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.
I found most of his presentation as “Mom and apple pie”. “History demonstrates this is how political parties begin.” “Freedom of speech is important.” “Privacy is important.” “Governments should not be snooping into your private communications, nor should they be actively monitoring your whereabouts simply because they can.” Etc.
Where he lost me, however, was at the start of his presentation when he stressed the importance of “liberty”. This word has a nice ring to it. Unfortunately, what is liberty to one is tyranny to another, simply because the word is susceptible to many different meanings.
In his address At A Sanitary Fair, Abraham Lincoln included in his speech the following (caveat: it is an excerpt from a longer speech that in this case was directed to the institution of slavery):
“The world has never had a good definition of liberty, and the American people, just now, are much in need of one. We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name — liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names — liberty and tyranny.”
Using this as but one example, it seems clear to me that the presenter uses “liberty” generally along the lines of Lincoln’s second possible definition. In so doing, however, he fails, deliberately or otherwise, to acknowledge that he is not the definitive source for what the word irrevocably means. Lincoln’s first example is an equally reasonable meaning, and these two definitions are incompatible with one another.
Without expressing an opinion of what “liberty” means to me, I am simply unprepared to accept a line of argument that does not define how it is being used by the presenter, nor acknowledge that it is merely the presenter’s opinion that is not universally shared.
Quite frankly, I find it nothing short of amazing that there are people who show not the slightest remorse about what they call “sharing”. The true legal terms include unlawful “reproduction, distribution, creation of derivative works, and public performance”. “Sharing” in my view is little more than after-the-fact rationalization.
I find that a good place to start when looking at “liberty” is to consider whether the freedom implied is autonomous or not.
This is best illuminated by way of example – one that conveniently addresses the topic in hand: a creator’s freedom to create is autonomous, in that he requires nothing other than the personal urge to create (for our purposes we will separate the act of creation from the act of fixing it on a tangible medium – it is possible to form a complete mental blueprint of the work to be created without touching any material means of fixation). The freedom of the copycat is not autonomous since – apart from the technical means of copying – the act requires something to copy. Thus, with regards to a replicable work, both creation and copying require, in the first instance, the volitional act of the creator. In a broader sense, free disposition of your own person, work or property requires only yourself. However, to do as you please with another person, their work or their property you need to have that person.
Thus, we could make a case that whenever the exercise of your free will requires that someone else bends their will to yours, we are no longer dealing with liberty, but rather a form of tyranny. With regards to piracy, it means that in order for a pirate to assert his right to copy (which is non-autonomous, as we have said, because it requires that the work to be copied be made first) he must deny the creator his autonomous right to work under the conditions he deems acceptable (such as denying the fruits of his labour to those who will not pay the asked price for them). The assertion that people have the right to copy anything freely leads us to a rather funny conclusion that pirates have a right to the creators’ works even before the creators make them (in fact, possibly even before the creators have considered making anything).
I don’t understand why he bothered to “confess” to being a politician. His four minutes on his cause made his profession clear. Like MSlonecker above, I found most of what he said to be platitudes. Where I pulled the brake was the comment about physical mail being sacred and unopened. This is just not so.
It is a violation of law to distribute copyrighted material without authorization through the mail. Or pornography. It is also illegal in many circumstances (though not all) to send mail anonymously or to receive it under a false name, etc. or engage in other kinds of fraud. Even unsolicited solicitations (the ink version of “spam”) is illegal in most Western countries (the US included.) The police powers granted to law enforcement agencies to intervene in these activities, including opening, tracking, and monitoring your mail are awesome and long-established. In the US there are even special law enforcement agencies dedicated to the mail.
SImilar statutes also allow monitoring of telephones, telegraph (back when we had them), and, frankly, even chats at cafe tables.
I agree that our children deserve at least as much privacy as our parents (though I fear they will not have it). Indeed this is one of the issues I am most passionate (and pessimistic) about. But surely a rational debate about protecting our privacy and civil liberties doesn’t include utopian amnesia about what rights our parents, and we, actually had before the advent of the Internet – and what limits were conventionally placed on them.