Consider some examples to make the possibilities real.

_Speakers'_Corner:_ Speakers' Corner is a place in London's Hyde Park
where people who want to speak publicly gather on Sundays to deliver their
speeches. It is a wonderfully English spectacle, ordinarily filled with both
orators and loons. But the system of communication is distinctive: the physi-
cal layer (the park) is a commons; the code layer (the language used) is a
commons, too; and the content layer is ordinarily unowned -- what these
nuts say is their own creation. All three layers in this context are free; no one
can exercise control over the kinds of communications that might happen
here.

_Madison_Square_Garden:_ Madison Square Garden is another place where
people give speeches or, more likely, play games. It is a huge stadium/
auditorium near the center of Manhattan, owned by Madison Square Gar-
den, L.P. Only those who pay get to use the auditorium; and the Garden is
not obligated to take all comers. The physical layer is therefore controlled.
But as with Speakers' Corner, both the code layer (the language) and the
content layer (what gets uttered) are at least sometimes not controlled. They
too can remain free.

_The_telephone_system:_ The telephone system before its breakup was a
single unitary system. The physical infrastructure of this system was owned
by AT&T and its affiliates; so too was its logical infrastructure -- determining
how and who you could connect -- controlled by AT&T. But what you said
on an AT&T phone (within limits, at least)[2-14] was free: the content of the
telephone conversations was not controlled, even if the physical and code
layers underneath were.

_Cable_TV:_ Finally, think of cable TV. Here the physical layer is owned --
the wires that run the content into your house. The code layer is
owned -- only the cable companies get to decide what runs into your house.
And the content layer is owned -- the shows that get broadcast are copy-
righted shows. All three layers are within the control of the cable TV com-
pany; no communications layer, in Benkler's sense, remains free.

These examples suggest the range of ways of organizing systems of
communications. No single mix is best, though the differences among the
four are important. To the extent that we want a decentralized system of
communications, unowned layers will help. To the extent that we want con-
trolled systems of communications, owned layers will help. But the point of
the scheme so far is not to make predictions. The point is simply to make
clear the range, and that trade-offs within this range exist.

[[24]]

p023 _ -chap- _ toc-1 _ p024w _ toc-2 _ +chap+ _ p025

v?