Ryan Lanham has been continuing his work on establishing the Core P2P Collaboration Principles, which takes a more ethical approach to P2P. I’ve asked him to elaborate on his point of view for our blog.

Ryan Lanham:

“A peer-to-peer (P2P) project is not suitably classified under any mainstream economic system. That’s because the motivations behind P2P are fundamentally different than those allowed for in conventional political economic theories.

In a capitalist system, a person acts to maximize profit in a transaction. Profit is maximized by using property and resources efficiently and by negotiating a sale with a marketplace that has demand and money.

In a socialist system, a commons may exist, but it is controlled by a central authority—typically a state/government—that compels, through a centralized decision hierarchy, participation, rules or a certain pricing structure. A socialist system tends to emphasize equality of output to those who participate.

Of course these are oversimplifications that do not fit every case but they begin to illustrate major differences.

In contrast, P2P systems optimize growth of a commons, but they do not compel participation nor do they demand equality of use benefits or contribution values. There is no profit motive as a primary driver. People participate in P2P systems because they trust that their contributions will be enhanced by other participants at a level that makes their investments of time, knowledge, skill or other resources more productive—generally.

A P2P system is not a charity. Contributions made to it are not done as a selfless gift or out of an obligation of duty. However, participation in a P2P system entails a certain commitment to a shared framework and a belief that participants will also contribute to the general benefit rather than “free-riding” on the good created by others. Such trust exists with minimal policing. P2P systems may have a membership concept, but contribution is not compelled. Governance, in general, is minimized.

It is unlikely that a whole economy could run by P2P mechanisms. But that’s not the point. The point is that P2P systems such as free software systems, shared data systems (e.g. Wikipedia) and other P2P models can exist side by side with socialist or capitalist frameworks equally well.

As with any relatively leaderless organization, P2P systems are driven by the needs, interests and investments of those who participate. For example, Wikipedia may have endless articles on science fiction characters that no conventionally edited encyclopedia would carry. That is a richness created by the interests of users. But it also addresses conventional topics—as demand and interests dictate. No one is in control to a large extent.

There can be trust and contribution reputations associated with P2P contributions, but the “spirit” of P2P is one of sharing and commons building. Even academic researchers may look first to their own reputation in publishing a work rather than the greater good the research gives to society. That would not be the case in a true P2P system.

P2P is not a system of personal gain as a primary motivator. Neither is it a model where social equality and fairness necessarily rule. Such value accounting is outside the ethos of sharing and contribution that makes P2P systems powerful.

Two areas of P2P research are endlessly fascinating for those interested in conventional political economic systems. First, what motivates people to lead and contribute often incredible efforts to P2P systems when such work is minimally compensated—at least in conventional terms? Second, what impact does the existence of P2P systems have on conventional economic systems?

Much more work has gone into research on motivation than on the impact of P2P on other economic frameworks. Clearly a highly productive system like Wikipedia, the Creative Commons or the Free Software Foundation must have profound economic implications, but what are they?

It appears P2P systems allow markets or government systems to be challenged when they are inefficient, lopsided or otherwise acting poorly or unfairly. Therefore P2P systems may create permanent efficiencies in economies no matter what their form and structure, just as a well-functioning commons of any sort proves a benefit to the community that works to maintain it.”