Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-vt8vv Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-08-13T23:25:56.382Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

10 - Epistemic communities and social movements: transnational dynamics in the case of Creative Commons

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 September 2010

Marie-Laure Djelic
Affiliation:
ESSEC Business School, France
Sigrid Quack
Affiliation:
Max-Planck-Institute, Cologne
Get access

Summary

Is it impossible to imagine the lawyers ever on the side of innovation?

Lawrence Lessig (2003)

Introduction

When Victor Hugo in 1878, with an inaugural address at the Paris World exhibition, helped to initiate the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (inured in 1887), he could hardly have imagined that, 120 years later, law professors, artists, and software producers would mobilize worldwide against the successor of the Berne Convention in favor of the free use of intellectual products such as texts, music, and software. The most recent and most obvious expression of this movement is the foundation of “Creative Commons” as a US-based non-profit organization in 2001, which has since extended its operation to over fifty different national jurisdictions. The aim of Creative Commons, according to its statutes, is to build a layer of “reasonable, flexible copyright” into the existing restrictive copyright law. Creative Commons develops licenses that enable people to dedicate their creative works to the public domain – or retain their copyright while licensing them as free for certain uses, on certain conditions.

The organization “Creative Commons,” however, is only the most visible part of a wider transnational community that supports ideas of “free use” and “share alike” in the field of free and open source software (for example, the Free Software Foundation), artistic production, information (for example, the Wikimedia Foundation), and science (for example, diverse open access initiatives1).

Type
Chapter
Information
Transnational Communities
Shaping Global Economic Governance
, pp. 226 - 252
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Benkler, Y. 2006. The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Blau, P. M. 1963. The dynamics of bureaucracy: A study of interpersonal relations in two government agencies. Revised edition. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Boli, J. and Thomas, G. M. 1999. Constructing world culture: International nongovernmental organizations since 1875. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Brunsson, N. 2003. The organization of hypocrisy: Talk, decisions and action in organizations. Copenhagen Business School Press.Google Scholar
Clemens, E. S. and Minkoff, D. C. 2004. “Beyond the iron law: Rethinking the place of organizations in social movement research,” in Snow, D. A., Soule, S. A. and Kriesi, H. (eds.), The Blackwell companion to social movements. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 155–70.Google Scholar
Cohen, R. and Kennedy, P. 2000. Global sociology. Basingstoke: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Dahrendorf, R. 1959. Class and class conflict in industrial society. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Davis, G. F., McAdam, D., Scott, R. W. and Zald, M. N. (eds.) 2005. Social movements and organization theory. Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Della Porta, D. and Tarrow, S. 2005. Transnational protest and global activism. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Djelic, M.-L., and Quack, S. (eds.) 2003. Globalization and institutions. Redefining the rules of the economic game. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Djelic, M.-L., and Quack, S. 2008. “Institutions and transnationalization,” in Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Suddaby, R. and Sahlin-Andersson, K. (eds.), Handbook of organizational institutionalism. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 299–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Djelic, M.-L., and Sahlin-Andersson, K. (eds.) 2006. Transnational governance. Institutional dynamics of regulation. Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Dolata, U. 2003. Unternehmen Technik. Akteure, Interaktionsmuster und strukturelle Kontexte der Technikentwicklung: Ein Theorierahmen. Berlin: edition sigma.Google Scholar
Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. “Building theories from case study research,” Academy of Management Review 14 (4): 532–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, M. 2002. “Napster opens Pandora's Box: Examining how file-sharing services threaten the enforcement of copyright on the Internet,” Ohio Law Journal 63: 799–818.Google Scholar
Haas, P. M. 1992. “Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy coordination,” International Organization 46 (1): 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haas, P. M. 2007. “Epistemic communities,” in Bodansky, D., Brunnée, J. and Hey, E. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of international environmental law. Oxford University Press, pp. 791–806.Google Scholar
Helfer, L. 2004. “Regime shifting: The TRIPs agreement and new dynamics of international intellectual property lawmaking,” Yale Journal of International Law 29: 1–81.Google Scholar
Hemmungs Wirtén, E. 2004. No trespassing. University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemmungs Wirtén, E. 2008. Terms of use. University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keck, M. E. and Sikkink, K. 1998. Activists beyond borders: Advocacy networks in international politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Lawrence, J. 1996. “Intellectual property futures: The Paper club and the digital commons,” in Ess, C. (ed.), Philosophical perspectives on computer-mediated communication. State University of New York Press, pp. 95–114.Google Scholar
Lessig, L. 2003. www.lessig.org/blog/2003/08/sigh_mp3com_we_hardly_knew_you.html, blog entry from August 7.
Lessig, L. 2004. Free culture: How big media uses technology and the law to lock down culture and control creativity. New York: Penguin Press.Google Scholar
Lessig, L. 2005. http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5661, blog entry from October 6.
Merton, R. K. 1968. Social theory and social structure. Enlarged edition. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Miller, D. and Slater, D. 2000. The Internet: An ethnographic approach. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
Möller, E. 2006. “The case for free use: Reasons not to use a Creative Commons-NC license,” www.opensourcejahrbuch.de/download/jb2006/chapter_06/osjb2006–06-02-en-moeller.pdf.
Morgan, G. 2001. “Transnational communities and business systems, global networks,” A Journal of Transnational Affairs 1 (2): 113–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ren, Y., Kraut, R., and Kiesler, S. 2007. “Applying common identity and bond theory to design of online communities,” Organization Studies 28 (3): 379–410.Google Scholar
Tarrow, S. 1998. Power in movement: Social movements and contentious politics. Cambridge University Press.
Tarrow, S. 2000. “Transnational contention,” Working Paper RSC No. 2000/44. Florence: European University Institute.
Tilly, C. 2004. Social movements, 1768–2004. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.Google Scholar
Ven, A. H. and Poole, S. M. 2005. “Alternative approaches for studying organizational change,” Organization Studies 26 (9): 1377–404.Google Scholar
Vedres, B. and Stark, D. 2008. “Opening closure: Intercohesion and entrepreneurial dynamics in business groups.” Manuscript. Budapest: Central European University. www.personal.ceu.hu/staff/Balazs_Vedres/papers/vedres.stark.intercohesion2.pdf.
Vertovec, S. 2001. “Transnational social formations: Towards conceptual cross-fertilization.” Transnational Communities Programme WPTC Working Paper 01–16. University of Oxford.Google Scholar
Wayner, P. 2002. Free for all. How Linux and the free software movement undercut the high-tech titans. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Witzel, A. 2000. “Das problemzentrierte Interview,” Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research 1 (1): www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/1–00/1–00witzel-d.htm.Google Scholar
Yin, R. K. 1994. Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×