Commons vs. Control

In chapter four Lessig shows how, by removing barriers, a commons at the code layer (prominently TCP/IP, HTTP, HTML, URI and the open code movement) has been an essential catalyst to the innovation we've seen surrounding the Internet.

In chapter six he explores lessons of the commons - conditions under which resources held in common create more wealth and opportunity for society than those same resources could if they were held privately.

When is control necessary? And what can we gain by keeping resources free?

In answering these questions, Lessig explains that a commons isn't, by definition, always a good thing. And control isn't always bad. What determines the value of a commons is the character of the resource and how it relates to a community.

Defining Commons

The Oxford English Dictionary equates the "commons" to a resource held in common. That it defines as "in joint use or possesion; to be held or enjoyed equally by a number of persons. In this sense a resource held in common is free to those persons. In most cases, the commons is a resource to which anyone within the relevant community has a right without obtaining persmission of anyone else.

Lessig uses the word commons not to spell out the inherent nature of or legal effects surrounding our resources but primarily to illustrate the dynamics at work, either formally, or informally, when access to that resource is granted freely.

In chapter four Lessig describes a commons that existed during the Internet's rise to prominence among open source developers and the insiders of digital culture.

This commons had three aspects.

1. A commons of code - the open, neutral, universal software that built the Net and many of the applications that run on it
   
2. A commons of knowledge - access to the ideas and information that gave developers the know how to work with and build code for the Net was free
   
3. A commons of innovation - the opportunity for anyone to innovate based on the Net and its applications for their own purposes was open to all
   

The power and efficiency of the open code movement is a poignant example of the potential of working in a commons. It offers the world a wide range of code and coding resources which can be delivered more rapidly, more cheaply, with more transparency and better quality control. By definition it creates a neutral playing field which no one ultimately controls and which encourages all kinds of expected and unexpected innovation.

What can we gain by keeping resources free?

Lessig suggests...

• We create a barrier to the complete monopolization and consumption of the resource by a single private enterprise. Monopoly means power that may be used to serve interests that belie community values.

• More Net Value. The value from increased participation can outweigh any cost from increased utilization. Increasing participation enhances the value of some resources rather than diminishing it. In this case, the resource itself is most valuable when used by indefinate and unlimited numbers of people and the public conversely gives value to the resource (think of our roads or a public square). This includes historical value.

• More options in cases where we have little understanding about how a resource could be used. Sometimes we only think we know how it should be used.

• We can avoid the blundering giant. Seeking only incremental returns, innovation becomes irrational. "The milk of disruptive technology doesn't flow from cash cows"

• We can avoid the malevolent giant - who would abuse monopoly power to suppress innovation/disruption

• We can foster democratic values where resources might be abused to circumscribe our basic inalienable rights (i.e voting, free speech, equality, etc..). Ask yourself why we try strive for a free society. Why do we strive for universal rights?

• Innovation. By removing barriers and for all the above reasons.

The lesson of the open code movement teaches us that keeping a resource in a commons can, under the appropriate conditions, increase its value both because others can draw upon this resource and because it mitigates the number of strategic games played by others. It extends to other content as well.

This gives us a glimpse of what can be gained by keeping resources in common. We can say that in managing some resources a commons can support fairness, efficiency, democratic values, and innovation. Yet, without considering their character and how they relate to the community, we can't make broad distinctions about which resources should be held in common and which should not. So what can be lost? And when is control necessary?

What can be lost?

As we have discussed already. A commons may invoke tragedy. They may be difficult to manage. Resources may be hard to sustain if held in common. And at times, a commons may interfere with the efficient use of important resources. If fishing resources are held in common, for example, and left unprotected against overfishing, we actually create an incentive for overfishing until fish stocks are depleted. Those who have done the overfishing reap a short-term benefit while the public at large suffers from the loss of the resource. Clearly there are times when a resource must be controlled.

When is control necessary?

Lessig feels that a distinction between resources helps us isolate the different reasons why a resource might need to be controlled (p. 95)

1. If the resource is rivalrous than a system of control is needed to assure that the resource is not depleted --which means the system must assure the resource is both produced and not overused.
   
2. If the resource is nonrivalrous, then a system of control is needed simply to assure the resource is created -- a provisioning problem, as Professor Elinor Ostrom describes it. Once it is created, there is no danger that the resource will be depleted. By definition, a nonrivalrous resource cannot be used up.
   

What follows then is critical: The system of control that we erect for rivalrous resources (land, cars, computers) is not necessarily appropriate for nonrivalrous resources (ideas, music, expression). Indeed the same system of both kinds of resources may do real harm. Thus a legal system or a society generally, must be careful to tailor the kind of control to the kind of resource. One size won't fit all.

A second point also follows and is equally important: Even for resources that are nonrivalrous, some form of control will often be required. For these resources, there is still the need to assure an adequate incentive to supply or provision the resource. Thus, even here, some control will often be needed.
.....
.....

Society benefits from resources that are free; but unless some system of control is implemented for resources that must be created, or for resources, once created, whose use is rivalrous, then no benefit will be received. The key is to balance the free against control, so that the benefits of each can be achieved.

Yet this balance is not automatic. There is no guarantee that the control will be enough and no promise that it won't be too much or too little. The aim of society must always be to draw the optimal balance, and our obligation over time is to assure that that drawing not become skewed. The level of control at one time might be insufficient at a different time. And the level of freedom assured at one time might become threatened.

What determines the commons is not the simple test of rivalrous vs. nonrivalrous. What determines the commons is the character of the resource and how it relates to a community.

-copyright extensions example

Posted by Mark Hemphill on March 21, 2004 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/562120

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Commons vs. Control:

Comments

Post a comment

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments: