Rodney Serkowski // Info Politics

A little while ago, Matt Dawes from the Australian Digital Alliance, an NGO whose membership largely consists of libraries and museums, wrote a piece published by IT News discussing the cyclical behaviour of established industry when disruptive technology threatens, or seems to threaten a particular business model. One has only to look to history to confirm this almost automatic response of the established/dominant industry looking to preserve the status quo — from the menace of mechanical music that threatened the weakening of the national throat and chest, the savagery and ravages of the photocopier that would destroy academic publishing, Japanese VCRs that would obliterate free to air television, home taping that would kill music and digital music and culture that dooms all media, condemns all art to amateurish mediocrity. New technology creates new paradigms, markets and new regulations. Inevitably, opportunities present themselves and innovative industry will adapt to the new technology, or like is the natural order, outdated modes will perish — regardless of how many looms you destroy, or shearing sheds you burn down. With each bout of feverish hysteria however, established industry has demanded and sometimes gained extensions to the statutory monopoly granted by the state — all which eat into freedom and accessibility of culture, knowledge and information. It's a great article, but curiously, and to a little bemusement, Dawes concludes that change must occur, lest support for radicals like the Pirate Party entrenches itself. Language usually reserved for terrorist organisations or revolutionaries. It's a little perplexing, because after all, one would think that the public library movement are very similar in their goals to the Pirate movement — to make access to culture equitable, to enable the free flow of information that benefits society. I would go as far as to say that a good deal of the philosophy that underpins that movement, underpins ours — they, along with groups like the EFF, the EFA and FFII are the foundations and root of the Pirate Party. Librarians have always been strong advocates against censorship, and for the free flow of information — opposing CIPA in the US, opposing the ALP's Internet censorship platform in Australia. In the US, there was even an open support for Napster — non-commercial file sharing is a completely legitimate means by which to transfer culture, information and knowledge. So just how radical is the Pirate Party relative to this understanding? Are they also radicals? "They've got their radical factions, like the Ruby Ridge or Waco types who want to share all content for free." — Judith Platt, Association of American Publishers There is a tension between copyright and the freedom of expression — borne from censorship and control, copyright works to impede the flow of information. In a digital paradigm, laws drafted for an analogue paradigm no longer function as they should, and represent a dangerous threat to privacy, and thus human dignity. There is a genuine need of structural reform. It is difficult, if not impossible to ask industry to innovate where the law does not permit it — concessions extracted from previous panics have created structural barriers to reform and innovation of new business models. Whilst some will adapt, incumbent organisations will pursue the maintenance of their monopoly if the law, and politicians permit and enable it — society's perception of how information and culture regulation should occur has shifted. It is time to change the law. This is a central plank of our policy. It's not at all radical — its pragmatic, and considered. The radicals are in the WhiteHouse, declaring 'piracy is flat, unadulterated theft', negotiating opaque agreements, policy laundering and circumventing the democratic process that protect lazy incumbents with their statutory privilege.

A little while ago, Matt Dawes from the Australian Digital Alliance, an NGO whose membership largely consists of libraries and museums, wrote a piece published by IT News discussing the cyclical behaviour of established industry when disruptive technology threatens, or seems to threaten a particular business model.

One has only to look to history to confirm this almost automatic response of the established/dominant industry looking to preserve the status quo — from the menace of mechanical music that threatened the weakening of the national throat and chest, the savagery and ravages of the photocopier that would destroy academic publishing, Japanese VCRs that would obliterate free to air television, home taping that would kill music and digital music and culture that dooms all media, condemns all art to amateurish mediocrity. New technology creates new paradigms, markets and new regulations.

Inevitably, opportunities present themselves and innovative industry will adapt to the new technology, or like is the natural order, outdated modes will perish — regardless of how many looms you destroy, or shearing sheds you burn down. With each bout of feverish hysteria however, established industry has demanded and sometimes gained extensions to the statutory monopoly granted by the state — all which eat into freedom and accessibility of culture, knowledge and information.

It’s a great article, but curiously, and to a little bemusement, Dawes concludes that change must occur, lest support for radicals like the Pirate Party entrenches itself. Language usually reserved for terrorist organisations or revolutionaries.

It’s a little perplexing, because after all, one would think that the public library movement are very similar in their goals to the Pirate movement — to make access to culture equitable, to enable the free flow of information that benefits society. I would go as far as to say that a good deal of the philosophy that underpins that movement, underpins ours — they, along with groups like the EFF, the EFA and FFII are the foundations and root of the Pirate Party. Librarians have always been strong advocates against censorship, and for the free flow of information — opposing CIPA in the US, opposing the ALP’s Internet censorship platform in Australia. In the US, there was even an open support for Napster — non-commercial file sharing is a completely legitimate means by which to transfer culture, information and knowledge. So just how radical is the Pirate Party relative to this understanding? Are they also radicals?

“They’ve got their radical factions, like the Ruby Ridge or Waco types who want to share all content for free.”

— Judith Platt, Association of American Publishers

There is a tension between copyright and the freedom of expression — borne from censorship and control, copyright works to impede the flow of information. In a digital paradigm, laws drafted for an analogue paradigm no longer function as they should, and represent a dangerous threat to privacy, and thus human dignity. There is a genuine need of structural reform. It is difficult, if not impossible to ask industry to innovate where the law does not permit it — concessions extracted from previous panics have created structural barriers to reform and innovation of new business models. Whilst some will adapt, incumbent organisations will pursue the maintenance of their monopoly if the law, and politicians permit and enable it — society’s perception of how information and culture regulation should occur has shifted. It is time to change the law. This is a central plank of our policy. It’s not at all radical — its pragmatic, and considered. The radicals are in the WhiteHouse, declaring ‘piracy is flat, unadulterated theft’, negotiating opaque agreements, policy laundering and circumventing the democratic process that protect lazy incumbents with their statutory privilege.