The DOI matches its DataCite record, with a small difference in title or year.
The Commodification of Information Commons
Open accessAbstract
Internet and digital technologies allowed for the emergence of new modes of production involving cooperation and collaboration amongst peers (peer-production). In contrast with traditional models of production oriented towards the maximization of profits, these alternative modes of production are, more often than not, oriented towards the maximization of the common good. To ensure that content will always remain available to the public, the output of production is often released under a specific regime that prevents anyone from subsequently turning it into a commodity (the regime of information commons). While this might reduce the likelihood of commodification, information commons can nonetheless be exploited by the market economy. Indeed, since they have been made available for use by anyone, large online service providers can indirectly benefit from the commons by capturing the value derived from it. While this is not a problem per se, problems arise when the exploitation of the commons by one agent is likely to preclude others from doing the same—often as a result of commodification. This is especially true in the context of cloud computing, where the content holder has become as powerful as, if not more powerful than the copyright owner. Nowadays, regardless of their legal status, information commons are increasingly controlled by large corporations who can precisely define the manner in which they can be used or accessed. Digital communities need to be aware of these ri…
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Tensions, regarding different interests, appropriation and co-optation by internal and external actors, are also a common problem in large CBPP communities (e.g., De Filippi and Vieira, 2014; Birkinbine, 2015; Sandoval, 2019).”
From Analysis of the Potentials of Blockchain for the Governance of Global Digital Commons (2021) · cites this paper as De Filippi and Vieira, 2014
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Analysis of the Potentials of Blockchain for the Governance of Global Digital Commons
Rozas, D., Tenorio-Fornés, A., & Hassan, S. (2021) · Frontiers in Blockchain · doi:10.3389/fbloc.2021.577680 · Cited by 45
Metadata
- Authors
- Filippi, P. D., & Vieira, M. S.
- Venue
- Science and Technology Law Review
- Publisher
- Science and Technology Law Review
- Published
- 2014-12-21
- OpenAlex
- W6977892417
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2021: 1
- FWCI
- 1.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Columbia Academic Commons (Columbia University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Law › Intellectual Property Rights and Media
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Copyright and Intellectual Property
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Digital Platforms and Economics
- Keywords
- information commons, commodification, peer production, commons-based peer production, cloud computing, copyright, online service providers, decentralized platforms, peer-to-peer architecture, online communities, commons governance
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Commodification of Information Commons. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.7916/stlr.v16i1.3991
- The paper
- Filippi, P. D., & Vieira, M. S. (2014). The Commodification of Information Commons. Science and Technology Law Review. https://doi.org/10.7916/stlr.v16i1.3991