Cornell Law Review Volume 95 Issue 4

Reply: The Complexity of Commons

This Reply responds briefly to some of the challenges to and critiques of our article, Constructing Commons in the Cultural Environment, offered by Professors Thrainn Eggertsson, Wendy Gordon, Gregg Macey, Robert Merges, Elinor Ostrom,and Lawrence Solum.  We are extremely grateful for the attention these scholars have devoted to our article and find the comments both constructive and complementary to our perspective in […]

Read More :: View PDF

Questioning Cultural Commons

In Constructing Commons in the Cultural Environment, Michael J. Madison, Brett M. Frischmann, and Katherine J. Strandburg offer an innovative and attractive vision of the future of cultural and scientific knowledge through the construction of “cultural commons,” which they define as “environments for developing and distributing cultural and scientific knowledge through institutions that support pooling and sharing that knowledge in a […]

Read More :: View PDF

The Institutional Analysis and Development Framework and the Commons

Let me commend Michael Madison, Brett Frischmann, and Katherine Strandburg for writing such an interesting and useful article on the study of commons in cultural environments.  We have tried to develop a useful framework for analyzing a wide variety of questions.  Their adoption of a modified form of our Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework for this […]

Read More :: View PDF

Individual Creators in the Cultural Commons

In many ways, we now live in a world made possible by widespread individual ownership.  Kant and Locke, and perhaps especially Hegel, would be proud: property rights are widely assigned to people who work to express themselves.  In today’s legal/economic structure— characterized both by large integrated entities and widespread dis-integrated, or small-scale, production—there are many owners.  This widespread ownership brings […]

Read More :: View PDF

Cooperative Institutions in Cultural Commons

This Response critically evaluates Elinor Ostrom’s Institutional Analysis and Development framework and points to some of the challenges of adapting it to study patent pools, open source software groups, and other “cultural” as opposed to natural commons.  Few have done more than Ostrom to advance the study of institutions, and no approach offers more insight into the structure of a […]

Read More :: View PDF

Discipline and Nourish: Construction Commons

Scholarship has examined many possible ways to encourage the creation and dissemination of art, works of authorship, ideas, and inventions: rights of exclusion (copyrights and patents), prizes, governmental subsidies, private subsidies (including both foundations and patronage), reputation, and so forth.  Legal scholars have long recognized that copyright and patent are not the only options.  And while some legal […]

Read More :: View PDF

Mapping Social Technologies in the Cultural Commons

This Response sets out my thoughts on a paper by Michael J. Madison, Brett M. Frischmann, and Katherine J. Strandburg, in which they introduce a framework for investigating arrangements for sharing and pooling various intellectual assets. They propose an adjusted version of the approach that Elinor Ostrom and her colleagues developed to study governance mechanisms for commons with natural assets. […]

Read More :: View PDF

Constructing Commons in the Cultural Environment

This Article sets out a framework for investigating sharing and resource-pooling arrangements for information- and knowledge-based works. We argue that adapting the approach pioneered by Elinor Ostrom and her collaborators to commons arrangements in the natural environment provides a template for examining the construction of commons in the cultural environment. The approach promises to lead to a better […]

Read More :: View PDF