← Back to Themes

Digital Commons: Rethinking Property in Information Space

Overview

The concept of the "digital commons" confronts us with fundamental questions about ownership, access, and justice in an increasingly information-driven society. As digital information can be copied and shared at virtually no cost, traditional property frameworks—designed primarily for rivalrous, physical goods—face unprecedented challenges. This theme explores how we might reconceptualize property, ownership, and access in digital environments.

Historical Context

The notion of commons has ancient origins in shared natural resources like pastures, forests, and fisheries that were collectively managed by communities. The "enclosure movement" of 17th and 18th century England privatized many traditional commons, generating both economic efficiency and social displacement—a pattern that resonates with contemporary debates about information enclosure.

The digital commons emerged as a concept in the late 20th century, with the rise of the free software movement. Richard Stallman's GNU Manifesto (1985) and the subsequent development of open-source licensing represented practical attempts to establish commons-based production in software. Lawrence Lessig's Creative Commons initiative extended these principles beyond software to other creative works.

Key Debates

The digital commons theme encompasses several critical debates:

  1. Justifications for intellectual property: What grounds our claims to exclusive control over information?
  2. The optimal scope of intellectual property: How much protection best serves innovation and the public good?
  3. Commons governance: How can digital commons be effectively managed without traditional property rights?
  4. Enclosed vs. open information ecosystems: What are the relative merits of proprietary and commons-based approaches?
  5. Digital justice: How do property regimes in information space affect broader questions of social justice?

Analytic Tradition

Analytic philosophers have engaged these questions through political philosophy, applied ethics, and theories of property and justice.

John Locke's labor theory of property (from "Second Treatise of Government," 1689) has been widely invoked to justify intellectual property—we own what we "mix our labor with." Yet Locke's proviso that one must leave "enough and as good" for others raises questions about whether intellectual property can be justified when it restricts access to non-rivalrous goods.

Robert Nozick, in "Anarchy, State, and Utopia" (1974), develops an entitlement theory of justice that generally supports strong property rights, including intellectual property. However, his acknowledgment of the importance of Lockean provisos suggests limits to appropriation that might apply distinctively in information contexts.

G.A. Cohen's critiques of self-ownership in "Self-Ownership, Freedom, and Equality" (1995) challenge libertarian justifications for strong property rights, with implications for intellectual property regimes that create artificial scarcity in information goods.

Elinor Ostrom's groundbreaking empirical work on commons governance, outlined in "Governing the Commons" (1990), provides an alternative to the traditional "tragedy of the commons" narrative, showing how communities can sustainably manage shared resources without resorting to private property or state control.

Continental Tradition

Continental philosophers have approached these questions through critiques of capitalism, analyses of power/knowledge relations, and explorations of the common.

Karl Marx's critique of private property in "Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts" (1844) and "Capital" (1867) challenges the legitimacy of appropriating socially produced value. These analyses gain new relevance in digital environments where production is increasingly collaborative and value derives from network effects and collective intelligence.

Michel Foucault's explorations of power/knowledge in works like "Discipline and Punish" (1975) illuminate how control over information shapes social relations and subjectivity. His analyses suggest that information enclosure represents not just economic appropriation but exercises of power that construct particular forms of subjectivity.

Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri develop the concept of the "common" (distinct from the traditional commons) in "Commonwealth" (2009), arguing that contemporary production increasingly depends on common knowledge, relationships, and cultural resources that capitalism must simultaneously exploit and enclose.

Yochai Benkler's "The Wealth of Networks" (2006) bridges analytical and continental approaches, examining how networked information economies enable new forms of commons-based peer production that challenge both market and state organizations of production.

Intersection and Tensions

While analytic traditions often focus on the justification and optimal structure of property rights, continental approaches tend to embed questions of property in broader analyses of power, capitalism, and social reproduction. These perspectives can be complementary: analytic clarity about property justifications may reveal the contingency of current arrangements, while continental critiques situate property regimes within broader social dynamics.

Both traditions recognize the distinctive characteristics of information as a non-rivalrous good, though they draw different implications: analytic philosophers often seek to redesign institutions to better handle information's unique properties, while continental thinkers may view the digital commons as potentially transformative for broader social relations.

Contemporary Relevance

As more of our economy and culture move into digital spaces, questions about information ownership become increasingly consequential. The digital commons theme connects to pressing contemporary issues including platform monopolies, access to knowledge (particularly in the Global South), open science initiatives, and the ownership of AI training data and models.

The tension between enclosure and commons continues to shape digital ecosystems, with significant implications for innovation, equality, and democratization of knowledge production. As AI systems increasingly generate valuable information goods, questions about who should own and control these outputs—and the data used to train them—take on new urgency.