An interesting idea: the road as public commons.
This link has been bookmarked by 74 people . It was first bookmarked on 22 Jan 2009, by someone privately.
-
27 Oct 12
-
01 Nov 11
-
I have immediate access to 99% of the roads and highways of the world (with a few exceptions) because they are a public commons.
-
Libraries share some of these qualities. The content of the books are not public domain, but their displays (the books) grant public access to their knowledge and information, which is in some ways better than owning them
-
I won't buy – as in make a decision to own -- any individual music or books because I can simply request to see or hear them on demand from the stream of ALL. I may pay for them in bulk but I won't own them. The request to enjoy a work is thus separated from the more complicated choice of whether I want to "own" it. I can consume a movie, music or book without having to decide or follow up on ownership.
-
As they gain in public accessibility, books, music and movies are headed to become social goods even though they might not be paid by taxes
-
We can turn this around and say that in this realm of bits, property itself becomes a more social endeavor. Property may be less about title and more about usage and control. An idea can't be owned in the way gold can; in fact an idea has little value unless it is shared or used to some extent. Its value paradoxically can increase the less it is owned privately.
-
Our sense of ownership is a funny thing. If you purchase an ebook and download the book's PDF file to your computer, you'd say you owned it, and expect the rights of ownership. However if you went to a link where a PDF of a book was opened on your screen for free and automatically, you might not feel you owned this book, even if it was copied to your disk. Possession of a copy turns out to be less important in the feeling of ownership than does the price. Free things don't generate strong feelings of ownership. Gifts do, which we think of as "free," but our sense of ownership is related to their "replacement costs" – how much they would cost us to buy elsewhere, their market value. If an item has a marketplace cost of zero, we tend not to feel we own it.
-
If we view a Netflix movie it feels more like renting because a little plastic disk is mailed to us. But if Netflix were to suddenly switch to digital download of the movie (as they are doing) we will still be renting the movie without the disk. The main reason we don't ordinarily use the metaphor of "rent" with digital goods is because we associate renting with things, rather than services
-
sharing the cost of ownership across a group.
-
Renting thrives because for many uses it is better than owning. Bags can be swapped to match outfits, returned so one does not need to store them. For short-term uses sharing ownership makes sense. And for many of the things we use in the upcoming world, short term use is the norm.
-
Leasing, licensing, subscribing are all types of shared ownership.
-
Low-income families without good credit will often rent-to-own (at predatory lending rates) furniture and appliances they can't afford to purchase. Technically a mortgage is a type of rent-to-own agreement in which ownership transfers to the "renter" at the start of regular payments, but since the mortgagee enjoys the rights of ownership it doesn't follow the patterns of rent.
-
you can rent the same movie to as many people who want to rent it this hour. Sharing intangibles scales magnificently
-
Why take charge of it at all if you have instant, constant, durable, full access to it? If you lived inside of the world's largest rental store, why would you own anything? If you can borrow anything you needed without possessing it, you gain the same benefits with fewer disadvantages. If this was a magic rental store, where most of the gear was stored "downstairs" in a virtual basement, then whenever you summoned an item or service it would appear at your command.
-
Access is so superior to ownership, or possession, that it will drive the emerging intangible economy. The chief holdup to full-scale conversion from ownership to omni-access is the issue of modification and control. In traditional property regimes only owners have the right to modify or control the use of the property. The right of modification is not transferred in rental, leasing, or licensing agreements. But they are transferred in open source content and tools, which is part of their great attraction in this new realm. The ability and right to improve, personalize, or appropriate what is shared will be a key ingredient in the advance of omni-access. But as the ability to modify is squeezed from classic ownership models (think of those silly shrink-wrap warranties), ownership is degraded.
-
-
09 Jun 11
-
Sharing is not very different from renting. We could say that the sharing economy currently emerging from social media is really a renting economy. But we don't use the word "rent" logically. When we watch a movie on a pay-TV channel we are actually renting it, although we don't use that word. Yet in fact we use a movie (movies are used by watching them) without owning it; instead we pay for the right to borrow it. That is rent. It doesn't feel like rent because there is no visible unit to swap. If we view a Netflix movie it feels more like renting because a little plastic disk is mailed to us. But if Netflix were to suddenly switch to digital download of the movie (as they are doing) we will still be renting the movie without the disk. The main reason we don't ordinarily use the metaphor of "rent" with digital goods is because we associate renting with things, rather than services. We rent a tuxedo, but we don't rent internet service. But when we rent, we are sharing the cost of ownership across a group. The legal ownership may reside with the company renting, but the effective ownership – the ownership of use – is held by the group borrowing the good or service.
-
-
09 May 11
chloe rhysl'accés est mieux que la propriété.
Kevin Kelly - fondateur de wired, auteurproprièté access is better than owning consommation collaborative dématérialisation collaboration
-
The good of the web serves me as if I owned it.
-
Very likely, in the near future, I won't "own" any music, or books, or movies. Instead I will have immediate access to all music, all books, all movies using an always-on service, via a subscription fee or tax.
-
I may pay for them in bulk but I won't own them.
-
No responsibility of care, backing up, sorting, cataloging, cleaning, or storage.
-
As they gain in public accessibility, books, music and movies are headed to become social goods even though they might not be paid by taxes.
-
-
02 May 11
-
26 Apr 11
-
02 Apr 11
-
14 Mar 11
-
27 Jan 11
-
27 Aug 10
-
09 May 09
-
01 Apr 09
-
31 Mar 09
Ratcatcher"Very likely, in the near future, I won't "own" any music, or books, or movies. Instead I will have immediate access to all music, all books, all movies using an always-on service, via a subscription fee or tax. I won't buy – as in make a decision to own
-
25 Mar 09
-
20 Mar 09
Dave DuarteThe trend is clear: access trumps possession. Access is better than ownership.
business alternative models property commons ownership huddlemind renting rent
-
14 Mar 09
-
The request to enjoy a work is thus separated from the more complicated choice of whether I want to "own" it.
-
our sense of ownership is related to their "replacement costs" – how much they would cost us to buy elsewhere, their market value.
-
If an item has a marketplace cost of zero, we tend not to feel we own it. So as more economic activity gravitates toward the free, less will feel owned. As more is shared, less will act like property.
-
-
11 Mar 09
-
23 Feb 09
-
20 Feb 09
Petter Hareim"Ownership is not as important as it once was. "
technology music trends future internet sharing society economics ownership
-
10 Feb 09
-
04 Feb 09
Adriana Lukasthis is all very well but this wonderful screed about ownership vs renting forgets an important issue of the 'consumer' being a creator, producer and distributor. That brings in 'ownership' via back door or at least models based on recognition that demand
business web internet media trends copyright music sharing free ownership economics property economy delicious
-
28 Jan 09
-
27 Jan 09
Will RichardsonThe web is also a social common good. The web is not the same as public roads, which are "owned" by the public, but in terms of public access and use, the web is a type of community good. The good of the web serves me as if I owned it. I can summon it in
-
Alex Ingram'Ownership is not as important as it once was. '
technology retail property Rental sharing ownership purchase commerce
-
26 Jan 09
John MahaffieInstant access, especially, makes access better than owning. Think of how often you look up a word online, rather than reach for your old dictionary. So too, things you have access to, e.g. the Internet, the roads, are in continual maintenance and upgrade
-
25 Jan 09
Michel BauwensAccess is so superior to ownership, or possession, that it will drive the emerging intangible economy. The chief holdup to full-scale conversion from ownership to omni-access is the issue of modification and control. In traditional property regimes only o
-
Thomas JamesOwnership is not as important as it once was.
I use roads that I don't own. I have immediate access to 99% of the roads and highways of the world (with a few exceptions) because they are a public commons. We are all granted this street access via our paytechnology money books web sociology socialism law trends society property KevinKelly RonaldCoase
-
24 Jan 09
-
-
-
The web is also a social common good. The web is not the same as public roads, which are "owned" by the public, but in terms of public access and use, the web is a type of community good. The good of the web serves me as if I owned it. I can summon it in full, anytime, with the snap of a finger. Libraries share some of these qualities. The content of the books are not public domain, but their displays (the books) grant public access to their knowledge and information, which is in some ways better than owning them.
-
The trend is clear: access trumps possession. Access is better than ownership.
-
-
23 Jan 09
yiah12Better Than Owning
Ownership is not as important as it once was.
I use roads that I don't own. I have immediate access to 99% of the roads and highways of the world (with a few exceptions) because they are a public commons. We are all granted this streetfuture free media digital economics trends culture sharing economy network 2009 copyright capitalism information property rental commons society music business kevin kelly
-
-
For many people this type of instant universal access is better than owning. No responsibility of care, backing up, sorting, cataloging, cleaning, or storage. As they gain in public accessibility, books, music and movies are headed to become social goods even though they might not be paid by taxes. It's not hard to imagine most other intangible goods becoming social goods as well. Games, education, and health info are also headed in that direction.
-
Property may be less about title and more about usage and control.
-
Free things don't generate strong feelings of ownership. Gifts do, which we think of as "free," but our sense of ownership is related to their "replacement costs"
-
The downside to the traditional rental business is the "rival" nature of physical goods. Rival means that there is a zero-sum game; only one rival prevails.
-
Access is so superior to ownership, or possession, that it will drive the emerging intangible economy. The chief holdup to full-scale conversion from ownership to omni-access is the issue of modification and control.
-
-
-
Add Sticky NoteI use roads that I don't own. I have immediate access to 99% of the roads and highways of the world (with a few exceptions) because they are a public commons.
-
-
-
-
an idea has little value unless it is shared or used to some extent
-
-
-
22 Jan 09
-
ken ."Ownership is not as important as it once was" - from roads to webs, from books and music to handbags - "The trend is clear: access trumps possession. Access is better than ownership" - do our possessions own us :)
books commons economics fashion information money music network property technology
-
leonardo fontes de salesKelly escreve sobre novos modelos de negócios em que a propriedade não é fundamental
-
-
-
Leasing, licensing, subscribing are all types of shared ownership. (In general we rent for short-term and lease for longer; we'll rent a car for a week, or lease it for 2 years.)
-
This ability to share on a large scale without diminishing the satisfaction of the individual renter is transformative. The total cost of use drops precipitously (shared by millions instead of one). Suddenly, ownership is not so important. Why own, when you get the same utility from renting, leasing, licensing, sharing?
-
Public Stiky Notes
Would you like to comment?
Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.