Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Sharing or Platform Urban Mobility? Propertization from Mass to MaaS

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Smart Urban Mobility

Part of the book series: MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law ((MSIP,volume 29))

Abstract

This chapter will discuss smart urban mobility within the context of the sharing economy. After a brief introduction on the history of urban mobility, it will look at the application of sharing economy models to smart urban mobility, such as ride-sharing, car- and bike-sharing programs and e-hailing services. The discussion will contextualize the evolution of peer mass production dynamics into Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS). My focus is the fundamental data ownership and protection issues that will arise from mobility solutions consumed as services through centralized gateways and platforms. I criticize the neo-liberalist perspective that has gradually changed the sharing economy into the platform economy and argue that it brought about unfulfilled expectations and increasing inequalities. After moving this critique, I plead for the application of Ostrom’s approach to commons to smart urban mobility and, in particular to MaaS. In conclusion, I argue that smart urban mobility should develop upon what I call a 3C model: commons, collaboration and crowdsourcing.

Giancarlo Frosio is Associate Professor, Center for International Intellectual Property Studies (CEIPI), University of Strasbourg, France; non-resident Fellow at the Stanford Law School Center for Internet and Society, U.S.A.; Faculty Associate, Nexa Center for Internet and Society, Polytechnic University, Turin, Italy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Crawford Macpherson, The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism: Hobbes to Locke (Clarendon Press 1962).

  2. 2.

    Evgeny Morozov and Francesca Bria, ‘Rethinking the Smart City: Democratizing Urban Technology’ (Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung 2018) <www.rosalux.de/fileadmin/rls_uploads/pdfs/sonst_publikationen/rethinking_the_smart_city.pdf> accessed 18 March 2020.

  3. 3.

    See Morozov and Bria (n 2) 42-43.

  4. 4.

    See eg Martin Emanuel, Frank Schipper and Ruth Oldenziel, A U-Turn to the Future: Sustainable Urban Mobility since 1850 (Berghahn Books 2020).

  5. 5.

    See ‘Streetcar’, Encyclopaedia Britannica (29 October 2018) <www.britannica.com/technology/streetcar#ref281087> accessed 18 March 2020.

  6. 6.

    ibid.

  7. 7.

    See National Museum of American History, ‘America on the Move’ (National Museum of American History Behring Center) <https://americanhistory.si.edu/america-on-the-move> accessed 18 March 2020.

  8. 8.

    ibid.

  9. 9.

    See Streetcar (n 5).

  10. 10.

    ibid.

  11. 11.

    See National Museum of American History (n 7).

  12. 12.

    ibid.

  13. 13.

    Peter Jones, ‘The Evolution of Urban Mobility: The Interplay of Academic and Policy Perspectives’ (2014) 38 International Association of Traffic and Safety Sciences (IATSS) Research 7.

  14. 14.

    See Ava Kofman, ‘Google’s “Smart City of Surveillance” Faces New Resistance in Toronto’ (The Interceptor, 13 November 2019) <https://theintercept.com/2018/11/13/google-quayside-toronto-smart-city> accessed 18 March 2020.

  15. 15.

    ibid.

  16. 16.

    See Shannon Bouton and others, ‘Infrastructure for the Evolution of Urban Mobility’ (Mckinsey 2017) <www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability/our-insights/infrastructure-for-the-evolution-of-urban-mobility> accessed 18 March 2020.

  17. 17.

    See Bhagyalaxmi Madapur, Shilpa Madangopal and M N Chandrashekar, ‘Micro-mobility Infrastructure for Redefining Urban Mobility’ (International Conference on Research in Engineering and Technology, Barcelona, 12-14 December 2019) <www.dpublication.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/14-66.pdf> accessed 18 March 2020.

  18. 18.

    See Claudio Bozza, ‘Car sharing, la grande ritirata: Share Now (ex Car2go) lascia Firenze, Londra e New York’ (Corriere della Sera L’Economia, 19 December 2019) <www.corriere.it/economia/consumi/19_dicembre_19/car-sharing-grande-ritirata-share-now-lascia-firenze-londra-new-york-1648451a-2248-11ea-8e32-6247f341a5cc.shtml> accessed 18 March 2020.

  19. 19.

    See, eg, Susan Shaheen and Adam Cohen, ‘Shared Micromoblity Policy Toolkit: Docked and Dockless Bike and Scooter Sharing’ (2019) UC Berkeley Transportation Sustainability Research Center Report <https://escholarship.org/uc/item/00k897b5> accessed 18 March 2020.

  20. 20.

    Grant McKenzie, ‘Urban Mobility in the Sharing Economy: A Spatiotemporal Comparison of Shared Mobility Services’ (2020) 79 Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 101418.

  21. 21.

    See Kersten Heineke and others, ‘Micromobility’s 15,000-mile checkup’ (Mckinsey 2019) <www.mckinsey.com/industries/automotive-and-assembly/our-insights/micromobilitys-15000-mile-checkup#> accessed 18 March 2020.

  22. 22.

    ibid.

  23. 23.

    See Kofman (n 14).

  24. 24.

    See Kirstin Anderson-Hall and others, ‘Governing Micro-Mobility: A Nationwide Assessment of Electric Scooter Regulations’ (Transportation Research Board 98th Annual Meeting, Washington DC, 13-17 January 2019) <https://trid.trb.org/view/1572811> accessed 18 March 2020.

  25. 25.

    See Sam Bowles and Herbert Gintis, A Cooperative Species: Human Reciprocity and Its Evolution (Princeton UP 2013). See also Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759).

  26. 26.

    See Richard Sennett, Together: The Rituals, Pleasures, and Politics of Cooperation (Yale UP 2012).

  27. 27.

    See Eric Whitacre, ‘About the Virtual Choir’ (Eric Whitcare) <http://ericwhitacre.com/the-virtual-choir> accessed 18 March 2020. (Virtual Choir is a choral music performance created by piecing together 3,746 videos from a community of singers from 73 countries around the world).

  28. 28.

    See Botanical Society of the British Isles, ‘Herbaria@home: Recording Historical Biodiversity’ <http://herbariaunited.org/atHome/> accessed 18 March 2020.

  29. 29.

    See Mark Cooper, ‘From Wifi to Wikis and Open Source: The Political Economy of Collaborative Production in the Digital Information Age’ (2006) 5 Journal on Telecommunications & High Technology Law 125.

  30. 30.

    See Don Tapscott and Anthony Williams, Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything (Atlantic Books 2008). See also Shun-ling Chen, ‘Collaborative Authorship: From Folklore to the Wikiborg’ [2011] University of Illinois Journal of Law, Technology & Policy 131. For a discussion of Wikipedia and wiki environments as a sharing economy and a cultural commons, see Michael Madison, Brett Frischmann and Katherine Strandburg, ‘Constructing Commons in the Cultural Environment’ (2010) 95 Cornell Law Review 657, 657.

  31. 31.

    See Lawrence Lessig, Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy (Bloomsbury 2008) 143-176 (discussing sharing economies).

  32. 32.

    See Rachel Botsman and Roo Rogers, What’s Mine is Yours: the Rise of Collaborative Consumption (Harper Business 2010).

  33. 33.

    All these collaborative consumption platforms can be found online. They are mentioned as an example of the wide variety of platforms already available. Some of them might not be operating any longer by the time this chapter will be published.

  34. 34.

    See Pierre Levy, L’Intelligence Collective: Pur Une Anthopologie Du Cyberspace (Editions La Découverte 1995).

  35. 35.

    A large quantity of literature has been produced on mass collaboration in the networked information society. See eg Clay Shirky, Cognitive Surplus: Creativity and generosity in a Connected Age (The Penguin Press 2010); Charles Leadbeater, We-Think: Mass Innovation, Not Mass Production (Profile Books 2009); Tapscott and Williams (n 30); Clay Shirky, Here Comes Everyone: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations (Penguin 2008); David Weinberger, Everything Is Miscellaneous: The Power of the New Digital Disorder (Henry Holt 2008); Cass Sunstein, Infotopia: How Many Minds Produce Knowledge (OUP 2006).

  36. 36.

    See Yochai Benkler, The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom (Yale UP 2007).

  37. 37.

    ibid 32.

  38. 38.

    ibid 3.

  39. 39.

    See eg Jerome H Reichman, ‘Of Green Tulips and Legal Kudzu: Repackaging Rights in Subpatentable Innovation’ (2000) 53 Vanderbilt Law Review 1743.

  40. 40.

    Benkler (n 36) 60.

  41. 41.

    ibid 8-9. See also Benkler Yochai and Helen Nissenbaum, ‘Commons-Based Peer Production and Virtue’ (2006) 14 Journal of Political Philosophy 394. Cf Steven Weber, The Success of Open Source (Harvard UP 2004) 1.

  42. 42.

    See Reichman (n 39).

  43. 43.

    For a review of the notion of contractually constructed commons, see Jerome Reichman and Paul Uhlir, ‘A Contractually Reconstructed Research Commons for Scientific Data in a Highly Protectionist Intellectual Property’ (2003) 66 Law & Contemporary Problems 315. See also Lawrence Lessig, The Future of ideas: The Fate of The Commons in a Connected World (Vintage Books 2002); Madison, Frischmann, and Strandburg (n 30); Molly Van Houweling, ‘Cultural Environmentalism and the Constructed Commons’ (2007) 70 Law & Contemporary Problems 5.

  44. 44.

    See Lewis Hyde, The Gift: Creativity And The Artist In The Modern World (Vintage Books 2007) (describing creativity exchange among artists); Robert Merton, The Sociology Of Science: Theoretical And Empirical Investigations (Norman Storer ed, University of Chicago Press 1973) 273-275, 339 (exploring norms of sharing among scientists).

  45. 45.

    See Benkler (n 36) 63-68; Yochai Benkler, ‘Sharing Nicely: On Shareable Goods and the Emergence of Sharing as a Modality of Economic Production’ (2005) 114 Yale Law Journal 273; Yochai Benkler, ‘Coase’s Penguin, or, Linux and The Nature of the Firm’ (2002) 112 Yale Law Journal 369, 374.

  46. 46.

    See Madison, Frischmann and Strandburg (n 30).

  47. 47.

    Benkler (n 36) 63.

  48. 48.

    See Lee Davis, ‘Should the Logic of ‘Open Source’ Be Applied to Digital Cultural Goods? An Exploratory Essay’ in Helle Porsdam (ed), Copyright and Other Fairy Tales: Hans Christian Andersen and the Commodification of Creativity (Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd 2006) 129. See also Primavera De Filippi and Félix Tréguer, ‘Expanding the Internet Commons: The Subversive Potential of Wireless Community Networks’ (2015) 6 The Journal of Peer Production <http://peerproduction.net/issues/issue-6-disruption-and-the-law/peer-reviewed-articles/expanding-the-internet-commons-the-subversive-potential-of-wireless-community-networks/> accessed 18 March 2020 (discussing the phenomenon of decentralization in telecommunications networks and the revival of grassroots (wireless) community networks).

  49. 49.

    See Stefan Thomke and Eric Von Hippel, ‘Customers as Innovators: A New Way to Create Value’ (2002) 80 Harvard Business Review 74.

  50. 50.

    See David Bollier, Viral Spiral: How the Commoners Built a Digital Republic of Their Own(New Press 2009).

  51. 51.

    See Vera Demary, ‘The Platformisation of Digital Markets’ (2015) Institut der Deutschen Wirtschaft (IW) Policy Paper 39 <www.iwkoeln.de/studien/iw-policy-papers/beitrag/vera-demary-the-platformization-of-digital-markets-257401.html> accessed 18 March 2020; David Nieborg and Thomas Poell, ‘The Platformisation of Cultural Production: Theorizing the Contingent Cultural Commodity’ (2018) 20 New Media & Society 4275.

  52. 52.

    See Scott Gordon, ‘The Economic Theory of a Common-Property Resource: The Fishery’ (1954) 62 Journal of Political Economy 124; and Anthony Scott, ‘The Fishery: The Objectives of Sole Ownership’ (1955) 63 Journal of Political Economy 116 (introducing an economic analysis of fisheries that demonstrated that unlimited harvesting of high-demand fish by multiple individuals is both economically and environmentally unsustainable). See also Chander Anupam and Madhavi Sunder, ‘The Romance of the Public Domain’ (2004) 92 California Law Review 1331, 1332-1333 (discussing the move toward propertization).

  53. 53.

    See Harold Demsetz, ‘Toward a Theory of Property Rights’ (1967) 57 American Economic Review 347.

  54. 54.

    See Garrett Hardin, ‘The Tragedy of the Commons’ (1968) 162 Science 1243.

  55. 55.

    ibid.

  56. 56.

    See Peter Drahos with John Braithwaite, Information Feudalism: Who Owns the Knowledge Economy? (Earthscan Publications 2002); James Boyle, ‘The Second Enclosure Movement and the Construction of the Public Domain’ (2003) 66 Law & Contemporary Problems 33, 45-46.

  57. 57.

    Charlotte Hess and Elinor Ostrom, ‘Ideas, Artifacts, and Facilities: Information as a Common-Pool Resource’ (2003) 66 Law & Contemporary Problems 112.

  58. 58.

    See Charlotte Hess and Elinor Ostrom, ‘Introduction: An Overview of the Knowledge Commons’ in Charlotte Hess and Elinor Ostrom (eds), Understanding Knowledge as a Commons: From Theory to Practice (MIT Press 2007) 12.

  59. 59.

    See Eric von Hippel, Democratizing Innovation (MIT Press 2005) 2 (noting that ‘[o]pen, distributed innovation is ‘attacking’ a major structure of the social division of labor’). See also Robert Cunningham, ‘The Separation of (Economic) Power: A Cultural Environmental Perspective of Social Production and the Networked Public Sphere’ (2010) 11 Journal of High Technology Law 1 (noting that social production ‘affords the possibility of harnessing the critical liberal function of separating (economic) power’ by diversifying the modes of production).

  60. 60.

    Bodó Balázs, ‘Was the Open Knowledge Commons Idea a Curse in Disguise?: Towards Sovereign Institutions of Knowledge’ (2019) SSRN Research Paper 3502119 <https://ssrn.com/abstract=3502119 or https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3502119> accessed 18 March 2020.

  61. 61.

    ibid.

  62. 62.

    See Sofia Ranchordás and Catalina Goanta, ‘The New City Regulators: Platform and Public Values in Smart and Sharing Cities’ (2019) Computer Law & Security Review <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2019.105375> accessed 18 March 2020.

  63. 63.

    See Michael Fromkin, ‘The Death of Privacy?’ (2000) 52 Stanford Law Review 1461, 1502-1503.

  64. 64.

    See eg Roni Utriainen and Markus Pöllänen, ‘Review on Mobility as a Service in Scientific Publications’ (2018) 27 Research in Transportation Business & Management 15; Peraphan Jittrapirom and others, ‘Mobility as a Service: A Critical Review of Definitions, Assessments of Schemes, and Key Challenges’ (2017) 2(2) Urban Planning 13; Maria Kamargianni and Melinda Matyas, ‘The Business Ecosystem of Mobility-as-a-Service’ (Proceedings of the 96th Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, Washington DC, 8-12 January 2017) <https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10037890/> accessed 18 March 2020. See also Göran Smith and David Hensher, ‘Towards a framework for mobility-as-a-service policies’ (2020) 89 Transport Policy 54 <www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0967070X19307504> accessed 18 March 2020.

  65. 65.

    See Glenn Lyons, Paul Hammond and Kate Mackay, ‘The Importance of User Perspective in the evolution of MaaS’ (2019) 121 Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 22 (providing a taxonomy of MaaS integration, which underlines different levels of service provision to the user).

  66. 66.

    See Christian Bussmann, Magdalene Piec and Andreas Gutweniger, ‘Data Sharing in the Age of Mobility as a Service’ (Detecon, 28 March 2019) <www.detecon.com/en/knowledge/data-sharing-age-mobility-service> accessed 18 March 2020.

  67. 67.

    MaaS Alliance, ‘What is MaaS?’ <https://maas-alliance.eu/homepage/what-is-maas/> accessed 18 March 2020.

  68. 68.

    Sergio Guidon, ‘Transportation Service Bundling: For Whose Benefit? Consumer Valuation of Pure Bundling in the Passenger Transportation Market’ (2020) 131 Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 91.

  69. 69.

    See Maria Kamargianni, Weibo Li and Melinda Matyas, ‘A Comprehensive Review of “Mobility as a Service” Systems’ (Transportation Research Board 95th Annual Meeting, Washington 2016) <https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ebbb/5ce87cca2547d5bd1d073563af43a5da90c0.pdf?_ga=2.13831615.904933516.1584459187-470961107.1583238027> accessed 18 March 2020.

  70. 70.

    See Maria Kamargianni and others, ‘A Critical Review of New Mobility Services for Urban Transport’ (2016) 14 Transportation Research Procedia 3294.

  71. 71.

    See International Association of Public Transport (UITP), ‘Public Transport Trends 2019’ (UITP, 2019) <www.uitp.org/public-transport-trends> accessed 18 March 2020.

  72. 72.

    See Gerard George, Martine Haas and Alex Pentland, ‘Big Data and Management’ (2014) 57 Academy of Management Journal 321.

  73. 73.

    ibid.

  74. 74.

    ibid.

  75. 75.

    ibid.

  76. 76.

    See Caitlin Cottrill and others, ‘Tweeting Transit: An Examination of Social Media Strategies for Transport Information Management During a Large Event’ (2017) 77 Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 421.

  77. 77.

    See George (n 72).

  78. 78.

    Barbara Lenz and Dirk Heinrichs, ‘What Can We Learn from Smart Urban Mobility Technologies?’ (2017) 16 IEEE Pervasive Computing 84, 84-86.

  79. 79.

    ibid 84-86.

  80. 80.

    ibid.

  81. 81.

    See Yves-Alexandre De Montjoye and others, ‘Unique in the Crowd: The Privacy Bounds of Human Mobility’ (2013) 3(1376) Scientific Reports 1; Gennady Andrienko and others, ‘Report from Dagstuhl: the Liberation of Mobile Location Data and its Implications for Privacy Research’ (2013) 17(2) ACM SIGMOBILE Mobile Computing Communications Review 7.

  82. 82.

    Shoshana Zuboff, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism (Profile Books 2019). See also Tim Wu, The Attention Merchants: The Epic Struggle to Get Inside Our Heads (Atlantic Books 2017).

  83. 83.

    See Caitlin Cottrill, ‘MaaS surveillance: Privacy considerations in mobility as a service’ (2020) 131 Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 50.

  84. 84.

    ibid; Jittrapirom and others (n 64).

  85. 85.

    BVerfGE 65, 1 of 15 December 1983 (Volkszählungs-Urteil) translated in English by Eibe Riedel in (1984) 5 Human Rights Law Journal 94. See also Eibe Riedel, ‘New Bearings in German Data Protection: Census Act 1983 Partially Unconstitutional’ (1984) 5 Human Rights Law Journal 67; Gerrit Hornung and Christoph Schnabel, ‘Data Protection in Germany I: The Population Census Decision and the Right to Informational Self-determination’ (2009) 25 Computer Law & Security Report 84; Antoinette Rouvroy and Yves Poullet, ‘The Right to Informational Self-Determination and the Value of Self-Development: Reassessing the Importance of Privacy for Democracy’ in Serge Gutwirth and others (eds), Reinventing Data Protection? (Springer 2009) 45-76.

  86. 86.

    BVerfGE 65, 1 (n 85).

  87. 87.

    Parliament and Council Directive 95/46/EC of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data [1995] OJ L 281/31 (Data Protection Directive) art 12.

  88. 88.

    Riedel (n 85) 69.

  89. 89.

    See Luciano Floridi, ‘On Human Dignity as a Foundation for the Right to Privacy’ (2016) 29 Philosophy and Technology 307. See also Orla Lynskey, The Foundations of EU Data Protection Law (OUP 2015).

  90. 90.

    See Parliament and Council Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC [2016] OJ L119/1 (General Data Protection Regulation GDPR) art 88.

  91. 91.

    McKennitt v. Ash [2006] EWCA Civ 1714, s 55 (Lord Justice Buxton).

  92. 92.

    See eg Bernt Hugenholtz, Auteursrecht op informative (Kluwer 1989).

  93. 93.

    Ulises Mejias and Nick Couldry, ‘Datafication’ (2019) 8(4) Internet Policy Review 1 <https://policyreview.info/concepts/datafication> accessed 18 March 2020.

  94. 94.

    ibid.

  95. 95.

    Viktor Mayer-Schönberger and Kenneth Cukier, Big Data: A Revolution That Will Transform How We Live, Work and Think (John Murray 2013) 78.

  96. 96.

    National Research Board, The Digital Dilemma: Intellectual Property in The Information Age (National Academy Press 2000).

  97. 97.

    Stuart Brand, The Media Lab: Inventing the Future at MIT (Penguin Books 1986) 86.

  98. 98.

    See eg Jeffrey Ritter and Anna Mayer, ‘Regulating Data as Property: A New Construct for Moving Forward’ (2018) 16 Duke Law & Technology Review 220, 226. For a review of an earlier debate (long before the advent of the platform economy) about data propertization in the US, see Pamela Samuelson, ‘Privacy as Intellectual Property’ (1999) 52 Stanford Law Review 1125 (arguing against property on personal information).

  99. 99.

    See Francis Gury, ‘IP Horizon 5.0 Conference’ (Twitter, 14 October 2019) <https://twitter.com/EU_IPO/status/1183694801071423489> accessed 18 March 2020.

  100. 100.

    See Andrew Yang, ‘Policy, Data as a Property Right’ (Yang 2020) <www.yang2020.com/policies/data-property-right> accessed 18 March 2020. See also Kevin Chen, ‘Yanging and Hanging onto Our Own Data’ (BTLJ Blog, 30 December 2019) <https://btlj.org/2019/12/yanging-and-hanging-onto-our-own-data> accessed 18 March 2020.

  101. 101.

    ibid.

  102. 102.

    ibid.

  103. 103.

    Ritter and Mayer (n 98) 228 fn 19.

  104. 104.

    See Bundesministerium für Verkehr und Digitale Infrastruktur (BMVI), ‘Wir Brauchen Ein Datengesetz in Deutschland! [We Need a Data Law in Germany!]’ <www.bmvi.de/SharedDocs/DE/Artikel/DG/datengesetz.html> accessed 18 March 2020.

  105. 105.

    ibid.

  106. 106.

    ibid.

  107. 107.

    ibid. See also Boris Otto and others, ‘Industrial Data Space: Digital Sovereignty Over Data’ (Fraunhofer 2016) <www.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/zv/en/fields-of-research/industrial-data-space/whitepaper-industrial-data-spaceeng.pdf> accessed 18 March 2020 (discussing the Industrial Data Space (IDS) research project funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, which would like to ensure similar ‘digital sovereignty of data owners’).

  108. 108.

    Parliament and Council Directive (EU) 2019/770 of 20 May 2019 on certain aspects concerning contracts for the supply of digital content and digital services [2019] OJ L 136/1 (Digital Content Directive) art 3(1).

  109. 109.

    Axel Metzger, ‘A Market Model for Personal Data: State of the Play under the New Directive on Digital Content and Digital Services’ in Lohsse Sebastian, Schulze Reiner and Staudenmayer Dirk (eds), Data as Counter Performance: Contract Law 2.0? (forthcoming). See also Axel Metzger, ‘Data as Counter-Performance: What Rights and Duties do Parties Have?’ (2017) 8 Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and Electronic Commerce Law (JIPITEC) 2; Axel Metzger and others, ‘Data-Related Aspects of the Digital Content Directive’ (2018) 9 JIPITEC 90.

  110. 110.

    Digital Content Directive (n 108) art 3(1) (emphasis added).

  111. 111.

    ibid (emphasis added).

  112. 112.

    Metzger, ‘A Market Model for Personal Data: State of the Play under the New Directive on Digital Content and Digital Services’ (n 109) 2.

  113. 113.

    Digital Content Directive (n 108).

  114. 114.

    See Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale Lazio, Facebook v Altroconsumo [2020] No. 5288/2018.

  115. 115.

    ibid.

  116. 116.

    ibid.

  117. 117.

    ibid.

  118. 118.

    Joseph Stiglitz, Public Policy for a Knowledge Economy (World Bank Department for Trade and Industry and Center for Economic Policy Research 1999) 25.

  119. 119.

    See Sanford Grossman and Joseph Stiglitz, ‘On the Impossibility of Informationally Efficient Markets’ (1980) 70 American Economic Review 393.

  120. 120.

    International News Service v Associated Press, 248 US 215, 250 (1918) (Justice Louis Brandeis, dissenting).

  121. 121.

    The research carried out by Brett Frischmann points exactly in this direction, see generally Brett Frischmann, Infrastructure: the Social Value of Shared Resources (OUP 2012); Brett Frischmann, ‘An Economic Theory of Infrastructure and Commons Management’ (2005) 89 Minnesota Law Review 917.

  122. 122.

    See Guido Calabresi, ‘Some Thoughts on Risk Distribution and the Law of Torts’ (1961) 70 Yale Law Journal 499; Guido Calabresi and Douglas Melamed, ‘Property Rules, Liability Rules and Inalienability: One View of the Cathedral’ (1972) 85 Harvard Law Review 1089.

  123. 123.

    See Reichman (n 39).

  124. 124.

    For a review of the notion of contractually constructed commons, see Reichman and Uhlir, ‘A Contractually Reconstructed Research Commons for Scientific Data in a Highly Protectionist Intellectual Property’ (n 43). See also Lawrence Lessig, The Future of ideas: The Fate of The Commons in a Connected World (Vintage Books 2002); Madison, Frischmann, and Strandburg (n 30); Van Houweling (n 43).

  125. 125.

    Nick Couldry and Ulises Mejias, ‘Data Colonialism: Rethinking Big Data’s Relation to the Contemporary Subject’ (2019) 20 Television and New Media 336, 336.

  126. 126.

    ibid 337.

  127. 127.

    cf Pamela Samuelson (Twitter: @PamelaSamuelson, 30 December 2019) <https://twitter.com/PamelaSamuelson/status/1211725833704026113> accessed 18 March 2020, Tweet: ‘Well intentioned idea to create property rights in data, but profoundly misguided. This idea will backfire. To get services, you’ll be asked to transfer them, & then exploiters will own’ (noting that the concern is that a well-intentioned idea might easily backfire: to get services, users will be asked to transfer the data which exploiters will then own).

  128. 128.

    See Dominik Wee and others, Competing for the Connected Customer: Perspectives on the Opportunities Created by Car Connectivity and Automation (McKinsey & Co 2015).

  129. 129.

    See Morozov and Bria (n 2) 42-43. See also Giancarlo Frosio, Reconciling Copyright with Cumulative Creativity: the Third Paradigm (Edward Elgar 2018) 331-371 (where I propose a similar framework in the context of digital content creation).

  130. 130.

    See Yochai Benkler, ‘A Political Economy of the Public Domain: Markets in Information Goods vs The Marketplace of Ideas’ in Rochelle Dreyfuss, Diane L Zimmerman, and Harry First (eds), Expanding the Boundaries of Intellectual Property: Innovation Policy for the Knowledge Society (OUP 2001) 270-272.

  131. 131.

    See Elinor Ostrom, Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action (CUP 1990); Elinor Ostrom, Roy Gardner, and James Walker, Rules, Games, and Common-Pool Resources (University of Michigan Press 1994); Elinor Ostrom, The Drama of the Commons (National Academies Press 2002).

  132. 132.

    See Hesse and Ostrom (n 58) 11; Susan S Hanna, Carl Folke, and Karl-Gören Mäler (eds), Rights to Nature: Ecological, Economic, Cultural, and Political Principles of Institutions for the Environment (Island Press 1996); Daniel Bromley and others (eds), Making the Commons Work: Theory, Practice and Policy (International Center for Self-Governance Press1992); Robert Andelson (ed), Commons without Tragedy: The Social Ecology of Land Tenure and Democracy (Center for Incentive Taxation 1991).

  133. 133.

    See Carol Rose, ‘The Comedy of the Commons: Custom, Commerce, and Inherently Public Property’ (1986) 53 University of Chicago Law Review 711.

  134. 134.

    See Shelly Kreiczer-Levy, Destabilized Property: Property Law in the Sharing Economy (CUP 2019).

  135. 135.

    See Financial Times, ‘Protecting Data Privacy Needs Constant Evolution’ (FT, 30 December 2019) <www.ft.com/content/9a3bb14c-2255-11ea-b8a1-584213ee7b2b> accessed 18 March 2020.

  136. 136.

    Decode, ‘What is DECODE?’ <https://decodeproject.eu/what-decode> accessed 18 March 2020.

  137. 137.

    Ibid.

  138. 138.

    Decode, ‘DECODE gives back Data Sovereignty to Citizens’ <https://tools.decodeproject.eu> accessed 18 March 2020.

  139. 139.

    Amy Lewin, ‘Barcelona’s Robin Hood of Data: Francesca Bria’ (FT Sifted, 16 November 2018) <https://sifted.eu/articles/barcelonas-robin-hood-of-data-francesca-bria> accessed 18 March 2020.

  140. 140.

    Cf Kenneth Laudon, ‘Markets and Privacy’ (1996) 39 Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery 92, 92 (proposing the establishment of a regulated National Information Market, where individuals ‘establish information accounts and deposit their information assets and informational rights in a local information bank’). See also Kenneth Laudon, ‘Extensions to the Theory of Markets and Privacy: Mechanics of Pricing Information’ in Privacy and Self-Regulation in the Information Age (US Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information Administration 1997).

  141. 141.

    Paolo Cardullo, ‘Smart Commons or a “Smart Approach” to the Commons?’ in Paolo Cardullo, Cesare Di Feliciantonio and Rob Kitchin (ed), The Right to the Smart City (Emerald Publishing Limited 2019) 85-98.

  142. 142.

    See Mara Balestrini and others, ‘A City in Common: A Framework to Orchestrate Large-scale Citizen Engagement around Urban Issues’ in Gloria Mark and Susan Fussell (eds), CHI ’17: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2017) 2282–2294.

  143. 143.

    See Copenhagen Solutions Lab, ‘City Data Exchange’ <https://cphsolutionslab.dk/en/news/city-data-exchange> accessed 18 March 2020.

  144. 144.

    ibid.

  145. 145.

    See Gowri Sankar Ramachandran and Rahul Radhakrishnan, Bhaskar Krishnamachari, ‘Towards a Decentralized Data Marketplace for Smart Cities’ (IEEE International Smart Cities Conference (ISC2), Kansas, 16-19 September 2018) <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8656952/citations#citations> accessed 18 March 2020 (exploring how a decentralized data marketplace could be created using blockchain and other distributed ledger technologies).

  146. 146.

    See Jerome Reichman, Paul Uhlir and Tom Dedeurwaerdere, Governing Digitally Integrated Genetic Resources, Data, and Literature: Global Intellectual Property Strategies for a Redesigned Microbial Research Commons (CUP 2015) (discussing similar strategies applied to microbial commons).

  147. 147.

    See Koen Frenken, ‘Political Economies and Environmental Futures for the Sharing Economy’ (2017) 375(2095) Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 1 <https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2016.0367> accessed 18 March 2020 (arguing that there are three future scenarios for governing the sharing economy: (1) platform capitalism, which is characterized by the integration of various sharing-economy initiatives into a super-platform that follows neoliberal development; (2) platform redistribution, which is state-based distribution for public interest and uses principles of social justice; and (3) platform cooperativism as a grassroots movement that uses collective ownership and management principles).

  148. 148.

    See Trebor Scholz, Platform Cooperativism: Challenging the Corporate Sharing Economy (Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung 2016) 1.

  149. 149.

    See Francesca Martinelli and others, ‘Platform Cooperativism in Italy and in Europe’ (2019) CIRIEC Working Paper 27 <www.zbw.eu/econis-archiv/bitstream/handle/11159/4013/WP2019-27.pdf> accessed 18 March 2020. See also Trebor Scholz, ‘Platform Cooperativism vs. the Sharing Economy’ in Nicolas Douay and Annie Wan (eds), Big Data & Civic Engagement (Planum Publisher 2017).

  150. 150.

    See eg Nick Srnicek, Platform Capitalism (Polity Press 2017).

  151. 151.

    Morozov and Bria (n 2) 43.

  152. 152.

    See LaZooz <http://lazooz.org> accessed 18 March 2020.

  153. 153.

    See Morozov and Bria (n 2) 44.

  154. 154.

    See Suci Lestari Yuana, ‘Framing the sharing economy: A media analysis of ridesharing platforms in Indonesia and the Philippines’ (2019) 212 Journal of Cleaner Production 1154-1165.

  155. 155.

    For a general overview of crowdfunding and literature review, see Alexandra Moritz and Jorn Block, ‘Crowdfunding: A Literature Review and Research Directions’ in Dennis Brüntje and Oliver Gajda (eds), Crowdfunding in Europe: State of the Art in Theory and Practice (Springer 2016) 25-53.

  156. 156.

    See Jonathan Bone and Peter Baeck, ‘Lessons from four years of running the UK’s first crowdfunding platform directory’ (Nesta, 15 December 2017) <www.crowdingin.com> accessed 18 March 2020.

  157. 157.

    See Kickstarter, ‘About’ <www.kickstarter.com/about> accessed 18 March 2020.

  158. 158.

    ibid.

  159. 159.

    ibid.

  160. 160.

    Moritz and Block (n 155).

  161. 161.

    ibid.

  162. 162.

    ibid.

  163. 163.

    See Goteo <https://en.goteo.org> accessed 18 March 2020 and Startnext <www.startnext.com> accessed 18 March 2020.

  164. 164.

    See Bruno Ávila Eça de Matos, ‘Crowdfunding Urban Infrastructure: Qualitative and Geospatial Analysis’ (Master thesis, Buffalo University 2016) 27-44 (describing several case studies in multiple jurisdictions). See also Rodrigo Davies, ‘Civic crowdfunding as a marketplace for participation in urban development’ (The Internet, Policy & Politics Conference, Oxford 2014) <http://blogs.oii.ox.ac.uk/ipp-conference/sites/ipp/files/documents/IPP2014_Davies.pdf> accessed 18 March 2020; Daniel Brent and Katie Lorah, ‘The Economic Geography of Civic Crowdfunding’ (2019) 90 Cities 122.

  165. 165.

    See Varsha Saraogi, ‘Crowdfunding Rail: Five Projects From Around the World’ (Railway Technology, 9 December 2019) <https://www.railway-technology.com/features/crowdfunding-rail-five-projects-from-around-the-world> accessed 18 March 2020 Jiawei Gui, ‘An Advanced Simulation and Optimization for Railway Transportation of Passengers: Crowdfunding Train’ in Li Xiang and Xu Xiaofeng (eds), Proceedings of the Sixth International Forum on Decision Sciences (Springer 2020) 283.

  166. 166.

    See Spacehive <www.spacehive.com> accessed 19 March 2020.

  167. 167.

    See Voor je buurt <https://voorjebuurt.nl> accessed 19 March 2020, Co-city <https://co-citoyens.fr> accessed 19 March 2020 and Ioby <https://ioby.org> accessed 19 March 2020.

  168. 168.

    See Statista, Crowdfunding <www.statista.com/outlook/335/100/crowdfunding/worldwide> accessed 19 March 2020.

  169. 169.

    ibid.

  170. 170.

    ibid.

  171. 171.

    See Dennis Zuev, Urban Mobility in Modern China: The Growth of the E-bike (Palgrave Macmillan 2018) 97-110.

  172. 172.

    See Crawford Macpherson, The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism: Hobbes to Locke (Clarendon Press 1962).

  173. 173.

    See Jack Balkin, ‘Free Speech in the Algorithmic Society: Big Data, Private Governance, and New School Speech Regulation’ (2018) 51 University of California Davis Law Review 1149, 1160-63; Jack Balkin, ‘Information Fiduciaries and the First Amendment’ (2016) 49 University of California Davis Law Review 1183. See contra David Pozen and Lina Khan, ‘A Skeptical View of Information Fiduciaries’ (2019) 133 Harvard Law Review 49.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for International Intellectual Property Studies (CEIPI), University of Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France

    Giancarlo Frosio

Authors
  1. Giancarlo Frosio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giancarlo Frosio .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. MPI for Innovation and Competition, Munich, Germany

    Michèle Finck , Matthias Lamping , Valentina Moscon  & Heiko Richter , ,  & 

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Frosio, G. (2020). Sharing or Platform Urban Mobility? Propertization from Mass to MaaS. In: Finck, M., Lamping, M., Moscon, V., Richter, H. (eds) Smart Urban Mobility. MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law, vol 29. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-61920-9_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-61920-9_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-61919-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-61920-9

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation