“Anyone can use the commons, so long as there is enough left for everyone else. This is why finite commons, such as natural resources, must be sustainably and equitably managed. But many other forms of the commons can be freely tapped. Today’s hip-hop and rock stars, for instance, “appropriate” the work of soul singers, jazz swingers, blues wailers, gospel shouters, hillbilly pickers, and balladeers going back a long time—and we are all richer for it. That’s the greatest strength of the commons. It’s an inheritance shared by all humans, which increases in value as people draw upon its riches” – Jay Walljasper.
Caption: This quote was written by Walljasper who coined “commons” to suggest that it is an “inheritance shared by all humans”. Humans then increase its value as they use it for its riches. Walljasper alludes to music artists who reproduce similar tunes depending on the genre. They can “appropriate” works of previous singers and make it more desirable, or in Walljasper’s terms “richer”. They increase its appeal and thus empower others to improve upon it. They are not restricted to a selective group of people. Instead, they are borrowed and shared freely (if there are no apparent restrictions). Soul singers, jazz swingers, gospel shouters, etc, share a collective value – that is expression and music. Music is their tool for creativity and emotions. Their “commons” consist of artists whose music has great influence on each other. Their musical preferences may lead them to be categorised into genres, but they are still a part of a community. They exist in a community that connects them together as a whole.
By definition, the word “commons” refers to “what we share” such as valuable assets, clean air, wildlife preserves, judicial system and the Internet. What is shared between individuals can be redistributed so that future generations can inherit it. This is why “commons” is interpreted in its literal sense to mean land or resources belonging to or affecting the whole community. Think of it as a chamber where members of the House of Commons (in the UK) unite to discuss issues and matters of policy. They share a common goal, that is, to foster a better future for citizens and to hold each other accountable for their actions. Similarly it could be a room in a university where students congregate and hang out. The parliament chamber and a university common room are situated in a public space. They share this space as the significance of this space relies on why people use it. This space exists because people choose to utilise it and once it becomes familiar to them, more people flock towards it.
Caption: Above is an image of my Facebook groups. As you can see I separate the groups into categories.
Thus “commons” signify what is socially accepted and it unites people concerned about the common good. It can also become a kind of movement that reshapes how people think about the nature of ownership and the importance of collaboration in modern society. But “commons” are not restricted to only place. Commons can manifest in online communities such as Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, Pinterest, YouTube and the list goes on. These “social networks” permit users to establish their own personal groups. On Facebook users can create private or public groups that are constructed on an ideal. That “ideal” could be a topic, issue or interest. Personally I am connected to 18 public groups and 12 private groups. What I have noticed when participating is users are motivated to join particular social groups because of their desire to share content and knowledge with others who they believe harbor the same values. On Facebook I am a member of a numerous Christian groups that constantly post questions for debate about theology. I am a participant because I possess similar values to other members. That is, I identify myself as a Christian, practice Christianity as a lifestyle and have a thirst for learning more about the bible and doctrine. Thus, commons are not necessarily dependent on demographics – such as age or gender. It is dependent on their willingness to accept information. Commons can exist in MMOGs like World of Warcraft, Guild Wars and Runescape where people share not only values but also identities. They identify with the characters, their role in the game and each other. They can form teams and partnerships where they all share the experience of defeat and victory. On Twitter it is evident the amount of identities that are generated by young teenagers who are avid followers of celebrities like Justin Bieber, Demi Lovato and One Direction. Instead of congregating physically at a place, they unite on Twitter to discuss things relating to these two celebrities. They form names they identify with such as “Beliebers,” “Lovatics” or “Directioners,” and adopt these identities in real life. They also use words relevant to their interests that only members of their group can relate to. There are even identities for TV shows like Dr Who (Whovians), Revenge (Revengers) and Suits (Suitors), and films like Twilight (Twihards). Their commons is the Internet (forums and social networks) as it is a mechanism for communication, fostering friendships and most importantly sharing.
As seen with the examples above, although commons can appear to involve only the social, it can include the democratic, cultural, technological, economic, and humanitarian advances, which have been worked on throughout history. These advances offer “fresh hope for a saner, safer, more enjoyable future,” as well as order and stability in countries. By building upon these social, political and cultural aspects, it will benefit society and strengthen the world’s sense of connectedness. However is, for e.g. technology, beneficial for everyone? Should restraints be imposed to control commons that enable illegal downloading and file sharing? There are a few companies who create servers online to allow legal file sharing of material that is not copyrighted. Mediafire, MegaUpload and Rapidshare are avenues that are easily manipulated by its users. Unlike the non-profit organisation ‘Creative Commons’ that helps sharing and reuse of creativity and knowledge via free legal and technological tools, these avenues are used to share illegal content. In contrast, ‘Creative Commons’ stated their technological tools are “not alternatives to copyright laws, rather they work alongside them”. ‘Creative Commons’ follow a system that allows users to give people the right to share and build upon their work. Unlike the traditional copyright system where all rights are reserved, ‘Creative Commons’ allows users to reserve those rights to a specific audience or person. Mediafire, Megaupload and Rapidshare do not monitor what type of content is shared on their servers. Issues like this pose questions regarding piracy that has been a contested area of debate following the demise of Limewire, Btjunkie, Mininova and KaZaA. Since the removal of these websites some question whether downloading can be beneficial as well as potentially detrimental. In this weeks tutorial my group dissented with the idea that “making file-sharing legal will not be good for the future”. In this blog post I will relate the concept of “commons” with file-sharing.
Firstly how is illegal file-sharing portrayed by authorities? In MGM v Grokster Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer said illegal file-sharing is the “deliberate unlawful copying is no less an unlawful taking of property than garden-variety theft”. Similarly the Recording Industry Association of America understood privacy as “theft…[where] pirates are thieves…downloading a movie off the Internet is the same thing as taking a DVD off a store shelf without paying for it”. It is estimated by the Victorian University that in 2010 almost 90% of files available on BitTorrent are illegal and/or infringe copyright. What is shocking though is that 1.9% of files were legitimate. Free file-sharing sites often transmit viruses and adware which Walter from the Wall Street Journal stated “these sites are major transmitters not only of viruses, but of spyware which your antivirus can’t stop…you are asking for trouble by downloading from ‘file swapping sites’”. These viruses include worms and trojans that are distributed in files shared on P2P networks. They are masquerade as legitimate files to gain access to a user’s computer system. It can expose personal information and can completely destroy data on machines. According to Barracuda Labs, in 2012, on a single day in February 745,402 users were served malicious content potentially exposing them to fraud and identity theft. The sharing of malicious files is called “poisoning attacks” or “polluting attacks”. As seen from the above statistics, file-sharing has both advantages and disadvantages. However we should not focus primarily on the advantages or disadvantages. Instead, we should look at the nature of sharing. Sharing material allows individuals to learn to become accepting of new information/content. It preserves information so that others may have access to it. Commons are indeed evident in every aspect of life – whether it be online or in real life. Commons draw upon value and riches that connects people to this one place where there is enough information/content/material to share around.
Feel free to check out my other websites and social media accounts.
