Own Nothing, Have Everything
- original Napster slogan
For social change, "ownership design is the most foundational".
- David Korten 
"Peer production, peer governance, peer property",
Excerpt of Article by Michel Bauwens - link : http://www.re-public.gr/en/?p=87
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Typology
- 2.1 Typology of Commons Regulation
- 2.2 Typology of Property Rights in Common-Pool Resources
- 2.3 The 3 Property Institutions:
- 2.4 Typology of Generative Ownership Forms
- 3 Introductory Articles
- 4 Key Resources
- 5 Short Citations
- 6 Long Citations
"Peer to peer social processes are bottom-up processes whereby agents in a distributed network can freely engage in common pursuits, without external coercion. It is important to realize that distributed systems differ from decentralized systems, essentially because in the latter, the hubs are obligatory, while in the former, they are the result of voluntary choices. Distributed networks do have constraints, internal coercion, that are the conditions for the group to operate, and they may be embedded in the technical infrastructure, the social norms, or legal rules.
P2P social processes more precisely engender:
3) Peer Property: the institutional and legal framework they choose to guard against the private appropriation of this common work; this usually takes the form of non-exclusionary forms of universal common property"
- Please read: Extractive vs. Generative Ownership
On the Importance of Distinguishing Sharing Private Property vs. Commons vs. Public Property
From Natalia Fernández, translated by Steve Herrick:
"Municipal goods and services are not “commons,” and rental vehicle from a company-owed fleet is not “collaborative.” Confusing things only can lead to disillusionment and disappointment.
Anglo culture and the absence of public policies in the US tended to distort the terms “commons” and collaborative consumption/”sharing.” Municipal bicycle or car-sharing services, even though they may be shared in the sense that there is one vehicle and many users, don’t create any kind of commons, nor are they collaborative consumption. They are mere extensions of transportation services, no different from other public utilities when they are publicly owned, or from a car-rental company when privately owned.
The “commons,” that which is communal, is goods that belong to a community, a group of real people, a demos, that manages it jointly and directly. Public property is something else: it is State property.
But, isn’t public property, by definition, the common property of all citizens? Wouldn’t municipal public goods be, by definition, “communal?” No. Publicly-owned goods are managed through specific institutions that decide how they are used and where the profits go. Citizens don’t take part directly in management and decisions about these goods and their use. They are not communal.
The municipal bus business of any city can be a publicly-owned good, property of city hall, or of the wider region. But it is not a communal good. The classic example of communal goods would be the common lands of many towns, collectively owned by their users, who directly manage their use. The transportation business could be part of the urban commons if it was, simply, a cooperative of users. The “sharing economy” or collaborative consumption exists when the users share use of goods, while maintaining private ownership. If city hall or a company makes cars or bicycles publicly available (charging a rental fee) there’s no collaborative consumption. “Bike sharing” would be when you share the use of your bike(s) with others through a system of use management. If no one shares their personal property, there’s no “sharing” at all. In most municipal “biking” or “car-sharing” services, the bikes belong to a company or city hall itself. There is no collaborative consumption, but rather, hourly rental." (https://english.lasindias.com/how-to-put-an-end-to-the-urban-commons-and-sharing-once-and-for-all)
= a clear distinction is to be made between resources owned in common (common property) and resources for which no property rights have been defined (open access).
G.G. Stevenson compares these three forms in terms of group limitation and extraction limitation. 
Typology of Commons Regulation
"Access: A right to enter a defined physical property
Withdrawal: A right to harvest the products of a resource such as timber, water or food for pastoral animals
Management: A right to regulate the use patterns of other harvesters and to transform a resource system by making improvements
Exclusion: A right to determine who will have the right of access to a resource and whether that right can be transferred
Alienation: A right to sell or lease any of the above rights "
The 3 Property Institutions:
- Limited: members only, unlimited extraction - Unlimited: open to anyone, unlimited extraction
Common Property: members only, extraction limited by rules
Private Property: one, extraction limited by individual decision
- Stefan Meretz has produced, with his daughter, a very useful and clear taxonomy of common goods, according to five criteria. Pauline Schwarze and Franco Iacomella provided translation support, from the original German to English.
- See the graphic from Wolfgang Hoechsele: Choosing the Right Form of Common Property
Typology of Generative Ownership Forms
Marjorie Kelly on THE FAMILY OF GENERATIVE OWNERSHIP DESIGN:
Commons and government ownership:
Assets like the ocean, a forest, land, a park, or a municipal power plant are held or governed indivisibly by a community. This category includes, but is not limited to, government ownership.
Ownership by people with a human stake in a private enterprise – including cooperatives, partnerships, credit unions, mutual insurance companies, employee-owned firms, and family-owned companies – where the central purpose is a life-serving one.
Organizations with a primary social or environmental mission, which rely either on charity (nonprofits) or use business methods (social enterprise). This category, which includes hospitals, universities and non-governmental organizations, embraces nonprofits, subsidiaries of nonprofits, and certain private businesses.
Corporations with a strong social purpose that are owned in conventional ways (often with publicly traded shares), yet keep governing control in mission-oriented hands. These can include family-controlled firms, and the large foundation-controlled companies common across northern Europe." (http://www.gtinitiative.org/documents/IssuePerspectives/GTI-Perspectives-Architecture_of_Enterprise.pdf)
- Copyright Monopoly Stands in Direct Opposition to Property Rights. By Rick Falkvinge.
- Matt Cropp: P2P-Driven Decline in Transaction Costs and the Coming Micro-Ownership Revolution
- An Ideological History of the Urge to Own. An excerpt from chapter four of Charles Eisenstein's book on Sacred Economics.
- Introduction to Private and Common Property: Achim Lerch, The Tragedy of the Tragedy of the Commons. 
- Martin Pedersen: 1) Property as a Social Relation ; Free Software as Property
- In a special issue of the Cornell Law Review, Vol. 94:743, four noted professors of property law wrote a brief series of propositions they identified as “A Statement of Progressive Property. 
- Kevin Kelly: In a dematerialized economy, sharing is better than owning
- Dmytri Kleiner: The Modular Company, Open Capital, Venture Communism: How are they related
- The three modalities of Production Sharing, i.e. working together for a common pool, without individual exchange or barter: 1) Labor Quota System; 2) Fair-Share Labor System; 3) Anti-Quota Labor System
- Marjorie Kelly: Not Just For Profit: Emerging alternatives to the shareholder-centric model could help companies avoid ethical mishaps and contribute more to the world at large. Explores three new-style corporate designs: 1. stakeholder-owned companies; 2. mission-controlled companies; and 3. public-private hybrids.
- It is very important to distinguish the four different degrees of freedom], culminating in Triple-Free Software and peer production. An insight from Tere Vaden.
- The Property Taskforce is a good resource to learn about Property regimes
Special topic: Commons-oriented Software Licenses
- Richard Stallman argues forcefully, that we should not use the muddled concept of IP, and explains Why Software Should Not Have Owners.
- Patrick Anderson explains the difference (and deep similarity) between Ownership of Software vs. Ownership of Goods, and says open property models could be extended once we accept that the user (and not the worker) is the owner of the physical means of production. See also his proposal for User Ownership
- Karl Fogel explains how the General Public License uses Copyright to obtain the opposite effect of guaranteeing sharing: Stallman's Jiujitsu
- The Libre Labyrinth. Navigating the Maze of Free and NonFree Licenses. By Greg London, 2008: describes an objective way to understand how various FLOS licenses work, and how different FLOS licenses compare to one another
- A Comparative Ethical Assessment of Free Software Licensing Schemes. By S.Chopra and S. Dexter: how to choose between Free Software, Open Source Software, or proprietary software, from an ethical point of view
- Copyleft and the Theory of Property. Mikhaïl Xifaras (French)
Special topic: property and conflict in free culture communities:
- Play Struggle, excerpts of the book Hacking Capitalism by Johan Soderbergh.
- Klang, Mathias, "Avatar: From Deity to Corporate Property - A Philosophical Inquiry into Digital Property in Online Games
- Contrasting Proprietary and Free/Open Source Game Development, Alessandro Rossi & Marco Zamarian
- Moore, Christopher. 2005. "Commonising The Enclosure: Online Games And Reforming Intellectual Property Regimes." Australian Journal of Emerging Technologies and Society 3(2): examine the potential for computer game studies to contribute to an understanding of an alternative intellectual property regime known as the commons
- Who Owns the Mods? by Yong Ming Kow and Bonnie Nardi. First Monday, Volume 15, Number 5 - 3 May 2010 
- The Role of the Commons and Common Property in an Economy of Abundance. Wolfgang Hoeschele. 
- Carol M. Rose, 1) The Several Futures of Property: Of Cyberspace and Folk Tales, Emission Trades and Ecosystems, 83 MINN. L. REV. 129 (1998) ; 2) PROPERTY AND PERSUASION: ESSAYS ON THE HISTORY,
THEORY, AND RHETORIC OF OWNERSHIP (1994);
- Pat Conaty and Mike Lewis, the Resilience Imperative.
Chapter 11 focused directly upon your question about Ownership transfer mechanisms and what these look like including the roots of the idea in the 1820s with the insights of Thomas Spence the ingenious proponent of working land trusts (see chapter 4), the brilliant French Swiss political economist, Sismondi and working up from there through the Chartists, Ruskin, other co-operative commonwealth visionaries and practitioners through to Gandhi's trusteeship concepts, CLTs, Democratic ESOPs, the Co-operative Land Bank etc ... "
- Property And Persuasion: Essays On The History, Theory, And Rhetoric Of Ownership. by Carol M Rose. Westview Press, 1994
- Majorie Kelly. Owning Our Future: The Emerging Ownership Revolution. Journeys to a Generative Economy. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2012 
- Ulrich Duchrow. Property for People, Not for Profit. ZED Books, 2004: history of extractive property, and its alternatives.
- The Divine Right of Capital: Dethroning the Corporate Aristocracy. Berrett-Koehler, 2001. . Key thesis: the corporation is a feudal structure ; one of those mind-opening books that deserves to be read by a large audience
- Property Outlaws: How Squatters, Pirates and Protesters Improve the Law of Ownership. By Sonia Katyal and Eduardo Penalver. Yale University Press, 2010
"On Immaterial Property"
- Common Cause. Information Between Commons and Property. Philippe Aigrain.  Unpubished, select version of: Cause Commune.
- Code. Collaborative Ownership and the Digital Commons: Rishab Aiyer Ghosh (Ed). MIT Press, 2005.: essays on 'immaterial' property
* PhD thesis - "Property, Commoning and the Politics of Free Software". J. Martin Pedersen. Thesis submitted January 2010, Department of Philosophy, Lancaster University. Examined by Massimo De Angelis.: The thesis is a philosophical and political inquiry into the material nature of immateriality and was published as the first of a two volume Special Issue of The Commoner and also presented on http://commoning.wordpress.com
Key Peer Property Modalities
- Fair Shares: this model of cooperative property makes a lot of sense
The difference between open access and defined property rights (private or common property), by contrast, is the difference between an unregulated and a regulated condition. The difference is fundamental.
- Achim Lerch 
For Stevenson, a “private property, common property, open access trichotomy” ultimately exists. He compares these three forms in terms of group limitation and extraction limitation. Characteristic of the common property form is that both the group and the extent of resource use are limited by the individual members.
Source: STEVENSON, G.G: Common Property Economics. A General Theory and Land Use Applications. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.1991, p.58
"One age builds upon the last. We do not go back, but carry forward the former ages in new ways. In the industrial age, we industrialized agriculture. In the age of finance, we financialized industry. As we move into a more ecologically sensitive era, we will need to ecologize finance. And we will need to socialize it — make it more inclusive, less elite. Redesigning the social architectures of our economy is a vital part of transformation—as vital as redesigning the physical architectures of our energy and product system. My sense is we are … entering an era with a multiplicity of ownership designs – a time of biodiversity in social architecture, beyond the monoculture of the corporate form."
- Majorie Kelly 
"The commons breaks with the individualistic vision as conceived by the capitalist tradition, a vision that has progressively transferred the idea of rights to individual people. The commons take inclusion and everyone’s equal right to access as its starting point, while property and the idea of the state that upholds it is based on a rivalry of goods, and thus on exclusion and concentration of power in institutions that insure and protect it. The commons try to situate themselves outside the subject-object reductionism that would lead to their commodification. The commons cannot be commodified (because they cannot be transferred, or alienated), and they cannot be the object of individualised possession. And so they express a qualitative logic, not a quantitative one. We do not ‘have’ a common good, we ‘form part of’ the common good, in that we form part of an ecosystem, of a system of relations in an urban or rural environment; the subject is part of the object. Common goods are inseparably united, and they unite people as well as communities and the ecosystem itself."
- Joan Subirats 
"Imagine a world where property is owned because it is being well stewarded rather than ownership being a priori to stewardship. Much of the worst behavior we see in the economy would be impossible, because the second any firm stopped stewarding their properties for the benefit of the larger community, they would no longer own their properties (intellectual or otherwise). In this world ownership is derived from good stewardship, rather than the other way around."
- Alan Rosenblith 
"Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labor employed on the products appear here as the value of these products, as a material quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labor no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of total labor. The phrase "proceeds of labor", objectionable also today on account of its ambiguity, thus loses all meaning. … labor [will] become not only a means of life but life's prime want
- Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme 
At the center of the digital revolution, with the executable bitstreams that make everything else possible, propertarian regimes not only do not make things better, they can make things radically worse. Property concepts, whatever else may be wrong with them, do not enable and have in fact retarded progress. In the network society, anarchism (or more properly, anti-possessive individualism) is a viable political philosophy … because defection is impossible, free riders are welcome, which resolves one of the central puzzles of collective action in a propertarian social system.
"In Roman law, property, or dominium, is a relation between a person and a thing, characterized by absolute power of that person over that thing....Human beings can have relations with one another. But what would it mean to have a 'relation' with a thing?....[But,] Imagine a man trapped on a desert island. He might develop extremely personal relationships with, say, the palm trees....and, if he's there too long, he might well end up giving them all names and spending half his time having imaginary conversations with them. Still, does he 'own' them? ....Clearly, then, property is not really a relation between a person and a thing. It's an understanding or arrangement between people concerning things."
~ David Graeber, Debt: The First 5,000 Years 
"As long as we focus on types of ownership, we seem to be leaving out all who are not owners. That is one reason I argue for a civic based economy rather than a property-based economy.
I am certainly for employee ownership and worker co-ops. One needs to remember, however, that property and ownership are legal concepts, or civic concepts. In "Civilizing the Economy I tried to develop a civic view of ownership and of property.
The civic is about membership and the rights of members to control their lives, rather than have their lives control by owners. Ownership, in my view, should rest on a civic foundation."
- Marvin Brown (email, August 2013)
This category has the following 6 subcategories, out of 6 total.
Pages in category "Peerproperty"
The following 200 pages are in this category, out of 575 total.(previous page) (next page)
- Abundance vs. Scarcity
- Accumulation by Dispossession
- Advancing the Concept of Public Goods
- Adventure Economy
- Agrarian Trust
- Agricultural Land Trust
- Airwaves Trust
- Alanna Hartzok on Why the Earth Belongs to Everyone
- Alternative Forms of Common-Interest Communities
- Alternative Left-Libertarian Means of Privatizing State Property
- America Beyond Capitalism
- Annemarie Naylor
- Annemarie Naylor on Digital Asset and Enterprise Development by Communities
- Antagonistic Usage of the Commons Concept
- Anti-Rivalness of Free Software
- Anticommons Property
- Aquifer Trust
- Arrosa irrati sarea/eu
- Artificial Property Rights
- Asset Sharing
- Asset Transfer
- Asset Transfer Unit
- Asset Transfer Unit (UK)
- Asset-Based Community Development
- Asset-Based Community Development Institute
- Asset-Based Egalitarianism
- Asymmetric Competition
- Atmospheric Trust Lawsuits
- Authorization and Governance in Virtual Worlds
- Axel Bruns on Produsage
- B Lab
- Behind the Meter Community Energy Projects
- Benefit Sharing
- Bioregional Trusts
- Bit Assets
- Blake Jones of Namaste Solar on Democratic Energy Cooperatives
- Blockchain Property Rights Project
- Block’s Corollary on Property Rights
- Bringing the Power of the Law to Environmental Stewardship with Common Property Rights
- Building a Stakeholder Society as an Alternative to the Market and the State
- Business Models for the Commons
- Buy This Satellite
- Can We Do It Ourselves
- Canonical Contributor Agreement
- Capital Commons Trusts
- Capital Homestead
- Capital Partnership
- Car Sharing
- Case for Economic Democracy
- Case for New Models of Public Ownership
- Catch Share Fishing
- Center for Economic and Social Justice
- CGIAR Systemwide Program on Collective Action and Property Rights
- Challenge Corporate Control of Water
- Champlain Housing Trust
- Choosing the Right Form of Common Property
- Chris Cook on Capital Partnerships
- Chris Cook on Property Protocols
- Citizen Owned
- Citizen Owned Internet
- Citizen Ownership
- Citizen-Owned WiFi Meshwork
- Citizens Own Renewable Energy Network Australia
- City Street Trust
- Civic Membership vs Market Ownership
- Club Model of Cultural Consumption and Distribution
- Co-operative Land Bank
- Coalition of Artists and Share Holders
- Cohousing Directory
- Coin Street Community Builders
- Collaborative Ownership and the Digital Commons
- Common Cause
- Common Company
- Common Futures
- Common Goods
- Common Ground
- Common Heritage of Mankind
- Common in Commonism
- Common Land
- Common Law
- Common Ownership
- Common Pool Resource
- Common Pool Resource Property Rights
- Common Property
- Common Property Economics
- Common Property in Free Market Anarchism
- Common Property Regime
- Common Property Resources
- Common Property Rights Project
- Common Property Theory
- Common Property vs Public Property
- Common Resource
- Common Rights vs Collective Rights
- Common Stock Commons
- Common Wealth
- Common Wealth Propertization
- Common Wealth Propertization vs. Common Wealth Privatization
- Common Wealth Trusts
- Common Wealth Trusts as Structures of Transition
- Commons - Typology
- Commons and Cooperatives
- Commons and Primitive Accumulation
- Commons Law
- Commons Trusts
- Commons Trusts FAQ
- Commons-Based Reciprocity Licenses
- Commons-Based Reciprocity Licenses To Advance Reciprocity for the Commons
- Communal Property
- Community Broadband Networks
- Community Controlled Digital Infrastructure
- Community Development Corporations
- Community Energy
- Community Energy in Germany
- Community Energy in the UK
- Community Energy Strategy
- Community Enterprise
- Community Forests
- Community Heat Partnerships
- Community Investment Corporation
- Community Investment Enterprises
- Community Knowledge Hub for Libraries
- Community Land
- Community Land Ownership Outperforms Private
- Community Land Partnership
- Community Land Partnership for Rural Housing in Scotland
- Community Land Trust Reader
- Community Land Trusts
- Community Land Trusts (UK)
- Community Lands
- Community Managed Libraries
- Community Owned and Operated Cellular Networks
- Community Ownership
- Community Renewable Energy
- Community Renewable Energy Webinar
- Community Right to Bid
- Community Shares
- Community Shares Marketplace
- Community Shares Unit
- Community Source Software
- Community Sufficiency Technologies
- Community Supported Art
- Community Supported Bakeries
- Community Supported Breweries
- Community Wealth-building
- Community Wind
- Community-Owned Assets
- Community-Owned Business
- Community-Owned Corporation
- Community-Owned Farms
- Community-Owned Performing Arts Collectives
- Community-Owned Wind Power Projects
- Concurrent Estate
- Consumer Stock Ownership Plan
- Convergence of Free and Slow Culture in Global Relocalisation
- Cooperative Banks
- Cooperative Housing Usership Design
- Cooperative Market Economy
- Cooperative Micro Ownership
- Cooperative Place Making and the Capturing of Land Value for 21st Century Garden Cities
- Cooperative Wealth Building
- Copyfarleft and Copyjustright
- Copyleft and the Theory of Property
- Copyleft vs. Copyright
- Copyright and Open Source
- Copyright Monopoly Stands in Direct Opposition to Property Rights
- Copyright, Copyleft and the Creative Anti-Commons
- Corporation 20 20
- Creative Commons El Salvador/es
- Credit Commons
- Credit Union
- Critique of One-Sided Capitalist Contracts
- Currency Proposal for Liquid Ownership
- Customer Owned
- Customer Stock Ownership Plan
- Customer-Controlled Networks
- Data Cooperatives
- Data Ownership
- David Martin on the Heritable Innovation Trust
- De-commmodified Property
- Defensive Patent License
- Defining Open Content Licenses
- Democratizing Wealth for Building a Citizens' Economy
- Development Trust Association (UK)
- Diffuse Innovation
- Digital Gleaning
- Digital Sharecropping
- Direct Democratic Ownership and Management of Natural Resources
- Direct Social Property