In the latest example of a phenomenon as old as the state itself, Stan McCoy – formerly the US Trade Representative’s chief “intellectual property” negotiator, who wrote ACTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership’s IP chapter – was just given a cushy job at the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). He’s one of over a dozen senior USTR officials who’ve moved to jobs at industry groups in the past year.
This is why it’s such a waste of time to devote serious effort and resources to working within the system to affect the form the law takes. Doing so amounts to fighting the enemy by the enemy’s own rules, on ground favorable to the enemy, where the enemy has the advantage of a prepared defense.
German Blitzkrieg war theorists had a term, Schwerpunkt, for the decisive point at which an armored formation penetrated the enemy forces front lines, and then immediately bypassed the main body of the enemy’s forces and cut them off and encircled them from the rear. John Robb, a leading theorist of networked “Fourth Generation Warfare” models, has coined the term “Systempunkt” for the analogous phenomenon in networked conflict.
In World War II, Allied strategic bombing campaigns over Germany destroyed entire infrastructures, one power station, power line, bridge, road, railroad, etc., at a time. They were able to undertake the enormously costly task of destroying an entire physical infrastructure, mile by mile, because of their overwhelming air superiority and much larger industrial output. The concept of Systempunkt, on the other hand, is illustrated by Al Qaeda Iraq’s practice of attacking only a few key nodes in an infrastructure, which – although amounting to one percent or less of the total physical infrastructure – disables and renders non-operational the other 99 percent left untouched. That’s a great deal more cost-effective.
For the forces of information freedom, and other movements associated with the successor economy, to attempt to fight the established interests of the existing system for control of the state, is like an army trying to capture control of an entire infrastructure mile-by-mile – and to do so when, far from possessing material superiority, it is outnumbered ten – or a hundred-to-one by the defending enemy. It’s utterly stupid.
We can render the corporate state inoperative, using maybe one percent of the resources required to actually capture the state through the political process, by attacking its ability to enforce the subsidies, privileges and legal monopolies of big business. Enforcement capability is the Systempunkt of the state capitalist economy.
The proprietary content industry, and all the other businesses that make money by extracting rents from patents, copyrights and trademarks, will always control the “intellectual property” policy of the state. I mean, that’s what the state exists for. Attempting to fight their money and political influence by the rules of the system would just be pouring resources down a rathole. But for a tiny fraction of the same money and effort, we can turn patents and copyrights into a dead letter through strong encryption, proxy servers, torrent downloads and moving webhosting to servers in countries that don’t take orders from the MPAA and RIAA (that’s why Center for a Stateless Society, the outfit I’m writing this for, is moving our site to servers in Iceland).
When the US government seized Wikileaks’ domain name, thousands of hosts around the world (C4SS among them) responded by mirroring the site. And many thousands of people blogged and tweeted the numeric IP address of Wikileaks sites in various countries so people could look it up directly by IP address rather than using the domain name. Then when the government carried out mass seizures of domain names of alleged “infringing sites” on behalf of the music and movie industries, the Mozilla Foundation came up with Firefox browser extensions that would bypass the domain name blocks by automatically going straight to the numeric IP address. As Bruce Sterling put it, “treating the law of the land as damage and routing around it.”
Now there’s Bit Torrent Sync, a utility which enables any two people who’ve installed it and know a common password to transfer torrents directly from one computer to another, with secure end-to-end encryption. It’s kind of like what happens when you use your cursor to move a file to the Dropbox icon – only the information’s not stored at a permanent location in the Cloud, and it’s encrypted. It’s a totally desktop-to-desktop, p2p file-sharing system. So it doesn’t matter if the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or any other draconian copyright legislation, passes. Any two people with Bit Torrent Sync who want to share a file can do so. Big Content has lost the war, once and for all. They’re dead – they just don’t know it yet.
Which leads me to the latest interesting development: Lawrence and Wishart, a Leftist publisher who owns the rights to the English language edition of the enormous (over fifty volumes) Marx and Engels Collected Works, has demanded that that the Marxist Internet Archive – an amazing online library that includes not only the Collected Works but an astonishing collection of other writers ranging from Luxemburg and Gramsci to C.L.R. James and Walter Rodney – take down Marx and Engels’ Collected Works by April 30. Happy May Day, Comrades!
As anyone at all familiar with the Web could have predicted, this led to a massive backlash of outrage from the Left that Lawrence and Wishart were – naturally – unprepared for. On Friday April 21 their website published an utterly whiny complaint (“Lawrence & Wishart statement on the Collected Works of Marx and Engels“) that they’d been subjected to a “campaign of online abuse” because they “asked for [their] copyright” (sniff) “to be respected.”
Aside from the rather contemptible display of self-pity and entitlement, the statement reflects more than anything else an utter lack of business sense. “Ultimately, in asking L&W to surrender copyrights in this particular edition of the works of Marx & Engels, [Marxist Internet Archive] and their supporters are asking that L&W, one of the few remaining independent radical publishers in the UK, should commit institutional suicide.” This is nonsense on stilts. The hard copy set of the Collected Works, if bought as a complete set instead of one volume at a time, sells for 1500 British Pounds, which is somewhere well north of $2000. If Lawrence and Wishart can show one person, anywhere in the world, who put off shelling out over two thousand bucks for a set of the dead tree edition of Marx and Engels’ Collected Works because a digital online edition was available, I will eat my own left hand – raw, and without salt. The Marxist Internet Archive’s online edition of the Collected Works is not costing Lawrence and Wishart a single solitary sale. The only thing the online edition is competing against is a trip to a university library. If anything, the online edition is free advertising for the dead tree edition. In other words, Lawrence and Wishart is governed by the same abject stupidity as the music and movie industries – the dying music and movie industries.
Not only is Lawrence and Wishart as stupid as the music and movie industries, its attempt to suppress free, infinitely replicable digital information is turning out to be just as big a failure as those industries’ attempt to do so. No doubt the Archive will be mirrored, with its existing contents, at plenty of sites around the world. But in the meantime, the entire English language contents of the Marxist Internet Archive – including the disputed edition of Marx and Engels’ Collected Works – is available for torrent download at The Pirate Bay <https://thepiratebay.se/torrent/6231000/Marxists.org_-_full_English_language_archive>. And the Collected Works by themselves are available as a .zip file at Sendspace <http://www.sendspace.com/file/l7wx0o>. I’ve got a copy of the latter on my hard drive, and it works just fine – the individual files open up in a browser tab and look exactly like the online version. I recommend anyone who expects to be at all interested in accessing the Collected Works online at any point in the future to download one of these files ASAP – and share them with your friends, far and wide, via Bit Torrent Sync!
Enjoy your copyright, Lawrence and Wishart, for all the good it may do you. I love the smell of burning capitalists in the morning.
Citations to this article:
- Ben Mauk, Steal This E-Book?, The New Yorker, 05/05/14
"Our critics’ rhetorically loaded descriptions of L&W as a ‘private publishing house’ and of our actions as ‘capitalistic’ betray a complete lack of understanding of L&W’s historic role in British radical publishing, of its organisational status, and, indeed, of Marx’s concept of the capitalist mode of production. L&W is not a capitalist organisation engaged in profit-seeking or capital accumulation. "
"It makes no profits other than those required to pay a small wage to its very small and overworked staff,"
Socialism; can be defined as any economics system in which the means of production are owned by the workers and the wage system is either abolished or transformed into labour based currency. Typical taslking points include the abolition of the wage system and unfair burden of the proletariat who is alienated from decision making power over the products of their labour.
Lol
Capitalism: The possession of capital or wealth; an economic system in which private capital or wealth is used in the production or distribution of goods and prices are determined mainly in a free market; the dominance of private owners of capital and of production for profit.
Socialism: A theory or system of social organization based on state or collective ownership and regulation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange for the common benefit of all members of society; advocacy or practice of such a system, esp. as a political movement. Now also: any of various systems of liberal social democracy which retain a commitment to social justice and social reform, or feature some degree of state intervention in the running of the economy.
Man, I do get tired of ignorant articles like this.
About as tired as I get of ignorant people who think quoting a dictionary definition, devoid of all the nuances of actual history of usage, is a serious argument. I see enough of that shit from people like Dawkins. The person or committee who wrote those definitions has absolutely no idea of the way the terms have been used throughout history. I'm amazed that a self-proclaimed "libertarian" takes such an authoritarian view of the prescriptive vs. descriptive nature of dictionary definitions.
My recent post Table of Contents
A little butt hurt that all your arguments against capitalism have nothing to do with capitalism? Yeah, I would would be too.
My recent post Rights Do Not Exist
Yeah, that's right, Encyclopedia. I'm the Bugs Meany of left-libertarianism and you totally nailed me. Now go back to Reddit and play with the other scowling INTJ Dale Gribble wannabes.
My recent post Table of Contents
thorax232, you might want to consider the causal theory of reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_theory_of_ref…
The referent of a word is typically and/or largely determined by the nature of the actual phenomena so labeled, not by a dictionary definition.
You might refer to the fact that you can't tell a capitalist what capitalism is. There is no capitalist on earth who believes in any of the things you ignorant socialists want them to believe in. Its a 24/7 strawman battle for you people, it's pathetic. It's no wonder no one listens to you.
My recent post Rights Do Not Exist
That's kind of a circular argument, isn't it? Capitalism is what capitalists say it is, but who the capitalists are depend on the definition of capitalism… I doubt you'd buy the "only x's can say what xism is" argument if it came from an x you didn't like. For example, if the anarchist socialist Benjamin Tucker, who was also a free market absolutist, challenged your claim that "socialism" = "collective/state ownership" on the grounds that you can't tell a socialist what socialism is, you'd just move the goalposts again.
Really not any better than arguing from dictionary definitions as if they were Platonic eidolons or written in stone on Mount Sinai.
My recent post Table of Contents
If doesn't mean a thing. You want to whine about what people believe in? Get at least an elementary understanding of what those beliefs are.
This is exactly how leftarchists handle everything. They get told off by the people they try oh so hard to attack, they get informed that they're only attacking themselves, and what do they do? "No! This is you! This is what you believe in! I know 'cuz it came out of my ignorant mouth!"
I've got better things to do.
My recent post Rights Do Not Exist
Actually I haven't once told you what you believe in. I have a pretty good understanding of what self-proclaimed ancaps believe based on reading Bohm-Bawerk, Mises, Rothbard, David Friedman and the Tannehills.
What I DID argue was that your ideological definition of capitalism, as an ancap, does not trump its actually much more nuanced and varied history of usage. You can define what ideological meaning you attach to "capitalism" as an ancap, but that definition and the contemporary dictionary definition are fairly recent. The term "capitalism" was first used by anti-capitalists in the early 19th century. If Mises and Rand wanted to recuperate it or treat it as "contested terrain" in the 2oth century for ideological reasons that's fine, but you don't get to make up your own history.
And if anyone in this discussion has a "butt hurt," "whining" or otherwise emotional tone, I'd say it's pretty clearly you. Everything you've said so far has been an argument from authority or just plain spewing emotion.
My recent post Table of Contents
The issue socialists have with capitalism isn't due to what capitalists believe in, the issue is with the actual effects of what at the least is perceived as a manifestation of capitalism.
Unless what you're really arguing for is;
Capitalist-To be defined as those who have the right to define themselves and their ideology, and also have the additional right to define what the consequences of those beliefs are without reference of any sort to the external world.
Socialist-To be defined as those who have no right to define their own beliefs and ideology, and who must accept literally anything others define them as.
Which is a nice symbol of the divergent class interests that might lead someone to define themselves as capitalist or socialist really, but not a very useful place to start a discussion. So why is it that it's the place 'right' anarchists always want to start at?
What about the people who label themselves "capitalists" and also support state-granted and enforced monopolies (IP), central banking, etc., etc.? Since you said "no capitalist on earth", I assume I'd only need to present one example for you to admit you're mistaken.
And, If it's a "fact" that one can't tell a "capitalist" what "capitalism" is then you can't tell those anti-free-market "capitalists" that the "capitalism" they support isn't "capitalism".
What's more important to you? A truly free market or that people agree with your definition of "capitalism"?
"This is exactly how [rightards] handle everything:" they pretend that their wealth, accumulated thanks to past AND current interventions into the market on their behalf, as the results of a 'free market.' When they sense they are losing against the better backed arguments by leftists, they parrot debunked rightards' arguments.
"What's more important to [Thorax232]? A truly free market or that people agree with [this troll's] definition of 'capitalism'?"
I take the liberty to quote Kevin carson again: "[Rightards] seem to favor the free market because they believe it will eliminate the state as a constraint on the kinds of local authoritarianism they enjoy, and give them a free hand in playing with the powerless victims in their little killing jars without any outside interference. A “free society,” for them, is a society in which the local petty authority figure is free to brutalize those under his power without hindrance."
Wow, Engles has been dead for 118 years, Marx for longer. So naturally their copyright is still valid and it's not public domain. I mean seriously what the fuck?
Well, in fairness the copyright is on an English translation commissioned in the late '60s and continuing over several subsequent decades. Not that that makes copyright any more legitimate, of course.
My recent post Table of Contents
Nice……….
So how is "respect my copyright" different from "please make a donation"?
The only difference that I can think of (aside from legalism) is that the "copyright" approach can focus on a competing distributor and thereby pressure a large number consumers to "make a donation". However, if there are more than one competing distributors, then that strategy falls apart and appealing to consumers to respect copyright is no different than appealing to them to make a donation.