Piracy is where media is copied and shared without being paid for, the media is a vessel for information, and this information can be copied at almost no monetary cost. It distorts the rules of capitalism. Information wants to be free, people recognised this a long time ago when they built libraries. The capitalist answer to this is to point out that people who create information need to be paid. It’s that mindset which leads to the situation I described in an earlier post where art is created for the market.
If you can value a piece of art by working out the basic material and labour cost of producing it you’re missing the point. When you reduce art to a mere commodity to make profit it doesn’t become devoid of meaning, it is just commercial, in this way the market wins, and art loses.
As a way of combatting this I suggested that the ‘media industry’ come under public ownership. That way it is recognised that we need information to be independent of capitalist influence. Ideally it would all run in some anarchic system where anyone could create and consume media and the role of the state would be only to facilitate this, by providing accommodation, food and the materials needed to create media.
There appears to be some friction between one moderate libertarian school of thought that the internet is a great force for freedom and copyright impedes that freedom to a certain extent. Some people propose that the traditional business models for distribution of information aren’t working and need to adapt. These people would also be against any plans to nationalise or otherwise collectivise the media industry, because they’re scared of the implications for free speech.
My position is that they are right about the flawed business model, and that it should adapt. And then I’d go further to say that there shouldn’t be a business model at all: information belongs to the people. By sharing what we know we become stronger together, restriction of knowledge is counter-productive. For those who fear censorship, as I’ve already explained: the system where publication of information is censored by corporations is no better than one where it is regulated by a (democratically elected) committee. The Daily Express is propaganda, and so is the Morning Star, each has their own political agenda to push only from two different perspectives. I have little problem with the Morning Star’s propaganda as it only seeks to attack enemies of the people (Blair and Bush for example), unlike the Daily Express which can hide behind the shield of free speech while if publishes racist and homophobic bile. Insulting capitalists while encouraging a just and egalitarian society is acceptable, insulting immigrants while encouraging the BNP is not.
EDIT: In case you haven’t noticed from the tone of my arguments, this blog is also propaganda, in it’s own way. I’d rather it be propaganda than not stand for anything at all. Propaganda isn’t necessarily all bad, how else would we spread ideas?
Leave a comment