{"id":6120,"date":"2017-05-07T14:10:55","date_gmt":"2017-05-07T14:10:55","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/?page_id=6120"},"modified":"2017-05-07T14:10:55","modified_gmt":"2017-05-07T14:10:55","slug":"reviews-think-global-print-local","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/issues\/issue-10-peer-production-and-work\/varia\/think-global-print-local-a-case-study-on-a-commons-based-publishing-and-distribution-model\/reviews-think-global-print-local\/","title":{"rendered":"Reviews (Think global, print local)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Review A<\/h2>\n
\n

Reviewer:\u00a0Anonymous<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

1. Is the subject matter relevant?<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

Yes, case studies can be helpful. However, most of the paper is about the Peer Production License. It seems, that the case study is only a vehicle to promote and discuss the PPL. This is not or only only very vaguely covered by the title.<\/span><\/p>\n

2. Is the treatment of the subject matter intellectually interesting? Are there citations or bodies of literature you think are essential to which the author has not referred?<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

Assuming that the subject matter is twofold \u2013 crowdfunding the translation of texts and relevance of the PPL \u2013 both subjects are interesting and worth to discuss.<\/span><\/p>\n

Especially concerning the PPL, references to critiques of the PPL are missing. The authors indirectly mentioned some criticisms, but these seem not relate to the PPL but to the CC-NC, and they are not cited, but only indirectly reported (page 10, 1st paragraph). Explicit debates and critiques on the Copyfarleft approach and the PPL are completely missing, e.g. http:\/\/www.metamute.org\/editorial\/articles\/copyfarleft-critique<\/span><\/a> and http:\/\/triplec.at\/index.php\/tripleC\/article\/view\/564<\/span><\/a>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

3. Are there any noticeable problems with the author\u2019s means of validating assumptions or making judgments?<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

Following the page order here are some noticeable problems (referring to page\/paragraph):<\/span><\/p>\n

2\/2: It is not clear what is meant by \u201evalue\u201c or \u201euse value\u201c. Are the notions referring to a Marxian approach or to mainstream economics?<\/span><\/p>\n

3\/3: The economic model of the Guerilla Translation Cooperative is not clear, what does \u201ecompensated for their pro-bono effort through paid agency work\u201c mean?\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

5\/2: \u201eSocial Return\u201c seems not correct, on the goteo.org<\/span><\/a> it is \u201ecollective benefit\u201c.<\/span><\/p>\n

5\/5-6\/1: \u201eThe campaign was not solely focused on Spanish speakers\u201c but on \u201e400 million native Spanish speakers\u201c \u2013 this makes no sense or is misleading.<\/span><\/p>\n

6\/1: It is not clear, why and in what sense the proposed model is a \u201echallenge to the standard narrative of market economics\u201c, since the model is explicitely made to make profit by market activities (sell books etc.).<\/span><\/p>\n

8\/3: The cited snippet of the PPL is neither explained nor discussed. What does \u201eworker-owned business\u201c mean? How can the distribution of profits among worker owners be guaranteed \u2013 it seems, that this is impossible due to the necessities of profit withdrawals like investments, reserves, etc. Who is controlling it? Etc.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

8\/4: The statement that PPL is an \u201eexplicitly anticapitalist license\u201c is not justified, since the capitalist character does not disappear if the profit is collectively instead of individually appropriated.<\/span><\/p>\n

8\/6-7\/2: The cited Kleiner arguments are well done, but are miseading here: The alternative to be explained (coming from Bolliers book) is not CC-NC vs. PPL, but Copyleft vs. PPL. Moreover, the last sentence referring to Kleiner again, saying that Copyleft is better for \u201eproductive or capital assets\u201c is unclear \u2013 what do the authors want to say with that? All businesses, including cooperatives, have productive assets, and lots of them have capital assets too.<\/span><\/p>\n

8\/3: The \u201eApproved for Free Cutural Works\u201c Creative Commons license is not explained. Here, the real conflict between Copyleft and Copyfarleft is mentioned, but very drivel. Additionally, some statements are not valid: CC-by-nc-sa does not per se mean, that others cannot exploit the content, you only have get permission first, which is completely an option if you have a consortium of agreed equal interests (as mentioned by the authors). Then referring to Non-NC CC licenses PPL is alleged to limit commercialization, which is obviously is not true since PPL explicitely allows it. On the other hand, the viral aspect of the Copyleft approach is completely ignored, where most Copyleft critiques argue, that this viral aspect prevents or limits commercialization since the derivatives have to be freely accessible too.<\/span><\/p>\n

11\/1: \u201eCopyfair licensing\u201c should be explained.<\/span><\/p>\n

11\/3: It is not convincing, that the license change was responsible for the boost of the crowfund contributions in the first round. Approaching the deadline such final sprints are very normal. The low contribution rate within the second round also indicates, that the license was not the relevant point here.<\/span><\/p>\n

7\/5, 9\/3, 10\/4 etc.: It is argued, that PPL is not primarily used to foster the proposed production and distribution model, but as an \u201eideological statement\u201c. This seems true, but from that follows, that the entire artile is not about a case study but about that ideological statement. Consequently, there is not lessons learnt from using the PPL for better acting within the realm of the commons which might the reader expect.<\/span><\/p>\n

4. Is the article well written?<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

From my limited English capabilities the article seems to be well written.<\/span><\/p>\n

5. Are there portions of the article that you recommend be shortened, excised or expanded?<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

My basic recommendation is to split the article into two parts, one about the crowdfunding campaign and the distribution model, and one discussing the licence issue in depth and including the license debate mentioned above (part 1).<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Review B<\/h2>\n
\n

Reviewer: Anonymous<\/strong><\/p>\n

I have very much enjoyed reading this article and want to see it published in JOPP in a revised version. I like the\u00a0activist approach. The subject matter is highly relevant and very interesting. It is relevant as it has the potential to\u00a0contribute to a development that could significantly strengthen the (digital) commons. It has important implications\u00a0towards a commons oriented political economy. Therefore, the project\/experiment deserves to be circulated widely.\u00a0However, I don’t think that this article is ready for publication in its current form.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span>The authors claim that they don’t have a specific research question “since, in an intrinsic case study, the case itself\u00a0is of primary interest.” I don’t agree with this position for 2 reasons. Firstly, I think that every case study needs\u00a0some form of critical analysis. A mere description is not just not good enough. Secondly, the authors indicate\u00a0indirectly that they do have a research question. In the abstract they write: “We conclude by arguing that this\u00a0intrinsic case should build bridges across languages and cultures.” However this remains a claim, it is not presented\u00a0as an argument.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span>This claim could easily be turned into a research question: Can this experiment serve as a template or an example\u00a0that could strengthen commons based practices in the field of writing, translating and printing? Could it disrupt\u00a0traditional capitalist practices in this field\/ Could it be a game changer? If so, why? If not, why not? If this research\u00a0question would be systematically applied the authors would have to inspect and evaluate the process of their\u00a0experiment. What went well? Where are\u00a0<\/span>obstacles etc.<\/span><\/p>\n

I would strongly encourage the authors to undertake such a critical evaluation. Among many others some points to\u00a0reflect on could be the following:<\/span><\/p>\n