A starry sky without advertising!

The Sky is Ours!

Some COMMONS can be used by everyone.
Some others by none!

One of the Commons of Nature, in addition to air, is also the Sky.
No one can use the Sky, which belongs to all, for his own “needs” (or rather desires or whims…).

However, this is what the Russian company StartRocket would propose at the initiative of this “idea” (?) which would consist in polluting, since there are no other words, visually and spatially the sky belonging to all by Advertisements praising the merits of such or such product and a priori rather sweetened drinks…

You will find the Technical details of this Project in different Press reviews (Although some “articles” on the subject are strangely similar ..).

What is important to us in the context of the Commons is the usual observation that:

  1. Ultra Capitalism is ready for anything, including, as is often the case, selling what does not belong to it and abusing, in every sense of the word, Natural Resources;
  2. This use de facto depreciates the Natural Resource, probably gradually eliminating it or reducing it to a shambles;
  3. We must reaffirm, each day, the importance of the Commons. And to implement the means to preserve them. Then/and include this protection in different laws or in Binational, multiple or international treaties.


Concentric Circles

The 4 Concentric Circles of COMMONS – Degrees and zones of influence.

The existence and degrees of influence and impact of COMMONS are on a 4 degree scale. We will use these scales and denominations to categorize the studies and proposals of COMMONS, Physical or Digital, that will be discussed on this site. This allows us to have a common vocabulary and references during the exchanges and thoughts that will be conducted.

    • By definition, all Physical COMMONS, are local. They are always anchored in a territory. It can have a radius of influence on humans living near it from a few hundred meters (Pond) to several kilometers (Lake). The geometric notion of a circle represents this sphere of influence.
    • For Production COMMONS (shared 3D printer for example), the local area, by its proximity to the inhabitants, producers and consumers of the goods produced by these COMMONS, is the ideal and sought-after size.
    • There may be digital COMMONS only local. But their influence is by nature weak. And their existence is less relevant than, at least, National Digital COMMONS.
    • The area of influence of such Physical COMMONS is the country in which they reside, in whole or in part. The Rhône is a national resource for Switzerland. But also for France. So is the Nile for Egypt and Sudan. In this level of influence, the geometric area is more a rectangle (for instance the edges of a river along its course) than a circle.
    • This is the level at which digital COMMONS are beginning to have a strong impact because they potentially address all the inhabitants of a country, without limitation of use due to a particular geographical presence (Excluding the problem of Internet connection)
      • They are COMMONS whose influence is at the size and scale of one of the 7 continents known as Africa, North America, South America (separated by the Panama Canal), Asia, Europe, Oceania and Antarctica. The 7 continents can be reduced to 6 or 5. The important thing is to understand the size and influence that COMMONS in this category must have. The Iguazú Falls can be considered as a COMMONS of Continent. Whether it is only for South America or for an American Continent including the South and the North.
    • This is the COMMONS stage that potentially concerns all the inhabitants of the Earth. And the Planet.
    • More than in previous degrees, Digital COMMONS take all their usefulness and power from this Universal level. These are all the tools and services that can be used by all the inhabitants of the Earth in a digital and virtual form, with all the advantages of the Digital. Knowledge, shared and evolving, at the service of all, diffused by the Digital is a form of Universal Digital COMMONS. But we are not yet at this stage. The concept of a Library and the presence of “Text” are completely outdated in relation to the issues and needs. But this example is typically a Universal COMMONS. It should be noted that this Digital COMMONS of Knowledge is to be distinguished from a Universal COMMONS of the History of Humanity, civilizations, countries, regions, cities, families. This can be done now with the available tools and in a more classic library concept. Another possible Universal Digital COMMONS is that of Inventions and Patents to be shared among all the inhabitants of the Earth.
    • Universal level physical COMMONS are of key importance to Humanity. Note that for Physical COMMONS, the size of Universal COMMONS is not identical to the size of the Planet. But they are, for different reasons, and on different levels, of vital importance to Human Civilization. We can take the example of Amazonia as a universal COMMONS, with the cliché, of the Earth’s green lung. But Greenland, Antarctica and their masses of glaciers, and therefore of fresh water, can also be considered as Universal COMMONS. But rare metal nodules found, in particular, in the South Pacific, can and should be considered as Universal COMMONS. It is neither prudent nor appropriate to let them be managed solely by the Private Sector.  Also, all Oil and Gas resources outside the territorial waters of the countries must be considered as Universal COMMONS. And moreover, all Raw Materials Resources in the broadest sense of the term, present on Earth (and in space) must be considered as Universal COMMONS to be exploited for the greater good of the greatest number.

P.S. There is no Regional scale because it is not, in any case, currently relevant, in the degrees of impact and influence of COMMONS. A Regional Physical COMMONS does not really exist. And a digital regional is also not relevant because of its potential to move to a national impact.

The Golden Rules of a Good Commons! Basic and principles of effective Commons.

A good Commons is in other words an effective Commons.
And what is an effective Commons ?

A Commons which :
– Brings prosperity to People
– Responsibility
– The Durability of the exploited Resources
– Inner Joy and enlightenment (OK, my personal definition 🙂  )

Rule number 1: No prime to Pervert actions.
A pervert action is an action against some participants or the Commons ressources by other participants.
Like for instance an action which significatively alter and modify the shares or incomes of other People on Commons’ Ressources.
Or an action which prevent other people to use the Commons.
Or by ruining and/or altering the resources of the Commons or the Private Resources which give birth to Commopns ressources.
Or an action against the durability of Resources.

Rule number 2 : Durability and sustainability in Times of the Ressources.
A good Commons is a Commons which can be enjoyed for Centuries! And even more.
Whatever it is Natural or Digital Commons.
Until a New Commons takes its place, a Good Commons is a Commons which perdure in Times.
Because it means what it is effective and bring common wealth (in two words) over time to its participants.
And whether the resources are renewed or sustainable.

Rule number 3 : (Yes, there is a rule Number 3. This is not Fight Club!)

The “Nice” Commons! The “Bandite”

Until the Mid-sixties, there was a specific kind of Commons used in the South-East of France, around Nice. More precisely, as it was was a rural Commons, in the hinterland. Its name was the “Droit de la Bandite”.

Well, it sounds like bandit but is has nothing to do with bad manners. But more with Gentleman behavior:-).
There is a consensus to say that, probably, the etymology of the name “Bandite” came from the Latine word “Bannus” which is referred to Banner, in the meaning of being under someone’s banner, therefore subject to a higher authority.

What was the mechanism of the “Bandite”?

But first, let’s describe the context and goal.
The law appears to have been present in the Middle Ages. It is reserved for agro-pastoral organizations where the wandering of livestock (sheep, goats, cows) on meadows is their (almost) only possibility to feed them.
Since the owners of the animals were not, for various reasons, owners of the land (a problem of financial means or legal possibility: land belonging to Lords), the possibility of feeding their animals, their herd on land other than their own was essential otherwise breeding and grazing could not exist. With restrictions on living standards.

So the possibility of feeding his herds by letting them go to land other than his own was essential. We had “Bandiotes”, people authorized to more or less wandering their herds on the Owners’ property.
Everyone had something to gain from this mechanism if it was properly regulated. Because the interest of this Commons is to be fully human and therefore smart.

The regulation was as follows. The holders of the wandering and grazing rights, the “Bandiotes”, could only exercise this right if it had been recognized and endorsed by a form of oral contract. And above all, on land that was not in operation. There is no question of being able to feed your herd from the plantations in progress or ready to be harvested at your neighbor’s!

The possible land for the “Bandiotes” was either an unused land cultivated all year round, like fallow land. And lands that have been harvested and where new seeds or plantations had not begun. Similarly, the harvesting of dead wood on land open to the “Bandiote” was not possible. And even less so the cutting of trees or branches:-)

This right was first exercised on the local Lords’ lands because, at that times, besides Church, it was the only land owners. Then, some Lords had to sell some of their lands for financial reasons, they were been bought back by Towns or small land owners. So, few by few, after the Middle Ages, the Lands concerned by the “Bandite” were more and more belonging to the Village’s communities. But Private Lands, Private owned meadows were also concerned by the bandite Rights. They were concerned by this Right, espcially if they were inserted, surrounded, within the “Public” Lands. In this case these private owners were called “Trefoncier” which indicate a notion of Land tenure.

From time to time, Communities were also forced, for financial reasons, from the 18th century onwards to sell their Bandit rights to private individuals. But most of the time the “Bandites” remained under the control of the Communities.

They are plenty of subtilities in the Right of “Bandite” like in some cases, the “bandiotes” had to leave their animals at night in the fields they had grazed during the day. And this in such a way that the manure or dung “dropped” by the animals can, in turn, benefit the land. This is so that the next harvest, which as a reminder cannot be used or wasted by the ‘bandiote’, is improved by natural manure. It is a rich and very intelligent counterpart, even if it is not very fragrant:-)

But let’s not make any mistakes, this should not be confused with the mere right of use and usufruct.
It is a different kind of Right,  smart and wise, a Wealth creator. For the collective, the community.
It was a Win-Win situation.

But in the middle of the 20th century, the “Bandit” was to be seen as a relic of the past, a servitude, a constraint from another time. Without any interest. The desertification of agricultural and rural areas was in full swing. Tourism was beginning to develop very strongly. Collective interests have been lost sight of.

A law, passed on July 8, 1963, put an end to the “Bandit’s” rights throughout Nicois country. Only the spirit of this Right remains in some memoirs of inhabitants and historians.

The key point is not to ask for the retun of the “Bandite Right.
But to use this clever example of Commons to do a New Universal or local Commons.
To keep and develop its spirit of clever ressources sharing for all the People and making it a Seed of a New prosperity form for all of us.

Dictionnaire des Biens Communs.
It is a book coordinated by three people, Marie CORNU, Fabienne ORSI, Judith ROCHFELD.
Page 418. Droit de bandite (Pays Nicois).

Let’s give back to everyone what belongs to everyone! New Commons : Intellectual property of City & Regional & Country Brands Names


  1. The New Commons are not necessarily and only Digital.
  2. The Names of Geographical Locations, in the broad sense, cannot be used on Physical Objects WITHOUT payment of ROYALTIES to institutions representing these Locations;
  3. These Royalties are based and calculated on the selling prices to the Final Consumer;
  4. These royalties, for reasons of tax competition and non abuse of dominant position, are regulated by Minimum and Maximum rates;
  5. These rates, and their percentages, are defined by Universal Agreements.
  6. Royalties are paid directly to institutions representing these geographic Organizations.
  7. The exception to the payment of royalties is the actual location of the Production activities of the objects using the name of the locality in the place of Production.
  8. While the counterpart to the protection is a very small amount, per year, covering all classes of trademark registrations.
  9. Which will be paid by the State of each locality to the Continental Organizations authorized to manage and protect trademarks.

The Hyperlinks point on French Articles.


The New Commons are not necessarily and only Digital, the spirit of the New Commons can be applied in many other fields, such as economic and social.

The same is true here of this proposal, which concerns a new approach to the ownership and control of brand names of cities, famous tourist places, regions, countries, communities and continents.

Let us take one of the most famous case studies in this field, at least for France, it is the ownership of the LAGUIOLE brand. Name which refers to the city of LAGUIOLE but also, and especially, to the so-called LAGUIOLE knives, which have a particular shape but whose generic form has never been registered. This makes them known as the city of LAGUIOLE.

Until very recently, this mark did not belong to the city of LAGUIOLE because it had been registered by a person before the City did so. There were many discussions and legal actions to ensure that the City could take back what common sense demanded, namely brand ownership.

Because this appropriation, this control, this ownership should be directly and solely entrusted to the democratic public structure responsible for the place in the broad sense.

It is absolutely ANORMAL (Even if some Courts of Appeal think the opposite, on the basis of old Rights, that it is necessary to make evolve, because yes the Law, it must evolve according to Values chosen by the Community at a moment T. For if the Law does not evolve over time according to the values of a Community, it is called a Custom. And it is something else[Long digression but necessary]))) to use already existing names (Places, Historical Characters) without consent, and/or without having participated in the creation of what we promote and even less, not to live on the territory that we promote in its objects. As Sylvia PINEL, Minister of Handicraft and Trade Sylvia PINEL, pointed out at the time of the judgment mentioned in the previous link (2014), there is “the crucial importance of extending protected geographical indications (PGIs), currently reserved only for agricultural and viticultural products, to manufactured products”. Because the Territories must have complete control over their Names.

It should be noted that the former legal approach was to consider that the commune of Laguiole did not demonstrate that the use of the disputed trademarks “would fall within the scope of the public service missions assigned to the territorial authority, would entail a risk of confusion with its own powers, or would be likely to harm public interests or harm its citizens” (sic). While precisely this is the very basis of the New Rights to be determined and applied. A Territory must always be able to defend its interests and even more so its name and use! This is indeed a Public Service Mission to be carried out.

Let us take the example of the City of Cannes. If you use your favorite search engine and type in the keywords “Cannes Mug”, it is likely that you will collect images of products of this type with an aesthetic, say varied, and which may not be in adequacy with your own perception of good taste, but that is not the subject:-) . How many of these magnificent products were designed and manufactured on the very territory of the City of Cannes? Why should we be allowed to manufacture products for a city other than the one in which we live without having to pay and share the territory from which you benefit, abusively, from its brand image (Culture and geography and Architecture) and its history in the broad sense (Historical events and characters)? This is an obvious fact that is not yet shared by everyone. And yet it will become so.

Because of everything that can be called in the broad sense of Physical by-products (and therefore manufactured in the broad sense), T-Shirts, coffee cups, mugs, placemats, posters, parkas, etc., without making an inventory in the Prevert style, any use should either :
– Generate Royalties to the Community whose Name is used.
– Either everything should be manufactured on the Commune in question or at least on the Agglomeration Community (or its equivalent in non-European countries). There is no room for exceptions because they will always serve as a pretext for misappropriation. Because even if the territories of the cities are well filled and occupied, it will still be possible, including in Monaco, to make room to create the necessary factories. Certainly, it is obvious that the current manufacture of these objects is done in specialized factories with very suitable machines that can change marking (equivalent to flocking for Foot if it can no longer speak to some people) and that the cost of these machines is very high. And that each Territory does not necessarily have the possibility of having an entrepreneur who can invest in these machines with variable configurations. But it is precisely this logic that must be regulated by recovering what is from these globalized factories and allowing local entrepreneurs to make only one type of product (coffee cup or mug or bowl or other etc…) with local marking. By what right can a Chinese entrepreneur use the name of a French city without paying royalties to that city? And of course the opposite is true, a French entrepreneur should not use the French or Chinese names of Beijing or Shanghai.

Once these principles have been established, the necessary remuneration for the use of a Common Good (Name of a “Community”); because any use must give rise to a counterpart (Fees or localization of manufacturing on site); it is now necessary to address the notion of FAIR remuneration. First, the shortcomings of today’s Europe (unbridled competition between countries) have taught us that the question of taxation is a central issue. It is therefore necessary to avoid tax competition between Communities where some would lower the royalty rate to almost zero in order to attract as much as possible the use of their Community Name. Thus, at random, a competition between Dublin and Paris, where Amsterdam and Paris has no meaning and no interest. There is therefore a need for a worldwide minimum royalty rate on the price of the object. The basis of this fee is the price paid by the Final Consumer. And not the Manufacturer’s selling price. This is to avoid, once again, arrangements between friends and invoicing tricks where a company would sell its products for just one cent of Euro or Dollar while the manufacturing costs themselves would cost several Euros. The actual Turnover is paid in the form of retro commissions or false invoices for services between the manufacturer and the first reseller. It will be necessary to supervise and monitor the levy as much as possible to avoid the temptations, or greed, of certain actors. The royalties paid are paid by the last company or organization selling the physical product to individuals. They are paid directly into a bank account in the locality concerned (and not the country concerned, except in the case where the name of the Country is used).

Once these principles have been established, this leads us to talk about a maximum rate of Royalty. With therefore also a Maximum to avoid abuses of dominant position of some cities already better known at the World level such as Paris or New York. It is therefore necessary to cap the maximum rate. The same applies to the minimum rate to avoid tax competition in this area.

To organize these Common Goods, it will also be necessary to automatically make the protection of Names pay by a very symbolic contribution, an annual contribution, to be renewed indefinitely, with a very symbolic cost of around 10$/€ per year (For European countries & US/Canada for example). These $10 cover all the classes that can be filed in trademark protection filing agreements (There is no question of multiplying the payments to cover all possible cases. And therefore to go beyond the framework of the symbolic payment of a very small fee to obtain protection in all countries of the World). The State of the country being responsible and responsible for the payment. It is up to it to recover this money from the municipality or appropriate structure.

Consequently, once the principles have been adopted, it will not be possible to market unapproved objects in all territories. Certainly, it will be possible to answer that each country can have its own legislation, laws or agreements will not necessarily be voted and/or implemented from everywhere. Some countries (who? You have an idea: -)) may even refuse the implementation of this Common Good. Certainly, of course, but first of all, we must at least put in place and apply in the city, or localities, or region, or country, the regulations on this Common Good. And secondly, there is already an international brand management system. It is therefore possible to extend this regulation to the international level, in all countries, by using the international (trade) mechanisms and agreements already in place. We can find 10,000 excuses for not making it work. But let’s focus on the possibility of making it work.

To conclude, in this version of the article (N°1), here is a proposal of (mini) MATRIX to control the rates of Fees:

Rate %
Minimum Royalties 1%
Maximum Royalties 10%

P.S.: Of course, the purpose of the article is not to stigmatize the person (even if everyone is responsible for their actions in relation to the Community) who had registered the LAGUIOLE trademark. Because it has taken advantage, like so many others, of a flaw in a system that is not correct. And it is this system that must be corrected. With a proposal for Local Common Goods operating on a Universal Scale, all the countries of the Planet.