First off, for an interesting account of how women, the prime demographic, aka audience commodity, of radio soaps used their position to effect social change, cf.
http://culturalstudies.gmu.edu/old_site/cultural_matters/issue2/newman.htm
Second...I'm working on this section of my dissertation right now and my feeling is that Bauwens thinks he's really doing something unique but it doesn't appear that he's looked at any of the readings that Johan is discussing. I think Johan is spot on and that Bauwens is looking at what is basically a brief break in the cycle of accumulation which large companies are trying to cement over with IP and the two tiered internet. It is an open question whether this will succeed, but the point is that the P2P he witnesses is a conjunctural phenomenon not a new structure. His refusal to even consider what he calls "reductionist capitalist centric" understandings seems to make his whole analysis irrelevant. That's where we're starting from and whether you want to chat about the gift economy that exists on its margins or moving from the dominant model to an "ethical economy" it seems important to acknowledge it from the outset. Johan seems to be starting from there quite reasonably and I think Bauwens' response is a cop out. Maybe I'm wrong but he doesn't seem to understand at all the argument made by Smythe. It isn't that audiences (or "user communities") are valued by the wages of microsoft employees; it's that the value of a MS product (only realized in use) is dependent on the labor of those communities to learn how to use it.
The earlier argument of Smythe is related in that he points out the work we do as children learning how to be shoppers, taught by parents and friends how to understand the idea of fulfilling needs with commodities, how brands work and,
"I suggest that this constant process of direct experience with commodities and the emulative habits nurtured by possessive individualist lifestyles goes on constantly. It blends into all aspects of audiences' lives all the time. And advertisers get this enormous volume of audience work (creation of consumer consciousness) _as a bonus_ even before their programs and advertising hit the television tube."1
eventually, they also have to perform the labor of the audience for advertisers. If nothing else, this means that we actually still pay for TV (just as we would for public broadcasting) but it is done in a roundabout way: we just pay more for the products in the store in order to make up for the margins they spend on advertising. If anyone is interested in the rough version of the chapter I have now looking at Smythe and the work done by audiences for advertisers and network programmers, let me know. Also, here's one of my early takes on this informed by Smythe (though I'm not sure he appears)
http://onculturalproperty.blogspot.com/2005/05/big-day.html
And here's my reflections on the Ardvisson and Bauwens pieces
http://seanjohnsonandrews.blogspot.com/2007/11/some-reflections-on-p2p-readings.html
NOTE: the reference I make to Doug in this post is in relation to the "novelty" chapter of his last book. If you speak with Bauwens (or Arvidsson, whom I think this was more in response to) recommend that he read Doug's discussion of the idea of immaterial production that gripped the nation in the 90s and then start over again.
FYI the two articles in question are: http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Crisis_of_Value_and_the_Ethical_Economy and http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=499
They've both got some great ideas, but, in short, I think much of what they say is not all that unique, or at least, I'm not convinced that they can have their separate little revolution off to one side while the rest of the production process and the social relationships of capitalism continue apace. I also think that, as great as it would be to have IP-less production online, the problem is that unless you do away with it completely, if this separate economy of P2P ever becomes a real threat, these are the legal instruments that will be used to attempt to shut it down (even if no wrong has been committed, it can be bled dry with lawsuits); and if it's not going to be a threat, then what's the point.
I know there are others on the list interested in this stuff so I'd be interested in hearing what they have to say.
s
1- Dallas Smythe, "On Conventional and Critical Theory of Communications" in DEPENDENCY ROAD: COMMUNICATIONS, CAPITALISM, CONSCIOUSNESS, AND CANADA. 1981.