Yochai Benkler - Wealth of Networks - User contributions [en]

2. Some Basic Economics of Information Production and Innovation

2006-12-26T03:18:32Z

Red1: /* Supporting examples */ emphasis of relevance to OS bazaars

↑ [[Table of Contents]]<br />
← [[1. Introduction: A Moment of Opportunity and Challenge|Chapter 1]] | [[3. Peer Production and Sharing|Chapter 3]] →

== Content ==

* [http://www.benkler.org/Benkler_Wealth_Of_Networks_Chapter_2.pdf Full text (PDF)]
* [[Sentence-sliced Text Chapter 2|Full text, sentence-sliced (wiki)]]
* [[Summary Chapter 2|Summary (wiki)]]

== Summary ==

Information is nonrivalrous (we can both use it at the same time). It is also circular in that it is both input and output to its own production -- building a table requires wood, writing a paper requires other papers. Copyright laws are justified as making information rivalrous and thus creating a market for it but are constrained so that later the result can be used in the circular production process. But how is producing information actually motivated?

Strategies of producers fall along two axes: benefit maximization (using exclusive rights to make money, using nonexclusive rights to make money, using nonexclusive rights to get non-monetary benefits) and cost minimization (using public domain information, using purchased/owned information, and using privately shared information). This results in nine production strategies. Each strategy receives different inefficiencies from copyright law, so a law's effects depend on which strategies are used. But which strategies get used depends on the law.

Which strategies are used also depends on the technology. New technology has made nonmarket strategies more practical, but incumbent firms want to protect their own models by strengthening copyright laws.

==Sources==
===Sources cited in the chapter===
===Other relevant readings===

==Case Studies==
===Supporting examples===
From page 120-121

""As it turns out, repeated survey studies since 1981 have shown that in all
industrial sectors except for very few—most notably pharmaceuticals—firm
managers do not see patents as the most important way they capture the
benefits of their research and developments. They rank the advantages that
strong research and development gives them in lowering the cost or improving
the quality of manufacture, being the '''first in the market''', or developing
'''strong marketing relationships''' as more important than patents."

(emphasis on their strong relevance to Open Source bazaars - [[User:Red1|Red1]])

In the case of Open Source the author gave the example of how IBM spends millions on it to gain other benefits of savings here, but the criteria above of branding and strong market gains are ever more relevant. So much so, erroneusly learning from Linux, many copycat projects are exploitatively trying to ride on ''planting the flag on the mountain'', and what they put out even though open, are more of 'market positioning' ploys. A September 2006 case is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compiere Compiere ]been a premier OS player in the Small Medium Business sector, but adopts a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cathedral_and_the_Bazaar ''Cathedral''] approach instead. They soon lost the branding advantage to [http://www.adempiere.com/wiki/index.php/Media_Coverage ADempiere] been obediently true ''peer-based community'' Compiere fork which proves the author's basis in this chapter. The ''wealth of networking'' by the community members quickly obliterate whatever [https://sourceforge.net/project/stats/?group_id=176962&ugn=adempiere advantage] Compiere had prior to it going after some funding - the matador's cloth of many OSS ploys. As another more recent case of [http://opensourceculture.blogspot.com/2006/11/yes-i-know.html Redhat vs Oracle] shows, such ''ploys'' are beginning to show its slip.
By such account, other pro-monetary projects such as MySpace, Google, YouTube may suffer the same threats as Netscape, Yahoo! and Hotmail has. [http://www.adempiere.org ADempiere] and another similar [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mambo_(CMS) OSS] fork, [http://www.joomla.org/ Joomla!] are living proofs that OSS can stay rich for all its members without funding, and in perpetual mode.

===Counter-examples===

==Key Concepts==

'''Non-rival''' (36)

'''Standing-on-the-shoulders-of-giants Effect''' (37)

'''Input/Output Circularity (see Standing-on-the-shoulders-of-giants Effect)
'''

Talk:2. Some Basic Economics of Information Production and Innovation

2006-12-05T02:42:34Z

Red1: forgot to sign off

just to add further clarification to my entry in the Supporting Examples tab, Joomla is a developer community fork of Mambo CMS, whereas ADempiere is a ''total'' community fork of Compiere.
By total we have to to understand that Compiere is unique in the sense that it does not attract a solely techie community. It delves in ERP Enterprise Software (ES) which targets that Small Medium Business sector that is steep in Subject Matter Expertise (SME) which are largely non-techie or software oriented. Thus the community comprises of techies, SMEs, and also closely knit to users in the commercial environment (meaning its more of the CEOs making decisions rather than the CTOs).

The frustration felt in that community is thus viral, been closely knit and bazaar like. Thus when a [http://red1.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=931 debate] occured, it quickly absorbed the bulk of it. Even though i am directly involved in this community, i tried to provide the author with an objective take of it. I have found much substantiation in this book that explains my observations and surely many questions we in the community tries to grapple with.

For example, we like to understand where do we go from here? How do we manage the forces of commercial users who are aprehensive towards a ''pure peer'' patron? Or set of anarchy-like run patrons, all on their own paths of ''organic-organisation''. How do we steer forth and satisfy the many wants of the diverse community that is outgrowing its control structure, now seemingly content with Adam Smith's ''laisser fairz''? What other tools or ideas of peer-networking can we further look forward to use to rope all in a coherent mass of such velocity? At least this book gave me some benchmarks. Also more precise articulations such as the dichotomy between been ''humanistic and general'' rather than ''political and particular'' and verbal weapons to use in my managing of our bazaar.

By this wiki-managed iterative interactions with the author, i hope to provide him with his requested ''actual human beings in actual historical
settings'' (page 20).
: - [[User:Red1|Red1]] 18:42, 4 December 2006 (PST)

Talk:2. Some Basic Economics of Information Production and Innovation

2006-12-05T02:33:44Z

Red1: my premise of iterating on OSS ploys

2. Some Basic Economics of Information Production and Innovation

2006-12-05T01:47:39Z

Red1: /* Supporting examples */ grammar correction

↑ [[Table of Contents]]<br />
← [[1. Introduction: A Moment of Opportunity and Challenge|Chapter 1]] | [[3. Peer Production and Sharing|Chapter 3]] →

== Content ==

* [http://www.benkler.org/Benkler_Wealth_Of_Networks_Chapter_2.pdf Full text (PDF)]
* [[Sentence-sliced Text Chapter 2|Full text, sentence-sliced (wiki)]]
* [[Summary Chapter 2|Summary (wiki)]]

== Summary ==

Information is nonrivalrous (we can both use it at the same time). It is also circular in that it is both input and output to its own production -- building a table requires wood, writing a paper requires other papers. Copyright laws are justified as making information rivalrous and thus creating a market for it but are constrained so that later the result can be used in the circular production process. But how is producing information actually motivated?

Strategies of producers fall along two axes: benefit maximization (using exclusive rights to make money, using nonexclusive rights to make money, using nonexclusive rights to get non-monetary benefits) and cost minimization (using public domain information, using purchased/owned information, and using privately shared information). This results in nine production strategies. Each strategy receives different inefficiencies from copyright law, so a law's effects depend on which strategies are used. But which strategies get used depends on the law.

Which strategies are used also depends on the technology. New technology has made nonmarket strategies more practical, but incumbent firms want to protect their own models by strengthening copyright laws.

==Sources==
===Sources cited in the chapter===
===Other relevant readings===

==Case Studies==
===Supporting examples===
From page 120-121

""As it turns out, repeated survey studies since 1981 have shown that in all
industrial sectors except for very few—most notably pharmaceuticals—firm
managers do not see patents as the most important way they capture the
benefits of their research and developments. They rank the advantages that
strong research and development gives them in lowering the cost or improving
the quality of manufacture, being the first in the market, or developing
strong marketing relationships as more important than patents."

In the case of Open Source the author gave the example of how IBM spends millions on it to gain other benefits of savings here, but the criteria above of branding and strong market gains are ever more relevant. So much so, erroneusly learning from Linux, many copycat projects are exploitatively trying to ride on ''planting the flag on the mountain'', and what they put out even though open, are more of 'market positioning' ploys. A September 2006 case is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compiere Compiere ]been a premier OS player in the Small Medium Business sector, but adopts a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cathedral_and_the_Bazaar ''Cathedral''] approach instead. They soon lost the branding advantage to [http://www.adempiere.com/wiki/index.php/Media_Coverage ADempiere] been obediently true ''peer-based community'' Compiere fork which proves the author's basis in this chapter. The ''wealth of networking'' by the community members quickly obliterate whatever [https://sourceforge.net/project/stats/?group_id=176962&ugn=adempiere advantage] Compiere had prior to it going after some funding - the matador's cloth of many OSS ploys. As another more recent case of [http://opensourceculture.blogspot.com/2006/11/yes-i-know.html Redhat vs Oracle] shows, such ''ploys'' are beginning to show its slip.
By such account, other pro-monetary projects such as MySpace, Google, YouTube may suffer the same threats as Netscape, Yahoo! and Hotmail has. [http://www.adempiere.org ADempiere] and another similar [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mambo_(CMS) OSS] fork, [http://www.joomla.org/ Joomla!] are living proofs that OSS can stay rich for all its members without funding, and in perpetual mode.

===Counter-examples===

==Key Concepts==

'''Non-rival''' (36)

'''Standing-on-the-shoulders-of-giants Effect''' (37)

'''Input/Output Circularity (see Standing-on-the-shoulders-of-giants Effect)
'''

2. Some Basic Economics of Information Production and Innovation

2006-12-05T01:46:26Z

Red1: /* Supporting examples */ linking Mambo CMS that Joomla! forks from

↑ [[Table of Contents]]<br />
← [[1. Introduction: A Moment of Opportunity and Challenge|Chapter 1]] | [[3. Peer Production and Sharing|Chapter 3]] →

== Content ==

* [http://www.benkler.org/Benkler_Wealth_Of_Networks_Chapter_2.pdf Full text (PDF)]
* [[Sentence-sliced Text Chapter 2|Full text, sentence-sliced (wiki)]]
* [[Summary Chapter 2|Summary (wiki)]]

== Summary ==

Information is nonrivalrous (we can both use it at the same time). It is also circular in that it is both input and output to its own production -- building a table requires wood, writing a paper requires other papers. Copyright laws are justified as making information rivalrous and thus creating a market for it but are constrained so that later the result can be used in the circular production process. But how is producing information actually motivated?

Strategies of producers fall along two axes: benefit maximization (using exclusive rights to make money, using nonexclusive rights to make money, using nonexclusive rights to get non-monetary benefits) and cost minimization (using public domain information, using purchased/owned information, and using privately shared information). This results in nine production strategies. Each strategy receives different inefficiencies from copyright law, so a law's effects depend on which strategies are used. But which strategies get used depends on the law.

Which strategies are used also depends on the technology. New technology has made nonmarket strategies more practical, but incumbent firms want to protect their own models by strengthening copyright laws.

==Sources==
===Sources cited in the chapter===
===Other relevant readings===

==Case Studies==
===Supporting examples===
From page 120-121

""As it turns out, repeated survey studies since 1981 have shown that in all
industrial sectors except for very few—most notably pharmaceuticals—firm
managers do not see patents as the most important way they capture the
benefits of their research and developments. They rank the advantages that
strong research and development gives them in lowering the cost or improving
the quality of manufacture, being the first in the market, or developing
strong marketing relationships as more important than patents."

In the case of Open Source the author gave the example of how IBM spends millions on it to gain other benefits of savings here, but the criteria above of branding and strong market gains are ever more relevant. So much so, erroneusly learning from Linux, many copycat projects are exploitatively trying to ride on ''planting the flag on the mountain'', and what they put out even though open, are more of 'market positioning' ploys. A September 2006 case is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compiere Compiere ]been a premier OS player in the Small Medium Business sector, but adopts a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cathedral_and_the_Bazaar ''Cathedral''] approach instead. They soon lost the branding advantage to [http://www.adempiere.com/wiki/index.php/Media_Coverage ADempiere] been obediently true ''peer-based community'' Compiere fork which proves the author's basis in this chapter. The ''wealth of networking'' by the community members quickly obliterate whatever [https://sourceforge.net/project/stats/?group_id=176962&ugn=adempiere advantage] Compiere had prior to it going after some funding - the matador's cloth of many OSS ploys. As another more recent case of [http://opensourceculture.blogspot.com/2006/11/yes-i-know.html Redhat vs Oracle] shows, such ''ploys'' are beginning to show its slip.
By such account, other pro-monetary projects such as MySpace, Google, YouTube may suffer the same threats as Netscape, Yahoo! and Hotmail has. [http://www.adempiere.org ADempiere] and another similar [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mambo_(CMS) OSS] fork, [http://www.joomla.org/ Joomla!] is living proof that OSS can stay rich for all its members without funding, and in perpetual mode.

===Counter-examples===

==Key Concepts==

'''Non-rival''' (36)

'''Standing-on-the-shoulders-of-giants Effect''' (37)

'''Input/Output Circularity (see Standing-on-the-shoulders-of-giants Effect)
'''

2. Some Basic Economics of Information Production and Innovation

2006-12-05T01:34:21Z

Red1: /* Supporting examples */ case of OSS trying to brand rather than open. Those who are steadfast survives

↑ [[Table of Contents]]<br />
← [[1. Introduction: A Moment of Opportunity and Challenge|Chapter 1]] | [[3. Peer Production and Sharing|Chapter 3]] →

== Content ==

* [http://www.benkler.org/Benkler_Wealth_Of_Networks_Chapter_2.pdf Full text (PDF)]
* [[Sentence-sliced Text Chapter 2|Full text, sentence-sliced (wiki)]]
* [[Summary Chapter 2|Summary (wiki)]]

== Summary ==

Information is nonrivalrous (we can both use it at the same time). It is also circular in that it is both input and output to its own production -- building a table requires wood, writing a paper requires other papers. Copyright laws are justified as making information rivalrous and thus creating a market for it but are constrained so that later the result can be used in the circular production process. But how is producing information actually motivated?

Strategies of producers fall along two axes: benefit maximization (using exclusive rights to make money, using nonexclusive rights to make money, using nonexclusive rights to get non-monetary benefits) and cost minimization (using public domain information, using purchased/owned information, and using privately shared information). This results in nine production strategies. Each strategy receives different inefficiencies from copyright law, so a law's effects depend on which strategies are used. But which strategies get used depends on the law.

Which strategies are used also depends on the technology. New technology has made nonmarket strategies more practical, but incumbent firms want to protect their own models by strengthening copyright laws.

==Sources==
===Sources cited in the chapter===
===Other relevant readings===

==Case Studies==
===Supporting examples===
From page 120-121

""As it turns out, repeated survey studies since 1981 have shown that in all
industrial sectors except for very few—most notably pharmaceuticals—firm
managers do not see patents as the most important way they capture the
benefits of their research and developments. They rank the advantages that
strong research and development gives them in lowering the cost or improving
the quality of manufacture, being the first in the market, or developing
strong marketing relationships as more important than patents."

In the case of Open Source the author gave the example of how IBM spends millions on it to gain other benefits of savings here, but the criteria above of branding and strong market gains are ever more relevant. So much so, erroneusly learning from Linux, many copycat projects are exploitatively trying to ride on ''planting the flag on the mountain'', and what they put out even though open, are more of 'market positioning' ploys. A September 2006 case is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compiere Compiere ]been a premier OS player in the Small Medium Business sector, but adopts a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cathedral_and_the_Bazaar ''Cathedral''] approach instead. They soon lost the branding advantage to [http://www.adempiere.com/wiki/index.php/Media_Coverage ADempiere] been obediently true ''peer-based community'' Compiere fork which proves the author's basis in this chapter. The ''wealth of networking'' by the community members quickly obliterate whatever [https://sourceforge.net/project/stats/?group_id=176962&ugn=adempiere advantage] Compiere had prior to it going after some funding - the matador's cloth of many OSS ploys. As another more recent case of [http://opensourceculture.blogspot.com/2006/11/yes-i-know.html Redhat vs Oracle] shows, such ''ploys'' are beginning to show its slip.
By such account, other pro-monetary projects such as MySpace, Google, YouTube may suffer the same threats as Netscape, Yahoo! and Hotmail has. [http://www.adempiere.org ADempiere] and another similar OSS fork, [http://www.joomla.org/ Joomla!] is living proof that OSS can stay rich for all its members without funding, and in perpetual mode.

===Counter-examples===

==Key Concepts==

'''Non-rival''' (36)

'''Standing-on-the-shoulders-of-giants Effect''' (37)

'''Input/Output Circularity (see Standing-on-the-shoulders-of-giants Effect)
'''

Commentary Chapter 3

2006-12-04T10:00:27Z

Red1: /* Peer Production of Information, knowledge, and Culture Generally */ both sides are true..

===Overview===

===Free/Open Source Software===

===Peer Production of Information, knowledge, and Culture Generally===
I would like to comment on one salient aspect of [[Wikipedia]] to which I believe you have not given full enough attention, although I acknowledge it may not serve your thesis in quite the same way. You write at 74:

What is perhaps
surprising is that this success occurs not in a tightly knit community with
many social relations to reinforce the sense of common purpose and the
social norms embodying it, but in a large and geographically dispersed group
of otherwise unrelated participants. It suggests that even in a group of this
size, social norms coupled with a facility to allow any participant to edit out
purposeful or mistaken deviations in contravention of the social norms, and
a robust platform for largely unmediated conversation, keep the group on
track.

I believe the characterization of the project not having a "tightly knit community with many social relations" is in a fundamental respect simply not true. Wikipedia has thousands of users who are registered and who maintain a rich and diverse culture of userpages. With each page on the encyclopedia, as well as the User: namespace, there exists a discussion page, or Talk: page; it is in the nature of all wikis, especially those running MediaWiki software such as this. The vast network of intertwined editors have been through the same edit wars, shared opposition to vandals, categorized themselves with userboxes denoting various enthusiasms, wiki-philosophies, collegiate affiliations and so forth. There are "projects" to enhance content areas with users claiming allegiance to the same. And, because all edits in the wiki are identified by Username, the User: page is only a click away from any page in the encyclopedia.

Why does this matter? Because it is not just the social construct of a million thoughtful scribes punching away at this project one keystroke at a time - it is a million '''people'''. '''Humans'''. With '''personality'''. It is life's rich pageant to be sure. It is a proper reflection of the diversity of interest any encyclopedia captures at its best. These individuals also engage in the time-honored internet traditions of the use of colorful pen names, identities, and mythology.

To this add, there are other dimensions of interaction apart from the facially visible text. The Wikimedia Foundation has mailing lists for each of its projects and maintains a 24/7 presence in IRC space as well. Hundreds if not thousands of users will be online at any given time, interacting in ways that are some distance away from any article.

I will return to this page at a more decent hour and add the requisite citations to Wikipedia for those interested. For now, I was struck by the treatment Wikipedia received in the book, and while it says so much, and captures its academic essence, it is in fact a much, much richer community. And I'm only talking about '''English''' Wikipedia! The dozens of other languages will have much more to say about their own subcultures.

The best part is, we are living it now. It is real now. And it is changing the world. --[[User:BradPatrick|BradPatrick]] 20:49, 19 April 2006 (PDT)

----

The point of Brad is certainly true in our case at the [[http://www.adempiere.org/ ADempiere Project]] where we have a ''closely knit'' culture and social norm based on a common interest highly assisted by tools such as the IRC room where the new found members quickly bond and push out our production more speedily and at previously unheard of quality and variety. As u can see we are geographically dispersed and prior to this project mostly unknown to each other.
But having said that, the author is also right. There are many cases where a long tail of often solo appearances of participation been made to our project content, such as posting of bugs' info, and after that never to hear from them again. [[User:Red1|Red1]] 18:30, 3 December 2006 (PST)

====Uttering Content====

====Relevance/Accreditation====

====Value-Added Distribution====

====Sharing of Processing, Storage, and Communications Platforms====

User:Red1

2006-12-04T02:33:36Z

Red1: short intro

I learn, therefore i am.
: [[User:Red1|Red1]]

[http://www.red1.org Drop by sometime!]

Commentary Chapter 3

2006-12-04T02:30:39Z

Red1: /* Peer Production of Information, knowledge, and Culture Generally */

===Overview===

===Free/Open Source Software===

===Peer Production of Information, knowledge, and Culture Generally===
I would like to comment on one salient aspect of [[Wikipedia]] to which I believe you have not given full enough attention, although I acknowledge it may not serve your thesis in quite the same way. You write at 74:

What is perhaps
surprising is that this success occurs not in a tightly knit community with
many social relations to reinforce the sense of common purpose and the
social norms embodying it, but in a large and geographically dispersed group
of otherwise unrelated participants. It suggests that even in a group of this
size, social norms coupled with a facility to allow any participant to edit out
purposeful or mistaken deviations in contravention of the social norms, and
a robust platform for largely unmediated conversation, keep the group on
track.

I believe the characterization of the project not having a "tightly knit community with many social relations" is in a fundamental respect simply not true. Wikipedia has thousands of users who are registered and who maintain a rich and diverse culture of userpages. With each page on the encyclopedia, as well as the User: namespace, there exists a discussion page, or Talk: page; it is in the nature of all wikis, especially those running MediaWiki software such as this. The vast network of intertwined editors have been through the same edit wars, shared opposition to vandals, categorized themselves with userboxes denoting various enthusiasms, wiki-philosophies, collegiate affiliations and so forth. There are "projects" to enhance content areas with users claiming allegiance to the same. And, because all edits in the wiki are identified by Username, the User: page is only a click away from any page in the encyclopedia.

Why does this matter? Because it is not just the social construct of a million thoughtful scribes punching away at this project one keystroke at a time - it is a million '''people'''. '''Humans'''. With '''personality'''. It is life's rich pageant to be sure. It is a proper reflection of the diversity of interest any encyclopedia captures at its best. These individuals also engage in the time-honored internet traditions of the use of colorful pen names, identities, and mythology.

To this add, there are other dimensions of interaction apart from the facially visible text. The Wikimedia Foundation has mailing lists for each of its projects and maintains a 24/7 presence in IRC space as well. Hundreds if not thousands of users will be online at any given time, interacting in ways that are some distance away from any article.

I will return to this page at a more decent hour and add the requisite citations to Wikipedia for those interested. For now, I was struck by the treatment Wikipedia received in the book, and while it says so much, and captures its academic essence, it is in fact a much, much richer community. And I'm only talking about '''English''' Wikipedia! The dozens of other languages will have much more to say about their own subcultures.

The best part is, we are living it now. It is real now. And it is changing the world. --[[User:BradPatrick|BradPatrick]] 20:49, 19 April 2006 (PDT)

----

The point of Brad is certainly true in our case at the [[http://www.adempiere.org/ ADempiere Project]] where we have a ''closely knit'' culture and social norm based on a common interest highly assisted by tools such as the IRC room where the new found members quickly bond and push out our production more speedily and at previously unheard of quality and variety. As u can see we are geographically dispersed and prior to this project mostly unknown to each other. [[User:Red1|Red1]] 18:30, 3 December 2006 (PST)

====Uttering Content====

====Relevance/Accreditation====

====Value-Added Distribution====

====Sharing of Processing, Storage, and Communications Platforms====