to the ‘poor’. His activities have led him via prison to spending a long time in hiding. He retains the hope of being completely free, although he admits that the there is still a long way to go for that to happen. Despite the obstacles and being a wanted man, he continues his long struggle: to build alternatives to the financial system, this time using Faircoin.<br />
<br />
König became responsible for controlling the technical aspects of the cryptocurrency, working to ensure its security and adapting it to better suit Duran’s vision. “When nobody paid attention to it and it had no value, I and others dedicated ourselves to buying the faircoins,” says the Catalan to HojaDeRouter.com. When they had acquired a significant quantity of Faircoin, they launched the project publicly.<br />
<br />
And so Faircoin became the official currency of FairCoop, an open cooperative, global, born in mid-September 2014 “as a cooperative of cooperatives and other social and collaborative initiatives.” Now the number of coins exceeds 50 million, each valued around 0.0184 euros ($ 0.0201), with about 10,000 users and a market capitalization exceeding 950,000 euros (just over one million dollars). Since the beginning of 2015 you can buy faircoins by card or purchase by bank transfer and exchange them for cash at 10,000 ATMs in Spain thanks to Getfaircoin services and Fairtoearth.<br />
Together, Faircoin and FairCoop promote a new global system of “post-capitalist economy” based on collaboration and free software. The cryptocurrency has become one of its main pillars, functioning as an exchange currency and a store of value.” Thomas König explains that it promotes solidarity by allowing anyone to transfer value to other people quickly, securely and cheaply, without relying on centralised governmental or financial powers. In addition, “a cryptocoin can be a useful tool to generate a social movement and mutual support networks around it, and to bring the “virus of cooperation” to the money markets, says Enric Duran.<br />
<br />
<br />
HOW DOES FAIRCOIN WORK?<br />
<br />
With Bitcoin, users give up part of their computer resources so that certain tasks can be performed (as control transactions in a decentralized manner). It is part of what is known as “mining” – a process by which the coins get assigned by the algorithm: if you’re a user and you mine, you might get some coin. The more computing resources you devote to mining, the greater the probability of reward.<br />
<br />
With Faircoin, users also utilise their own resources, but in this case the mining is minimal (0.01% of the process). When it does happen, it functions as a task on behalf of the community for which they receive a small direct reward. The goal, in this case, is not users competing for more and more coins, but cooperating. It is a very different philosophy.<br />
In the beginning, the faircoins were shared fairly in order to avoid the situation that only people with capital or resources (large servers) could access the coins. Here what matters is that the coins that already exist and those that will be generated serve the community, so that all users can benefit from them.<br />
<br />
Faircoin operation is based on the savings of all members of the community. The “savers” get more coins when they keep a certain amount of them for a certain time, thus causing the value of those faircoins to increase. It is a voluntary process that promotes solidarity within the network. So in the case of Faircoin it doesn’t make much sense to dedicate large servers to mining, which, according to Duran, greatly reduces the ecological cost which, “in the case of Bitcoin is very high”.<br />
<br />
The activist explains that Faircoin, although inspired by Bitcoin and retaining its essence as a means of payment, differs in its philosophy, or “what’s behind it.” In the case of Faircoin it is a community of people who collaborate and believe in the human being, trust between people and projects, and want to use Faircoin for the common good, to generate a collective vision and to improve society. “But in Bitcoin individualism, personal wellbeing, and individual profit predominate”.<br />
<br />
“As the value of the cryptocurrency grows the greater is our capacity for action to allocate Faircoins to projects related to our values,” said Duran. That will make it possible to bring the “virus of cooperation” to the money market and to reorient the dynamic of personal profit and speculation by collaborative processes that benefit as many people as possible and contribute “to the whole system we are developing.”<br />
<br />
He gives us an example: in the early days of Faircoop, the cooperative received 20% of the money supply of Faircoin (around 10 million FAIR) to help out various projects around the world. These Faircoins were divided into three funds: the fund for the Global South, to help local projects (5 million FAIR) ; a fund for the Commons, designed to create and disseminate tools for the common good (2.5 million); and the fund for Infrastructure and Technology, funded with 1.5 million. Another million was invested in the development of Faircoop itself.<br />
<br />
<br />
THIS IS NOT THE FINAL VERSION<br />
<br />
König explains that he is currently working on a second version of Faircoin that introduces several significant changes. On the one hand cooperation will be more complete and no more reward will be generated; on the other, the privileges that so far the cryptocurrency grants to those most faircoins have by saving will be deleted. “So Faircoin be even more aligned with our values and become a more human cryptocurrency” says Duran.<br />
<br />
Both Duran and König argue that Faircoin, while important in Faircoop, is “nothing more than a tool within a global framework.” Progressively other tools will appear to “complete the monetary and economic ecosystem of Faircoop”, according to Duran. He explains that a just monetary system also needs access to credit that is democratic, that is accessible “to all persons having the capacity to produce”, and that at any given moment can cover people’s basic needs.<br />
<br />
This will be possible in the future with the other decentralized currency called Faircredit, which will be tasked with providing mutual credit. The loans will be interest-free debts that will become a revenue for others, and the sum total of all balances in the system will be zero, so that credit will no longer depend on centralised banks but the common good. The appearance of Faircredit will not lead to the disappearance of Faircoin, but they will be used together as complementary currencies.<br />
<br />
<br />
A NEW ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND FINANCIAL SYSTEM?<br />
<br />
Duran explained that the initiative to create a global ecosystem cooperative does not intend to make capitalism disappear directly, or even imply that capitalism can disappear. “It means that we have a space in which, voluntarily, cooperatives, individuals or groups who wish to participate in it can generate an environment that can be sufficiently autonomous and independent of the current capitalist system.” That is, to live together in order that citizens can choose which of the two want to participate. He is convinced that, ultimately, it will demonstrate that it works much better than the capitalist system.<br />
<br />
And what about those people who do not understand cryptocurrencies? How do you win their trust? Duran knows that making this model accessible to people is a challenge, but the first priority is to “build a strong and robust system” that can then be introduced to those for whom the technology is more distant. For now the work is to encourage social groups to accept donatons in Faircoin, and in May work will begin to encourage businesses, freelancers and cooperatives to use it.<br />
<br />
Duran says that one of the major mistakes of many cryptocurrencies is that they have focused too heavily on “a purely technological level rather than on its social function in the real economy”, something that Faircoin and those who make it possible are trying to change. The results may not be apparent in the short term, but the activist believes that the next six months will be crucial for the consolidation of the project."<br />
(https://fair.coop/faircoin-the-cryptocurrency-of-the-catalan-robin-hood-who-expropriated-from-the-banks-to-give-to-the-poor/)<br />
<br />
<br />
= Characteristics of FairCoin =<br />
<br />
FairCoin is a currency created for the purpose of promoting equality and economic justice. 50,000,000 faircoins were created in March 2014, and between March 6 – 8, were distributed through a massive give-away called an “airdrop” at a rate of 1000FAC/hour to anyone who made a request.<br />
<br />
FairCoin became the first currency which needed no initial mining but was distributed equitably in order to promote equality of financial possibilities. Still, obviously an airdrop on an Internet forum has a very limited scope, and therefore the initial distribution isn’t quite sufficient in its equity purpose.<br />
<br />
Currently, FairCoin has been adopted by fair.coop's promoters as the cooperative’s currency for use as a means towards global economic justice.<br />
<br />
The key purposes of the cooperative regarding FairCoin is using it to generate economic redistribution while it also increases the level of justice, supports the empowerment of grassroots groups, transformation of social and economic relations, and creation of commons (Fairfunds).<br />
<br />
== Technical features of FairCoin ==<br />
<br />
* 99.99% POS: It is a hybrid POW / POS system but money creation is 99.99% POS. Thus, the majority of faircoins are minted, ie, the system works thanks to everyone’s savings.<br />
* As for security, there is a POW block every 5 minutes, and a POS block every 10 minutes. These two methods are combined to provide the best of each in securing the system.<br />
* The low remuneration for mining, 0.001FAC / block, prevents energy waste since using high consumption mining devices is just not worth it.<br />
* Money Supply of 50,000,000 coins mined out in the first block and initially spread out to all who applied for it, so that not only those with capital or mining resources could have access.<br />
* Savers, ie, people connected to the network and minting, will receive 6% of the coins during the first year, 3% the second and 1% from the 3rd year on.<br />
<br />
Some of these features may be changed by consensus on the network in benefit of FairCoin, a topic on which Fair.Coop and its members have a lot to say.<br />
<br />
In fact, since Fair.Coop is based on open political participation, we can say that Fair.Coop adds to FairCoin with an approval based on agreements between humans– which, to our knowledge, no other cryptocurrency does. We call it “human-based consensus”.<br />
<br />
== Buy Faircoins ==<br />
<br />
You can currently buy with bitcoins in some [http://fair-coin.org/#exchanges exchanges]. First, you must sign up with an email and password and send them your bitcoins. You can buy bitcoins in a number of places on the Internet. Here are [http://boingboing.net/2014/06/04/intro-to-bitcoin.html some guidelines on for how to do this.]<br />
<br />
You can download the FairCoin wallet [http://fair-coin.org/#wallet here]. Once downloaded, we recommend you follow [https://fair.coop/faircoin-tutorial/ this tutorial].<br />
<br />
Also, a campaign is active on [http://www.coopfunding.net/ Coopfunding] which combining donation and investment linked to the Fairsavings service in a single action done by card or bank transfer.<br />
<br />
== Mint Faircoins ==<br />
<br />
You can participate as a FairCoin active node anytime by using the software on your computer, waiting for 21 days, and then start minting. Meanwhile, you can participate by mining (POW).<br />
<br />
After 21 days, if your coins haven’t been moved from your wallet, you can begin contributing to the network with POS. At that moment your wallet will begin to have a % chance of minting which will be reflected in the official “minting view” tab on the faircoin wallet.<br />
<br />
Wallets with the most faircoins are likely to find a block faster. Another factor affecting the chances of finding blocks is the concept of “age”, which makes minting probability grow each day after day 21, up to day 90.<br />
<br />
Notice that once you discover a new transaction block, its minting status is set back to 0 and the process starts over.<br />
We could go on explaining, but the best way to learn is to download the wallet and start experimenting with your faircoins.<br />
<br />
<br />
=Status=<br />
<br />
Thomas König:<br />
<br />
"We decided to create a new version of FairCoin which corrects issues we encountered. The current version of FairCoin relies on PoS (proof-of-stake) which cannot be considered fair, because it confer an advantage on the already rich. Therefore we needed to come up with a new way to secure the network. We call it PoC (proof-of-cooperation). This innovation will finally make FairCoin fair, secure, and sustainable.<br />
<br />
The draft we present here is meant to start a discussion on what the new version would look like. Many hours of voluntary work have already been put into building the basic concept and the white paper. The focus of the draft paper is mainly on the technical and implementation side of the FairCoin2 project. Many more aspects besides the technical have to be taken into account and elaborated on."<br />
(https://fair-coin.org/faircoin2)<br />
<br />
<br />
= Faircoin 2 and Beyond =<br />
<br />
FairCoin2 Technical Road Map<br />
* v2.0 (June’16)<br />
Certified Validation Nodes ( Web of trust )<br />
No money creation. Fees go to node operators (dynamically adjustable)<br />
Regular/predictable time for block creation.<br />
<br />
* v2.1 (during summer’16)<br />
Instant transaction confirmation.<br />
Easily forkeable.<br />
<br />
* v2.2 …<br />
<br />
* About v3.0: This version problably will be no longer called Faircoin as it’s a complete new system, a kind of decentralized and high efficient infrastructure, rewritten from scratch, with big data technology, distributed transaction confirmation (distributed load), several blockchains in a distributed database, etc…<br />
<br />
Faircoin as a currency should be one of the coins using this proposed 'blockchain of the commons'.<br />
<br />
'''Certified Validation Nodes (CVN)'''<br />
Until now, each node in FairCoin network validates transactions and creates new blocks to achieve distributed consensus, but with the new version this will be done by a network of Certified Validation Nodes.<br />
<br />
These nodes cooperate to secure the network and they are in charge of transactions validation and blocks creation, in a process called Proof of Cooperation. In short, the nodes work together in a collaborative way, creating blocks in a rotative sequence. These nodes use Web of trust, a system to establish their authenticity. To run a CVN one needs to complete a certification procedure that is operated by FairCoop.<br />
<br />
The ideal number of CVNs in the Faircoin2 network will be between a minimun of 10 and a maximun of 50-60. The blocks creation will be fixed in a regular and predictable time, about 3 or 4 minutes.<br />
<br />
* No money creation and fees<br />
One of the main differences of the new version is that there is no new money creation. In the first version the block creation was rewarded with new money, but this will be no longer so. The CVNs could be rewarded with transaction fees, which could be dynamically adjustable.<br />
<br />
* Instant transaction confirmation<br />
In version 2.1, the transactions will be confirmed in a very small time, near the time spent to confirm a buy with credit card, almost instantaneous. This will be a direct consequence of the way CVN networks confirm transactions.<br />
<br />
* Easily Forkeable<br />
A blockchain without money creation and based in certified nodes is an innovation that has received interest from different initiatives collaborating in FairCoop. Mainly the payments cooperative that is being developed. It makes sense to share the same main software characteristics, and then adapt the forks to the specific needs of each project.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=Interview=<br />
<br />
Enric Duran and Stacco Troncoso, interviewed by Cat Johnson on the cryptocurrency of [[Fair Coop]]:<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Shareable: What's the importance of having a cryptocurrency focused on alleviating economic injustice and promoting social good?'''<br />
<br />
Duran and Troncoso: Up until now, cryptocurrencies have held great potential, but it hasn't always coincided with a practicality that would alleviate [social] ills. Certain elements such as bypassing the need for central banks are steps along the way, but there was something missing. A holistic social and economic system is urgently needed to address the inequalities inherent in the current system.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''How is Faircoin different from other cryptocurrencies?'''<br />
<br />
For one thing, Faircoin is technically different in the currency generation protocol used. Faircoin uses Proof of Stake (POS), instead of Proof of Work (POW). The use of POS prevents any unfair advantage which could be afforded to those who can access and invest in the environmentally destructive means of mining (destructive for its consumption of energy and resources needed for the servers). What really makes Faircoin different is its specific use as a tool for Fair.Coop, as a cryptocurrency designed to act as a store of value for Fair.Coop and its redistribution of capital to socially and environmentally coherent projects.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''What's the relationship between Fair.Coop and Faircoin? How will they intersect and/or interact?'''<br />
<br />
Our intention is to be “Fair in name, fair in practice.” Fair.Coop uses Faircoin as its social capital and store of value. Fair.Coop is Faircoin's conscience—it's a cryptocurrency attached to commons-oriented responsibility.<br />
<br />
Fair.Coop already holds 20 percent of all Faircoins in existence, which guarantees that the growth of the currency's value will go to the common good. This is guaranteed by Fair.Coop's democratic accountability system.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Do you see Fair.Coop and Faircoin working on a global scale? What could that look like?'''<br />
<br />
In fact, Fair.Coop can't be anything but global; it's been specifically designed to be global; for this reason, we call it the Earth Cooperative. It's not a scaled-up local project. One of Fair.Coop's key objectives is to facilitate a global body of knowledge, capable of generating concrete impact locally.<br />
<br />
At any rate, we could make a working distinction between two sets of mechanisms that'd be produced by Fair.Coop: global and local. At the local level we'd be seeing local, specialized mechanisms and knowledge which, in turn, would feed into a global open knowledge economy comprised of, among other things, valuable data and monetary and economic tools. This will be a bidirectional relationship, as both parts will nourish one another for the benefit of the whole."<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Who will the funds raised with Faircoin go to? Do you already have organizations or projects in mind? If so, where are the organizations located?'''<br />
<br />
Who the funds will go to isn't something that's decided by the promoting team. Identifying who the potential benefactors are and following through is an ongoing democratic process of the whole coop, as it's coming together right now where each of the different Funds is co-managed by a council that works in conjunction with the other Funds, as well as with the entire community built around Fair.Coop.<br />
<br />
The type of organizations we want to work with will be those who could potentially generate peer production in the material plane, as well as benefit from the shared knowledge accrued by the coop. We also want to focus on projects that lack the necessary means to activate this type of peer production.<br />
<br />
Other examples would include strategic projects that can add more value to the global commons. Projects which, on their own, maybe wouldn't have the ability to network at this scale to share their knowledge. The projects would also benefit from the moral and material support of a global community if and when attacked by hostile interests. All in all, Fair.Coop will increase the resilience of these projects.<br />
<br />
More than naming specific organizations, we are very open to being approached so that everyone can participate in Fair.Coop's co-creation and ongoing development. We are also very interested in empowering the Global South to increase its resiliency. When we say Global South, while there's an undeniable geographical truth to this, we also mean the 99%, independent of where we may reside."<br />
(http://www.shareable.net/blog/faircoop-using-cryptocurrency-to-bring-economic-justice-to-the-world)<br />
<br />
<br />
=Discussion=<br />
<br />
==How Faircoin v2 could be improved==<br />
<br />
Sepp Hasslberger:<br />
<br />
"I like the procedures for validation of transactions that were developed and are described in the White paper. <br />
<br />
I am with the P2P foundation and am especially interested in monetary issues. Actually, I had hoped to see a completely new coin emerge starting with a clean slate, but I see that this was not really possible without major disturbance to the current owners of fair coins. <br />
<br />
With regard to the features that have been taken over from the old implementation of Faircoin, here are two points, which I would like to direct your attention to: <br />
<br />
1) there are many of the existing coins (maybe more than half) still in the hands of the original Faircoin crowd and the Faircoin initiator. This may seem a small problem, but it could have some large consequences.<br />
<br />
2) Faircoin has inherited from Bitcoin the existence of a limited supply of coins. Due to the supply being limited, and the request for coins being expected to increase, the price of each coin is also expected to increase. This could become rather serious, if we see Bitcoin’s price history as an example. It could lead to high instability in the price of the coins. <br />
<br />
Let me explain why I think this needs to be addressed and how to address it. <br />
<br />
Bitcoin and most of the alt coins have one severe flaw. They have a fixed limit of coins ever to be created. Why is this a problem, you might ask, the coin just increases in value over time and prices will have to be adjusted to take account of the increase. Yes, but… having a trend of increasing value, the coin becomes an object of investment, and of speculation. Some people (even ones disconnected from the FairCoop circle) will buy the coins to speculate on the increase. There is no way to prevent that, anyone can buy the coins on an exchange.<br />
<br />
With the coin becoming an object of speculation, the following problems will appear. <br />
<br />
3) Prices as expressed in Faircoin can never be stable, they will have to follow the “value” of Faircoin as expressed in some external currency or other, or as expressed in the exchanged goods and services. This could become a major headache as price changes will never finish. There will always be fluctuations in the price of the coin and there will be a general increase of the coin’s value, since it is inviting speculative use by its very nature. Coins are bought up and “saved” by investors, and the resulting relative scarcity will act to increase the value of each coin. <br />
<br />
4) FairCoop and its members will create value over time, which means that the currency faircoin will also gain value. This increase in value will majorly go to those who are holding Faircoin for its investment value, which are the current owners of a large part of all existing coins, and if 50% of those coins are currently in the hands of the original creators and the early adopters, then at least 50% of the value created by cooperative enterprise will end up in the pockets of those early adopters, or in the future, any investors coins are sold to. This could get worse in the future, if FairCoin becomes a known and respected currency that is expected to always improve its value. More of the coins may well be bought up by investors. <br />
<br />
In that sense, it could be that the valuable work of the cooperatives does not fully support the network but that a variable but rather high percentage of the fruits of this work is given to investors who purely hold the coins for speculative purposes. <br />
<br />
How to prevent such an essentially unjust situation from forming?<br />
<br />
A currency keeps a stable value if the units in existence are adjusted to represent the amount of business being done with the currency. In other words, the amount of goods and services being exchanged have to all be represented by the coins. A stable value of the coins would be important to not let the currency become object of (financial) speculation.<br />
<br />
The way to keep the value of a coin stable is to introduce new coins as the use increases. This could even be done at any point in time when the coins have reached a value that is desirable. One could, in other words, keep the total of coins stable (and their value increasing) until a point has been reached where you’d say ok, the original adopters of the system now have been properly rewarded for their early efforts, but from now on the price of the coin will no longer increase, it will find a stable level. <br />
<br />
How to link the coins to the value of goods and services exchanged?<br />
<br />
When it appears desirable to stabilise the coins’ value, the following should be done:<br />
<br />
5) the total number of coins becomes no longer fixed, but should be amended to take account of the growth in users and adoption in cooperative enterprise.<br />
<br />
6) the total number of coins gets linked to parameters internal to the currency: Number of active users and transaction volume. Those are available to the system. The system acts to increase the number of coins available when it detects an increase in adoption parameters. <br />
<br />
7) The new coins thus becoming available are given to … (it is the community that should decide) I would suggest that the coins are equally distributed to all active users of the currency, i.e. each user gets to enjoy the fruits of the cooperative labor of the whole. <br />
<br />
The effect of this will be a rather stable currency (without large ups and downs), a currency that is of no interest to financial speculators. So with time, the coins that are now in the hands of the early adopters fill flow back into the system, the early adopters will have their just reward for their efforts, and Faircoin will be a coin of the cooperative movement, no longer a possible object of speculation. <br />
<br />
If you are interested to look into or perhaps participate in the discussions, the arguments that have led me to adopt this view, I have [https://www.facebook.com/groups/388256007926581/ a Facebook group] called Money and Economy, where a good deal of discussion took place on Bitcoin and money reform topics."<br />
<br />
<br />
= The [[Faircoop]] eco-system =<br />
<br />
* [[Faircredit]], a worldwide mutual credit system as a means of exchange of goods and services, supported by Faircoin.<br />
<br />
* [[Fairfunds]]: Faircoin funds for donations to various types of projects. The Global South Fund will be used for local collective empowerment projects at various levels, while the Commons Fund and the Technology Infrastructure Fund will fund global projects, which may also include globally coordinated networks of local projects.<br />
<br />
* [[Fairsavings]] as a source of Faircoin savings for those members who aren’t security experts.<br />
<br />
* [[Fairmarket]], FairCoop’s virtual market that will allow members to use Faircredit, and anyone to use Faircoin.<br />
<br />
* [[Fairbag]] as a resource to support backup encrypted savings and wallet management for advanced users who want to keep their savings in case of an emergency.<br />
<br />
* [[Coopfunding]] as a permanent platform to raise donations in any Faircoin-convertible currency, which feed the Fairfunds.<br />
<br />
<br />
=Visualisation=<br />
<br />
A comparison of FairCoin2 (to be introduced in 2017) with Bitcoins and traditional fiat money ([https://fair-coin.org/de/node/152 link])<br />
<br />
[[File:FairCoin2.png]]<br />
<br />
=More Information=<br />
<br />
To understand Faircoin, see also the = General Information on [[Cryptocurrencies]]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:P2P Economic Networks]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Money]]</div>Vasilis.niaros