Cult of Reason
1st June 2008, 22:10
I am sure that most people here have file-shared and are supportive of it as a new form of distribution of data. In some ways it can be seen as similar to how Communism could work but, more importantly, it is a good thing for ordinary people, the working class, to have access to such content without having to pay through the nose.
What I want to happen is a series of protests and campaign with the intent of changing the law in the UK to legalise the free distribution of music, films, games etc.. I want it to actually have a chance of success, and not just be a vehicle for opportunism.
I think that if such a thing succeeded it would make life better for many working class people as they are no longer compelled/feeling compelled to buy things for high prices, such as music and DVDs. It has already started for much of the youth, but with the attempts of the powers that be to stop this behaviour it is becoming more complicated due to fears of who may be watching and of the penalties of being caught. People are discouraged due to propaganda and due to the fact that the more easy to use systems are no longer seen to be safe. That results in those who are less savvy, such as older people, being even less likely to do it than they already are.
The main argument against file-sharing, as you know, that is not bullshit (the 'stealing' argument/moralising based on abstract ideas of property) is the one that questions why new content, such as films, would be made under the Capitalist system if there is no money to produce them with, no chance of recouping losses through sale, or of making a profit. As a result, this campaign would call for state funding. See the quoted "manifesto" below.
This is a brief setting out of the ideas of the possible campaign. The different names at the top are all possibilities. I would like to know which is best and/or any better names. For those outside the UK, please take this and modify it as appropriate for your country.
Manifesto of the Free Digital Distribution Campaign (FreeDD Campaign/FDDC)/Free Distribution Campaign (FDC)/Internet Freedom Campaign (IFC) UK:
Introduction:
The internet has changed the way people think about data, how they view it and how they distribute it. It allows the transfer and duplication of data at a negligible cost, excepting the overhead from the machines. The benefits of this are obvious, and here are some:
1. Data that takes the forms of music, video, books, software and many others is now an abundant good to all users of the internet if they know where to look
2. This good can be retrieved (increasingly) quickly
3. This good can be retrieved very easily with a minimum of computer literacy
4. The quality of life of the normal people is vastly increased due to access to cultural data in a way that does not further eat into their disposable income (assuming they have any) (particularly in the current circumstances of financial crisis, high oil (and hence food and fuel) prices and the resultant decline in purchasing power for them)
5. Distribution of content is no longer monopolistically controlled, but is made possible to everyone, whether the content is their own creation or not
6. Distribution of content digitally is potentially better for the environment than distribution by hard copy (especially with the greater efforts now exerted towards energy efficient computing)
Unfortunately, the laws of this country are decades behind the technology, and seek to restrict, or choke off, this source of information rather than facilitate it. There are news items about attempts to get ISPs to cut off file-sharers from service, ordinary people are sued for thousands of pounds around the world, propaganda is released against file-sharing and people are scared away from it due to worry about being caught or due to the increasing complexity resulting from such fears. This must stop.
Our beliefs:
1. We believe that free digital distribution is the best method of distributing information that has yet been invented
2. ‘Free’ digital distribution means that there is absolute freedom in how, when, where, what and why information is distributed and who distributes it
3. We oppose all monopolies of access to information and of distribution of information, excepting that of the individual to keep their private affairs private (that is, not to tell anyone, and to not be spied upon)
4. We believe that there should be democratic control, as far as is possible, of all channels that provide access to information
5. We believe in universal access to information, including the ability to send information, through the internet for all those in the United Kingdom, whether resident or visiting
6. We oppose all censorship of materials by those who do not own the computers/servers
Our demands:
1. We demand the immediate legalisation of free digital distribution as we define it: that the sharing of all content across the internet (or otherwise) immediately be made legal, that no attempts should be made by the state to hinder this information sharing and that no institution of any kind, whether domestic or foreign, and including the state and employers, should be permitted to monitor, harass or spy on information distributors or to hinder distribution in any way or to monitor or block any individual’s usage of the internet, for any reason
2. We demand that the state, through taxes (taxation on income or capital gains only, no fee per computer), funds the creation of new cultural content, in an independent not-for-profit fashion, including but not limited to: feature films, news programs, serialised drama and comedy, documentaries, (e-)books, music and computer games; as well as productive computer software (such as operating systems and spreadsheet programs) and other computer applications. This could be done through the expansion of the BBC’s mandate while simultaneously increasing its openness to content from the outside, with liberal funding for new projects and people and with equal access to representation for all political views, however extreme or eccentric (apart from the non-biased official BBC news reporting), and with extensive racks of servers to provide both initial access to content and an archive of all past content. This expanded BBC would be funded through general taxation as well as the TV licence fee, though there would be no licence fee for any computer equipment**
3. We demand that a universal internet provision service, funded by the state, should be set up, providing high-speed internet access free at the point of use to all, regardless of income, with no hard usage limits. This is to provide equal access to information to all, regardless of wealth. This is especially important for children, whose studies at school can suffer if they are disadvantaged, compared to their peers, by not having internet access. This would be a basic package per person, with businesses paying a premium for higher speeds when desired (in this case, however, usage limits are acceptable).
4. We demand an increase in network capacity in the United Kingdom, through the installation of fibre or Grid systems, in order to better cope with the likely increased usage of bandwidth by people practising their new freedoms to distribute content and to increase the speed of general use.
5. We demand absolute freedom to modify any content that can be digitally distributed, and that the source code of all software be publicly released, and to use such content in any way we please
**This clause (2) renders irrelevant the criticism of “piracy” such that “If no one buys content, no one will produce it”
An obvious problem some sharers may have with this is that they end up having to pay for their content anyway, through taxation. What they should be told is that this way, due to the elimination of the profit motive and due to resource sharing and centralisation, they save money in the long run and have no restrictions on the use of content. In addition, money is needed to produce anything in our system and so to starve the industries of money will either stop content creation or result in low quality produce.
Also, DRM makes things worse for all computer users by crippling their computers and making everything more complicated and difficult to use, again making things worse for ordinary people. This would also be stopped if the demands were met.
What I would like is A) suggestions and comments on the "manifesto" and B) suggestions about how to organise such an undertaking in the UK and in different countries.
In reference to B), I think that it would make sense to organise primarily through the internet, since people's interests in this are due entirely due to it and the interests cover all users of the internet. Project Chanology is an interesting development in this respect, but I am told that lately their protests have decreased in size and that they have no real plans for the future. It has been suggested to me that what they needed was some core organisation to lead the movement and to plan for the future, to coordinate activities. What do others think? Again, I want, as far as possible, this to actually succeed in its demands in the UK and worldwide.
What I want to happen is a series of protests and campaign with the intent of changing the law in the UK to legalise the free distribution of music, films, games etc.. I want it to actually have a chance of success, and not just be a vehicle for opportunism.
I think that if such a thing succeeded it would make life better for many working class people as they are no longer compelled/feeling compelled to buy things for high prices, such as music and DVDs. It has already started for much of the youth, but with the attempts of the powers that be to stop this behaviour it is becoming more complicated due to fears of who may be watching and of the penalties of being caught. People are discouraged due to propaganda and due to the fact that the more easy to use systems are no longer seen to be safe. That results in those who are less savvy, such as older people, being even less likely to do it than they already are.
The main argument against file-sharing, as you know, that is not bullshit (the 'stealing' argument/moralising based on abstract ideas of property) is the one that questions why new content, such as films, would be made under the Capitalist system if there is no money to produce them with, no chance of recouping losses through sale, or of making a profit. As a result, this campaign would call for state funding. See the quoted "manifesto" below.
This is a brief setting out of the ideas of the possible campaign. The different names at the top are all possibilities. I would like to know which is best and/or any better names. For those outside the UK, please take this and modify it as appropriate for your country.
Manifesto of the Free Digital Distribution Campaign (FreeDD Campaign/FDDC)/Free Distribution Campaign (FDC)/Internet Freedom Campaign (IFC) UK:
Introduction:
The internet has changed the way people think about data, how they view it and how they distribute it. It allows the transfer and duplication of data at a negligible cost, excepting the overhead from the machines. The benefits of this are obvious, and here are some:
1. Data that takes the forms of music, video, books, software and many others is now an abundant good to all users of the internet if they know where to look
2. This good can be retrieved (increasingly) quickly
3. This good can be retrieved very easily with a minimum of computer literacy
4. The quality of life of the normal people is vastly increased due to access to cultural data in a way that does not further eat into their disposable income (assuming they have any) (particularly in the current circumstances of financial crisis, high oil (and hence food and fuel) prices and the resultant decline in purchasing power for them)
5. Distribution of content is no longer monopolistically controlled, but is made possible to everyone, whether the content is their own creation or not
6. Distribution of content digitally is potentially better for the environment than distribution by hard copy (especially with the greater efforts now exerted towards energy efficient computing)
Unfortunately, the laws of this country are decades behind the technology, and seek to restrict, or choke off, this source of information rather than facilitate it. There are news items about attempts to get ISPs to cut off file-sharers from service, ordinary people are sued for thousands of pounds around the world, propaganda is released against file-sharing and people are scared away from it due to worry about being caught or due to the increasing complexity resulting from such fears. This must stop.
Our beliefs:
1. We believe that free digital distribution is the best method of distributing information that has yet been invented
2. ‘Free’ digital distribution means that there is absolute freedom in how, when, where, what and why information is distributed and who distributes it
3. We oppose all monopolies of access to information and of distribution of information, excepting that of the individual to keep their private affairs private (that is, not to tell anyone, and to not be spied upon)
4. We believe that there should be democratic control, as far as is possible, of all channels that provide access to information
5. We believe in universal access to information, including the ability to send information, through the internet for all those in the United Kingdom, whether resident or visiting
6. We oppose all censorship of materials by those who do not own the computers/servers
Our demands:
1. We demand the immediate legalisation of free digital distribution as we define it: that the sharing of all content across the internet (or otherwise) immediately be made legal, that no attempts should be made by the state to hinder this information sharing and that no institution of any kind, whether domestic or foreign, and including the state and employers, should be permitted to monitor, harass or spy on information distributors or to hinder distribution in any way or to monitor or block any individual’s usage of the internet, for any reason
2. We demand that the state, through taxes (taxation on income or capital gains only, no fee per computer), funds the creation of new cultural content, in an independent not-for-profit fashion, including but not limited to: feature films, news programs, serialised drama and comedy, documentaries, (e-)books, music and computer games; as well as productive computer software (such as operating systems and spreadsheet programs) and other computer applications. This could be done through the expansion of the BBC’s mandate while simultaneously increasing its openness to content from the outside, with liberal funding for new projects and people and with equal access to representation for all political views, however extreme or eccentric (apart from the non-biased official BBC news reporting), and with extensive racks of servers to provide both initial access to content and an archive of all past content. This expanded BBC would be funded through general taxation as well as the TV licence fee, though there would be no licence fee for any computer equipment**
3. We demand that a universal internet provision service, funded by the state, should be set up, providing high-speed internet access free at the point of use to all, regardless of income, with no hard usage limits. This is to provide equal access to information to all, regardless of wealth. This is especially important for children, whose studies at school can suffer if they are disadvantaged, compared to their peers, by not having internet access. This would be a basic package per person, with businesses paying a premium for higher speeds when desired (in this case, however, usage limits are acceptable).
4. We demand an increase in network capacity in the United Kingdom, through the installation of fibre or Grid systems, in order to better cope with the likely increased usage of bandwidth by people practising their new freedoms to distribute content and to increase the speed of general use.
5. We demand absolute freedom to modify any content that can be digitally distributed, and that the source code of all software be publicly released, and to use such content in any way we please
**This clause (2) renders irrelevant the criticism of “piracy” such that “If no one buys content, no one will produce it”
An obvious problem some sharers may have with this is that they end up having to pay for their content anyway, through taxation. What they should be told is that this way, due to the elimination of the profit motive and due to resource sharing and centralisation, they save money in the long run and have no restrictions on the use of content. In addition, money is needed to produce anything in our system and so to starve the industries of money will either stop content creation or result in low quality produce.
Also, DRM makes things worse for all computer users by crippling their computers and making everything more complicated and difficult to use, again making things worse for ordinary people. This would also be stopped if the demands were met.
What I would like is A) suggestions and comments on the "manifesto" and B) suggestions about how to organise such an undertaking in the UK and in different countries.
In reference to B), I think that it would make sense to organise primarily through the internet, since people's interests in this are due entirely due to it and the interests cover all users of the internet. Project Chanology is an interesting development in this respect, but I am told that lately their protests have decreased in size and that they have no real plans for the future. It has been suggested to me that what they needed was some core organisation to lead the movement and to plan for the future, to coordinate activities. What do others think? Again, I want, as far as possible, this to actually succeed in its demands in the UK and worldwide.