On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, Christian Villum wrote:
Science question: I am researching disorder in open culture (open
culture defined as referring to the actors, practices and produce that
constitute an environment of open sharing, prosumerism, copyright
liberalization activism and collaborative development work).
My hypothesis is that the immanent and ubiquitous disorder (unstable,
autonomous, illegal, unpaid and irregular practices) is a most
significant part of what makes open culture vibrant, dynamic,
innovative, productive and even at times what makes it competitive
(compared to similar conventional/proprietary/controlled/corporate
practices). In other words, that this disorder is a strength in the open
culture, not a flaw. Do you agree? Disagree? Why and why not?
Secondly, I am looking for particular examples from open culture where
disorder is appearant.
So this question is pretty flamebait-y for FC-Discuss, which
generally stays on the "legal" side rather than the illegal.
But a few thoughts:
* Windows Mobile and Apple iPhone hacking groups seem to relish legal
uncertainty of their position. I think that having a *fight* really helps
these groups gather enthusiasm.
* "Irregular" practices could mean either (a) rapidly-changing or (b)
unusual. If it means (b) then it's only "irregular" from your perspective.
For example, IRC chat is considered "irregular" by most Internet
users these days. Yes, Free Software geeks take some pride in their use of
a historic but today-obscure protocol.
* Your willingenss to call "unpaid" work evidence of "disorder"
is strange, at best.
Take a look at the emergence of freeculture.org chapters, Hackerspaces,
the co-working groups, and the Maker community and you'll see that the
human beings who participate in open culture find order useful. It's a
balancing act. Check out the history of Students for Free Culture. It
started out as ad-hoc and disorderly (even possibly illegal -- we won OPG
v. Diebold, but we could have lost the case). Today it's so
institutionalized we have sponsorship and (I think) a legal entity. There
are efficiencies that organization can provide, and open culture groups
are no exception.
The Internet itself is "disorderly", but it appears calm to users. You
only see the disorder when (for example) an ISP in Pakistan breaks YouTube
for much of the rest of the world by fiddling with the routing tables the
whole world uses. (see http://blogs.zdnet.com/threatchaos/?p=548 and
http://www.circleid.com/posts/82258_pakistan_hijacks_youtube_closer_look )
Generally, I think your question doesn't show clear thinking or good
understanding of the communities we'd call open culture ones. That, or
it's bizarrely vague. The answer lies in the specifics and your
perspective.
But there are some thoughts.
-- Asheesh.
--
All most people want is a little more than they'll ever get.
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
