Music piracy and P2P networks. The best example of communism in the world?

[Blackbird123]

I have been thinking about it and i think P2P networks are the best example of communist-implementation in the world. P2P allow music, movies, games and other data files to be shared with the world and anyone can access them with little ease(from each according to his abillity to each according to his need) the only thing that is preventing a person to get a song or video is his want of the the commodity.It destroys the need for money and loopholes copyright laws and thus freeing the commodities from the monopoly they are granted by the government.
What are your thoughts on this?

[Althusser]

Yeah, intellectual property would be done away with. Today, I was thinking that the best form of communistic art would probably have to be internet memes... it gave me a chuckle.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Boots Riley said something in an interview about how this stuff exemplifies how efficient communal modes of distribution and exchange are.
This is part of the reason why I think the internet will be to proletarian revolutions what the printing press was to bourgeois ones in the late 18th century.

[Blackbird123]

We have already seen what the Internet can incite and spread by looking at the middle east and north west Africa.In the internet's first 15 years look how much it has changed our world! Image the stuff that will occur the next 50 years from now due to easy social communication and accessibility! But I digress. I don't to derail this thread too much.

[Blackbird123]

Yeah, intellectual property would be done away with. Today, I was thinking that the best form of communistic art would probably have to be internet memes... it gave me a chuckle.

Our glorious revolution starts with puttting bread through cat heads!

[Rusty Shackleford]

i woudlnt say its communism but i would say it goes against the mode of private selling of 'goods' i guess you could say but if you have to pirate it then it is simply subversion. but there are some GREAT things that come from peer to peer sharing and one of my favorite examples is the modding community for videogames.

[Sam_b]

allow music, movies, games and other data files to be shared with the world and anyone can access them with little ease(from each according to his abillity to each according to his need)

Why does one 'need' the latest video game, and how does file sharing change the ownership of means of production?

[Jimmie Higgins]

No, no more than lending books or dubbing videos or music - it's just a faster way to do this. It does show the possibilities to open up digital information to everyone and how easy that would be.

If anything it puts the problems of capitalism in relief. It shows how much effort the system puts into things not to make them easier or actually more efficient but in order to control the means of production and distribution. It exposes how the system is actually a fetter on technological development as well as a barrier to access to the results of technological progress.

[Hit The North]

and how does file sharing change the ownership of means of production?

Not just file sharing but also the ever-cheapening and ever-simplifying means of artistic production undermines the monopolisation of these processes by corporations. The current business model depends on restricting access to both production and distribution, the internet obviously allows artists to cut through these restrictions. You only need to look at the new business models that are emerging with bands like Radiohead, self-producing and selling directly to their audience, cutting out the middle man.

[Blackbird123]

Why does one 'need' the latest video game, and how does file sharing change the ownership of means of production?

One doesn't need the the latest video game ( as I said latter in the post) but it allows the commodities of those means of production that produce art to be accessed for free and overrides the government granted monopoly of copyrights. Thusly if the value of the commodities of those mean of productions are free it devaluates the market value of the means of production that make those commodities cause it gains no circulating capital to sustain itself or profit as people would call it. Thusly if the means of production of art are demonopolized and free it is open to the public to produce and communally owned or anyone can get/make those commodities.

[Fawkes]

It destroys the need for money

Unfortunately, no, it doesn't.

Movies, music, and games all go through three stages.

First, they go through production.

Then they go through distribution.

Lastly, they go through "usage" (for lack of a better term)

P2P affects solely the distribution stage. But even there, it does not circumvent private property entirely. In order to download/share files, one needs access to a computer with internet. That costs money.

The production stage is largely unaffected by P2P sharing. Just last month, I made a 5 minute movie that I put up on youtube for anyone with internet to see. It cost me $700 and about 60 hours to make. I'm also currently working on an E.P. I plan on releasing for free on the internet. The combined cost of the equipment necessary for making this E.P. totals in the thousands. The total time spent will be in the hundreds of hours.

Further, the "usage" stage is also relatively unaffected by P2P, though to a lesser extent. While the computer I purchased that enables me to download files can be used for watching movies, listening to music, and playing games, how many people do you know that own televisions, speaker systems, headphones, mp3 players, etc. to enable them to 'use' those files in a manner preferable to them?


P2P sharing is certainly something to be championed for the greater access it gives people to information, but it still does so within the context of capitalism. Communism can exist in isolated regions (for a short period of time at least), but it cannot exist in isolated industries.

P2P sharing is at best a mild form of subversion.


Why does one 'need' the latest video game
I think it can be safely assumed that, to most leftists, that phrase carries with it the implication that once those basic needs are met, each can take according to their wants.


Not just file sharing but also the ever-cheapening and ever-simplifying means of artistic production undermines the monopolisation of these processes by corporations.
Undermining monopolization simply shifts ownership of the means of production from a handful of big businesses to a multitude of small businesses. I know you never implied otherwise, but I just wanted to make clear that shifting ownership from one exclusive group to a larger, yet still exclusive, group is not revolutionary. Like you said:

You only need to look at the new business models that are emerging with bands like Radiohead, self-producing and selling directly to their audience (emphasis added)

[Blackbird123]

Unfortunately, no, it doesn't.

Movies, music, and games all go through three stages.

First, they go through production.

Then they go through distribution.

Lastly, they go through "usage" (for lack of a better term)

So.....these three things aren't interdependent on each other? If no one uses the commodities the means of production make or can get those commodities for free and thusly can't sustain itself in the capitalistic mode of production because they make no profit they are still gonna pump out that commodity even when they are losing money on it and making no money from that commodity to sustain that industry? I don't think so.

[/QUOTE] P2P affects solely the distribution stage. But even there, it does not circumvent private property entirely. In order to download/share files, one needs access to a computer with internet. That costs money.[/QUOTE] i know that but If you just solely look whats going on in P2P websites. It is very communalized for the public to acess and get everything they want for free.

[/QUOTE] The production stage is largely unaffected by P2P sharing. Just last month, I made a 5 minute movie that I put up on youtube for anyone with internet to see. It cost me $700 and about 60 hours to make. I'm also currently working on an E.P. I plan on releasing for free on the internet. The combined cost of the equipment necessary for making this E.P. totals in the thousands. The total time spent will be in the hundreds of hours. [/QUOTE] what you are doing is different then they are doing. Your work (or way of sustaining yourself) doesn't rely on how much records or videos of your work is sold and purchased. I assume your releasing your video and ep cause you enjoy doing it and I can relate cause I'm a guitarist myself, not to make a profit like the music corporations are trying to do. If a person doesn't think they can make money in one industry. They will take their money to another, simple as that.

[/QUOTE] Further, the "usage" stage is also relatively unaffected by P2P, though to a lesser extent. While the computer I purchased that enables me to download files can be used for watching movies, listening to music, and playing games, how many people do you know that own televisions, speaker systems, headphones, mp3 players, etc. to enable them to 'use' those files in a manner preferable to them?[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure you download the videos, music, videogames and stuff you downloaded off the P2P network and burn on a cd or DVD or put it on your mp3 player.

[Fawkes]

So.....these three things aren't interdependent on each other? If no one uses the commodities the means of production make or can get those commodities for free and thusly can't sustain itself in the capitalistic mode of production because they make no profit they are still gonna pump out that commodity even when they are losing money on it and making no money from that commodity to sustain that industry? I don't think so.


First things first: using the most convoluted (and illogical) language possible does not impress anyone, nor does it make up for poor arguments. I'm not trying to be a dick, but seriously, none of what you said even addresses my point. Who is "itself"? Who is "they"?


i know that but If you just solely look whats going on in P2P websites. It is very communalized for the public to acess and get everything they want for free.
Yes, you can look at it that way, but doing so completely ignores the context in which P2P sharing takes place. Like I said, communism cannot exist in a single industry (or, in this case, a sector of an industry).


what you are doing is different then they are doing. Your work (or way of sustaining yourself) doesn't rely on how much records or videos of your work is sold and purchased.

Currently, it is not my way of sustaining myself. I work at a restaurant. In releasing my work for free, my hope is that eventually I can sustain myself off of film and music. How could I sustain myself that way? By selling my work for a profit. (for what it's worth, I intend to always release music for free and hopefully make money off of live performances)

Yeah, selling your work isn't as noble or bohemian as just giving it away for free, but hey, this is capitalism, I've got to sustain myself somehow, I'd much rather sell movies and concert tickets doing something I love than sell my burrito-rolling labor power to my boss.


not to make a profit like the music corporations are trying to do. If a person doesn't think they can make money in one industry. They will take their money to another, simple as that.
You just contradicted yourself. And how did you go from "make money" to "take money"?


I'm pretty sure you download the videos, music, videogames and stuff you downloaded off the P2P network and burn on a cd or DVD or put it on your mp3 player.
You're very right, I never suggested otherwise.

[Klaatu]

If you want a much safer way than P2P to share copyrighted music, video, etc, try Usenet.

You post/DL to a newsgroup using SSL (secure socket layer) to an anon account.
It is extremely difficult if not nearly impossible for the authorities to catch you,
especially if you route properly through a proxy chain.

[NewLeft]

Reproducing content on the internet via P2P does have a slight cost.. Which is negligible since it's an energy cost.

[Yugo45]

anyone can access them with little ease(from each according to his abillity to each according to his need) the only thing that is preventing a person to get a song or video is his want of the the commodity.

Well, I used to have a 10 GB bandwidth limit every month, and that prevented me from downloading whatever I want :(

[Blackbird123]

First things first: using the most convoluted (and illogical) language possible does not impress anyone, nor does it make up for poor arguments. I'm not trying to be a dick, but seriously, none of what you said even addresses my point. Who is "itself"? Who is "they"? .

Sorry, maybe I'm over explaining my arguments what I'm trying to say is that if a problem effects one out of the three steps of production, it will effect all three steps due to how the capitalistic mode of production works.


Currently, it is not my way of sustaining myself. I work at a restaurant. In releasing my work for free, my hope is that eventually I can sustain myself off of film and music. How could I sustain myself that way? By selling my work for a profit. (for what it's worth, I intend to always release music for free and hopefully make money off of live performances)


Yeah, selling your work isn't as noble or bohemian as just giving it away for free, but hey, this is capitalism, I've got to sustain myself somehow, I'd much rather sell movies and concert tickets doing something I love than sell my burrito-rolling labor power to my boss.
Does P2P networks give you free movie and concert tickets? No, it doesn't. P2P networks distribute musical CDs, songs, video games, and movies, not tickets. We are looking at the commodities that are effected by P2P networks due to the networks giving those commodities away for free. Not other ways to make money in the entertainment or game industry.


You just contradicted yourself. And how did you go from "make money" to "take money"?
I don't contradict myself. If someone has money invested in a failing industry they will ( for the search of making money) go and invest their money in a different industry that is profitable.