Interview With Pirate Party Leader Rick Falkvinge 515
mmuch writes "In the wake of the recent copyright debate in Swedish mainstream media, the P2P Consortium has published an interview with Rick Falkvinge, the leader of the Swedish Pirate Party. He comments on the mainstream politicians starting to understand the issues, the interplay between strict copyright enforcement and mass surveillance, and the chances for global copyright reform." Some choice Falkvinge quotes: "What was remarkable was that this was the point where the enemy — forces that want to lock down culture and knowledge at the cost of total surveillance — realized they were under a serious attack... for the first time, we saw everything they could bring to the battle. And it was... nothing. Not even a fizzle. All they can say is 'thief, we have our rights, we want our rights, nothing must change, we want more money, thief, thief, thief'... Whereas we are talking about scarcity vs. abundance, monopolies, the nature of property, 500-year historical perspectives on culture and knowledge, incentive structures, economic theory, disruptive technologies, etc. The difference in intellectual levels between the sides is astounding... When the Iron Curtain fell, all of the West rejoiced that the East would become just as free as the West. It was never supposed to be the other way around."
Re:They're free to share... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Yes, you are. (Score:2, Interesting)
I hear this posited repeatedly in response to me, and not ever do I say this. But it's the red herring tossed out in an attempt to discredit what is said. Always what will happen is the rate at which new works are produced will drop (significantly, most likely) but never cease. And there's no reason for this drop to be forced.
Agreed, it is insane. But blatantly violating copyrights like we see today does nothing to correct it. On the contrary, it gives them ammunition to use against us.
Don't get political. (Score:3, Interesting)
People who download music and movies aren't doing it to assert their solidarity with the Sandinistas, they're doing it because they can, and frankly most of us don't have enough cash free to go buy the entire discography of say Miles Davis or Bob Dylan.
Stick to the 'we're not providing content, only torrents' line. I think they'll find a more sympathetic client base.
Not if you don't want to (Score:5, Interesting)
I've been exposed to pretty much every argument, angle, and corner out there in this debate. Obviously you don't have to respect me for that, but you'd do well to assume that I've seen the pros and cons of most dimensions of this structural shift.
Oh, and as always, if I had known in advance this interview would end up on Slashdot, I would have spent more time on it.
The future? (Score:5, Interesting)
The days of bands releasing a shitty album every 5 years, touring for 6 months then retiring to their mansion in LA are over, and thank God. Will we see less people going into the business? Yes. And again, thank God -- art should be made by people with a passion for the art, not by people with simplistic dreams of fame who will do anything to get publicity.
Re:They're free to share... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Yes, you are. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The future? (Score:3, Interesting)
That's great. Now solve the problem for other works than just music. Or do you expect me to make the video games (or film the movie) you just enjoyed live?
That's fine, so don't listen. Eliminating copyright and whatnot would be like dropping a nuke to solve an overcrowding problem. Effective, but it misses the point.
Well then by that logic it has no moral basis at all. But it has a very valid legal basis, and one I find acceptible (within proper boundaries that we must re-assert.)
Distribution isn't the main cost burden. And until we live in a utopia where everything is free, any work will have costs associated with its production. Copyright helps us relieve that cost, eliminating copyright just forces the producer to eat it whole.
Re:Why not leave it up to the producers? (Score:3, Interesting)
One problem is that all you need for a copyright violation to take place (in the USA at least) is for two private parties to exchange some copyrighted information. In order to use the law to stop copyright infringement, one must punish certain kinds of private communication between two parties. Punishing all instances of certain kinds of private communication between two arbitrary parties requires monitoring all private communications. This kind of surveillance is both unacceptable and a necessary condition for enforcing copyright law. Therefore, enforcing copyright law is unacceptable. This, I gather, is the president's argument.
People involved in the Freenet project often make a similar argument that goes something like this: In order to have true free speech, people must be able to speak and listen anonymously so that they cannot be punished for exercising their free speech. Yet, any system that allows for anonymous speaking and listening can be used for copyright infringement. So free speech and copyright are mutually exclusive. Free speech is more important than copyright, so copyright must go.
"Why not leave it up to the producers?" makes about as much sense as "Why not let the slave owners decide on an individual basis whether to own slaves?" Information and people are fundamentally un-ownable for a variety of moral and practical reasons.
Re:They're free to share... (Score:2, Interesting)
Let's say a free-file-sharing law system reduces the amount of content created (given the barriers that exist to content creation today, in an effort to create scarcity in order to increase price, this is not a guaranteed conclusion). Let's say content production drops to 1/2, or 1/3, or 1/4 of current levels.
Can you currently afford to experience half of all content produced? A third? A fourth?
Are you really better off in today's world?
Re:Am I really...- probably RIAA astroturf (Score:5, Interesting)
RIAA astroturf is flying thick and fast today. A content free propaganda first post mod'ed up to +5 to try to neutralize the article and direct the debate. I wonder how that happened?
Be careful people; there's a lot of astroturf [wikipedia.org] and probably sock puppets [wikipedia.org] on /. these days. It's amazing how every time there's a story with a point of view that the software or media industries don't like you'll get numerous weasels popping up who "just happen" to repeat tired old propaganda we've all heard and dismissed many times before. Treat these lowlifes with the contempt they deserve.
Redundancy and repetition are a strong sign that marketing parasites are involved. They don't care if they waste/steal people's time and attention as long as they achieve mind share at the expense of other points of view.
---
Astroturfing "marketers" [wikipedia.org] are liars, fraudulently misrepresenting company propaganda as objective third party opinion.
The idea of property... (Score:1, Interesting)
Sorry, but show me a man who questions the concepts of property, and I'll show you a man who wants a piece of what I've worked hard for.
This is fucking music files, folks. Can't we search for a better business model without going batshit insane over the cliff at the Left side of the political spectrum? How about placing a NEW idea under then sun. eh?
Re:Yes, you are. (Score:3, Interesting)
And unlike the creators who actually have valuable skills, the only thing the middle-men have are their monopolistic hold on old-world distribution channels and the copyrights which allow them to milk those same channels.
Re:They're free to share... (Score:2, Interesting)
Copyright also doesn't discriminate between certain types of works. If sharing were allowed, then (as many have pointed out), live music will become much more lucrative than, for example, electronic music. Hard-cover, beautifully printed books would become more lucrative than a textbook or a scientific paper, which no-one actually needs in book for. Visual arts would be essentially left out in the cold, because copying prints is ludicrously cheap and easy to do if you have access to the proper machinery. Major movies would be nigh impossible.
Finally, I'd also like to point out that anyone wants their works to be shared out freely may release their work under a permissive license, or even into the public domain. In fact, any artist who wanted that has already done that, so if you want an impression of what life without copyright would be like, why not limit yourself to works that are in the public domain? It'll give you a taste of what our culture will be like about 10 years past copyright.
Re:Yes, you are. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:They're free to share... (Score:1, Interesting)
Same way I got started in my computer business. Charge way less than others (say $30/hr) and raise your rates as your popularity, skill, and quality of work increases.
>I do have a right to try. But it's hard to try when you have to compete with your own work being traded freely or (worse yet) being sold for a pittance by knock-offs (which we have now but not nearly as badly as we would without copyright.)
I feel the same way. All sorts of customers seem to think their brother/niece/son can do what I do. And they do it for free. But I have a right to try to get them to have me work for them. Most of them come back after they realize that their son is still in elementary school and can't even spell "computer" properly.
>So what you're saying is that we've already produced our best, and won't produce anything better or equal in the next few decades, and thus hindering the production of new works is a good thing?
Yah, I'd agree with that. Maybe not our very best yet, but media has gotten a lot worse as controls have been tightened. I mean, I can't even BUY half the old Disney library of movies anymore, just their new crap. Guess why I think the other stuff gets locked in their vault? Because the new stuff sucks and the old stuff is just too tough a competition.
But hey, I understand. It's totally different. I'm a (by old definition) "tradesman". You're an "artist". That distinction alone should guarantee you a handsome income, because your caste is higher. Sorry 'boot that.
Re:They're free to share... (Score:2, Interesting)
Now that it's infinite, I could ask why we only get that one product and then a corporation can milk it indefinitely instead of having to produce new quality content? I could also ask why we're denied all the derivative works that would be possible with a modern public domain.
To some degree, infinite copyright hasn't stopped such things, but only inasmuch as people break copyright.
Re:Why not leave it up to the producers? (Score:3, Interesting)
The other principle is the surveilance principle, that everything should be inspected and recorded so that the chain goes "gathered evidence -> suspicion -> warrant to evidence". That is a very dangerous road to go down and requires that kind of totalitarian access to all private communication that you speak of. It is the kind of system where there's a file on every citizen. It is the kind of system that casts suspicion on any communication it can't record or comprehend. It places massive power in the hands of the government and asks the government to be its own watchdog. It is a system where you're afraid to draw the attention of the government, because they have an arsenal to use against you.
That is what the RIAA is pushing for, that is where this is going. They have already tried to strike at the meeting points, the crossroads with little effect. Now they try to strike at each and every filesharer, but the lawsuits don't have any effect. So now they're trying to push it onto the government and the ISPs. Already there's a debate brewing about this in Norway regarding EUs data retention directive. Undoubtably it'll pass like every other of the thousands of EU directives we pass, but at least the discussion has started. We don't want a surveilance society, and if you tell us to choose between freedom and copyright, copyright has to go.
Re:Yes, you are. (Score:3, Interesting)
I live in Hong Kong, and so I can say this is bullshit. First, bootleg media is not everywhere. You can get it of course, but there are plenty of big legit CD and video shops. However, there has indeed been a slump in local movies and music production. The reasons are complex, due to crappy quality derivative movies and prepackaged unoriginal musical performers being pushed by the labels as much as anything, but part certainly is that a lot of the export market was lost, as in SE Asia bootlegs certainly are prevalent.
Re:Why not leave it up to the producers? (Score:3, Interesting)
On those points, I agree. I have already seen one copyright free period in computing, back before anyone really knew if you could copyright a binary at all. Naturally, everyone claimed their software was copyrighted, but nobody wanted to ever take it to court and risk an unfavorable ruling.
Of course, personally, I don't advocate the complete abolition of copyright, but rather a radical re-think. Cut it back to 20 years or so possibly with lesser restrictions lasting longer and add a use it or lose it clause. Also require placing a copy in escrow to be conspicuously released on expiration. If DRM is used, an unlocker must be freely distributed at seller's expense once copyright expires.
Re:They're free to share... (Score:4, Interesting)
Live performances, merchandise, nicely packaged albums with some extra value instead of just a combined cover/tracklist leaflet.
A picture of a painting or sculpture enables you to look at the respective artifact mainly for purposes of studying it. Enjoying the art usually does take the real thing.
Take the experience back to the big screen. Home theatres are getting awefully awesome nowadays, so take care real theatres don't lose out on quality aspects and keep up.
Customer interests are shifting. People want to watch whatever they feel like whenever they feel like without interruptions (i.e. ads). deal with it. [google.com]
Either keep going letting the filmmaker do all the shifting work or explore new venues. Live is big again. People like to pay more and will give up control about time and place for awesome live performances of both music and acting (e.g. theatre, musicals, opera).
Unless absolutely necessary (e.g. reading pre-release versions of new Harry Potter books to have some spoilers ready for launch parties), extremely few people like to read long segments on a screen, so you're fine. Amazon is doing an amazing job with Kindle, others will follow suit. 2008 can be your year of Napster, your opportunity to get a competitive and customer-friendly electronic distribution to work before pirates do. Text can be distributed easily and practically instantaneous without infrastructural issues. Be quick and satisfy the general public before pirates do it -- they will.
For you too, this can be a golden age. Competition is harder than ever; thanks to blogs anybody can be a reporter. Standing out can attract a huge audience quicker and easier than ever. Be a journalist instead of just a reporter, cater to people's interests and a simple blogger account with some googly ads are all you need.
The world is changing. People want comfort and/or an extraordinary experience. Provide one and you're on the winning side. Provide both and you're right on track to greatness.
Re:They're free to share... (Score:3, Interesting)
How lovely for you. I hope you don't expect us to hold our culture and freedom in shackles so that you can enjoy your Hollywood movies.
The whole point of copyright is that it must be a _consensus_ - if the majority decide they don't want it, we shouldn't have it. To hell with big companies trying to dictate policy.
Oh boy... (Score:2, Interesting)
I believe many Americans are afraid to share (bittorrent or whatever) music, books, movies etc. Here in Sweden, nobody (at least not that I know of) is afraid of that. You'll never get cought. This is almost identical to actually removing copyright laws. However, Swedish writers are making very good money from their books, which sells extremely well (even in Sweden). The same goes for music artists or movie producers. Why, you might ask? Because a lot of people will still buy their books, songs, whatever.
In this world of ours, we have had libraries for centuries. This is essentially the same as removing copyright on books. It enables poor people (which we don't have many in Sweden, as opposed to the US where the differences in "financial freedom" is extreme) to read any amount of books they like, for free. You have had this opportunities in the US too, for centuries. Still, in Sweden, the US and everywhere in the world, people buy books.
People buy music. People buy movies. People go to concerts, and to the cinemas.
Allowing people to share any information (be it text [books], audio [music] or moving pictures [movies]) doesn't automatically make us go back to stone age. Quite the opposite. It will force artists into being even more creative in how they attract their audience.
I believe we can have a world completely without patents and copyrights. I'm absolutely certain that business will flourish as they always have. Copyright only makes it easy for (large) businesses to excercise oppression on citizens (RIAA, MPAA, BSA). It has, in real life, nothing to do with getting paid for what you do.
And quite frankly, I think it's pathetic that some frightened writers or song writers asks "how will I get paid?". I don't ask them how I will get paid. If I don't get paid, I change job. You can't make money out of your job? Change it. Surely a lot of intelligent artists will be able to make money off their work, without crying out in media "but how will I get paid??". That's really not my problem.
And, as I stated, they do get paid now, even though many people get their works for free (and have done, for centuries). Just remove the money sink aka "production companies", and the audience will pay the artist directly. They'll easily be rich (if that's what they want), if their work is appreciated.
File-sharing, fair use etc (Score:2, Interesting)