Michel writes: In my opinion however, the distinction between for-profit companies and purpose-driven entrprises paints to broad a brush, and I would like to complicate matters a little. This is necessary to avoid being naive. In other words: 1) yes there are profit-driven companies who do not really care what they make, profit is primary; 2) there are many hybrid entreprises, which combine purpose and profit: these are according to me akin to the netarchical capitalists, who combine support of participatory practices, with the making of a profit out of this enablement. These companies are part dolphin part shark. They remain dolphin through the pressure of the wisdom of the crowds that they enable, but their shark nature is always waiting to express itself; 3) peer production entreprises however, have purpose as a primary motivation, and money is only a means towards that end. Within this group however, there will be those where the income stream will not be clearly distributed to all contributors; and others, who practice better governance and revenue-sharing methods which are more equitable. To continue the metaphor, only the latter are true dolphins, having shed the last vestiges of the shark nature, while bad governance may endanger equity and re-ignite the shark within.

I generally agree, but I’m concerned that we are insufficiently wary of what may become a new form of p2p or digital feudalism. Non-monetary motivation is all well and good, but we all have to make a living. Can p2p extend into the kinds of production by which participants expect to make a living? I hope so. Part of my shark nature is the need to eat.

This is why I see a continued need for the kind of conditional patents and copyrights that demand proportional royalties on commercial revenues — in other words largely traditional forms — with the exceptions that noncommercial, non-profit use is free and encouraged rather than discouraged; and that monopoly durations are short enough to avoid inhibiting derivative innovation.

PR