Filesharing - Andrew Orlowski article

[Divisive Cotton]

One of the editors at the Register, Andrew Orlowski, has wrote an item for Spiked on filesharing.

Those that read the Register will know their attitude to free file sharing - they call those that argue in favour "freetards".

Anyway, away from the schoolboy humour of the Register, the Spiked article makes a number of points:

The Orloksi article agues that historically the left (wrapped up in liberal and progressive Americanisms, which is annoying) have supported the rights of the creator:

for 150 years liberals and progressives have embraced the artistic creator as both an ally and a pathfinder. From William Morris’ Arts and Crafts movement, to the many schemes devised by postwar social democratic governments, the creator was an aesthetic rebel, a political ally and a visionary, an ethos that owed much to Shelley’s view of the poet as the ‘unacknowledged legislator’. What many of these initiatives had in common was a creator’s economic independence, typically supported through the mechanism of copyright.

Isn't he confusing here the political and cultural relationship between the artist and the people, rather than any economic one?

I have no idea what historically the attitude to copyright was from the left, and to tell you the truth, I don't think Orloksi does either, but it makes a pretty paragraph.

And isn't this a debate that is primarily based in the relative affluence of the post-war years, rather than in the time of Shelly or William Morris?

How were so many well-intentioned liberals and progressives able to abandon a long tradition of advocacy for the rights and representation of labour? When the digital revolution arrived, the activist gave up real challenges to power, and found a convenient proxy in the shape of the music business. Marx’s advocacy of ‘expropriating the expropriator’ was adopted, only to be inverted, leaving the creator’s cause as collateral damage.

Perhaps the author is trying to change the center of debate away from consumer <= => multinational company, to consumer <= => artist, but at the same time the intermediary is the capitalist company... they stand inbetween the consumer and artist (or used to) taking their share of money earned...

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/5446/

 

[Jonti]

It's talking round the issue, imho.

We can share all of the world's culture and technology and knowledge at next to zero marginal cost. Andrew Orlowski is so not going to get in the way.

 

[Divisive Cotton]

Orlowski is at it again:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/17/right_on_radiohead/

Right-on Radiohead - the union busters?

While Radiohead's singer Thom Yorke has said he won't repeat the experiment, the band will have helped achieve what Thatcher and Reagan failed at - to help destroy collecting societies.

It's a dog eat dog world out there, as they keep telling us.

 

[Jonti]

Radiohead more powerful than Thatcher and Reagan combined claims hysterical hack!

I want some of what Orlowski's smoking.

 

[Jonti]

More seriously, the Register has run some excellent stories in the past, no two ways about it. They used to be really sharp at spotting how business interests could manipulate information to screw over competitors and consumers. But they've stumbled once or twice, quite badly, and increasingly they seem to me to be just another technews site.

These days, I find myself heading over to the Inquirer for a lengthy and entertaining read, before cursorily checking out El Reg.

 

[gorski]

In today's context it's essential that those who create get paid, sure.

At some point, though, when they are millionaires - oh, well... I have no guilty conscience in sharing their works...

THE POINT ABOUT THE LEFT AND SHARING:

Most Left, btw, is happy to share their knowledge. Most of us would, if not corrupted by Capitalism, be happy to live off of our labour.

It presumes we all have a job, which isn't all that exploitative, that it is fairly well comparable with the work of others and that we have an equal say in community matters, I suppose... preferably direct democracy type, aided and abetted by technology, from a serious reduction of working time to increased participation in the business of the community, especially via IT...

AS A PRINCIPLE:

Down with private ownership of the means of production!!!

CAPITALISM'S A KILLER...

But that means a really deep re-education and re-formation of our very nature, how we produce our lives, how we feel about the Nature, our bodies and others, our society, our relationships etc.

As Foucault would say, the whole bloody lot would have to be re-invented, re-thought, re-imagines and it's bloody difficult to do that from our current predicament, the way we are fucked up by Capitalism...

 

[butchersapron]

In today's context it's essential that those who create get paid, sure.

Why?

 

[gorski]

Welcome to Earth, dear Martian!

It's called a "system of needs". We need to satisfy our needs. The way we do it is to exchange: labour for labour, time for time etc.

Have an alternative... from Mars, no doubt?

 

[butchersapron]

What about people who aren't paid for their 'recognised' creativity - whose creativity isn't integrated in a system of life-sustaining needs? Maybe we're talking at cross purposes though? What do you mean by create?

 

[gorski]

Value. Social, economic or otherwise. What did you presume? No, don't tell me: as per usual you are the superior brain and everybody else is an idiot, if they disagree with you... No, no, wait, they don't even have to disagree with you, it's enough that they are alive and that they dare typing something without your prior approval...

 

[butchersapron]

Wow. And that's for one question about one line of your post.

So you were talking about general value creation rather than specific cultural production? (Despite the thread's subject) Is this right?

 

[gorski]

What's the essential difference between a plumber, bricklayer etc. on the one hand and a writer, poet, lecturer, teacher etc. on the other?

 

[butchersapron]

Is that answer to my question?

 

[gorski]

What about an answer to mine?

 

[butchersapron]

Well, i know you individualist foreign types don't like queing but i must insist, esp as i suspect my question undercuts your later one.

 

[Knotted]

I think you might have to pay gorski before he'll answer your question.

 

[gorski]

That'd be the day...

He insists. So do I. Now what?

 

[butchersapron]

Good manners?

 

[gorski]

Say you?!? AHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAHHHAAAAAAHAHAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Knotted]

That'd be the day...

He insists. So do I. Now what?

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. Why pretend you are going about this grubby business of horse trading ideas when it is completely unnecessary?

Would it not 'fair' if Butchers did not have good manners if you were to treat him with good manners?

The morality of 'fairness' is vile. Every right thinking person should despise it. Show some backbone.

 

[gorski]

Indeed, I value my spine! Hence I retaliate to eejuts and bullies. And he certainly is one!

On the other hand, that's why I'm moving to Sweden... Because of people like him!

Skooooollll!!!!