Peer to Peer As a new mode of production, governance, and property

The P2P ‘Tipping Point’ “ The most profound finding of the 2006 Edelman Trust Barometer is that in six of the 11 countries surveyed, the “person like yourself or your peer” is seen as the most credible spokesperson about a company and among the top three spokespeople in every country surveyed. This has advanced steadily over the past three years. In the US, for example, the “person like yourself or your peer” was only trusted by 22% of respondents as recently as 2003, while in this year’s study, 68% of respondents said they trusted a peer. Contrast that to the CEO, who ranks in the bottom half of credible sources in all countries, at 28% trust in the US, near the level of lawyers and legislators. In China, the “person like yourself or your peer” is trusted by 54% of respondents, compared to the next highest spokesperson, a doctor, at 43%.

“ The most profound finding of the 2006 Edelman Trust Barometer is that in six of the 11 countries surveyed, the “person like yourself or your peer” is seen as the most credible spokesperson about a company and among the top three spokespeople in every country surveyed. This has advanced steadily over the past three years.

In the US, for example, the “person like yourself or your peer” was only trusted by 22% of respondents as recently as 2003, while in this year’s study, 68% of respondents said they trusted a peer. Contrast that to the CEO, who ranks in the bottom half of credible sources in all countries, at 28% trust in the US, near the level of lawyers and legislators. In China, the “person like yourself or your peer” is trusted by 54% of respondents, compared to the next highest spokesperson, a doctor, at 43%.

Understanding P2P Part 1: Understanding P2P Part Two:P2P and the Market Part Three: The Politics of P2P

Part 1: Understanding P2P

Part Two:P2P and the Market

Part Three: The Politics of P2P

1. Understanding P2P P2P is the relational dynamic at work in distributed networks Hierarchical, de-centralized networks, distributed networks

P2P is the relational dynamic at work in distributed networks

Hierarchical, de-centralized networks, distributed networks

Complexity and Hierarchy

Types of Networks

P2P as technological infrastructure

P2P as Technological Infrastructure Point to Point infrastructures for P2P communication: internet, web, IM, filesharing, grid computing A Read/Write infrastructure for autonomous publication and distribution: blogging, podcasting, webcasting An infrastructure for glocal cooperation: Wiki’s, Social Software, Web 2.0.

Point to Point infrastructures for P2P communication: internet, web, IM, filesharing, grid computing

A Read/Write infrastructure for autonomous publication and distribution: blogging, podcasting, webcasting

An infrastructure for glocal cooperation: Wiki’s, Social Software, Web 2.0.

Web 2.0 and P2P The Web 2.0 unlocks the ‘wisdom of crowds’ The Web 2.0 renders data independent of the application; and applications independent of the program: mash-ups and open API’s

The Web 2.0 unlocks the ‘wisdom of crowds’

The Web 2.0 renders data independent of the application; and applications independent of the program: mash-ups and open API’s

P2P Technologies Must allow for cooperation: blogs, wiki’s, forum Must allow for ‘participation capture’ and automatic archiving Must allow aggregate rating & reputation schemes Must allow affinity searching and recommendation schemes Must allow presentiality (buddy lists) Must allow cooperative contextuality building: social bookmarking, tagging Must allow for the remixing of microchunks The ‘network is the PC’: Writely, Google Spreadsheets

Must allow for cooperation: blogs, wiki’s, forum

Must allow for ‘participation capture’ and automatic archiving

Must allow aggregate rating & reputation schemes

Must allow affinity searching and recommendation schemes

Must allow presentiality (buddy lists)

Must allow cooperative contextuality building: social bookmarking, tagging

Must allow for the remixing of microchunks

The ‘network is the PC’: Writely, Google Spreadsheets

P2P Social Processes 1. The ability to produce in common: Peer Production as a third mode of production 2. The ability by participants to manage distributed projects by themselves: Peer Governance as a third mode of governance 3. The ability to protect the common project from private appropriation: Peer Property as a third mode of non-exclusionary property

1. The ability to produce in common: Peer Production as a third mode of production

2. The ability by participants to manage distributed projects by themselves: Peer Governance as a third mode of governance

3. The ability to protect the common project from private appropriation: Peer Property as a third mode of non-exclusionary property

Characteristics of Peer Production Equipotentiality, anti-credentialism, self-selection Holoptism, participation capture Communal validation, no collective individual, social or algorithmic wisdom of crowds technologies

Equipotentiality, anti-credentialism, self-selection

Holoptism, participation capture

Communal validation, no collective individual, social or algorithmic wisdom of crowds technologies

“… .People would experience others as equals in the sense of their being both superior and inferior to themselves in varying skills and areas of endeavor (intellectually, emotionally, artistically, mechanically, interpersonally, and so forth), but with none of those skills being absolutely higher or better than others…” Jorge Ferrer P2P = equipotential participation (credentialism)

Peer Governance as 3 rd modality Conclusion: P2P is a third mode of production, governance, and property Common Inclusionary Private Exclusionary Collective State Property Peer Governance Separation of powers Absolute monarchy Politics Peer Production Market Centralized Planning Economics Distributed Autonomy Decentralized Heterarchy Centralized Hierarchy

Conclusion: P2P is a third mode of production, governance, and property

The Evolution of Hierarchy (1) by John Heron The sole role of hierarchy is in its spontaneous emergence in the initiation and continuous flowering of autonomy-in-co-operation in all spheres of human endeavor equipotential rights of participation of everyone in every field P2P Era Hierarchy empowers a measure of co-operation and autonomy in the political sphere and in varying degrees in other spheres political representation with varying degrees of wider participation Late Modern Hierarchy empowers a measure of co-operation and autonomy in the political sphere only political participation through representation Early Modern Hierarchy defines, controls and constrains co-operation and autonomy no rights of political participation Premodern Relationship between hierarchy, cooperation, autonomy Degrees of Moral Insight

Evolution of Hierarchy (2): Power Premodern era: custom and force: “ Make die, and let live” Early modern era: disciplinary societies “ Make live and let die” Late modern era: control societies “ control the desire; a posteriori control, the metaphor of the elastic” P2P era: reputation societies?

Premodern era: custom and force:

“ Make die, and let live”

Early modern era: disciplinary societies

“ Make live and let die”

Late modern era: control societies

“ control the desire; a posteriori control,

the metaphor of the elastic”

P2P era: reputation societies?

Evolution of Cooperation Typology Time frame High, 1+1>2 The 4 wins “ Wisdom Game” Synergistic P2P era Average, 1+1=2 Zero Sum: Win-win: Draw “ Money Game” Neutral Modern (market, industrial) Low, 1+1<2 Zero Sum: Win-Lose “ Power Game” Adversarial Pre-modern (feudal, imperial) Quality of Cooperation Game Typology Cooperation Format

Typology of Peer Governance 1. The forms of peer governance of open/free communities and peer production groups 2. The forms of governance/ownership/income distribution for the derived and monetizable service and market-oriented production models that derive from commons-related projects (formal modes of capital and IP ownership) 3. Choice from wide selection of governance and institutional formats for peer. Plug-and-play management models 4. Political governance models for the whole of society that are inspired by peer to peer models or principles: peer governance supplements and informs/re-forms representative democracy 5. Political theories and movements inspired by the P2P ethos

1. The forms of peer governance of open/free communities and peer production groups

2. The forms of governance/ownership/income distribution for the derived and monetizable service and market-oriented production models that derive from commons-related projects (formal modes of capital and IP ownership)

3. Choice from wide selection of governance and institutional formats for peer. Plug-and-play management models

4. Political governance models for the whole of society that are inspired by peer to peer models or principles: peer governance supplements and informs/re-forms representative democracy

5. Political theories and movements inspired by the P2P ethos

Characteristics of P2P Hierarchy Usually consists of a core leadership embodying the original aims of the project, sometimes - the ‘benevolent dictator’ Teams are led by flexible meritocratic leaders: jazz band logic Principle of non-dependence or reverse dependence Large projects are led by a non-profit foundation - possibility of corporate spin-offs

Usually consists of a core leadership embodying the original aims of the project, sometimes - the ‘benevolent dictator’

Teams are led by flexible meritocratic leaders: jazz band logic

Principle of non-dependence or reverse dependence

Large projects are led by a non-profit foundation - possibility of corporate spin-offs

What with the Power Law? The Power Law &quot;In systems where many people are free to choose between many options, a small subset of the whole will get a disproportionate amount of traffic (or attention, or income), even if no members of the system actively work towards such an outcome. The very act of choosing, spread widely enough and freely enough, creates a power law distribution.&quot; The Dunbar Number Counteracting the Power Law? It does not always apply (Krebs studies) Open communities show better spread Knowing networks can be designed to foster diversity, autonomy, openness

The Power Law

&quot;In systems where many people are free to choose between many options, a small subset of the whole will get a disproportionate amount of traffic (or attention, or income), even if no members of the system actively work towards such an outcome. The very act of choosing, spread widely enough and freely enough, creates a power law distribution.&quot;

The Dunbar Number

Counteracting the Power Law?

It does not always apply (Krebs studies)

Open communities show better spread

Knowing networks can be designed to foster diversity, autonomy, openness

Peer Property Universal common property regimes are different from private property and public collective property Individual authorship + share-alike + free distributed access Examples: GPL and Creative Commons

Universal common property regimes are different from private property and public collective property

Individual authorship + share-alike + free distributed access

Examples: GPL and Creative Commons

Physical vs. Information Commons Cyber Collectives Communities Governance Global Affinity Groups Territorial Groups Actors Non-local Local Scope Non-rival & Anti-rival Rival Type of Resource Information Commons Traditional Commons

The Circulation of the Common Peer production needs open and free access to the raw material for its production: open/free paradigm and movements Peer Governance is the participatory process for the production of the common: the participatory/cooperation paradigms and movements Peer Property uses new legal and institutional formats to protect its production: the Commons-based paradigms and movements The Common Property format creates open/free raw material: the viral circle spirals onward

Peer production needs open and free access to the raw material for its production: open/free paradigm and movements

Peer Governance is the participatory process for the production of the common: the participatory/cooperation paradigms and movements

Peer Property uses new legal and institutional formats to protect its production: the Commons-based paradigms and movements

The Common Property format creates open/free raw material: the viral circle spirals onward

Part Two: P2P and the Market PRECONDITIONS FOR PEER PRODUCTION: Abundance and/or Distribution of intellect Abundance and/or Distribution of the technical means of production (networked PC’s, desktop manufacturing, personal fabricators) Abundance and/or Distribution of the access to financial captial (P2P Exchanges and Financing)

PRECONDITIONS FOR PEER PRODUCTION:

Abundance and/or Distribution of intellect

Abundance and/or Distribution of the technical means of production (networked PC’s, desktop manufacturing, personal fabricators)

Abundance and/or Distribution of the access to financial captial (P2P Exchanges and Financing)

Why P2P will grow For Profit For Benefit Material production Immaterial production

Conditions for expansion of peer production The ‘distribution of everything’: further distributive advances in financial and industrial capital Separating the design and material production phase of the industrial process Finding integrated processes for the physical, logical, and digital ‘commons’ (e.g. Semapedia, German White Bicycle program)

The ‘distribution of everything’: further distributive advances in financial and industrial capital

Separating the design and material production phase of the industrial process

Finding integrated processes for the physical, logical, and digital ‘commons’

(e.g. Semapedia, German White Bicycle program)

Modalities of Sharing

Types of individual engagement 1. The classical &quot;prosumer mode&quot; , in which everybody is working basically for themselves in using and customizing productive abilities 2. The &quot;swarm mode&quot; in which people are loosely aggregated in doing things, either for themselves (ebay,musicsharing) or for an external task that uses the &quot;least effort&quot; way (Seti@home and successors) 3. The &quot;community mode&quot; , in which the team up in new forms of voluntary social organisation. (classical example Free Software). These three modes are pretty separated, but there is a &quot;hidden continuum&quot; structurally connecting them, they become &quot;mutual enablers&quot;.

1. The classical &quot;prosumer mode&quot; , in which everybody is working basically for themselves in using and customizing productive abilities

2. The &quot;swarm mode&quot; in which people are loosely aggregated in doing things, either for themselves (ebay,musicsharing) or for an external task that uses the &quot;least effort&quot; way (Seti@home and successors)

3. The &quot;community mode&quot; , in which the team up in new forms of voluntary social organisation. (classical example Free Software).

These three modes are pretty separated, but there is a &quot;hidden

continuum&quot; structurally connecting them, they become &quot;mutual

enablers&quot;.

User vs. corporate typology Commons-dependent Community Mode Platform Enablers Swarming Mode Externalizers Prosumer Mode Type of Corporation Type of Users

Types of Corporate Engagement Externalizers: Ikea, Dell, EasyJet : part of the value chain (‘the last mile’) is externalized; but the basic producer/consumer dichotomy remains 1) Classic producers with passive consumers 2) Simple externalisation: ATM’s, gas pumps 3) Complex externalizers:Dell, Ikea 4) Integrating peer production in the value change: Amazon Participation enablers (Web 2.0 paradigm): enable the loose interconnection of individuals; and monetize the common attention: Ebay 5) From do-it-yourself, to co-design, to co-creation Commons-dependent: corporations monetizing derivative value created by peer communities (FLOSS companies) Google, YouTube: exclusive monetization Revver: revenue-sharing

Externalizers: Ikea, Dell, EasyJet : part of the value chain (‘the last mile’) is externalized; but the basic producer/consumer dichotomy remains

1) Classic producers with passive consumers

2) Simple externalisation: ATM’s, gas pumps

3) Complex externalizers:Dell, Ikea

4) Integrating peer production in the value change: Amazon

Participation enablers (Web 2.0 paradigm): enable the loose interconnection of individuals; and monetize the common attention: Ebay

5) From do-it-yourself, to co-design, to co-creation

Commons-dependent: corporations monetizing derivative value created by peer communities (FLOSS companies)

Google, YouTube: exclusive monetization

Revver: revenue-sharing

Media Monetization Strategies Audience growth (N+1) = Attention Economy Metcalfe’s Law (N-square) = Transcational Multiplication, Social Commerce Reed’s Law (N-quadrupling) = Long Tail communities, Group-Forming Networks

Audience growth (N+1) = Attention Economy

Metcalfe’s Law (N-square) = Transcational Multiplication, Social Commerce

Reed’s Law (N-quadrupling) = Long Tail communities, Group-Forming Networks

What kind of ‘intersubjectivity’? Alan Page Fiske’s Relational Model Reciprocity: The Gift Economy (tribalism) Authority Ranking: The Tributary Economy (feudalism) Market Pricing: The Market Economy (capitalism) Communal Shareholding: The Sharing Economy (peer to peer)

Reciprocity: The Gift Economy (tribalism)

Authority Ranking: The Tributary Economy (feudalism)

Market Pricing: The Market Economy (capitalism)

Communal Shareholding: The Sharing Economy (peer to peer)

P2P and Markets Differences between peer production and the market: Markets do not function according to the criteria of collective intelligence and holoptism, but rather, in the form of insect-like swarming intelligence. Yes, there are autonomous agents in a distributed environment, but each individual only sees his own immediate benefit. Markets are based on 'neutral' cooperation, and not on synergistic cooperation: no reciprocity is created. Markets operate for the exchange value and profit, not directly for the use value. Whereas P2P aims at full participation, markets only fulfill the needs of those with purchasing power. Amongst the disadvantages of markets are: They do not function well for common needs that do not assure full payment of the service rendered (national defense, general policing, education and public health), and do not only fail to take into account negative externalities (the environment, social costs, future generations), but actively discourages such behavior. Since open markets tend to lower profit and wages, it always gives rise to anti-markets, where oligopolies and monopolies use their privileged position to have the state 'rig' the market to their benefit. The theoretical peer-like qualities of agents in free markets are absent from capitalism

Differences between peer production and the market:

Markets do not function according to the criteria of collective intelligence and holoptism, but rather, in the form of insect-like swarming intelligence. Yes, there are autonomous agents in a distributed environment, but each individual only sees his own immediate benefit.

Markets are based on 'neutral' cooperation, and not on synergistic cooperation: no reciprocity is created.

Markets operate for the exchange value and profit, not directly for the use value.

Whereas P2P aims at full participation, markets only fulfill the needs of those with purchasing power.

Amongst the disadvantages of markets are:

They do not function well for common needs that do not assure full payment of the service rendered (national defense, general policing, education and public health), and do not only fail to take into account negative externalities (the environment, social costs, future generations), but actively discourages such behavior.

Since open markets tend to lower profit and wages, it always gives rise to anti-markets, where oligopolies and monopolies use their privileged position to have the state 'rig' the market to their benefit. The theoretical peer-like qualities of agents in free markets are absent from capitalism

P2P and the Market: Immanence P2P is highly dependent on the market The market is highly dependent on peer production and social innovation Many peer production projects rely concretely on a business ecology – i.e. Linux & IBM An increasing number of corporations are commons-dependent Peer production and externalization are part of the value chain, the production chain, the cost-benefit calculations of corporations

P2P is highly dependent on the market

The market is highly dependent on peer production and social innovation

Many peer production projects rely concretely on a business ecology – i.e. Linux & IBM

An increasing number of corporations are commons-dependent

Peer production and externalization are part of the value chain, the production chain, the cost-benefit calculations of corporations

P2P and the Market: transcendence P2P remains a non-reciprocal form of production No pricing, no corporate hierarchy, no market allocation of resources P2P is dependent on the market, but also restricted by the market: unrealized social value waiting to be unlocked P2P can be part of a political project to transcend the current political economy

P2P remains a non-reciprocal form of production

No pricing, no corporate hierarchy, no market allocation of resources

P2P is dependent on the market, but also restricted by the market: unrealized social value waiting to be unlocked

P2P can be part of a political project to transcend the current political economy

P2P and the Market as field of tension Who rules: from cognitive capitalists, via vectoralists to netarchists From the Second to the Third Enclosures?

Who rules: from cognitive capitalists, via vectoralists to netarchists

From the Second to the Third Enclosures?

Economic Evolution (projection) The primary economy is based on reciprocity, which derives from common ancestry or lineage . It is based on families, clans, tribes and exchange mostly operates through gifts which create further obligation. Wants are defined by the community. Leadership is in the hands of the lineage leadership. Key issue: belonging. The secondary economy arises together with power monopolies which engender coercion as a means to force cooperation . We enter the domain of class societies, and production is organized by the elite in power, which holds together through the symbolic power which transforms power into allegiance. Respect for power, in the form of tribute, taxes, etc.. is normative. The key question is: 'to deserve power or to deserve subjection'. The tertiary economy arises with the entrepreneur and capitalism. It is based on 'equivalent', i.e. 'fair' exchange, which is normative . Power arises from relative productivity, relative monopoly over a needed good, and from the wage relationship which creates dependence. Cooperation is no longer correlated to belonging. Relationships are impersonal. The quaternary economy, based on peer to peer processes, is based on 'ideological leaders' which can frame common goals and common belonging and is based on membership and contribution . Contributing to the best of one's ability to common goals is normative and the key question becomes: to follow an existing group or to create one's own, i.e. to convince or be convinced..

The primary economy is based on reciprocity, which derives from common ancestry or lineage . It is based on families, clans, tribes and exchange mostly operates through gifts which create further obligation. Wants are defined by the community. Leadership is in the hands of the lineage leadership. Key issue: belonging.

The secondary economy arises together with power monopolies which engender coercion as a means to force cooperation . We enter the domain of class societies, and production is organized by the elite in power, which holds together through the symbolic power which transforms power into allegiance. Respect for power, in the form of tribute, taxes, etc.. is normative. The key question is: 'to deserve power or to deserve subjection'.

The tertiary economy arises with the entrepreneur and capitalism. It is based on 'equivalent', i.e. 'fair' exchange, which is normative . Power arises from relative productivity, relative monopoly over a needed good, and from the wage relationship which creates dependence. Cooperation is no longer correlated to belonging. Relationships are impersonal.

The quaternary economy, based on peer to peer processes, is based on 'ideological leaders' which can frame common goals and common belonging and is based on membership and contribution . Contributing to the best of one's ability to common goals is normative and the key question becomes: to follow an existing group or to create one's own, i.e. to convince or be convinced..

The politics of Web 2.0 Web 2.0 and peer producers, the dolphin/shark dilemma: 1) who owns the platform (netarchical and vectoralist strategies) 2) is the infrastructure open/free; is it fake or true sharing 3) IP ownership and monetization strategies (Third Enclosures)

Web 2.0 and peer producers, the dolphin/shark dilemma:

1) who owns the platform (netarchical and vectoralist strategies)

2) is the infrastructure open/free; is it fake or true sharing

3) IP ownership and monetization strategies (Third Enclosures)

A peer-informed economy? (1) Today: treating scarce goods as if they were infinite; treating abundant goods as it there were scarce: the current economy is based on pseudo-abundance and pseudo-scarcity Tomorrow: A steady-state economy coupled with growing immaterial assets and a well-being economy: the P2P political economy is based on real abundance and scarcity

Today: treating scarce goods as if they were infinite; treating abundant goods as it there were scarce: the current economy is based on pseudo-abundance and pseudo-scarcity

Tomorrow: A steady-state economy coupled with growing immaterial assets and a well-being economy: the P2P political economy is based on real abundance and scarcity

A peer-informed economy? (2) Today: the commodification of everything; cognitive and affective capitalism; the colonization of the life-world in the market state Tomorrow: a pluralist economy combining: A core of non-reciprocal peer production A reciprocity-based gift economy for services and traditional pre-capitalist economies (open money reform) A vibrant market based on non-externalization, non-scarce monies and new corporate formats Governance based on multi-stakeholdership

Today: the commodification of everything; cognitive and affective capitalism; the colonization of the life-world in the market state

Tomorrow: a pluralist economy combining:

A core of non-reciprocal peer production

A reciprocity-based gift economy for services and traditional pre-capitalist economies (open money reform)

A vibrant market based on non-externalization, non-scarce monies and new corporate formats

Governance based on multi-stakeholdership

P2P Politics: Strategies Three strategies: Transgressive = ignoring the old: Filesharing, Piratbyran Alternative/Constructive = building the new: Creative Commons, GPL Reformist = changing/adapting the old: legislative reforms (DAVDSI France)

Three strategies:

Transgressive = ignoring the old: Filesharing, Piratbyran

Alternative/Constructive = building the new: Creative Commons, GPL

Reformist = changing/adapting the old: legislative reforms (DAVDSI France)

P2P Politics: Goals Recognition of true scarcities through true costing Reforming the market: natural capitalism, living economies Impeding artificial scarcities IP reform (against illicit monopoly rents from IP) Monetary reform Promoting true abundance Sustainability of peer production: p2p to market? Universal basic income?

Recognition of true scarcities through true costing

Reforming the market: natural capitalism, living economies

Impeding artificial scarcities

IP reform (against illicit monopoly rents from IP)

Monetary reform

Promoting true abundance

Sustainability of peer production: p2p to market?

Universal basic income?

As a new mode of production, governance, and property P2P = a total social fact

THANK YOU Contact Information Wiki : www.p2pfoundation.net Blog : blog.p2pfoundation.com Email : michelsub2004@gmail.com