P2P Tech Time

The topic of IP (Intellectual Property) is extremely contentious; those defending the status quo (and the multinational corporations benefitting from it) consistently misunderstand/misrepresent the concerns of their opponents.

They brand p2p users as “theives” who “just don’t want to pay for stuff”. They usually find the “Public Domain” to be irrelevant, and sometimes explicitly regard the end of copyright terms to be “taking something” from them/their descendents. They expend a tremendous amount of effort to convince everyone that IP is ultimately about their “sacred right to property.”

Thus, advocates of p2p technology or “file-sharing” are placed at a tremendous disadvantage from the beginning. After all, almost nobody is willing to “call their bluff” and explicitly defend “piracy” or “lawbreaking”. Also, until and unless a given law becomes problematic, people aren’t very likely to question it’s existence or neccesity. It’s not so much apathy as ignorance — most people simply don’t care about stuff until it becomes impossible not to take a stand.

Opponents of p2p technology (the RIAA, MPAA, etc.) have quite a problem on their hands. By their own (possibly inflated) statements, p2p traffic accounts for a significant chunk of all Internet traffic

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2008/06/25/45-percent-of-all-traffic-is-p2p/
It’s also undeniable that millions of people in all countries use p2p and other technologies to share files with one another irrespective of the legal status of such activities.

http://www.p2p-blog.com/?itemid=62

To put it bluntly, from the point of view of those defending the Status Quo, a significant proportion of the world’s population are “scofflaws”.

Thus, the RIAA and other lobbying groups for the corporate megaliths “owning” the vast majority of copyrighted material lobby both for ever-longer copyright terms and harsher penalties, to no avail. P2p and other means of filesharing show no signs of stopping, and every move they make serves to discredit the very basis of IP in the minds of more people and groups.

That’s what this post is about: setting the record straight.

I was originally a staunch defender of IP laws. As such, I would often stop in here at p2pnet to take “pot-shots” at Jon Newton and some of the contributors.

(As the old saying goes, “Ignorance is bliss”: as a musician, I was ripe for the RIAA “party-line”.)

The problem is, I’m also a voracious reader. I made what in retrospect turned out to be one of the best mistakes of my life: reading Lawrence Lessig’s book “Free Culture.”

http://www.free-culture.cc/

At first I read it as a skeptic trying to find holes in what I saw (at the time) as mere rationalizations for blatant greed on the part of p2p users.

But as I read, I couldn’t help but realize that Lessig puts forth an extremely persuasive case. His main argument about the nature of creativity and innovation is that “creativity always builds on the past”. To someone who grew up around Bluegrass/Folk Music “Jam sessions”, this idea is so obvious that nobody would ever think to state it explicitly. You never hear Bluegrass groups saying they “Cover” traditional material, for example.

Lessig — unlike anybody else I’d ever read before — delved into the history and reasoning behind IP laws — from the “Statute of Anne”, all the way to the Sonny Bono Copyright extension act.

He pointed out case after case where the only reason innovation happened was that IP “protection” was stopped. He was the first person I’d ever read to explicitly describe why the “fair use” and “first sale” doctrines exist at all.

I was already somewhat skeptical as to patent “protection” — the fact that capitalistic types — advocates of what they call the “Free market” explicitly defend what amount to State-backed Monopolies intended to prevent “unauthorized” innovation has always seemed at least a tad bit suspicious. Nowadays, it just seems hypocritical. Debate with apologists for patent law has only reinforced my already skeptical viewpoint in this regard.

After reading Lessig’s book, my opinions on this subject didn’t change immediately. I still – like so many others — believed that the basic principle behind copyright and patents was sound, and accepted the line of argument which states that unless the State grants such monopolies there will be no “incentive to produce.”

That began to change when I first started learning about (and using) various Linux distributions. Originally, I used Linux because it is a rugged Operating system (”Viruses” in the conventional sense of the term are virtually impossible, for instance.), but I didn’t really have any axes to grind in regard to the merits of “software freedom”.

During my rummagings in quest of Linux-related information prior to first installing a distro, I came across various videos where Richard Stallman talked about the merits (and perils) of patents in regard to software.

Stallman makes a persuasive case against software patents, viewing them as a form of subsidy granted to patent-holders. Patents “protection” is about one thing — punishing unauthorized competition. As he puts it:

Instead of speaking of “intellectual property”, which invokes that feel-good idea of property and ownership, we should speak of “intellectual monopolies”. For this is precisely what copyrights and patents are: they are monopolies granted by governments for a limited period as part of a bargain – that, in return, those who are granted those monopolies hand them over to the public domain once the term of the monopoly has lapsed.

Viewed in this light, it became ever more ironic when advocates of so-called “Free-market capitalism” defend IP “protection”. Patents are about preventing and punishing the competiton which “Free Market” advocates always proclaim as one of it’s best features.

The argument runs thus:

If inventors (or more realistically, corporate R&D divisions) aren’t granted an exclusive “market niche” where no other firm is allowed to compete with them, they’ll have no way to recoup their development costs.

(Of course, this argument ignores the fact that corporate lobbyists have been successful in increasing the terms of such “protection”, and getting the State to pre-empt/punish competition for ever longer periods. It also rests squarely on the notion that (at least in regard to innovation) “the market doesn’t work.”)

As a musician and (hopefully) creative artist for the past twenty years, I’ve also seen firsthand the convoluted, bureaucratic morass involved in clearing the “rights” to a given composition. Copyright — far from acting as an “incentive”, more often than not acts to supress further creativity.

In many ways, the fundamental question of our time is: will innovation, technological advancement, and fhe free exchange of information be sacrificed to prop up the (failing) “business-models of a few corporations? Do

For an extremely thorough indictment of “Intellectual Property” as such, go to http://www.ip-watch.org/

Another great source of information is the book “Darknet”:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0471683345/ref=ase_jdsnewmediamu-20/002-6503365-1600042?v=glance&s=books

You like movies? Go to:

http://www.goodcopybadcopy.net/

Or

http://stealthisfilm.com/

IP “protection” is about suppressing innovation and providing a passive income-stream to people who may or may not even be related to the original creators. Why else would a multi-billion dollar corporate megalith’s spokes-drones be so adamant that virtually any use of a traditional childrens song should be monetized?

http://www.unhappybirthday.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You

Gary Fung of Isohunt still seems to believe that the ever-increasing threat of copyright’s protection-racket can be “reformed”. Pardon me for being a “hard-liner” here, folks, but I seriously doubt that a corporate lobby which has hitherto successfully transformed a term of 14-28 years into more than a century with complete disregard for what the Public domain is and does, is going to relinquish that willingly.

Corporate lobbyists (and their unwitting apologists) simply don’t get it: the “Sonny Bono” nonsense was a clear instance of government caving in to a corporate lobby to the detriment of us all. Evidence continues to mount that IP is a “Faustian Bargain” (in that it’s apologists see such monopolies as a “fundamental human right”, and seek to prevent such “protections” from expiring, and FREEING the content for future use.

Of course, they can’t succeed. Every “victory” they win ultimately breeds more resentment and demonstrates that their efforts are ultimately indefensible.

Cory Doctorow explains what’s at stake far better than I ever could in this article:

http://www.locusmag.com/Features/2008/11/cory-doctorow-why-i-copyfight.html

The solution?

Well, p2p, of course. But there ARE other fronts to this battle.

If you’re a student, please consider joining (or starting) a chapter of “Students for a free culture”. For details, go to

http://freeculture.org/

Or maybe we should think about taking IP apologists up on their rhetoric, and becoming “political”.

The spread of so-called “Pirate Parties” in various countries demonstrates that skepticism (if not outright contempt) for the colossal farce “Intellectual Property” has become won’t die down anytime soon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_Party

Most of all, don’t believe the hype and scare-tactics of organizations like the RIAA. If people were willing to brave fire hoses and police-dogs to protest racial segregation in the 1960s, we should be willing to tweak corporate lobbyists from the comfort of our own homes.

As Gary Fung of Isohunt fame so aptly put it:

“When the majority of society has no ethical conviction of wrongdoing when they violate copyright law, it’s not society that’s wrong, it’s the law. Because no one can really own ideas. Newton once said, “If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of Giants.” It’s how the arts and sciences work. We share, we inspire and we remix.”

http://torrentfreak.com/isohunt-founder-gary-fung-on-copyfight-081109/

More importantly, when jackbooted, we respond. The tide is turning. The days of rampant pandering to corporate lobbies are on the way out. People will not sit idly by and watch the greatest communications medium in human history gutted simply to subsidize the modern equivalent of buggy-whip manufacturers.

We’re not ALL so stupid as to believe that corporate lobbyists have “good intentions”. Jack Valenti’s idiotic statement comparing the VCR to the Boston Strangler will make a fitting epitaph as the RIAA and their member corporations continue to destroy themselves.

Ps.: The p2p “controversy” itself is — as I’ve said before — merely a subset of, for want of a better term, can best be described as “corporatism” — a steadily-increasing symbiosis between large corporations and governments. Sadly, the proponents of this emerging “corporate feudalism” masquerade as defenders of the “Free market”.

Source