Open Business: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
See here for a more detailed look at the definition of an [[Open Organization]] | See here for a more detailed look at the definition of an [[Open Organization]] | ||
=Discussion of Open Business characteristics= | =Discussion of Open Business characteristics= | ||
==Open Business== | |||
Definition by Openbusiness.cc | Definition by Openbusiness.cc | ||
| Line 65: | Line 69: | ||
"Open Business is really a return to business or commerce fundamentals." | "Open Business is really a return to business or commerce fundamentals." | ||
==Olivier Malnuit's Ten principles== | |||
This is from a commentary by Dale Carrico, which are interspersed with the original text, but it is a stimulating read: | |||
""Olivier Malnuit recently drew up the liberal communist's ten commandments in the French magazine Technikart: | |||
1. You shall give everything away free (free access, no copyright); just charge for the additional services, which will make you rich." | |||
How are "additional services" construed here? Bruce Sterling writes in Tomorrow Now about how "free services" induct one into ongoing relationships with service-providers who constantly "update" the basic service to maintain a profitable relationship. Here, Sterling and Zizek are making complementary points. But what if we conjoin these universal access, creative commons/a2k ("access to knowledge") moves with collaborative service provision and updating, and throw in a robust "no logo" disdain of corporatism? If we then struggle to subsidize this information regime through basic income guarantees (my "pay to peer" argument) and go on to supplement these moves with a programmatic struggle for global universal education and healthcare, then it is hard to see how this technoprogressive/technoliberationist politics doesn't amount to a real left politics rather than the neoliberal/left-libertopian "liberal communism" Zizek properly derides -- through Malnuit -- here. | |||
"2. You shall change the world, not just sell things. | |||
"3. You shall be sharing, aware of social responsibility. | |||
"4. You shall be creative: focus on design, new technologies and science." | |||
Yes, it is very easy to hear Jennifer Saunder's Edwina Monsoon, the New Age libertopian hedonist monster of BBC's enduringly hilarious AbFab series as the voice giving the lie to these self-congratulatory corporatist fantasies. By the way, I think enterprise and commerce that is genuinely defined by these attitudes actually can do real good in the world. It just isn't and cannot ever be enough. How do we do justice to such intuitions without drifting into the neoliberal corporate-militarist accomodationism Zizek disdains here? | |||
"5. You shall tell all: have no secrets, endorse and practise the cult of transparency and the free flow of information; all humanity should collaborate and interact." | |||
Well, I am a strong believer in transparency as the price of authority -- transparency should be the price you pay when you benefit from things like tenure, limited liability, and legitimate monopolies on the use of force. I don't believe "transparency" is necessarily the best metaphor to express what is afoot in these demands, and I think it is an especially pernicious thing to demand of individual citizens, especially when the real threats to personal privacy are never the exposure of information but the control of interpretations. But for more on that I recommend people read my critiques of the cypherpunks and of David Brin in chapters Two and Three of my dissertation, Pancryptics (which I am editing into a book right now -- comments and criticisms are very welcome). | |||
"6. You shall not work: have no fixed 9 to 5 job, but engage in smart, dynamic, flexible communication." | |||
All this in an era when human trafficking is on the rise and millions are starving to death and paralyzed by treatable diseases in the midst of the greatest affluence in the history of the world. Yes, it is hard to stomach these cheerful declamations at times. | |||
"7. You shall return to school: engage in permanent education." | |||
Make this injunction universal and I'm for it. And, honestly, it is hard for me to see how one could practically implement such an injuction without supporting some of the cheap green laptop and p2p/a2k politics that Zizek is likely to disdain as "liberal communism" here. What is wanted here is more of the recognition that what is politically indispensable can still be politically inadequate. Else, Zizek's radicalism threatens to underwrite impractical violence and then cynicism and passivity. No doubt, this is pretty close to what an accommodationist would say in this moment and so just how does one get past this impasse? | |||
"8. You shall act as an enzyme: work not only for the market, but trigger new forms of social collaboration." | |||
Of course, the whole point is that far fewer people would care to work for profit on the market at all if the satisfactions of creative work, social support, and self-creation outside the market order in its present terms did not practically guarantee annihilation. | |||
"9. You shall die poor: return your wealth to those who need it, since you have more than you can ever spend." | |||
Zizek is right to deride this sort of straightforward patronizing aristocratic self-congratulation. | |||
"10. You shall be the state: companies should be in partnership with the state." | |||
(http://amormundi.blogspot.com/2006/04/zizek-on-tech-bloom.html) | |||
=More Information= | =More Information= | ||
Revision as of 14:26, 11 July 2006
Open business = a business that operates around the principles that are similar to those of the free software and open source movements, i.e. with 'free' and 'open' content.
There is also a website and weblog of the same name, monitoring developments in this area. See below.
Definition
Our own proposed definition is the following:
- An open business is based on open forms of content and does not rely on IP protection
- An open business has a partnership-based (non-manipulative) relation with its customers, the community of producers of the open content, and co-nurtures the Commons from which it lives
- The open business is run collaboratively, in a non-authoritarian fashion and uses transparent processes
See here for a more detailed look at the definition of an Open Organization
Discussion of Open Business characteristics
Open Business
Definition by Openbusiness.cc
http://www.openbusiness.cc/2006/06/05/what-is-an-openbusiness-part-ii/
A recent thread on OpenBusiness.cc sought to identify characteristics which merit or disqualify a business from being 'open'. The following positive indicators summarise parts of the discussion. Among other dimensions the main concern appears to be:
Should our definition of "Openness" include a normative dimension?
If "Openness" is essentially a smart strategy to make profits whilst enabling users to share content, yet does not allow them to make derivatives, is this a boundary which should apply?
It may be important to remember what Richard Stallman, the father of free software, notes in this regard: "While free software by any other name would give you the same freedom, it makes a big difference which name we use: different words convey different ideas". He is right and opposed the term Open Source software, because he wanted to make a normative point. Free software is associated with the freedom to tinker, adapt and build upon, not with giving away product for gratis. In this sense "Free business" might have been the better term for describing a trend, which leads to more open business practises. But we do not seek a definitive definition for what Open Business is, rather we are seeking to find common characteristics of what an OpenBusiness is, as delineated from traditional business structures, norms and conventions.
Practices 'libre' / 'copyleft' notions of IP
Typically this dimension implies a business that uses Creative Commons licenses to distribute their digital works or a comparable spirit in its firm's dealings, particularly in its licensing practices. It's a matter of contributing to the commons or public domain by avoiding private appropriation. There are many conceptions of what it means to be 'libre', electing not to restrict distribution of your digital works being a low standard, whilst many argue derivations must be permitted.
To which aspects of a business can these notions be applied? The concept of 'code' now extends from its original software context to the materials and resources underlying a creative project. For example in a musical context, code entails multi-track recordings, 'parts' or samples, perhaps even details of the specific artists and recordings which influenced a product. How the notion of code can be extended in this regard is an especially interesting topic on which contributions and examples are needed.
In this regard, a further distinction deserves more thought. Whilst it is fairly simple to designate outputs as open, it is also possible to pursue open notions to your production processes or inputs. For example, a business might focus on works resulting from collaboration or decentralised production, or it might encourage derivations from CC-licensed works.
Sharing content and services i.e. giving something away gratis
By giving something away for free, a business can develop extensive networks, communities and platforms which can then generate opportunities to create revenue. Precisely what a business has to share is a function of its particular business model. For example, record labels (e.g. Beatpick, Loca) can facilitate the sharing of their recordings whilst charging for higher quality versions, whilst web 2.0 services such as Flickr offer free platforms for sharing of pictures.
There is however, given its capacity for generating revenue, a potentially cynical and profiteering aspect to this approach to sharing. For example, criticism has recently been levelled at MySpace for its submission to Rupert Murdoch, and subsequent revision of its conditions of usage.
Progressive governance and organisational structures
It may be possible to share the code underlying a business, meaning the intricacies of administering a sustainable business. This might involve writing and publishing a logistics guidebook, covering a range of simple and generic organisational practices, or perhaps even detailed examples on how to structure deals or agreements with media partners, suppliers and clients. Publishing and sharing this aspect of code is heretical in the culture of 'industry secrets', yet it is very appealing to those accustomed to the principles of free-software.
Also, open can indicate that the business itself has been created cooperatively and owned collectively, as opposed to the more traditional private/public ownership structures. Workers are greatly incentivised by having a higher stake in a concern, in part from feelings of responsibility and opportunity, but also from the likelihood of higher remuneration. A business can be more open still if it is owned by its members / users, managed by its stakeholders and develops entirely transparent accounting procedures.
"A business that does not use copyright or patents to privatise intellectual contributions, but leaves it in the public domain, while building a service model around it. An open business model uses and enriches the Commons, focusing on the monetisation of the services."
"I consider a company which depends on secrets to be less open than one which relies on patents, which is in turn less open than one that relies on neither."
"'Open Businesses' create value for people and companies without slowing down economic or cultural flow with unnecessary fences. Rather than locking customers into a gated world, Open Businesses put the customer at the centre of their value proposition, collaborating with competitors to use standards to improve customer's actual experience."
"Open Business is really a return to business or commerce fundamentals."
Olivier Malnuit's Ten principles
This is from a commentary by Dale Carrico, which are interspersed with the original text, but it is a stimulating read:
""Olivier Malnuit recently drew up the liberal communist's ten commandments in the French magazine Technikart:
1. You shall give everything away free (free access, no copyright); just charge for the additional services, which will make you rich."
How are "additional services" construed here? Bruce Sterling writes in Tomorrow Now about how "free services" induct one into ongoing relationships with service-providers who constantly "update" the basic service to maintain a profitable relationship. Here, Sterling and Zizek are making complementary points. But what if we conjoin these universal access, creative commons/a2k ("access to knowledge") moves with collaborative service provision and updating, and throw in a robust "no logo" disdain of corporatism? If we then struggle to subsidize this information regime through basic income guarantees (my "pay to peer" argument) and go on to supplement these moves with a programmatic struggle for global universal education and healthcare, then it is hard to see how this technoprogressive/technoliberationist politics doesn't amount to a real left politics rather than the neoliberal/left-libertopian "liberal communism" Zizek properly derides -- through Malnuit -- here.
"2. You shall change the world, not just sell things.
"3. You shall be sharing, aware of social responsibility.
"4. You shall be creative: focus on design, new technologies and science."
Yes, it is very easy to hear Jennifer Saunder's Edwina Monsoon, the New Age libertopian hedonist monster of BBC's enduringly hilarious AbFab series as the voice giving the lie to these self-congratulatory corporatist fantasies. By the way, I think enterprise and commerce that is genuinely defined by these attitudes actually can do real good in the world. It just isn't and cannot ever be enough. How do we do justice to such intuitions without drifting into the neoliberal corporate-militarist accomodationism Zizek disdains here?
"5. You shall tell all: have no secrets, endorse and practise the cult of transparency and the free flow of information; all humanity should collaborate and interact."
Well, I am a strong believer in transparency as the price of authority -- transparency should be the price you pay when you benefit from things like tenure, limited liability, and legitimate monopolies on the use of force. I don't believe "transparency" is necessarily the best metaphor to express what is afoot in these demands, and I think it is an especially pernicious thing to demand of individual citizens, especially when the real threats to personal privacy are never the exposure of information but the control of interpretations. But for more on that I recommend people read my critiques of the cypherpunks and of David Brin in chapters Two and Three of my dissertation, Pancryptics (which I am editing into a book right now -- comments and criticisms are very welcome).
"6. You shall not work: have no fixed 9 to 5 job, but engage in smart, dynamic, flexible communication."
All this in an era when human trafficking is on the rise and millions are starving to death and paralyzed by treatable diseases in the midst of the greatest affluence in the history of the world. Yes, it is hard to stomach these cheerful declamations at times.
"7. You shall return to school: engage in permanent education."
Make this injunction universal and I'm for it. And, honestly, it is hard for me to see how one could practically implement such an injuction without supporting some of the cheap green laptop and p2p/a2k politics that Zizek is likely to disdain as "liberal communism" here. What is wanted here is more of the recognition that what is politically indispensable can still be politically inadequate. Else, Zizek's radicalism threatens to underwrite impractical violence and then cynicism and passivity. No doubt, this is pretty close to what an accommodationist would say in this moment and so just how does one get past this impasse?
"8. You shall act as an enzyme: work not only for the market, but trigger new forms of social collaboration."
Of course, the whole point is that far fewer people would care to work for profit on the market at all if the satisfactions of creative work, social support, and self-creation outside the market order in its present terms did not practically guarantee annihilation.
"9. You shall die poor: return your wealth to those who need it, since you have more than you can ever spend."
Zizek is right to deride this sort of straightforward patronizing aristocratic self-congratulation.
"10. You shall be the state: companies should be in partnership with the state." (http://amormundi.blogspot.com/2006/04/zizek-on-tech-bloom.html)
More Information
Please check our directory of P2P Business Concepts [1] and our directory of P2P Companies [2].
Some related Delicious Tags to monitor developments:
The Open Business site and weblog
URL = http://openbusiness.cc/
Information on the Open Business site
"Creative Commons England/Wales board-member Christian Ahlert has just launched OpenBusiness. This is the result of an intensive research project into "open" business-models that don't rely on overbroad copyright/patent/trademark rights or are based on free/open source software and open content under Creative Commons licenses. It consists of case-studies aimed at entrepreneurs and funders who are trying to get their heads around what the characteristics of a successful open business are." (from cory doctorow at boing boing)
"The two main aims of the openBusiness project are to build an online resource of innovative business models and to publish this resource in hardcopy as The openBusiness Guide. This website has been designed to gather business models from around the world.
Editorial Process: Using this website, openBusiness is gathering business models and collating community comments and suggestions to create a comprehensive resource that supports both new and existing open business ideas. Before becoming a part of The Guide, an idea is first published as a model. This starts with a member of the OB community submitting a model, which is immediately published onto the site. Once a model is published the process of peer review begins. All members of the openBusiness site are invited to comment on the models. The discussion that members generate will produce ideas, strategies and revisions which will assist the author to further develop or fine-tune their own business. After this process of peer review the model will be transferred into The openBusiness Guide. The Guide is a wiki, meaning that every user is able to contribute to the guide and correct mistakes or omissions. The collection of models on the website will serve as the main source for content in The openBusiness Guide."