Posts

Posted on

Information Technology and Libraries

Open Source, Open Standards
An item by Karen Coyle

Information Technology and Libraries vol.21, no.1

When people speak of open source software they are referring to computer code – programs that run. But code is only the final step in the information technology process. Prior to writing code the information technology professional must do analysis to determine the nature of the problem to be solved and the best way to solve it. When software projects fail, the failure is more often than not attributable to shortcomings in the planning and analysis phase rather than in the coding itself. Open source software provides some particular challenges for planning since the code itself will be worked on by different programmers and will evolve over time. The success of an open source project will clearly depend on the clarity of the shared vision of the goals of the software and some strong definitions of basic functions and how they will work. This all-important work of defining often takes place through standards and the development of standards that everyone can use has become a movement in itself: open standards.

A great overview of the whole business of standards. What a great complex human endeavour this is.

In the blog right now I am entertaining the idea that free software is significant in a political sense; people taking ownership of the product of their labour and making it socially available.

As I read this article the idea of “use value” came to mind. Use value was the term used by Marx for things that we need and are valuable but not commodities. Air, the work we do around the house. It seems that these open free products create huge use value, but to be useful they need to be of little commodity value. The reason is that the products become more useful through use. The reward for creating such value needs to also come from social sources.

I saw an item by Richard Stallman where he compared creating non-free software to polluting the air.

It is shocking that the use of things naturally free can be prevented for profit.

Posted on

Cyber-Marx

Cyber-Marx: Cycles and Circuits of Struggle in High Technology Capitalism

Cyber-Marx: Cycles and Circuits of Struggle in High Technology Capitalism (1999) provides an analysis of information-age capitalism and the movements currently dissolving it. The text version is available from University of Illinois Press, and can be purchased from the UWO Bookstore or on-line book stores.

The book is online, each chapter in one pdf file. The opening is intriguing. Nick Dyer-Witheford (the author) refers to the sf book The Difference Engine by Gibson and Stirling. Babbage’s mechanical computer in this alternate history works – and is steam driven. Here is a quote from Chapter 1:

For in the world of The Difference Engine, Karl Marx is
alive and well. His employment by the New York Daily Tribune (for whom the actual
Marx worked during the 1850s as a foreign correspondent in the biggest `information
industry’ of his day) has clearly resulted in migration to the United States–a visit yielding momentous consequence. For, in a North America wracked by regional separatism and
civil war, revolutionaries have seized the “means of information and production” of the
largest city of the New World.2 And the Manhattan Communards now provide a nucleus for
an international ferment of dissidence which, combining re-emerged Luddites, renegade
clackers, anarcho-feminists, Blakean-situationist artists and immiserated proletarians,
boils beneath the surface of the bourgeois universe, waiting for the next calamity to burst
into revolt.

In what follows, I propose a Marxism for the Marx of The Difference Engine. That
is to say, I analyse how the information age, far from transcending the historic conflict
between capital and its labouring subjects, constitutes the latest battleground in their
encounter; how the new high technologies–computers, telecommunications, and genetic
engineering–are shaped and deployed as instruments of an unprecedented, world wide
order of general commodification; and how, paradoxically, arising out of this process
appear forces which could produce a different future based on the common sharing of
wealth–a twenty-first century communism.

Posted on

Copyleft vs. Copyright: A Marxist critique

Copyleft vs. Copyright: A Marxist critique

Abstract

“Copyright was invented by and for early capitalism, and its importance to that system has grown ever since. To oppose copyright is to oppose capitalism. Thus, Marxism is a natural starting point when challenging copyright. Marx’s concept of a ‘general intellect’, suggesting that at some point a collective learning process will surpass physical labour as a productive force, offers a promising backdrop to understand the accomplishments of the free software community. Furthermore, the chief concerns of hacker philosophy, creativity and technological empowerment, closely correspond to key Marxist concepts of alienation, the division of labour, deskilling, and commodification. At the end of my inquiry, I will suggest that the development of free software provides an early model of the contradictions inherent to information capitalism, and that free software development has a wider relevance to all future production of information.”

Now that is along the same lines as the thing I wrote after the discussions with Josh – will link to ot in the next item. It all sounds plausible to me, but nothing is a sure thing.

Posted on

77059104

Conversation with Manuel Castells, p. 5 of 6

Castells is famous for the thesis that this *is* an Information Society.

A sample quote:

“Absolutely. You see, and it goes both ways. On the other hand, as much as I think the Internet’s an extraordinary instrument for creation, free communication, etc., you can use the Internet to exclude, because you can exclude in terms of the access to the network, the digital divide. But you can also exclude in terms of the culture and education and ability to process all this information that has happened on the net, and then use it for what you want to do, because you don’t have the education, the training, the culture to do it, while the elites of the world do.”

Hmm… books require an even more elitist culture?

Posted on

O’Reilly Emerging Technology Conference

O’Reilly Emerging Technology Conference

Journalism 3.0
Dan Gillmor, San Jose Mercury News
“Until very recently, modern journalism was mostly a lecture — journalism organizations told you what the news was, and you either bought it or you didn’t. Today’s professional journalist needs to understand, and capture, the fact that our readers/listeners/viewers know more than we do. That’s not a threat. It’s an opportunity. Digital collaboration and communication tools are helping us all create a new kind of journalism, something resembling a seminar or conversation. The tools range from e-mail to weblogs to peer-to-peer, and they all add up to something genuinely new in news. Don’t ask about the business model, however; no one knows what it is.”

That all you can see from this talk but it says it all. Journalism 3. Is he right? I think so.

Posted on

76862235

Smallworld

“Can anyone in the world reach anyone else through a chain of only 6 friends?
“With your help, we intend to find out.”

I registered.

Posted on

76822378

vonnegutted

“You’re sitting in one place when you use those things.”
“Same as writing a novel. You don’t write your books standing up, moving around.”
He’s backing away, looking to speak with some of the other folks congregated around him, “it sounds sort of like ham radio, people use that to talk all over the world.” And he’s absorbed elsewhere. I write in my notebook, underlined, “He’s old school.”

Nice piece by Justin Hall.

Posted on

76821155

“Cyberspace as Place, and the Tragedy of the Digital Anticommons

The conception of “cyberspace as place” leads to the implication that there is property online, and that this property should be privately owned, parceled out, and exploited. Though private ownership of resources of itself is not problematic, it can lead to the opposite of the tragedy of the commons: the tragedy of the anti-commons. Anti-commons property occurs when multiple parties have an effective right to preclude others from using a given resource, and as a result no-one has an effective right of use. Part IV argues that this is precisely where the “cyberspace as place” metaphor leads. We are moving to a digital anti-commons, where no-one will be allowed to access competitors’ cyberspace “assets” without some licensing, or other transactionally-expensive (or impossible), permission mechanism. The Article shows how the “cyberspace as place” metaphor leads to undesirable private control of the previously commons-like Internet, and the emergence of the digital anti-commons. As we all come to stake out our little claim in cyberspace, then the commons which is cyberspace is being destroyed.”

I still need to read this long paper but it looks interesting.

Proudly powered by WordPress