Printer Friendly

Is the cup of struggle on the battle of intellectual property rights half full or half void? A question of method and some concrete consequences.

1. Crawling New Enclosures

Current literature about economy of culture and knowledge, has dwelled upon new enclosures of the commons (Midnight Notes Collective, 1990; Barlow, 1996; Lessig, 2001; Moulier Boutang, 2005; Benkler, 2006; Hardt and Negri, 2009) be they traditional (analogical) or new (digital). Economic sustainability of intangibles goods like science, knowledge, literature, music, plays and any artefacts was created through two main devices: on the one hand, subvention of works and/ or artists, inventors, authors, compositors or direct return from market sales; on the second hand, privilege, i.e. temporary monopoly to the maker of the work be it the artist or the intermediate like the printer or the publisher of the book or the diffusion networks, the seller of the masterpieces (gallery) or the performer of the music, of the play. With the extension of art, literature, culture, the spill over of knowledge and education, and the increasing incorporation of science into industrial processes, allied with technical ability to reproduce products, direct sale on the market as well as monopoly of trade of material goods, has become insufficient to provide enough revenue for authors and inventors. From the end of the 1500s' to the 1900s', an institutional device was built that originates all forms of intellectual property rights and organized them into a three fold economic model: a) the patent model; b) the copyright; c) the brand model. These models shared two features in common: 1) the distinction between the intangible good (invention, authorship, word and logo) and its material medium or format. As soon as technical means of reproduction (printing, painting, performing of music, photo, TV, tape recorder, Xerox machine) have appeared, selling the "original copy" on the market has become inadequate. If the price on the market of a cultural or scientific good was supposed to reflex the material component of the copy and the labor incorporated in order to manufacture it, the work of the inventor, the artist or writer was disappearing as such with the first copy or reproduction. Counterfeit, plagiarism, could provide a speedier rate of diffusion in society and a great commercial success in the market that characterizes innovation, but not the survival of creators, inventors, unless they be integrally subsidized. The inventors paid as research and teachers as civil servants, the artist or writers endowed by public funding or sponsors.

The recognition of invention or creation through approved authorship, patent or brand for a given period was a convention progressively settled in Europe and later in the other continents although this movement was not linear at all: for example the US, the Netherlands started to refuse copyright even they became after champions of the execution of intellectual property rights, and drugs were not patented in France until the 1970s'. Generics are still disputed. The conceit of IPR does not belong to the classical property in rem from the Roman code. For example, the property of the medium of a painting allows transferability of the work as a material good, but forbid any damaging of the medium that would compromise the authorship rights, and contrive the owner of the medium to share any revenue driven from commercial use of any reproduction.

A fundamental feature is that this regime of IPR was relying upon a large consensus of industrial sectors and state and was enjoying also a more successful protection due to the technical difficulty to copy and to chit than an intense scrutiny of all operations in the market. Enforcement of IPR was initially difficult in music and popular arts (craft industry was never regulated by IPR but by various forms of corporation regulating the number of the makers and their access to market) but sooner or later sectors of activities where traditional knowledge was important, became swallowed by big industry and normalized in the 1800s', whilst Japan, India, Thailand, Brazil, Russia, China were obliged to join IPR conventions in the 1900s'.

A second feature is that each attempt to challenge IPR enforcement, generally after the coming out of an technical invention allowing to escape the legal apparatus, was soon followed by a new writing of the law and more refine naming and translation of IPR.

Digitalization and transport of information in all part of the Web at a very low cost introduced a revolution as important as Gutenberg invention of printing in Western countries for what regards the statute of: a) reproduction; b) monopoly of circulation; c) authority that tackle with monopoly in interpretation; d) and finally authorship in science and culture.

The shrewdness or the trick (it depends of the point of view you adopt) of the IPR system had been to re-create scarcity in knowledge, culture and science just as the British landlords has made rare fertile land, pasture and forest that could provide food, heating, and stuff to tenants in the countryside by enclosures (1). Knowledge good, culture and science present almost all the characteristics of public good (indivisibility in se or organized indivisibility (2), non rivalry) so that their transformation into marketable goods is not feasible unless to create an artificial and temporary monopoly that gives to the "tenant" of the IPR, the right to sue any attempt to reproduce it, or incorporate it into a new product for sale.

Each technical innovation in the analogical world has produced some disclosure in a way or in another. Writing, alphabet, painting, printing, photography, cinema, phonograph, photocopy has enlarged. Sometimes technical devices were added to bridle the extent of the disclosure, but there were counter-offensives. For example, censorship and legal deposit were instituted to counterbalance challenge of authority by multitudes equipped with new technology.

However, in the history, no disclosure of the size of what has produced the digital revolution has ever existed. Why? 1. In analogical world, copying can easily be departed from the original since the later is always better than the copy whereas in digital, a sequence of zero and one, there is no difference between them, unless you have metadata on the time of registration. Detecting the cheating becomes. 2. Any digitalized data can be reproduced and sent at an almost zero cost (safe the time spent by the sender to compose the message). Digital world restores abundance that had been destroyed partly or fully by industrial organization of scarcity of commons in order to promote marketability of knowledge goods. The consequences are an increasing crisis in enforcement of IPR, the diffusion at a mass level of new behaviours among geeks, hackers and click generation that is young people having known none of the ancient world of copyright. Let us give two examples of this: 1) the rapid development of listening music for free, that is gratuitously by downloading of digitalized music, films, videos; 2) the extension of the culture and practise of free software and not only of open source; in the former, you protect the new domain of free and gratuitous contents by making it compulsory to keep open contents and their format (the software and the OS) whereas I the later, the open source, you leave the user free to close again the format (3).

The deepness of the crisis of enforcement of the IPR of industrial capitalism has been underscore by many authors who predicted the unavoidable character of this revolution. In fact all the market model for intangible goods (patent, brand and copyright was threatened in its heart and this produced a violent reply like a counterrevolution. Bill Gates repeatedly accused geeks, hackers of being pirates and the "new communist". As soon as the end of the 1995 with the extension of the Web, and soon of the capacity to download more and more contents with the broad band and high speed internet, cultural industries complained about spoiling of the market: more control were asked in each country and by the same time the strategy of generalization of the IPR at a world level was launched by the United States with the Marrakech agreement, and the Doha negotiation. As earlier than 1988-90, United States had made huge pressures on Brazil not to develop a clone of a Mac personal computer that had been copied by the Brazilian engineers since Apple had not protected the patents in this country. In the Doha round, the US tried to obstacle treatment of aides through generic drugs. Neoliberalism has shown then that free trade was narrowly linked to stronger enforcement of IPR: digital right management devices, retaliation against countries like India that had been always reluctant to patent plants liked neem (trials for biopiracy). One of the most interesting episodes of the battle for the new enclosures was the battle initiated by Microsoft to shift the statute of software from copyright to patent because it was easier to enforce against its rival in proprietary software as well as free software. Although this battle was won in the US and Japan, it failed in Europe at the European Union Parliament.

At a global level, the first crisis of 2001-2002 was provoked by a failed attempt to make the Internet a realm of merchant exchanges inflating a bubble that burst with the Vivendi collapse. The second great offensive against the Web was launched with Acta (preceded by Hadopi in France and to be followed by Lopsi in the US) that has attempted to restore the power of the Nation states in the Internet: the motives alleged were always the struggle against criminality (mafia, paedophilia) and terrorism, but lobbies of the cultural industry and pharmaceutical industries were never far in the second row.

The external increasing pressure on this virtual realm of which John Barlow had proclaimed the Independence, were enhanced by a twofold internal transformation: on the one hand, the Chinese domain had increased up to reach half a billion users and the state control was heavy; on the other, commercial use of the Web became well spread as well as the invasion of political communication through web sites, blogs, social networks (from Second life game to FaceBook). The Internet and the Web fifteen year after it creation appeared so re-enclosed, so trivial, so commercial and transformed into a mean of control of Big Brother that historical pioneers like Geert Lovink invited hackers to retreat into a second Internet, to a sort of flight or Exodus (Lovink, 2007). Is the transformation of the digital revolution leading us to the already observed normalization of private property rights and improvement of the apparatus of control like in the previous technological changes? This is not for sure. This thesis is rather simplistic to our opinion. It forgets half of the story.

In a first part of this paper, the whole process of the new enclosures is examined and compared with the old ones. In the 1300s'-1500s', enclosures were the reaction of landowners to a movement of desertion of the village. Nowadays, new enclosures are a counter reaction to a powerful disclosure that is produced by both cognitive capitalism and the antagonism of creative workers and the whole multitude. In the second part, we explain how pollination plays a paradigmatic role in cognitive capitalism and why disclosure is a necessary condition for extracting surplus value from the invention force. Social networks, collaborative platforms, web 2.0 capture of positive externalities of interaction are the new means of production to put creative multitude at work and extract or predate a significative part of human pollination. In the conclusive and last part of the paper, we argue that unlike previous forms of capitalism (mercantilism, industrial) cognitive capitalism is obliged to revise the juridical principle called "terra nullius". In order to produce value, it must acknowledge that such principle destroys the new commons of pollination, but to extract surplus value and fight massive disclosure it must recreate a certain amount of new enclosures through new forms of intellectual property rights.

2. Limits of This Diagnosis of New Enclosures

In what respect this portrait of the trend of new capitalism is leading astray. Empirical observations of facts of enclosures or attempts to do so cannot be denied. But what can be inferred from these observations depends largely on the interpretation of the global framework. If you maintain that we are still under a regime of industrial capitalism, that extracting value obeys the same rules than in the XIX' century, you bring in a parallel between theses new enclosures and the former ones. Renaissance and the hope of radical Enlightening were soon repressed by absolutist state (Anderson, 1974), enclosed by the codification of absolute "bourgeois" property (Macpherson, 1962) and the very peculiar form of pastoral power (M. Foucault) over women through trial and the pyre of witches (Federici, 2004). Matteo Pasquinelli's brilliant analysis (Pasquinelli, 2008) has been deeply influenced by Georges Kafentzis and Silvia Federici (Midnight Notes Collective, 1990) who started their seminal work about enclosures by what was happening in the Third World countries in the 1970s'-1980s'.

The problem posed by such analysis is not that it conveys a rather pessimistic view. After all, history is not an office of consolation neither a school of cynicism. The question is rather that not all the episodes are retraced and narrated, especially when they deal with successes although this argument can be returned to the sender. Is the reverse optimistic view of liberation through the use of the opportunities provided by new technology, not the half full bottle and as partial as the negative perspective of primitive accumulation as a long enumeration of thefts and crimes to serfdom? The more accurate objection to the pessimistic view is about the reduction of nowadays capitalism to industrial capitalism whereas we should consider it as a new and singular form of capitalism, what we have called cognitive capitalism (Moulier Boutang, 2012). What difference does it make? In order to understand the "battle of enclosures" (and not only its alleged result the "enclosures"), which represents the most important and newest forms of conflicts within cognitive capitalism, and not any more within industrial capitalism, one has to stress two consideration of both method and historical substance: 1) the priority of the movement of disclosure before the movement or enclosure; 2) the absolute and internal need for this kind of capitalism, cognitive capitalism, to create these spaces of liberty and new digital commons as a fundamental and inescapable condition for extracting value.

The historical and methodological anteriority of disclosure and common space over enclosures is quite obvious. To enclose something you need to admit it was previously disclosed or open i.e. available for the people. Research about the enclosure movement in England has shown that common lands managed by the village communities were the rule. Rodney Hilton in his great book Deserted Villages (1951) has found evidences that the enclosures were a very long duration movement. Parliamentary enclosures observed by Marx in the XVIIth, XVIIIth and mid XIXth were only the very tail of the comet. Before, the greatest part of the enclosure was the result of a complex social movement (the piecemeal enclosure) combined with change in the system of cultivation (Moulier Boutang, 1998, p. 296). Mechanism like the industrial reserve army is not at work. The search for more liberty produced in the XIth to the XIVth a true flight towards town and thereby desertion of villages. The pull factor was more powerful and active than the push and passive component of the mobility. The landlords have had to negotiate enclosures with the peasants. The common space of the countryside was abandoned by the population because of the disclosure of another and new space of liberty, the city were people could get rid of the serfdom, and access to the care and shelter for disable and old.

In the second historical example, the disclosure of knowledge and science with Gutenberg's invention (4), we see how greatest access to knowledge good has created a crisis of legitimacy of the old intermediate (the Church) in its authority and prepared the new commons of the Humanism and later the Enlightening. If we go back to the digital disclosure, we may draw the parallel: old cultural devices born with the Gutenberg revolution, like printed books, that were part of old commons are enduring a sort of piecemeal enclosure: traditional culture had suffered a first desertion with the birth of mass culture; it suffers now a second desertion because democratisation in each technological invention, mass collaboration and sharing of cultural contents through multimedia is offering a greater space for liberty. If this movement is not taken into account, the progressive face of the digital revolution disappears.

The second historical and methodological point to be made is that cognitive capitalism is not anymore old industrial capitalism. Extraction of economic value relies upon capture of positive externalities from pollination by human interactivity. What suffers more and more exploitation now, is the invention force rather than the labor force, and collective intelligence in digital networks. Regarding immaterial labor, knowledge, and science incorporated in product, processes, procedures that were codified in patent, copyright or brand are now reduced by the digital revolution to trivial data. Thus these intangible are devaluated and economic value has shifted to up stream conditions of production of these intangibles, their halo that cannot be codified such as the activity of learning, paying selective attention, delivering care, achieving invention and innovation. But to show up, collective intelligence innovation need new free spaces where human bees can pollinate, they need new commons, the commons that digital disclosure of knowledge has revealed. Human pollination to develop itself must have its disposal platforms. A too hasty merchandizing of these platforms will threaten participation and interaction of the multitude. For the economic model of cognitive capitalism, accumulation of means of production has a meaning in so far it allows catching a part of human pollination that exceed by far the economic value of he output of production. The economic value of pollination by the bees in nature (restricted only to merchant production) is worth 974 billions US$ whilst their commercial output in honey and wax is only one billion (5). The tremendous difference between industrial capitalism and cognitive capitalism lies in the fact that the former needed to destroy the ancient commons in order to transform independent worker into proletariat whereas the later requires disclosure and constitution of a new kind of commons. Reducing the auto sufficient communities to misery was the condition for more wealth and productivity for cramming population in towns. The situation of the modern enclosures is just the reverse: keeping the digital commons open is the very condition for collecting collective intelligence and the greatest part of positives externalities.

3. What Is Really New in the Pollination Model of Cognitive Capitalism?

However this process is not a gala dinner. On the contrary, it is highly contradictory because as soon as cognitive capitalism establishes its dependence of the new commons of knowledge and of intellectual capital, it discovers two bad news: First bad news, innovation springs always outside of itself: commonism (we prefer this terminology to the highly disputed communism) has become its own inescapable condition. Second bad news: scarcity is not fatal, private enclosure only the condition for marketing intellectual and intangible goods, and not the condition of wealth. The trend of these new Commons makes it much harder to justify monetary restriction to access. The nightmare of gratuitousness seriously challenges the survival of capitalism "tout court".

On the one hand cognitive capitalism has to fight against the old mentality of industrial enclosures that threatens the very lucrative perspective of exploiting the pollination power of the multitude. Some episodes like Google Books initiative that started in 2004, or Android more recently has shown that the firm of Mountains View stands on the side of the disclosures of the old enclosures of the copyright that are still the basis of the cultural industries. On the other hand, the biggest corporations of cognitive capitalism fights with big vigour competitors from the open knowledge culture and contribution economy that threaten its quasi monopoly in search engines (Google Street versus Open street view, distribution of on line music iTunes versus Deezer, Spotify, Quobuz).

Appropriation of the pollination commons has used the old monopoles in distribution, access (films, telephone and TV companies) to bridle the multitude propensity to enjoy knowledge and cultural goods like public goods, a propensity that has grown up with the massive extension of behaviour in the access, the consume of cultural goods. Although frequent admonitions of professional economist of the culture industry who warn that gratuitousness does not exist (6), political demand for gratuitous access to the Internet has been acknowledged.

By a strange return to the antics, the first disclosure of the printed culture, the problem of the funding of cultural quasi public good has returned to public subsidizing or a flat tax like the solution proposed by Philippe Aigrain and the Quadrature du Net (7) for non market solutions and to indirect market model by publicity. However the use of publicity by cognitive capitalism does not overlap the traditional of publicity invented in the 1950 to solve the problem of the funding of the radio and the commercial TV. Steve Ballmer did not see how Google could work: "what are they selling, he asked, I see no product?" It is often argued that Google can provide gratuitous service to the user of it users by selling its audience (the number of clickers on its search engine) to advertisers like the Web 1.0 or the old model of publicity. But Google's model is more sophisticated and is relying on Web 2.0 devices: in the initial and fundamental common there is an implicit exchange between the user of the search engine (the click worker) and Google. The customer who does not pay money for the service he gets, is giving for free to the firm of Mountains View his personal data as shown up in the connection. And much has been written about this involuntary cession of private data (a sort of generalized and permanent cookies). In this respect, more strict conditions about privacy enforced by the CNIL (National commission for Liberty in Digital issue) will limit the initial Eldorado of Big Data. But there is another kind of resource that the users of Google or any on line free platform (for music, cinema, design) is exchanging without asking money, it is his interactivity with other people (what is particularly the case in social networks, like Facebook). This interactivity of the multitude is the human corresponding to bee's pollination. It does not produces marketable goods as such (sold as such in the market) but it is: a) first the basis for all kind of markets in the future; b) the condition of existence of an ecosystem of innovation by collective intelligence.

Open knowledge, open data, open culture illustrated by the rapid development of cloud sourcing, crow design of platforms of economy of contribution are showing that there could not be bottom up innovation without creation of new institution and new rights and finally the shaping of new compromises. Hence the result of the appropriation of digital revolution by multitudes cannot be reduced to a simple colonization of new frontiers for capitalist extraction of value.

Piracy of cognitive capitalism is not a zero sum game because it goes with the discovery of a new continent of value. Let us go back to our paradigm of pollination (human interaction): in the old continent of value, intensively exploited by industrial capitalism and under the pressure of a very high competition between actors, get a piece of the one billion of total value of the sphere of output is not an easy game. In the new Eldorado of externalities, intangibles of second grade, the capture of only 10% of pollination value (974 billion US$) yields 9.7 billion. This is the reason why the stock capitalization of cognitive capitalism (Apple, Google, Cisco, Amazon, Face Book) is reaching submits whilst capitalization of industrial firms (GM,) is downsizing rapidly. This kind of capitalism makes alliance with many start up, geeks, hackers, even if one can observe tensions and predictable and complex fractures between the contribution economy (Wikipedia, Open Streets view, free software movement, Open Knowledge, Open Data) and open source movement, (Google, Android, Face Book, Linkedin, Viadeo) or proprietary ecosystem like Apple, Amazon, Cisco, Thales, Dassault system etc.). In this respect the precise regime or configuration of cognitive capitalism once stabilized will depend strictly on the degree of conflicts on the enclosure/disclosure battlefield.

What they share in common is that they need the greatest digital commons to maximize their profit, unlike traditional cultural industries, traditional economy whose economic model is incompatible with any radical disclosure although they can agree half-heartedly to cosmetic aggiornamento of the copyright.

What divide them is competition, capture of pollination into exclusive ecosystems enforced by a very high learning cost so that exit becomes more and more difficult. In the ongoing competition firms that try to represent or mimicry the preference of the multitude for gratuitous access, free circulation are enjoying a serious advantage over the still proprietary systems like Apple, Amazon. The later is making much more money in the cloud industry than in selling books even in a digitalized device. However even Google has shown quite exclusive and enclosing when its CEO Eric Schmitt recently has protested against the opening of the drone technology to the public by the US government because it could in the future (like Open Streets View) threaten its de facto monopole over big data on mapping of real estate or personal data.

4. The Harmful Character of the "Terra Nullius" Principle

The competition between capitalists does not exempt us of examining the following question: Is the cognitive capitalism as a system of capture of the pollination power of the multitude, bearable and sustainable?

The main argument developed by those who stand for an instability of cognitive capitalism because of its predatory instinct to rely upon gratuitous work of click workers (an performance superior to the absolute surplus value of the old capitalism) does not seem to stand because through various devices the new labor (pollinating activities) has started a struggle for recognition of its productive character. We interpret the increasing claim for a basic income (8) as the symptom of this new component of the cost of global labor (as producing outcome and not only input). The limits reached by Google and the social networks in the use of the privacy, in the length they detained big data, in the definition of the cybercitizen and worker's property when they put data on the cloud, indicate that the age of absolute digital surplus-value is probably coming to an end. Diffidence towards various calls to contribute for free on line is growing. New compromises will have to emerge to keep the level of participation of the multitude high and productive.

A second obstacle to the sustainability of cognitive capitalism by disclosure/enclosure deserves much more attention because it focuses over a crucial point that brings us back to the early enclosures and commons in history. We have argued in the beginning of this paper, that antic commons were present at the very beginning of primitive accumulation. Hence emerging capitalism has had to destroy them by enclosures. How this was possible? By murder, violence, theft says Marx. But the process of expropriation of the commons was a very long and resistible one. The merchant (the man in ecus) and the landlords had to negotiate piecemeal enclosures and face flight for cities. In Europe it took four hundred years to be achieved, and what post colonial studies after A. Gunder Franck and several contributions among them my own research have shown is that such a process was made possible only by a detour by the Americas and the slavery system. Outside Europe, expropriation was much more drastic and quickly made: "If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well/It were done quickly" (Shakespeare, Mac Beth). Not only by weapons and genocide, was this achieved, but very legally by the application of a principle on which the whole process of primitive accumulation has been resting: the terra nullius principle.

Such principle says that in the absence of written and state disposition attesting individual property or tenancy, the land is declared open, disclosed like a deserted island. The king can be granted eminent property and therefore can attribute it to colonists. The persons or the hurt communities could not appeal against this expropriation. Naturally this prejudice goes with the implicit idea that the only complete form of property is individual and obeys a fusion in a bundle of usus, fructus and abusus (complete transferability). Common or public written property are defined as imperfect forms no to speak of common law rules to appropriate goods, resources and intangibles that are omitted and made invisible, unaccountable.

When one examines the domain of intellectual property built up under industrial capitalism, we find the same pattern of thinking: what is not patented, branded or copyrighted under private appropriation is imperfect. Echoing the terra nullius principle, we encounter the public domain where goods are falling after their full life. The public domain is not defined by specific rules but by the fact that any private person can use it as he wishes. In the digital kingdom of software, what is not proprietary falls into the open source (the code being disclosed) that stands for a source of positive externalities and can be enclosed again in order to create new private period for copyrights and/or copyrights.

The free software movement by Richard Stallman has rejected any enclosure on software, but it has added a specific condition that the open source does not respect: compulsory transmission in the statute of the code. What has required the use of the Commons must remain a common resource and should not be re enclosed into proprietary software.

Open source is similar to the terra nullius principle. It allows the use of any resources coming from the public or common domain without restriction. For what regards the copyright one books, images, art production, the creative commons following the spirit of Stallman has reversed this traditional vision. In the copyright, no copy is allowed without payment except the five exception of the "fair use" (private copy, quotation, caricature, teaching and research). In the creative commons, the right to copy is the default regime, the exception regards commercial transaction. Recognition of the role of the common property or rule of appropriation as the default regime means that private modes of appropriation have to respect the original commons, at least not to destroy them, or, much better to foster the conditions of its reproduction.

What is worth to notice, is that as a result of a long juridical fight by Aboriginal People, the "terra nullius" principles has been rebuked by the main Supreme courts in Brazil, Canada, US, Australia, New Zealand in a strict parallel of the requalification of the modern slavery and slave trade as a crime against Humanity. Revocation of the terra nullius principle means that members of traditional communities have been harmed and deprived from their rights to use land, natural resources, crafts, language, and culture. A process of reparation should therefore be re-open (restitution of land to the community, authorship for artistic designs and painting that have been appropriated and patented by clothing industries). Last but not least, revocation of terra nullius principle complete the ecological principal attribution of rights to natural entities like the biotope, the biodiversity. Open source or public domain applied to nature preserved or to the patrimonial of seeds worked off by peasants since the Neolithic revolution, is the best ally of biopiracy (Shiva, 1992).

Economic foundations of the refusal of the terra nullius principle as well as the open source movement, have been argued by Elinor Ostrom (1990) : to manage a fragile and complex system of living resources, only collective action can build sophisticate dispositive. Private property rules are too simplistic to satisfy constraints. Resources of pollination, that is positives externalities need a set of conditions to be reproduced otherwise they are only pirated by cognitive capitalism until their complete exhaustion: in the pollination paradigm, care of the bees, no use of poisonous fertilizers or pesticides, freedom of circulation.

Overuse of intellectual property rights to enclose, to forbid access or limited to a monetary exchange impoverishes the ancient commons and the new ones. It kills innovation, complex interaction as surely than the Gaucho, Regent and Cruiser are major agents of the Colony Collapse Disease.


(1.) We are speaking of the second enclosures, not the spontaneous deserted villages in the 1300s'-1500s'. See Moulier Boutang (1998), pp. 296-300.

(2.) Ostrom, (1990), pp. 182-210.

(3.) Moulier Boutang, (2003), pp. 114-126.

(4.) No need to add that the true invention of printing character was Chinese much before. Gutenberg as a true innovator introduced it in the context of alphabetical writing.

(5.) See Moulier Boutang, (2010). If the bees were to disappear (this possibility is not anymore a fiction with the colony collapse disease) 33% of the total agricultural output amounted in 2010 to 4% of the world total GDP (60 trillions of US$) and would be lost. These figures do not include the contribution of pollination by the bees of preserved nature and the global biotope.

(6.) See Blomsel, (2007), and Lescure, (2012). Note that the latter is a Report to the French Government.

(7.) See Aigrain, (2008) and his blog

(8.) See


Aigrain, P. (2008), Internet & Creation. Comment reconnaitre les echanges hors marche sur internet en finanqant et remunerant la creation ?, deuxieme semestre 2008, Paris: InLibroVeritas, Available through the blog http://paigrain.debat [Accessed 7 january 2013].

Anderson, P. (1974), Lineages of the Absolutist State. London: Verso.

Barlow, J. P. (1996), A Cyberspace Declaration of Independance. Available through the website: 0296.declaration.txt [Accessed 7 january 2013].

Benkler, Y. (2006), The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Blomsel, O. (2007), Gratuit ! Du deploiement de l'economie numerique. Paris: Gallimar.

Federici, S. (2004), Caliban and the Witch: Women, the Body and Primitive Accumulation. Brooklyn, NY: Autonomedia.

Hardt, M., and Negri, A. (2009), Commonwealth. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Lescure, P. (2012), Contribution auxpolitiques culturelles a l'ere numerique, Report to the French Governement, Paris: La documentation franjaise. Available through the website: http://www. culturecommunication. gouv. f/ var/ culture/ storage/ culture _mag/rapport_lescure/index.htm#/ [Accessed 7 january 2013].

Lessig, L. (2001), The Future of Ideas. Random House. Available through the website: [Accessed 7 january 2013].

Lovink, G. (2007), Zero Comments: Blogging and Critical Internet Culture. London and New York: Routledge.

Macpherson, C. B. ([1962] 2011), The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Midnight Notes Collective (1990), The New Enclosures, 10. Available through the website: [Accessed 7 january 2013].

Moulier Boutang, Y. (2003), "Reseau contre clotures et cloture des reseaux: la question des logiciels libres", Cosmopolitiques, << L'economie peut-elle etre solidaire >> 5: 114-26.

Moulier Boutang ,Y. (1998), De l'esclavage au salariat. Paris: PUF.

Moulier Boutang, Y. (2010), L'abeille etl'economiste. Paris: Carnets Nord.

Moulier Boutang, Y. (2012), Cognitive Capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Moulier Boutang, Y. (2005), "Les nouvelles clotures: les NTIC ou la revolution rampante des droits de propriete", CahiersMarxistes 230(April-May): 21-50.

Ostrom, E. (1990), Governing the Commons. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pasquinelli, M. (2008), Animal Spirits: A Bestiary of the Commons. Amsterdam: NAiI Uitgevers / Publishers Stichting.

Shiva, V. (ed.) (1992), Biodiversity: Social and Ecological Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Yann Moulier Boutang is Professor of Political Economy at University of Technology, Compiegne. His interests are in cognitive capitalism, knowledge based economy, economic history of the innovations and the evolution of wage-labor nexus. His last book is Cognitive Capitalism, Polity Press, 2012. He has written, among others, L'abeille et l'economiste, Carnets Nord, 2010, and De l'esclavage au salariat, PUF, 1998. He is also the Editor-in-Chief of the French interdisciplinary journal Multitudes.



University of Technology, Compiegne
COPYRIGHT 2013 Addleton Academic Publishers
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2013 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Boutang, Yann Moulier
Publication:Knowledge Cultures
Geographic Code:4EUFR
Date:Jul 1, 2013
Previous Article:Rent and subjectivity in neoliberal cognitive capitalism.
Next Article:Consumption in cognitive capitalism: commodity riots and the dictatorship of the proletariat of consumption.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2018 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters