Category: Copyright

Talking TED – Ideas for Scaring

Consider this:  instead of an entrenched government fabricating an Orwellian state of fear in order to limit civil liberties, that it is in fact self-proclaimed rebels crying “freedom” who are using this very tactic to foster an agenda that is more destructive than the world they claim to oppose.

It’s true that this website launched with an article praising a TEDx video and the spirit it evokes, but it must be said that not everyone who preaches before the altar of those iconic letters is necessarily promoting an idea worth sharing.  In particular, this video starring Rick Falkvinge, founder of the Swedish Pirate Party proves my favorite of Twain’s observations — that all one needs in life for success is confidence and ignorance. Falkvinge’s pride in his party’s acquisition of seats in the European Parliament shows us just how far one can passionately evangelize a truly bad idea.

We see a lot of this in U.S., of course.  Todd Akin’s now infamous statement about “legitimate rape” not causing pregnancy was not merely the raving of one man, but an extension of language that’s been part of GOP talking points for years, attempting to stratify degrees of sexual assault vis a vis the question of abortion.  In other words, I’m not impressed with dumb ideas just because they achieve a measure of popularity somewhere; the number of seats the Pirate Party has in the European Parliament is not by itself proof of anything.

In fact, as the title and content of this particular talk make clear, it is meant more as a primer on how to turn protest into policy than as a stump for the Pirate Party platform; but Falkvinge as mentor does leave out the fact that he possesses that secret, Twainian ingredient — an ego blind to the fallacy of his reasoning. I challenge anyone to watch the first eight minutes of this video and tell us how Falkvinge’s overview of his mission has any more syllogistic integrity than one of Glenn Beck’s blackboard extravaganzas. Take for example his abrupt reference to Mubarak shutting down the Internet during the uprising in Egypt, which he then follows with a ham-handed segue to democratic nations where he claims, “the crackdown is the same but the excuse is different. In the West it’s terrorism, organized crime, and pornography in various forms.”  In other words, if the FBI investigates a terror cell or a drug or child pornography ring  (which really do exist), it’s the same thing as Mubarak turning off the Internet to squelch political dissent.

Even stranger is Falkvinge’s references to privacy. He cites the sanctity of traditional mail (which he doesn’t mention is protected by law as exclusive property) followed by vague allusions to government “wiretapping” of our digital communications. At best, this is laughable in the age of social media when the majority of our communications are not only public, but are of less than no interest to the likes of Interpol and the NSA.  In truth, if privacy is your concern, you’d be wiser to ask what Google and Facebook are doing with the information you give them voluntarily, but Falkvinge isn’t interested in pesky realities; he’s more interested in painting a picture of a generation gap through scare tactics.

In fact, given the thesis of his presentation, it’s telling that in eight minutes worth of preamble, Falkvinge doesn’t openly state the biggest plank in the platform of a party that would call itself “Pirate,” namely the belief that mass copyright infringement is a form of free speech. But then, that would be making an argument, which is open to counter-argument.  It’s so much more effective to draw fuzzy lines between dictators and democratic leaders and to make vague references to governments spying on private citizens.

Above all, what I find most offensive and dysfunctional about this video in particular and pirate parties in general is the implication that the youth of democratic societies ought to be more concerned with perceived threats to the liberties they already enjoy than with wielding those liberties to greater purpose. Specifically, at about the 4:30 mark, Falkvinge cites an unspecified “survey” that 17 year-olds no longer place the environment and sustainability at the top of their concerns, but instead are more focused on issues of free speech and openness.

Assuming this unnamed study is accurate, I propose that unless those kids are in Russia or Iran, they’re due for a reality check.  Proclaiming free speech advocacy in a democratic society is roughly as bold as saying one is pro air; and oddly enough, there are more enemies of air than there are of speech.  So, perhaps the environment and sustainability ought to resume their place at the top of the next generation’s agenda.

If we are to take Falkvinge’s hyperbole seriously, then we must conclude that he and his party affiliates, were they to speak more plainly, would have us believe that stopping some American college kid from torrent-streaming Hangover II  would make him a victim of a human rights violation.  This is more than an insult to real victims of human rights violations, it is an abdication of our responsibility as the fortunate citizens of free societies.  Rather than use our voices to speak on behalf of those who suffer real abuses, the Pirate Party would have us whinging over the prospect of paying for entertainment.  Falkvinge mentions that his political movement was born in a bar, and it seems to me that it ought to have died in the sober light of day like so many notions that look good under the influence.

Find a Real Cause

                   

Let’s compare.  Both of these videos are technically marketing pieces. I would know as I’ve made a few hundred marketing videos in my career.  But what is each video selling, and how is each doing its job?

The video on the left is produced by Kim Dotcom and is selling one message:  Free Kim Dotcom.  The video on the right is produced by The What Took You So Long Foundation, and it is selling one message:  TEDx is a force for positive change in the world. Dotcom’s video has nearly one million views; the TEDx video, just over one thousand.  The former is an example of what I consider the most destructive and cynical manifestations of the digital age, while the latter represents what I perceive as the best in next-gen, progressive spirit connected and empowered by technology.

Dotcom’s video is more than a little creepy. It uses the desaturated hues we associate with post-apocalyptic movies, a fake TV-noise plug-in to give Dotcom himself a subversive, underground appeal; repeated images of angry mobs hiding behind Guy Fawkes masks to enhance the theater of revolution; and a catchy, electronica tune with lyrics that speak of humanism in contrast to the almost threatening, dystopian montage.

Dotcom may have the gall to compare himself to Martin Luther King, but the video is actually more reminiscent of a terrorist training film than a promo for social change, and that’s why it’s effective.  It takes a cynical, pseudo-revolutionary video to appeal to a cynical psychology — one that actually believes that streaming stolen creative media via torrent sites is somehow striking a blow for freedom and justice in the world.

By contrast, everything we see in the TEDx video is exactly the opposite in sensibility and intent.  First, we see faces, a lot of faces of real people who left their desktops and traveled to Doha to participate in something and engage in physical interaction. Not that the TED enterprise is without its flaws, but this video itself taps into what I would describe as a progressive deconstruction of institutions — a global “think different” consciousness that very likely will bypass traditional means to solve real problems like hunger, disease, and poverty.

When Eiso Vaandager says toward the end of the video that he “envisions the UN coming to TEDx organizers to solve a problem they can’t,” this is the kind of audacious claim worthy of our attention; and it only underscores just how offensive it is to hear Kim Schmitz use the same media to compare himself to civil rights leaders and other legitimate heroes.

I suspect the jaundiced supporters of the Dotcom video imagine themselves somehow allied with the proactive folks in the TEDx video because, of course, people have a tendency to believe in associative relationships among things that sound similar (both are bucking systems, aren’t they?); but there really is no comparison.  Dotcom’s video targets Americans — people who already enjoy freedom, and it aims to convince them that his incarceration would be their prison, too. The TEDx video targets a global community, and it aims to convince people that energy, willingness, and intelligence can solve real issues.

Of course the word freedom is a slippery little bugger. It gets used by everyone from peace activists to corporate fat cats to terrorists; and Dotcom is merely following in a long tradition of vested interests abusing the concept to defend personal gain and deflect attention away from the harm he does. As an artist and an American, I cherish the First Amendment above all other laws; and it is destructive both to creative works and to the First Amendment when a guy like Schmitz presumes to hide his theft of the former behind the humanistic benevolence of the latter.

If what you envision is legit social change, there are plenty of progressive and tangible ways to take action — everything from just supporting a crowd-funding campaign for a cause to lending actual knowledge, assistance, or muscle to a project of interest. But streaming free entertainment in order to fill the pockets of a guy who has produced exactly nothing in the world counts for less than zero on the social change meter.

There is actual oppression in the world, real sorrow, real evil worth your attention and action. Right now, thousands of human beings worldwide are being trafficked as sex or labor slaves; too much of the technology we take for granted is being produced by hands in poor working conditions; climate change is real; terrorism is real; hunger is real; there’s a revolution in Syria you might have heard about; the Iranian government is playing a dangerous and complex game; we have thousands of homeless and suicidal veterans here in the U.S.; Russia just sentenced musicians to prison for performing a protest song; oh, and the world economy is still pretty shaky.  If you’re looking for heroes and villains, they’re out there; but if Dotcom and Hollywood fit those definitions for you respectively, you’re more than a little naive.

It’s Not About Big Labels

To those who comment unceasingly that copyright and anti-piracy efforts are exclusively about big labels and big studios, meet the owners of ESL.  This is an indie label that has a blanket 50/50 deal with all of its artists.  Eric Hilton comes from the technology sector, so they’re anything but Web luddites.  They are literally telling young, talented musicians they meet, “Forget it.  Get a different job.  You can’t make a living at this anymore.”