Beware the uniquely Liberal concept of ownership. For John Stuart Mill, ownership meant title and control. For many others it merely means taking responsibility, as in "owning up to" an act or decision. In the first sense, assuredly, many techno-literates do not own computers but use them in common settings. (It's an interesting thing to pursue this ownership of software, in which case those who know how to use it could likely be chased by the likes of Microsoft for some licensing fee.)
The second concept of ownership has much more trans-cultural meaning, since it represents those deeper, more transcultural concept of responsibility and community. While it's wise to beware of the limits of certain cultural norms like ownership, it's a lot more fruitful to explore those wider meanings to build a different concept of legal and copyright and licensing ownership. Maybe that Microsoft argument has more justice than arguments for universal distribution of soon-to-be outdated hardware. Joe Beckmann -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Subbiah Arunachalam Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 6:27 AM To: The Digital Divide Network discussion group; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [DDN]The Personal vs the Social Computer Was: Updateonthe Simputer Errol Hewitt wrote: "As soon as the individual or family in the community sees the benefit of the technology to his/her own circumstance, is when the real economic decision will be taken to learn the skill and "own it" -- then is when the sacrifice will be made to 'own' it." Sorry, that is not what I see in reality. Most people learn the skills long before they can own a gadget. How many autorickshaw and taxi drivers in the city of Madras own the vehicle? A very small proportion. But they all know how to drive and they all have valid driving licenses. How many people working in BPO offices in Madras own computers at home? Hardly anyone. But all of them use computers with great felicity. Hundreds of villagers - men, women, adults, children - in Pondicherry have learnt to use computers through the 'public commons' facility made available through the MSSRF Knowledge Centres, but hardly anyone owns a computer. Look at the New York Public Library or the Library of Congress. If I am a member I can use all of their collections. Can I ever magine to own even a minute part of those magnificent collections? That is the power of the 'public commons' approach; that is the value of sharing. Arun [Subbiah Arunachalam] ----- Original Message ----- From: "ehewitt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "The Digital Divide Network discussion group" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 9:07 PM Subject: Re: [DDN]The Personal vs the Social Computer Was: Updateonthe Simputer > Hi Arun, > I think you have placed your 'finger' on the essential in this > discussion when in the context of your entire note you said, > "Eventually, when an individual (or a family) earns enough to be able > to afford something he/she may decide to 'own' it" > As soon as the individual or family in the community see's the benefit > of the technology to his/her own circumstance, is when the real > economic decision will be taken to learn the skill and "own it" -- > then is when the sacrifice will be made to 'own' it. > The more heavily discounted the price-- the better [but this is in the > context where sacrifices are made even for non economic reasons e.g > 'fashion' shoes etc] The truly important core factor is maximizing the > use of the limited number of computers by meaningfully applying them > to the individual in the community "where he/she is... what they are > doing and as they are..." > Taran's point is I think very valid in that the more the computer is > configured around the needs of the individuals, the quicker and more > applicable it is seen to be etc.-- the more applicable [beneficial] > it is seen to be the greater the passion and the sacrifice for the > community and the individuals to want to acquire. > To be noted as well is the fact, alluded to earlier by Taran, that > while purchase is essentially a "one off " matter, maintaining it in > use is a bigger problem as in most developing countries annual > Internet use is much higher in cost than per capital GDP. > Errol > [Errol Hewitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] > > At 19:24 30/05/2005 +0530, you wrote: >>I agree with you Steve. At each one of the M S Swaminathan Research >>Foundation Knowledge Centres in Pondicherry in southern India we have >>a few computers - not more than five in any centre, and one of them is >>out of bounds for all but the centre volunteers. But these are common >>assets for the entire village. What is at work is the idea of public >>commons. We cannot afford to provide computers and telephones and >>Internet accounts to everyone in the village. That is the reality. How >>can we overcome the problem? What we lack is the financial resources >>to buy gadgets. What we have is a large heart, a willingness to share >>what little we have, a commitment to care for others. After all >>development is about sharing and caring. The computers and every other >>service provided at the centre (such as information on a whole range >>of local needs) is open to all. It works well. Eventually, when an >>individual (or a family) earns enough to be able to afford something he/she may decide to 'own' it. >> >>Arun >>[Subbiah Arunachalam] >> >>----- Original Message ----- From: "Dr. Steve Eskow" >><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>To: "The Digital Divide Network discussion group" >><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2005 6:46 AM >>Subject: RE: [DDN]The Personal vs the Social Computer Was: Update >>onthe Simputer >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>Taran, I wish you'd reconsider your "basic economics": for example, >>>your belief that $480 that stays in India to buy a computer is >>>"better" than buying one elsewhere for $300. That may not sit well >>>with those in India or Africa who have to buy a computer. Ghana, >>>where I work, is richer than some of its sub-Saharan neighbors: $400 >>>US is what the average Ghanaian earns a year, a year's earning not >>>quite enough to buy your Simputer. >>> >>>And I wish you'd reconsider conclusions like this one: >>> >>><<If you've ever had to share one computer with 20 people, and it was >>>your only access point, I doubt you would be able to email as often. >>>You wouldn't have leisure time to read articles that *you* might find >>>interesting.>> >>> >>>I've had to share buses and trains with many people, and you're right: >>>it's >>>not nearly as convenient as owning my own automobile. And I've had to >>>get my learning at public schools, not nearly as convenient as >>>private tutoring. >>>And I've had to borrow books from a public library, not nearly >>>convenient as buying my own and owning them. >>> >>>And I've used computers at libraries and internet cafes, and you're >>>right: >>>sharing a computer is not nearly as convenient as owning one. >>> >>>And I ask you to consider that your convenience argument is >>>misleading, and downright harmful. >>> >>>If we insist on private automobiles, millions will be continue to be >>>without rapid transport, and we will continue to foul the >>>environment. >>> >>>And if we insist on personal ownership of books, millions will not >>>read, even if we cut down enough trees for all those books. >>> >>>And if we insist on the personal computer, billions will not cross >>>the digital divide. >>> >>>If the advantages of the Simputer at $480 are so much greater than >>>that of the desktop at less, let's urge small churches or cafes or >>>schools in the poorer nations to buy one or two or three and share >>>them, until such time as the folks in the community can afford to buy >>>their own. >>> >>><<In the focus on the reduction of cost, I sincerely believe by these >>>communications that the increase in quality of life as the *value* >>>has been lost.>> >>> >>>You may have it backwards, Taran. Those who insist on personal >>>automobiles and personal libraries and personal computers may be the >>>ones who are slowing down the erasure of the many divides between the >>>haves and the have-nots. >>> >>>Steve Eskow >>> >>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >>_______________________________________________ >>DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list >>[email protected] >>http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide >>To unsubscribe, send a message to >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message. > _______________________________________________ > DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide > To unsubscribe, send a message to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message. _______________________________________________ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message. _______________________________________________ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message.
