4 ms·

“Digital piracy and the digital copying of cultural products for private use is a refusal to pay rent-tribute to knowledge capitalists. Therefore, piracy is mis

“Digital piracy and the digital copying of cultural products for private use is a refusal to pay rent-tribute to knowledge capitalists. Therefore, piracy is miss-naming of the phenomenon. The sea pirates take away by force others' properties. The digital “pirates” only use universal commons which have been artificially fenced off. They just remove fences, and by doing so they do not take away knowledge, because, knowledge cannot be taken away. They use something which by its nature belongs to the whole of humanity. The producer of knowledge uses knowledge, as “raw” material, which is part of the general intellect of humanity as a whole and the produced knowledge itself becomes immediately part of this general intellect. Therefore, the fencing of knowledge is, essentially, more similar to the traditional piracy. The knowledge capitalist fences off, with help of the force of law, universal commons that does not exclusively belong to her/him. Therefore, s/he robs commons. To put it bluntly, digital piracy takes back that which has been stolen from the public. Therefore, although illegal, it is morally and ethically justified. The very fact that public ethics and the bourgeois property rights contradict each other on this matter evidences that such rights are superfluous in our era of digital technology. In this way, the digital piracy and digital counterfeiting is an important economic-social movement of our time. This movement is expressed in various ways including the following. First millions of individuals around the world, understanding and believing that they are not involved in theft, copy things for individual uses. The historical, cultural and political significance of this practice can hardly be exaggerated. It undermines the moral and ethical legitimacy of the bourgeois intellectual property in the very pours and veins of everyday life. Digital piracy is a major force of the growth of knowledge and culture, on the one hand, and the self-improvement of the individual on the other. Second, “pirate” activists illegally copy fenced off knowledge and make it available for a global public on the net. A good example was Gigapedia digital library on the net, which was created by activists who scanned books. These activists are either from poorer countries or classes, or our era’s Robin Hoods from privileged countries and classes. Aaron Swartz was one such Robin Hood. The very massive and online and offline protests against SOPA in the USA and ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement ) in the European Union, and their temporary success, are evidence of the moral legitimacy of digital piracy and digital counterfeiting." - Professor Jakob Rigi https://triple-c.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/487/1146 https://triple-c.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/487/1146

derriz 5y ago
I wish people could frame arguments without implied/covert vilification of the presumed opponents of your position - in this case introducing the argument with a reference to "rent-tribute to knowledge capitalists". If you accept the implication of this premise (the beneficiaries of copyright law are rent-seeking and capitalists) and your world view is already aligned with the author (capitalism is evil, rent-seeking is evil), then the rest of the pieces is almost superfluous. Arguments based on this technique generally do nothing to encourage others to think about their own beliefs and are attractive only as a form of confirmation bias. They rely on the vilification of "other people" (capitalists in this case) for their appeal and to me just contribute heat rather than light to any debate. It's nothing to do with my political orientation - I react similarly when a piece opens with some reference to "neo-marxists", "trump supporters" or "liberals", etc. - it's sucks out any enthusiasm I might have to follow the argument.
- beckman466 5y ago
  > I wish people could frame arguments without implied/covert vilification of the presumed opponents of your position I agree. I wish capitalists didn't call people who make a copy of things, pirates. Professor Rigi is pushing back against capitalist logic that tells us "You Wouldn't Steal a Car. Piracy, it's a crime" when workers make a copy of something that's an artificially scarce good (by the capitalist property system) / non-rival good. Here's another quote you might enjoy: “During the 1980s and 1990s I worked in many countries in eastern and southern Africa, and then for four years at the South Centre—2005–09. I can say from my experience that the industrialised countries of the North have been trying systematically to block all efforts by the countries of the South to industrialise. Their mega-corporations have tried—and, alas, succeeded—in privatising knowledge, and using it to promote corporate profits over the lives of people." [...] “It is the seeds and pharmaceutical companies of the West that have pirated the knowledge of seeds and medicinal products from the South. But whereas in the South this knowledge was shared as a public asset, the Western companies, having learnt from the South, proceeded to claim it as their private property. They are guilty—morally guilty—for the avoidable deaths of millions of people in the South who cannot afford their ‘patented’ medicines against, for example, AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis and other killer diseases. It is a sordid story. But it is not all doom and gloom. Those who control the system (the global corporations and the international organisations that the West controls) do not get their own way entirely. Wars do not always end in the victory of the militarily or ‘intellectually’ powerful.” [...] “The common heritage of humanity—including medical knowledge and the seeds for food—is turned into property under capitalism, to be bought and sold as ‘IP.’ [...] It has been a well-recognized fact throughout written history that knowledge shared is knowledge multiplied. A physical commodity that is consumed becomes extinct. I consume an apple and it is no more. But knowledge is metaphysical. It is enriched when it is ‘consumed’ by an ever-expanding circle of consumers. [...] The notion that without IP protection, innovation would be stifled is an ideological position created and propagated by those that benefit from the privatization of knowledge. I came to a diametrically opposite conclusion over two decades of work with farming communities in Tanzania, Zimbabwe, Botswana, and much of eastern and southern Africa. Ordinary peasants and workers are amazingly innovative and productive, until their resources and knowledge are appropriated and corporatized, and the people enslaved to earn profits for corporations.” - Professor Yash Tandon, Trade is War

derriz 5y ago

I wish people could frame arguments without implied/covert vilification of the presumed opponents of your position - in this case introducing the argument with a reference to "rent-tribute to knowledge capitalists". If you accept the implication of this premise (the beneficiaries of copyright law are rent-seeking and capitalists) and your world view is already aligned with the author (capitalism is evil, rent-seeking is evil), then the rest of the pieces is almost superfluous. Arguments based on this technique generally do nothing to encourage others to think about their own beliefs and are attractive only as a form of confirmation bias. They rely on the vilification of "other people" (capitalists in this case) for their appeal and to me just contribute heat rather than light to any debate. It's nothing to do with my political orientation - I react similarly when a piece opens with some reference to "neo-marxists", "trump supporters" or "liberals", etc. - it's sucks out any enthusiasm I might have to follow the argument.

beckman466 5y ago
> I wish people could frame arguments without implied/covert vilification of the presumed opponents of your position I agree. I wish capitalists didn't call people who make a copy of things, pirates. Professor Rigi is pushing back against capitalist logic that tells us "You Wouldn't Steal a Car. Piracy, it's a crime" when workers make a copy of something that's an artificially scarce good (by the capitalist property system) / non-rival good. Here's another quote you might enjoy: “During the 1980s and 1990s I worked in many countries in eastern and southern Africa, and then for four years at the South Centre—2005–09. I can say from my experience that the industrialised countries of the North have been trying systematically to block all efforts by the countries of the South to industrialise. Their mega-corporations have tried—and, alas, succeeded—in privatising knowledge, and using it to promote corporate profits over the lives of people." [...] “It is the seeds and pharmaceutical companies of the West that have pirated the knowledge of seeds and medicinal products from the South. But whereas in the South this knowledge was shared as a public asset, the Western companies, having learnt from the South, proceeded to claim it as their private property. They are guilty—morally guilty—for the avoidable deaths of millions of people in the South who cannot afford their ‘patented’ medicines against, for example, AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis and other killer diseases. It is a sordid story. But it is not all doom and gloom. Those who control the system (the global corporations and the international organisations that the West controls) do not get their own way entirely. Wars do not always end in the victory of the militarily or ‘intellectually’ powerful.” [...] “The common heritage of humanity—including medical knowledge and the seeds for food—is turned into property under capitalism, to be bought and sold as ‘IP.’ [...] It has been a well-recognized fact throughout written history that knowledge shared is knowledge multiplied. A physical commodity that is consumed becomes extinct. I consume an apple and it is no more. But knowledge is metaphysical. It is enriched when it is ‘consumed’ by an ever-expanding circle of consumers. [...] The notion that without IP protection, innovation would be stifled is an ideological position created and propagated by those that benefit from the privatization of knowledge. I came to a diametrically opposite conclusion over two decades of work with farming communities in Tanzania, Zimbabwe, Botswana, and much of eastern and southern Africa. Ordinary peasants and workers are amazingly innovative and productive, until their resources and knowledge are appropriated and corporatized, and the people enslaved to earn profits for corporations.” - Professor Yash Tandon, Trade is War