We recently introduced the concept of the Third Enclosure, to indicate how some Web 2.0 companies are expropriating the content created by those who submit to them. As an example, we referred to the license of the Dropping Knowledge initiative.

The Publishing 2.0 blog has been monitoring this emerging conflict much more intensively than us, so here’s a wrap-up of some of their recent material.

They write: “The tension between Web 2.0 “opennessâ€? and the need to control corporate profits is likely to accelerate and, sooner than many players expect, will start to separate winners from losers.”

As an example, they cite the YouTube users agreement:

“…by submitting the User Submissions to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the User Submissions in connection with the YouTube Website and YouTube’s (and its successor’s) business… in any media formats and through any media channels.�

MySpace follows a pretty similar policy:

“Musicians don’t get paid for music played on MySpace (via Umair):

The most popular web site in the United States owes its phenomenal success to a canny exploitation of music. But while sound recordings command a performance royalty – the rules are optional in the exciting world of new media. So while composers get rewarded when music is played in hotel lobbies, clothes shops and pubs, they don’t get a penny from it being played, and endlessly replayed, over MySpace’s network.

It’s all very much in keeping with the new feudal economics of “Web 2.0″: the serfs must be grateful for the hospitality of the proprietor. As PlayLouder’s Paul Sanders noted last week, plenty of people appear to be profiting from digital music – except the people who create it.

Musicians like Billy Bragg have taken notice and have walked away from MySpace rather than grant the “non-exclusive, fully-paid and royalty-free, worldwide license.�

How does this fit in with the non-reciprocal dynamic of peer production?

In pure peer production, where communities consciously produce value for the commons, the common production is protected by licenses which prevent such appropriation. But this is not the case in the communities merely based on individual sharing. A large part of the motivation of those posting their videos on services like YouTube is the search for recognition and attention, which is entirely legitimate. This creates a dependency towards the Web 2.0 participatory platforms which are a necessary intermediary between the producer and the public. If the only motivation is attention, there is initially no problem. However, when the work is successfull, or when the creator is already a star in the attention economy, the ability to monetize one’s creative work is just as important. At this point, the private appropriation becomes problematic. The CC and GPL licenses in true peer production communities avoid this problem, but individual sharers with weak links, are much weaker vis a vis the proprietary platforms.

The solution seems two-fold: either going open source all the way, and consciously choosing totally open platforms, owned and operated by peer communities, rather than proprietary platforms: this would be pure non-reciprocal peer production. Or else, demand revenue sharing practices from the Web 2.0 platforms. Revenue-sharing is legitimate, since the platforms do offer a real service, and have a lot of investments to recoup. But a total expropriation indeed seems illegitimate.