Watch videos with subtitles in your language, upload your videos, create your own subtitles! Click here to learn more on "how to Dotsub"

Presentación de Yochai Benkler

0 (0 Likes / 0 Dislikes)
Well, thank you for inviting me. It's a pleasure to be here. It's an honor to be the object of a translation, and engagement and to be part of the conversation and I'm thrilled to be able to have a chance to do it face to face and in person a couple of background things, following Javier's intervention in the last session what I'll do is: at 8:15 we'll take a pause, and those who feel an irresistible impulse to go watch the kick-off of the Spain-Portugal game will go, and those who want to keep talking, we can keep talking, and then eventually move to a bar to watch the remainder of the game because, after all, you can only ask for sacrifices for the revolution to some extent, not completely So that's the first thing, to sort of lower a little bit of the pressure of how much conversation we do, when and how and that sort of questions The second is that, because of the structure of the seminar, I'm actually not going to give an overview of the argument of the book. It's there, people have read it, we'll be spending a lot of time on it in the next day and a half but instead what Floren asked me to do was take a few theoretical or conceptual problems and try to probe them as a result, what I'll be presenting here is very raw not things that I've thought out for fifteen or twenty years but things that I'm now trying to play with particular questions particularly about power, and the relationship between technology and power and the dimensions of power and freedom that I think fall in that intersection between left conceptions of political theory and liberal conceptions of political theory and so I'm extremely uncertain about what I'm about to say and I'm saying it in the context of a conversation with people who don't need to be persuaded of the baseline importance but with whom we can have a conversation about how we help refine our conceptual or theoretical frameworks in response to this new state so take it very much as a work in the beginning of progress [than] as a work in the late stages of progress as part of this conversation Ok. So let's start with this character. A couple of years ago, Prince moves to sue fan websites. And let's try to understand what is the nature of the relationship that is embodied in this interaction. You have an artist who has people who like his music, who want to engage in his music who calls upon the state to use its power to shut down that engagement with his music because it interferes with his control and his ability to extract value from that music let's take that as the baseline understanding of late 20th century cultural production against which we can then try to understand how commons, as an institutional form, an open system as a generalized version of that institutional form, change relations of power around cultural objects and around interactions of meaning-making in society. So let's start by thinking of directions of power. First of all, you have the artist, separated from the interaction and interacting through industry, this was critical to me in the book and before in explaining that, when we talk about information economy, which is a set of terms that emerges in the last third of the 20th century, from ¿DANIEL BELL?, from ¿PORAT?, from a variety of others, to describe the increasing importance explicitly of information production and manipulation to the processes overall. Information economy of the late 20th century is an industrial information economy. It requires high capitalization. The source of the capitalization then becomes the primary point of control over the process of information production and it's that which the radically decentralized nature of networks has destabilized in the late 20th-early 21st century so the first thing is we see industry, in order for an artist to engage with fans on any significant scale, we see the core of the practice of music going through industry we continue to have peripheries, we continue to have the bars, we continue to have Greenwich Village and whatever else we have as alternative pathways. Jazz, in particular, for example, is somewhat industrialized but also very distributed. It's not... These are ideal types rather than a complete characterization of the whole of the interaction. But they nonetheless are ideal types. We see then industry, through political power in law-making, Jessica Litman, for example, has written for a long time about the role of the industry in actually structuring copyright law¿S IN? the US and we see this obviously Creating a vector of institutional power anchored in property, and property distinctly is defined by its asymmetric attribution of the ability to call upon the power of the state in any relationship mediated through a resource that is subject to property That is what property is, it's a particular delegation of the power of the state over resources in relation to other people over those resources. and so the asymmetry that is central to property is that the artist can unilaterally exert power by calling on the state ¿ON DEFENSE? Similarly, the technology developments of Digital Rights Management (DRM) try to do the same thing, which is to say: the industry encodes the music in a form that gives it unilateral hard power, that is to say, something that doesn't need to be negotiated or persuaded or manipulated, but controlled over that pathway so that you ¿MAINTAIN? control in the hands of the industry or the artist. Industrial organization, of course you get the structure of the recording industry, that's organized around highly capitalized record labels, production and marketing This I already talked about, that particular model is central to this ability and the effort here is essentialy to recruit each of those pathways: the law, in particular, it's what's described as the suits around the DRM-ed materials that also are protected by law in order to maintain the cultural meaning-making power in the hands of the artist, or the record label, as opposed to the effort by fans to essentially pull some of it to their side. So the effort here is to have one-way flows of power along multiple dimensions institutional, organizational, technical, and cultural so that you have control flowing from one side to the other so that the making of meaning, which is the core output, as it were, gets held in the hands of the producer. That's the baseline against which we need to understand how commons play as potential changers in the flow of power on the organizational production society. What do I mean by power here? And this is again an effort to provide some translation between... So, so power is essential to left conceptions of political theory; power is absolutely absent in liberal theory and part of the effort here is to create a definition that is a bridge that is to say, a way that is sufficiently valuable in capturing what it is when the left talks about power that it doesn't too overly simplify the problem. While at the same time using enough of the components of what is recognized within liberal theory as those thing to which liberal theory is committed to provide a useful plug-in, a useful interface between the two So that's the project. I've no idea wether this flies, this is one of these things I'm putting in front of you, let's talk about it, at the beginning of my work, as opposed to after ten years of it. And this essentially ¿BACKED? out of the one aspect liberal economics accepts as existing which is bargaining power. That's the trope which I use and try to extract. So the capacity of one entity to alter the behaviors, configurations or outcomes of others measured in terms of probabilities of deviation from baseline preferred behaviors, the preferred behaviors here is the critical aspect that is the plug-in towards liberalism because it assumes a preference, it assumes behavior being ¿...? some form of will to which you then refer to deviations as the baseline this is obviously a weakness, and I have some ways... and particularly the chapter five on autonomy starts to ¿PLACE? with ways in which we can understand will and power, and will in context in ways that play in both directions, but again this is a work in progress. So A1, (that is A here refers to "agent", "actors"; Bs to behaviors; C to configurations, and Os to outcomes) A1 can be said to have power over A2 to the extent that A1 can act in a way that increases the probability that A2 will B2, that is to say, behave as A1 prefers, or C1 or O1, that is the configurations or outcomes, rather than B2, that is to say, behaviors A2 preferred before the interaction. The preferred-before-the-interaction is exactly trying to bring in the left understanding of the mutability of preferences and of the negotiation of preferences and will as a central domain of political contest. That is to say, definition of what we want. The industry of the construction of wants and wishes as a central part of the market that actually refutes the ex-ante existence of preferences and is a source of critique. So that's the effort to show these two here. And, as I said, property is a mechanism, I've said this already, to deploy, to devolve the power of the state on non-state actors so that they can deploy if over resources and structure their relationships, as I've said this already. So let's begin by looking at what the fans were doing when they were resisting what Prince did. First of all, they were resisting the institutional power through property, that is to say, they were taking the stuff even though they were not allowed, that's why there a source of a suit. Second, they were embracing hacking that circumvented DRM. That is to say, instead of illegal activity of a certain kind being considered to be problematic from a social perspective, it was a form of glorification and freedom-seeking, and so both the embrace of the tools, and the embrace of the tool-makers, becomes a central form of resistance to the technological effort to control. It can't, and we'll talk in two and half minutes about what the new form of industrial organization might look like, but it's particularly in the pushback to make cultural meaning-making, not one way in the opposite direction, but a conversation, a two-way flow, and the effort to subvert, and resist, the insistance on one-way cultural meaning, and that the production of culture is not the kind of minimal semiotic democracy that John Fisk talked about, where basically you get the TV and then you tell the stories, but actually being able to communicate back. And, finally, what we have is the source and core of pushback power, which was missing from the former one, was the social practice of norms, of fan culture. How do we know, even in the same story, what do we have? We have the fans saying: "fans avowed to fight what they said was censorship". "The move was a shock to many of his followers". Right, there's a..., the way in which it's framed by the fans in the same exact story is: "There's a norm, we can do it," "we are in the right in doing it". Not "we are in the wrong and can get away with it." And the thing that we are in the right with doing is express ourselves, so it locates the claim in censorship, which locates it, not in property and its ¿MIGHT?, but in freedom of expression and you are a censor. Property then becomes, not a neutral medium of allocating resources, but instead becomes a form of state power dominating expression. And we're in a liberal framework of free speech rather than a liberal framework of property, undermining the claim of property. It's a claim from within liberalism about the limits of property in the domain of cultural expression. Now, the industry is very good at harnessing the state to its forces. One of the most interesting moves from the late '90s was the effort to criminalize individual copying, which succeeded under the Clinton administration beyond anyone's imagination, has then been in the United States supported by the judges throughout, and, just last week, the new Obama administration white paper on copyright enforcement has a whole new strategy of inter-agency collaboration, including homeland security, to increase the effectiveness of criminal enforcement of copyright. So you've got a very powerful instantiated system to enforce criminally against use of the material in contravention of the property. At the same time, you have a set of moves that include: A) jurisdictional shifting, so your work here, on the law, becomes a source of jurisdictional safety to shift from one forcing jurisdiction to another jurisdiction that failed. By the way, when I read the report from last week, I sent an email to Jaimie Boyle saying: So now I know why I went down to North Carolina to knock on doors for president Obama, so that we could get this new hightened criminalization enforcement. But anyway, back to Pirate Bay. Part of the issue is jurisdictional arbitrage. Part of it is actually cultural resistance tied into the romanticism around piracy, and when you think of why the romanticism around piracy? It's precisely in a context of hyper-hierarchical and relations of domination, here's a group of people who go out there, break all of the conventions and live this completely free life somewhere out there. And one of the funniest moments I've experienced was when this notice preceded the rolling of this movie, and I just thought to myself: Are your departments talking to each another? What is the world in which you teach kids that the romantic, wonderful thing to do is to thumb their nose to authority, and grab the freedom that they refuse to give you. But this is the domain in which the battle is really being played out, in this cultural domain. So let's talk now about the industrial organization, and this is something that I talked about a little bit earlier in our open conversation, ans let's talk about what is the shape of commons based relationships between an artist and fans, that has a very different form. And this comes from a brand new paper that I did with Leah Belsky, Byron Kahr, Max Berkelhammer that will be coming out in the Michigan Telecommunications Law Review in a few months where we looked at artists that try to create a different, commons-based, relationship with their fans, while at the same time, and this was the constraint, actually find a way to be artists, to make a living as artists, as opposed to waiting tables and distributing their music free. So, the question was: particularly people who are trying to set up relationships where the fans, in addition to collaborating can actually pay, back to the conversation of what service and how it works out. So, we start with this: Jonathan Coulton has a store. Yes, you should buy things, great idea. If you'd like to download your music, you can get individual songs or a whole album, you can use iTunes, you can use CDBaby, if you like CDs, there's all sort of these, there's ringtones, there's merchandising, but the critical thing here is that all the songs on this page are of appropriate quality, they're not copy-protected in any way, so the technological pathway is unilaterally abjured: "I don't take power". Legally, they're all under Creative Commons By Non-Commercial, that is to say, you are legally allowed to make a copy, you are technically permitted to make a copy, it is technically and legally permisible therefore for you to hand it over to your friends. Payment for files, in this system, is purely voluntary. It's not donation, in the sense that, some of the songs, you have to, in order to download from the site, pay. But it's voluntary compliance. It's voluntary compliance with payment. But, located inside of cultural practice that already is ironic about its own relationship to the proprietary system that precedes it. So the "Already stole it? No problem, if you'd like to donate some cash, you can do so through Amazon or PayPal." "Something slightly more fun: purchase a robot, monkey or banana that will be displayed here with your message" "The most recent bunch of JoCo Gold Circle members are here", etcetera. Ok? So, an engagement with "come on, we all know that we're in a practice together." "I wanna be a professional artist, you want me to be a professional artist if you're a fan." "We are uncomfortable with this system of forcing over there, so we're all in this together resisting that," "but at the same time let's not ignore...", so it's a point of tension. It's managed through formally abjuring unilateral power, but then trying to engage in the relationship. With regard to shows, one of the things "Demand me in your town, I really use at Eventful to figure out where it makes sense for me to play." "I’m talking to you, Europe." I didn't pick this particular one for here. Again, what's the point here? The point here [is] we talk about gigs as one way in which artists can make a living while releasing the music freely. But at the same time, how do you get the gigs? What's the booking? What's the source of the agency? Here you've got essentially: the agency is the fan themselves. You organize to a place that I can come. And then I can come and we can have this conversation. So you're creating that relationship. Again, what am I talking about here? Remember that middle pathway of the industrial model. It's an effort -this is specifically targeted to that one question- what is an industrial model that is commons-based? As opposed to a social, cultural sharing creation. So we talk about remix culture, about fan culture, where people come together to make their own. Not at all in the comercial, professional sense, but genuine amateur culture. This is different, this is an industrial model, for a professional culture that nonetheless is commons-based, and how that looks, and how that engage[s], and I'll put it as a question, rather than as a claim, that this is more attractive than the old model, I'll put it as a question. Because it still involves the payment of money, it still involves putting some pressure, it's social and normative pressure, but it's putting some pressure, like the "Already stole it?". But finally, of course, it's this engagement in the conversation. "This is stuff that you send me – videos, images, covers, remixes, slash fiction about...", etcetera, "what have you." "Below you’ll find the most recently added stuff", etcetera. So, this is not, this is the polar opposite of the Prince "I'll sue you." This is "I will celebrate you for making creative things from my stuff and together we're creating essentially meaning together." How does this look? This is a video that's essentially a mash-up that Mimi Ito and collaborators made for part of the DIY Video Conference. And what it is, is it's starts with a clip from him in a live performance of his most famous song, "Code Monkey", and then it fades into a series of remixes that his fans made and ends up with a performance. So I'll skip over some in the middle, once you've gotten the taste, and come only to the very end, which captures this sense of the connexion. How are we doing? You think this is gonna be ok? J.C: "I quit my day job a little over a year ago, writing software, and..." "It was a terrible mistake. Does anybody need somebody who knows how to write ¿MVB?? "I'm kidding, I'm joking! You should all quit your jobs tomorrow, it's fantastic." "It works out really well, you know? Anyways, I wrote this song about my experiences as a software designer, which is called "Code Monkey"." "Code Monkey get up get coffee / Code Monkey go to job..." "Code Monkey have boring meeting / With boring manager Rob "Rob say Code Monkey very dilligent / But his output stink" "His code not "functional" or "elegant" / What do Code Monkey think?" "Code Monkey think maybe manager want to write god damned login page himself" "Code Monkey not say it out loud / Code Monkey not crazy, just proud" "Code Monkey like Fritos" "Code Monkey like Tab and Mountain Dew" "Code Monkey very simple man" "With big warm fuzzy secret heart:" "Code Monkey like you." "Code Monkey like you" "Code Monkey hang around at front desk / Tell you sweater look nice" "Code Monkey offer buy you soda / Bring you cup, bring you ice" "You say no thank you for the soda cause / Soda make you fat" "Anyway you busy with the telephone / No time for chat" "Code Monkey have long walk back to cubicle he sit down pretend to work" "Code Monkey not thinking so straight" "Code Monkey not feeling so great" "Code Monkey like Fritos" "Code Monkey like Tab and Mountain Dew" "Code Monkey very simple man" "With big warm fuzzy secret heart:" "Code Monkey like you" J.C: "Is Emily in the audience?" "Emily is responsible for a very popular music video for this song, in which she just dances around in her dorm room. Is that correct?" Emily: "In my appartment." J.C: "In her appartment. Wearing this t-shirt." "Code Monkey like Fritos" "Code Monkey like Tab and Mountain Dew" "Code Monkey very simple man" "With big warm fuzzy secret heart:" "Code Monkey like you" "Code Monkey like you" "Code Monkey like you" So, as I said, this is made as part of that DIY 24/7 Conference at USC What do we see here? What we see here is an effort to change the industrial organization of music production as well as these other vectors Outside of the labels, decentralized, network-distributed, collaborative gigs, collaborative music videos I won't ask you to actually note how many IP (Intellectual Property) violations there are already in the things that fans are doing, just not his IP that's being violated, right? So this is embedded still very much in the culture of disrespect for IP disrespect for copyright, disrespect for trademarks, it's part of that same culture that says "already stole it" and the ironic relationship to the forcing relations... but back to the question of dimensions of power, this is an explicit invitation to cultural meaning-making, collaboratively, this is an explicit invitation to industrial production model together this is an explicit invocation of social practices an norms that is to say, it is not the absence of power. This is the thing that I want to try to struggle with. It's not about power versus no power. It is about dimensions of power. When you make a moral claim on another person, when you make a claim on a person in the name of solidarity, you are exercising a force on their behavior to achieve in a different way. We need to give ourselves an account of why these particular dimensions of power are more attractive and from which normative framework, shifting from one to another. What it starts though with is the unilateral disarmament from institutional power through property, and creative commons and technical power through the release of high-quality digital files. So essentially what you've got is you get an initial step from the person who is with the power, disarming. And trying to instigate an ethic of reciprocity and fairness and norms and collaboration by taking the first step of taking their power and unilaterally disarming themselves and instigating a very different relationship. So what you see is a very stark suddenly separation of dimensions of power that are at play in the relationships Moving from something that is anchored in unilateral hard power. That is to say, I can, by myself, affect your behaviors with regard to this resource, to the point that the probability that you'll be able to overcome it is much lower. You'll behave... have a different sort of behaviors, a different set of configurations around the resources, a different set of outcomes that you're able to do. I can use the law to back it up and, as a result, I also have a one-way push on the cultural meaning, or try to. And I don't need to rely on the social dimension. Whereas this is getting rid of those and pushing it into these other vectors. Other artists... By the way, from downloads only, from downloads only from this voluntary compliance system, Coulton makes roughly per year enough that he would have had to have sold somewhere on the order of 650.000 of tracks on iTunes per year to equal what he's getting from this voluntary donation system from his site. Ok. About a 100.000 dollars a year, given the fact that he's going directly to him, etcetera, you'd have to do over 600.000 per year on iTunes to replicate. This is not the performance, this is not the service, back to the question of other-than-service model, this is a context where people say: "Yes, we're part of this conversation." Another artist, Jane Siberry, who does this. Here's a quote from her: "This store model is based on the belief that people are good." "In trust our best comes foreward full force." "To treat others as we would like to be treated is generous, not selfish." "Good living can still come from not trying to control things, in trusting in a wider sense of transactions." "We are 'a part' more than 'apart'." "Things to ponder. Not too long, though. Life is out there waiting." "The most important thing is that the music flow out to where it could bring enjoyment." "And THAT is the best thing you could give back to me." So, again, this irony but at the same time this claim. Claim of right from you back. So it's not without its own tension and fairly strong claim, but in a very different system. This is data we have from Magnatune. Over 75.000 transactions. This is at album-level sales. Here what we're seeing [is] that over five years, in tens of thousands. Actually, over all of this sites, we have over 200.000 transactions to work with. Fairly stable levels of contribution. It's not that it's a fad, one moment and then it disappears. We've got now five or more years of data that shows a relatively low but sustained level of contribution. Relatively low is important, and would kill the thing if you didn't see what the returns were to artists normally. Right, these are not Prince-level artists, these are artists who, in the regular system, would probably not make a penny from sales, from royalties, because they wouldn't hit the number that's necessary to cover the cost to the industry. So these are... Another way of looking at the same data is: this is the pull-down menu that Magnatune provides. And here's two interesting things about it: First of all, the pull-down menu of how much you should pay for an album the albums are Creative-Commons-Non-Comercial-released in full digital... again, these are all sites that make it technically and legally feasible. First of all, you see normative prompts: "Here's the minimum", "Here's typical", "Here's better than average", "Generous", "Very generous", "We love you". Very strong focal-points effects here, for the economists, if any, in the crowd. Half of people -this is five year[s], tens of thousands of transactions-, half the people payed 8 dollars per album, the typical amount. It's not typical because it's in fact average, it's typical because that's a normative anchor point that they osed, and it became the typical. This is a very different industrial model of voluntary compliance, in engagement, and conversation. Essentially, property versus sociality, we shift from an institutional and technical unilateral hard power to emphasis on human sociality, trust, fairness, reciprocity, multilateral soft power persuasion, or manipulation -if you want to call it that-, triggering intrinsically motivated compliance. Persuasion through social norms, appeal to clusters of ethical claims we consider virtues. Elinor Ostrom classic "Governing the Commons", people don't remember, but the thing about that was, not absence of government, these were very distinctly formally codified government systems, they just didn't come from the state. The state, the moment in the debate in which it intervened, was so much in the universe of there's either the state or the market, that they were a dramatic change. But if you actually look at the case studies in "Governing the Commons", these are well-structured systems of law that happened to be enforced locally by what is essentially a local collective government. But they're very far from radically decentralized, internally enforced systems. So the question we're posed with, and I don't have an answer for it, but I can throw some things at us that will make us think, is What are the ethical dimensions that make cooperation in a sociality-centered, ethical-engagement, soft-power based system more attractive than property? Let's not forget that property and contracts are core vectors of liberal freedom. Correctly so, you know, when sociality is aristocratic/theocratic domination, when ethical constraints of the loyal servant are broken by the idea of free agency; when the feudal incident is replaced by free appropriability. It all depends on what the set of ethical obligations that are seen to apply and to whom so it can't be just the fact that it's property and contract versus sociality and ethics that constrain[s] us, because doesn't it depend on those shapes? So we're really talking about context, and what I'd like to put to you is that there are three primary domains in which we talk about this as an improvement. The first is very much historical, that is to say, not ethical preference in the abstract, but a particular historical moment. Commons in the network information society offers pathways to route around late 20th century inequalities and modalities of domination That is to say, inequalities in society and systematic applications of power in the late 20th century, came to be bound up with a combination of highly-capitalized production, backed by the power of the state, enforced usually through property and contract, and conceptions both criminal and civil of property protection. That was a large amount of how domination happened in those societies at that late stage. In that context, a system that shifts from these to these others is a shift that disrupts the particularly regularized pathways of domination for a given period. It's quite easy to imagine, 'cause we don't need to imagine, we just need to roll the clock back 200 years, that property and contract are the disruptors of pathways of domination. It's not inherent. It's contextual for that particular moment. The second, and very different, model is that this is an institutional / technichal / organizational space in which to recognize each other's shared humanity. That is to say, the absence of formalized institutional power or technically-instantiated power, requires us to engage each other in some set of shared modalities of persuasion or belief. Requires us that we recognize the humanity of the other in order to get them to collaborate with us on our projects in the context of recognizing their ¿?. And the third is a context to reassert creative and expressive voices of individuals and loosely-coupled collectives. This has to do with seeing the centrality of self-expression to human well-being and some conception of what it is to lead a good life, having to do with being able to express yourself in the world and be creative as opposed to merely passive and acted upon by the culture made by others. It's a particular substantive conception of a good. I want to leave time for conversation, so I'll give relatively quick examples of some of this, and then move on to conversation rather than giving some of the more detailed examples that I was going to go through. So let's start with the routing around. A few weeks ago, Wikileaks releases a graphic video showing an American helicopter shooting a bunch of people in Irak in 2007. Two of them were reporters of Reuters. Reuters tried to get access to information and video for over two years, we're not talking about a peripheral, non-powerful player, it's only peripheral and non-powerful relative to the Pentagon. Not Freedom Of Information request, not political pressure, it didn't work. What did work was one disaffected soldier who had access to the materials, combined with a technical system that allows censorship-resistance presentation, a social movilization and motivation to actually use that as a source of power-resistant distribution of information, a broad hacking culture both among hackers and in society in general that sees it as an act of political liberation, rather than a crime. And these two are in continuous tension, with strong efforts obviously from industry to change that perception, but continuous push in the opposite direction. And, interestingly, here, a recognition by the in-club. This is presented at the National Press Club in Washington DC, and it's on the New York Times, here in this image for a reason. Because it's celebrated by the traditional bastions of the fourth state as successful investigative journalism. Power is still power, the guy who leaked this has been in prison since a month after this came out. He's a soldier and he leaked it. And he's in prison. But the idea here is: a particular kind of freedom that is about routing around the pathways of domination. And, I was going to retell the story of Diebold that I tell in chapter 7, but I think, in the interest of opening up a conversation, I'll assume that either you've read it or you will read it. What I want to emphasize is that, at the end of the day, what worked, what worked to preserve the Diebold emails coming out and showing that the voting machines in California were not the ones that were certified by the state, was a combination of individual users, students in universities, individual users in other campuses and other places, of free software developers who were specifically focused on censorship resistance and developed FreeNet, of commercial developers intending to make money over illegal file-sharing because it was run on OverNet, but at the same time free software developers who provide access through eDonkey and eMule, through eMule and MLDonkey. All of these basically, legal and illegal, commercial and non-commercial proprietary and non-proprietary, engaged in an ecosystem that resists the traditional pathways of control and gets these emails out. And it's the intersection of these systems that undermines the process of control. Essentially what we see here is freedom as bobbing and weaving between systems of constraint and affordance that allow individuals or groups to dodge the power plays of some and to exert their own power in pursuit of their own goals. It's not the absence of power, it's where power can flow from. Loose coupling of these systems provides degrees of freedom within overlapping networks and systems of affordance and constraint Open systems provide symmetric contraint and affordance, and easy access into the system. We see power and counter-power. Counter-power, I'm using here Castells' new effort to identify specifically... And I want to actually to slightly more narrowly define the way that he uses it to focus on power, not just agains source of power, but power that specifically disrupts habitual pathways of domination. That is to say, the pathways of habitual power influence. Which is different from freedom, the absence of power in a particular context. I do want to put this on the table, and then I'll stop. 95, 94 years ago, Wesley Hohfeld published what was then a radical, analytic framework for understanding Law that was intended to push back on the then very conservative, pro-laissed-faire, Supreme Court of the United States, in which he tried to show that when judges...

Video Details

Duration: 1 hour, 40 minutes and 50 seconds
Country: Spain
Language: English
Producer: Medialab-Prado (Madrid)
Director: Medialab-Prado (Madrid)
Views: 117
Posted by: grankabeza on Jul 23, 2010

Presentación a cargo de Yochai Benkler (seguida de coloquio), en el marco de seminario sobre la traducción al español del libro "The Wealth of Networks", celebrado en Medialab-Prado (Plaza de las Letras, C/ Alameda, 15. Madrid) del 29 de junio al 1 de julio de 2010.

Caption and Translate

    Sign In/Register for Dotsub above to caption this video.