Patrice Riemens on Mon, 14 Jul 2014 21:19:09 +0200 (CEST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
<nettime> Ippolita Collective, In the Facebook Aquarium Part Two, |
Ippolita Collective, In the Facebook Aquarium Part Two Pirate parties, or technology in politics (section #6, concluded) One can rightly state that The Pirate Bay affair has had a significant political impact. The recrudescence of anti copyright demonstrations caused by government repression played an important role in the rise to prominence of the /Pirat Partiet/ in Sweden, the first 'Pirate Party' worldwide, and still the most influent one. By claiming everybody's right to break intellectual property protection laws it considers outdated and illiberal, the /Pirat Partiet/ booked major successes over the past years, which culminated in the election of two of its members to the European parliament in 2009. There is no doubt about the fact that the proliferation of copyrights, patents, trademarks and non-disclosure clauses have progressively restricted civil and personal liberties, and this amidst widespread indifference (of the public) [fed by media sold-out to the industry's interests - transl]. The creativity of authors, inventors, and researchers has been debilitated [##***] in the process by norms which should protect and encourage it instead of defending big business' interests. And often, the 'total war against terrorism and rogue states' has been used as a convenient excuse to enact all kinds of suppressive measures, which are intended instead to control the people at large for the benefit and protection not only of the cultural industries, but equally of big pharma, as well as of biochemical and military industries, in sum, of all actors bend on the privatization of knowledge. In this regard, the debate around SOPA (/Stop Online Piracy Act/), a law proposal put forward in the US Congress in October 2011, gives a good recap of the interests at stake. The complete title of the proposed law details That the law's intention is "(t)o promote prosperity, creativity, entrepreneurship, and innovation by combating the theft of U.S. property, and for other purposes."[55]. So, on one side, the copyrights owners, meaning the culture and entertainment majors who wish to pose as innovation's white knights against pirate thugs. The MPPA (/Motion Picture Association of America/, for the film industry), the RIIA (/Recording Industry Association of America, for the music industry), and other media lobbies push for criminalization, in the narrow sense, of all and everybody who violate the current status, regardless whether that is for personal or any other usage. Yet, one should remember that copyright infringements are already deemed criminal offenses under DMCA and EUC. Now an additional turn of the screw is apparently in order: not only to make it possible to criminally prosecute all who facilitate on-line tracking of copyrighted material, and that means all search engines (think Google, Yahoo!, Bing, etc.) but also all browsers (like Mozilla) used by internauts to track 'illegal' files. Lined up on the other side are next to all the (digital) network intermediaries, which do not produce and do not hold 'protected' documents, but which are used by internauts to access these documents. But the oddity here is that Google, eBay, Yahoo!, Facebook, Twitter, etc., who all (pretend to) fight for the users' freedom, are in fact, as we have shown, the new big bosses (of the Internet). Moreover, all the codes on which these giants run their systems are entirely proprietary, opaque, and protected, and yet they profess at the same time to advance the cause of transparency and openness of contents! And in the meanwhile users (have to) adopt their proprietary tools, further aggrandizing their profit sphere. Thus we see a transition from the claws of the old-fashioned cultural industries right into the beak of the new digital bosses. It is as if the (ideal of) positive freedom and autonomy with regard to technology become more and more something of a distant dream. Thus, both Pirate Party and the big access and service providers turn out to have the same enemy: the media oligopolies. Even though the Pirate Party is not, not by far, a hackers party, it still easily can pass of as the agent of (progressive) political demands, especially among the young, who are facing difficulties in their quest for full entry into the paradise of compulsive consumption. (For good measure the party also opposes arbitrary police checks and powers.) This is what can be read on the /Pirat Partiet/'s site: "We wish to change global legislation to facilitate the emerging information society, which is characterized by diversity and openness. We do this by requiring an increased level of respect for the citizens and their right to privacy, as well as reforms to copyright and patent law. The three core beliefs of the Pirate Party are the need for protection of citizen's rights, the will to free our culture, and the insight that patents and private monopolies are damaging to society." [56] This program may appear excessively minimal, coming from an opposition party. Yet, at the local elections for the Berlin ('Land') parliament, in september 2011, the German Pirates polled almost 9% of the votes, thereby making a front-door entrance in an important assembly. But to go back to Sweden, it became soon clear that these self-professed pirates do not have very much to tell on social policies, and are mostly concerned about their own (narrow) interests. In 2010, with a media storm raging, the /Pirate Partiet/ hosted on its servers the Wikileaks site for free, openly backing the project and challenging the Swedish state to support the 'struggle for liberty' by the charismatic Julian Assange and his associates [57]. And thus we are back to (the issues of) hackers, conspirators, and the global war against the enemies of freedom of expression. (To be continued) Next time: The Wikileaks affair: sensible defiance or senseless challenge? (section #7) . . . . . . . . . . [##***] 'castrated', i.e. emasculated, in the original text. But this translator doesn't favor sexual metaphors - nor military ones. [55] https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr3261/text [56] This quotes the first two paragraphs of the Pirate Party's Declaration of Principle 3.2: http://docs.piratpartiet.se/Principles%203.2.pdf which comes closest to the one in the original edition, referring to a no longer valid url, dating from the time the PP was campaigning for the European election, in which it won two seats. All PP Declarations of Principles, amended from time to time, most recently in May 2012, may be accessed through this Wikipedia page: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Pirate_Party_Declaration_of_Principles See also the European Pirate Parties' 2013 Warsaw Manifesto, esp. the paragraph on copyright reform: https://eu.piratenpad.de/warsaw-2013-manifesto-revised? [57] /Pirate Partiet/'s declaration of support of Wikileaks: http://press.piratpartiet.se/2010/08/17/swedish-pirate-party-to-host-new-wikileaks-servers/ ----------------------------- Translated by Patrice Riemens This translation project is supported and facilitated by: The Institute of Network Cultures, Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences (http://networkcultures.org/wpmu/portal/) The Antenna Foundation, Nijmegen (http://www.antenna.nl - Dutch site) (http://www.antenna.nl/indexeng.html - english site under construction) Casa Nostra, Vogogna-Ossola, Italy # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@kein.org