Lessig

Lessig, Defining the Commons

Rough approach at a definition of a commons: a resource, permission to which is granted neutrally and which is known to be granted neutrally. Commons are sustained through both norms and architecture (sometimes built from a base of private, exclusive resources), and exhibit transparency, modularity, portability, innovativeness, and openness.

Notice what this definition of the commons does not mention:

• common ownership
• rules for using the resource
• symmetric control

Permission rights must be granted neutrally, and must be known to be granted neutrally

• permission, if necessary, is granted neutrally
• commons requires open accessibility
• it's not just that people don't need permission – it's that they know that they don't need permission, and is the fact that they know they never will that inspires innovation in a commons

No individual dictator can withhold a common resource from others (leaves open the possibility of a group withholding the resource from others)

• no exclusive right to choose whether the resource is made available to others
• direction of the permission: it's that everyone has a right to use the resource, it's not that no one has a right to stop someone from using a resource.
• for their own survival, commons projects usually lean towards democratic control

Commons can have limited communities

• commons can be limited to a relevant community

Commons regulated through norms and architecture

• rivalrous commons can be sustained through norms
• commons can be formed through both norms and technical architecture
• implicit: commons requires a shared background knowledge

Commons can exist on top of exclusive resources (phone lines, GNU licenses, etc.)

• commons can exist upon a layer of control
• open and closed systems by necessity exist together
• licenses can be used to keep things in the commons

Commons require transparency, modularity, and portability to be truly common

• commons seems to require transparency, modularity, and portability

Commons resources are often more valuable when held in common

• two reasons we have traditionally put resources into common ownership: (1) the resource can be monopolized and used against the public, and (2) the properties are most valuable when held in common.
• it is sometimes more efficient to hold a property in common than exclusively
• Sometimes we want to put a resource in common ownership because the resource becomes more valuable when more people use it.

You must be able to innovate upon common resources

• commons resources can be tinkered with
• innovation commons allows building upon past resources

Commons resources cannot be (easily) manipulated against competing resources

• commons resources cannot be used strategically
• putting a resource in the commons checks its power: the resource cannot be used strategically to undermine other resources

Common resources can feature two kinds of openness: (1) ability to take a resource without permission, (2) ability to contribute back to resource without authorization

• two different kinds of openness: (1) ability to build off a resource without authorization, (2) ability to put the innovation back into the commons without authorization

Defining the Commons
Main Page