Once we have a technology for free-copyability, which is already there as a generalized infrastructure for large parts of humanity (even if only one sixth at present), we have a technology for the production of
abundance, at least in the sphere of immaterial production.

This creates an immediate challenge. Indeed, what is a market, if not a means of allocating scarce resources, through the mechanism of supply and demand. Clearly, when a production process creates such abundance, what it produces ‘escapes’ the market mechanism. We can see how this is already largely happening in the world of content, more and more content has to be free (free as in free beer, not speech), and the same happens in the field of software, where free and open
source software are becoming mainstream. I happen to think that this will move generally to the whole field of designing physical products and I follow this evolution here http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:Design. If these trends continue to
grow, what is at stake is the continuing existence of a model of capitalism that stakes its profits on the artificial protection of
scarcity through patents and intellectual property. But even today we can see emergent models. I have outlined these here
http://www.osbr.ca/ojs/index.php/osbr/article/view/494/458. There are essentially three main models: sharing, commons-oriented production, and crowdsourcing. In the first model, proprietary platform owners create enable sharing, and sell the derivative attention streams. Itis of course the model behind YouTube and Google. The second model, isthe commons-oriented model exemplified by free and open sourcesoftware. Though the software is “open”, companies create protected ‘added value’, which they can market. Finally, in crowdsourcing,production is distributed amongst produSers, who create products and designs (think Lego Factory, iStock photo), and the corporate platforms functions as an intermediary and toolbooth. In my modelling at the OSBR site cited above, I further distinguish about a dozen micro-models, depending on whether the initiative and value-creationis primary done by corporations, or, as is more and more the case, by
communities. That these models are emerging, if not thriving, should not blind us to the continued challenge of abundance, indeed, I do believe that, despite that partial monetization, more and more use value is directly
created and shared between user-communities, and only a fraction of that is being monetized.

This may mean that overall, capitalism, as market mechanism, may move from center stage, to being part of a broader meta-system in which the market is a derivative mechanism. While this is not for tomorrow, I think that the premises of such a crisis of value is already emerging. As we will see in the next installments, this is not the only challenge, as the other paradigm of openness is equally challenging. Here are some extra citations to make us think: In the 21st century economy, it isn’t factories and it isn’t people that make things. It’s communities. -Eben Moglen http://www.linuxworld.com/news/2008/012208-eben-moglen-on-open-sources.html?page=3

…it makes less and less sense to be thinking in terms of “end-users” and to be creating knowledge-jukeboxes for them. It makes more and more sense to be designing for “end-makers”

- Willard McCarty
http://staff.cch.kcl.ac.uk/~wmccarty/essays/McCarty,%20What’s%20going%20on.pdf

An increasing number of physical activities are becoming so
data-centric that the physical aspects are simply executional steps at
the end of a chain of digital manipulation.

- Clay Shirky http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/decentralization/message/6967