Legal Hacking and Hacking Space: What Can Urban Commons Learn From The Free
Software Hackers?  --  Dubravka Sekulic

Full Citation Sekulic, Dubravka. `Legal Hacking and Hacking Space: What Can
Urban Commons Learn from The Free Software Hackers?' Derive 61-Perspektiven
eines kooperativen Urbanismus (2015): 14 - 18. Print.


Notes (note all page numbers based on pdf)

Intro section (pp. 1-2)
- Definition of "Commons" from Yochai Benkler 2003 "The Political Economy of
 Commons": a specific type of institutional arrangement for governing the use
 and distribution of resources with no single person having total control (as
 opposed to property) and any one person among a defined number of persons able
 to use the resources according to specified rules (pp. 1)
- Applies to physical and digital commons, the concept jumped into digital
 sphere to interpret communities, productive models, etc. growing up around
 free software (pp. 1)
- Argues that the concept of commons was enriched by movement into digital
 sphere and may be reapplied to urban space and the making of urban commons
 (pp. 1)
- Commons frequently attached to nostalgic ideas about Medieval commons, but
 the digital implementation of commons requires starting from scratch;
 defining its own protocols of production and reproduction (pp. 2)
- The potential of thinking physical spatiality through what has been learned
 in digital networks; Marcell Mars' assertion that what should be learned from
 "the digital" is a new approach to regulating and defining Land beyond private
 and beyond even property (pp. 2)

Enclosure as the trigger for action (pp. 2-3)
- Moment of turning to urban commons is at the moment when enclosure
 (privatization) of urban space is at its most intense, similar to point of
 Magna Carta introduction (pp. 2)
- Privatized urban space as ultimate commodity at the end of the 20th century;
 every interaction in urban space generates profit for come private entity
 which extracts it from the community; all activity is work (pp. 2)
- Introduces Richard Stallman's GNU/GPL as a response to commercialization of
 code in the 70s and 80s (pp. 2)
- Software is turned into a commodity (pp. 2); professionalization of
 programmers and setting them in competition with each other, programming
 becomes just another way to make money (pp. 3)
- Stallman's push back between 1980-1984 where he intervened in the protocols
 of regulation for the production of code (legal regulation) rather than in
 the code itself (pp. 3)
- Legal hack instead of perfect line of code yielded the digital commons
 against IP over code (pp. 3)
- GNU/GPL is self-perpetuating: anything produced with GPL code must be made
 available for free under the same licence; different from public domain which
 has no limits on use and profiting; made free appropriation legally enshrined
 and the possibility of programming community a thing again (pp. 3)
- The longstanding architectural position of the opposite: that the perfect
 design move can subvert the logic of urban enclosure -- but this position is
 wrong and Stallman understood that no design is strong enough to keep private
 ownership at bay (pp. 3)
- Digital and urban spaces under attack from same "market processes"; monopoly
 power of private property as basis for all capitalist activity (pp. 3)
- "emancipatory task of a struggle "is not only what has to be done, but also
 how it will be done and who will do it" (Stavrides & De Angelis: 7)." (pp. 3)
- Tools necessary for a community to reproduce itself and produce its own free
 "software" (pp. 3)

Renegotiating (undoing) property, hacking the law, creating community (pp. 3-6)
- Property (as an instrument for allocating resources) is constantly negotiated
 and is never given in stone (pp. 4)
- The digital reveals how property is inappropriate for contemporary
 production-reproduction and how to rethink it through its fundamental
 aspects: "non-material, non-rival, and non-exclusive (Meretz 2013)" (pp. 4)
- Though the value of digital information isn't flat, property is not the way
 to protect that value (example of the music industry) (pp. 4)
- Stallman and the movement to another terrain: legal regulations are as
 negotiable as property: the big turn is from treating code as property to
 treating code as SPEECH (pp. 4)
- The digital as an example of how renegotiating regulation can change a
 resource from scarce to abundant (pp. 4)
- Lawrence Lessig's (2012) components of what regulates behaviour in cyberspace
 (and by extension material urban space): market, law, architecture, and norms
 (pp. 4)
- These are not "factors" but constraints that apply to behaviour but also each
 other (pp. 4)
- "architecture" should be understood as the built environment (pp. 4)
- Market has been dominant (constraining behaviour and the other three
 constraint systems) in the last few decades; the constraints need to be
 renegotiated (pp. 4)
- Example of GNU/GPL shows that declaring code speech before the law adds a new
 legal constraint upon market and behaviour that is limiting and generative
 (pp. 5)
- This is "legal hacking" which is the norm, not the exception (example of
 legal hacking to enable private-public spaces through P3) (pp. 5)
- Urban example of Teatro Valle Occupato in Rome (pp. 5)
- To do all this, we need to become politically (and therefore legally)
 literate (pp. 5)
- Saki Bailey notes the offloading of political action to charismatic leaders
 (pp. 5)
- Importance of spending time learning about the constraints in order to divert
 them (pp. 5)
- This kind of knowledge is produced and disseminated collectively and through
 the process of socializing knowledge the community forms and gets stronger,
 rules of self-regulation and decision-making (pp. 5-6)
- The example of Debian: the Debian Social Contract, the Debian Constitution
 (pp. 6)
- The way free software projects are often conceived by individuals but are
 taken up by a larger community; the need to ensure that a community is
 offered a chance to do this and that there is a community to take up these free
 projects in the first place (pp. 6)

Building common infrastructure and institutions (pp. 6-7)
- Expansion of IP law as main mode of enclosing the digital commons, this as a
 component of neo-liberal privatization of everything (pp. 6)
- Digital commons ensures freedom of means of production; consists of
 communication between singularities and emerges through collaborative, social
 production processes (Hardt & Negri) (pp. 6)
- The most important lesson urban commons can learn from the digital: how to
 make a structural hack at the moment of creating the urban commons which also
 makes it self-perpetuating (pp. 6)
- The need to undo property; the realm of the common emerges in opposition to
 state-sanctioned "authorized" public space; its emergence contains
 contradiction (pp.7)
- The big task is producing the core infrastructure for a society where "all
 can speak to all" and participation is universal; an infrastructure that can
 accommodate itself to anyone despite difference (to get around the problem of
 closed communities) (pp. 7)

You are viewing proxied material from dome.circumlunar.space. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.