Sharing economy, ethics and intellectual property

"The power of enclosing land and owning property was brought into the creation by your ancestors by the sword; which first did murder their fellow creatures, men, and after plunder or steal away their land, and left this land successively to you, their children. And therefore, though you did not kill or thieve, yet you hold that cursed thing in your hand by the power of the sword; and so you justify the wicked deeds of your fathers, and that sin of your fathers shall be visited upon the head of you and your children to the third and fourth generation, and longer too, till your bloody and thieving power be rooted out of the land." - Gerard Winstanley

Though ownership of land is still relevant in a post agrarian age, there is a new commons in the information age.  

Consider the term livelihood, the means to support one's existence. A personal level of sustainability perhaps.

You might hear taxi drivers complain that their 'livelihoods are at stake' when changes of legislation theaten to increase competition.

Today's  advocacy for a sharing economy would suggest a higher moral ground for those who engage collaboratively or act philanthropically by sharing products with the poor. Yet we can easily see how that threatens the livelihoods of other.

The question is, how far are we prepared to go. Can we kill and steal in the name of sustainability?     

In the 1996 paper describing people-centered economic development, founder Terry Hallman makes this point about the use of intellectual property in the bottom up development of local economies  

"By going with the normal flow of free-market enterprise and the emerging replacement of monetary capital with intellectual capital as the dominant form of basic enterprise capitalization, it becomes easier to set up new companies primarily on the basis of invested intellectual capital. (See Post-Capitalist Society, by Peter Drucker). In plain English, socially responsible and forward-thinking companies can be set up quickly and cheaply--and these companies have indefinite potential for earnings and localized, targeted economic development. The initial objective is to develop model enterprises and communities, then implement successful strategies from those models into surrounding communities regionwide or nationwide, as needed."

13 years later, he's participating online in a discussion about creating a more efficient social merketplace which asks to what extent research is shared. In 2003 he'd blocked a $40 million economic development project on the grounds of having invested in developing it and being told that he wasn't going to be paid for a year's work. A sum of $15,000. 

Though he doesn't know at this time it's about to happen again. This time the stakes are higher with our work together on developing a proposal for microeconomic development and social enterprise in Ukraine. He has protected it by taking the radical step of sharing the full proposal on a news portal while I have submitted it to the EU Citizens Consultation. He also includes it in a letter to USAID.about the Global Development Commons and organised crime.

"So, if we're inventing projects that we know will be stolen, there are at least two problem areas.
 

First, if stolen, it's stolen. It's not unlike an architect having a building design stolen. The architect/designer is in best position to understand exactly how it works and how to assemble what they've designed.

If someone wants to use a project design, it's the same as any other project design. The design comes after an in-depth research phase, which in my experience tends to be extremely difficult not least from danger involved in shining light under rocks where the core problems are to begin with. That is, corrupt bureaucrats and officials. When I finish the research part -- which I always do so far (Russia/Crimea/Ukraine) -- I know exactly what the problems are, what solutions are needed, and how to navigate. Possibly someone else could take over and manage things from there on -- implementation. I have no problem with someone else implementing a project, and usually prefer that. Even if they do, it's still a matter of stolen property in which we've invested unilaterally to produce. Almost always, however, there may remain critical components that the implementer just doesn't want to bother with. Maybe it's too dangerous. Maybe there are political considerations and conflicts. In that case, the designer is likely the only person(s) to know how to get those done. That's when it's time to consult with the architect.

Second, even if the project outcome, after theft, is what was envisioned by the designer(s), how does the venture qualify as a social enterprise? Sure, we can slowly design projects one by one as income from our funding side permits. We can do it a lot faster if we get paid for our R&D output, just like any designers.

Finally, is it acceptable to build projects with stolen property? What sort of results would that lead to? Can be build an ethical system based upon unethical behavior (such as violations of Intellectual Property Rights)?

If we invent such a system, is it anything new? Or is it just a twist on the old system?

One thing that can be collaborated openly is this: a Code of Ethics. But, whose ethics? What org(s) will enforce them, and how? Who decides who gets in, how, and why? "

Two years later he dies in poverty, leaving behind this prescient comment:

"Allowing that some people do not matter, as things are turning out, allows that other people do not matter and those cracks are widening to swallow up more and more people. Social enterprise is the first concerted effort in the Information Age to at least attempt to rectify that problem, if only because letting it get worse and worse threatens more and more of us. Growing numbers of people are coming to understand that “them” might equal “me.” Call it compassion, or call it enlightened and increasingly impassioned self-interest. Either way, we are all in this together, and we will each have to decide for ourselves what it means to ignore someone to death, or not."