Kultur, natur og modstand
Hvis du nogensinde har brugt et RSS-feed til at læse en blog på nettet, har du brugt Swartz’ arbejde.
Og hvis du bekymrer dig om din frihed i vor moderne tidsalder, bør du vide at Swartz måske begik selvmord under indtryk af retsvæsnets helt uproportionale forfølgelse af, hvad der i bund og grund var ment som et slag for friheden på nettet.
Og læs Cory Doctorows nekrolog over Swartz: RIP, Aaron Swartz.
Jeg har nu set de første seks afsnit af TV-serien “Game of Thrones”, og det har været en god investering af min tid. Faktisk er det den bedste TV-serie, jeg har set, siden jeg så de fire første sæsoner af LOST (jeg er ikke begejstret for dennes slutning), som den foreløbig ser ud til at overgå. Foreløbig ser det ud til at kunne blive den bedste af de “nye” amerikanske TV-serier, og det siger faktisk ikke så lidt, med præstationer som LOST og THE WIRE og BREAKING BAD at holde den op mod. Go see.
Det kan gå grueligt galt. Så blot, hvordan det gik my man Robert Browning:
In 1841, Browning published the long dramatic poem Pippa Passes, now best known for the lines “God’s in His heaven/ All’s right with the world.” Toward the end of it, he sets up a kind of Gothic scene, and writes:
Then, owls and bats,
Cowls and twats,
Monks and nuns, in a cloister’s moods,
Adjourn to the oak-stump pantry!The second of these lines created no stir at all, presumably because the middle class had truly forgotten the word “twat” (just as it had forgotten “quaint,” so that Marvell’s pun on the two meanings in “To His Coy Mistress” has fallen flat for six or eight generations now). A few scholars must have recognized the word, but any who did behaved like loyal subjects when the emperor wore his new clothes, and discreetly said nothing. No editor of Browning has ever expurgated the line, even when Rossetti was diligently cutting mere “womb” out of Whitman. The first response only came forty years later when the editors of the Oxford English Dictionary, collecting examples of usage, like Johnson before them, and interested to find a contemporary use of “twat,” wrote to Browning to ask in what sense he was using it. Browning is said to have written back that he used it to mean a piece of headgear for nuns, comparable to the cowls for monks he put in the same line. The editors are then supposed to have asked if he recalled where he had learned the word. Browning replied that he knew exactly. He had read widely in seventeenth-century literature in his youth, and in a broadside poem called “Vanity of Vanities”, published in 1659, he had found these lines, referring to an ambitious cleric:
They talk’t of his having a Cardinall’s Hat;
They’d send him as soon an Old Nun’s Twat.
“Twat” blev altså i Brownings kilde ikke brugt om noget, en nonne kan tage på hovedet … sprogbloggen citerer Oxford English Dictionary, der som sin mest konkrete betydning har pudendum muliebre. Av.
Judson Jerome, i hans The Poet and the Poem, Writer’s Digests Books 1979, s. 351:
I have heard that, before Franco, there was an annual Catalan poetry contest, the prizes for which were awarded on the steps of the cathedral in Barcelona. The third prize was a silver rose. The second prize was a golden rose. The first prize was, of course, a real rose. The poet’s most difficult wrestling with his soul is learning never to be envious of the golden rose.
Pia Olsen Dyhr, vores venstreorienterede og p.t. meget lobby-bukkende handelsminister, skrev et indlæg i Information, hvor hun påstod at ACTA er “en sejr for Danmark“. Indlægget består mest af udenomssnak – Olsen Dyhr taler om “forfalskning” af tasker, sko og andre mærkevarer, mens hun slet ikke kommer ind på konsekvenserne for folks brug af Internettet.
Tech-journalisten Glyn Moody svarer hende og sætter et par ting på plads. Værd at læse, ikke mindst fordi det nok ikke er sidste gang, vi kommer til at høre den type argumenter:
The minister highlights problems with counterfeit goods. These undoubtedly exist, and are especially worrying for things like medicines or spare aircraft parts. But this does not address the real problem with ACTA: that it seeks to apply the same harsh legislation aimed at curbing dangerous counterfeit goods to the simplest digital copyright infringement.
For example, Article 9 of ACTA states: “In determining the amount of damages for infringement of intellectual property rights, a Party’s judicial authorities shall have the authority to consider, inter alia, any legitimate measure of value the right holder submits, which may include lost profits, the value of the infringed goods or services measured by the market price, or the suggested retail price.”
For physical counterfeits, that might make sense, but it doesn’t for digital copies. What is the lost profit from sharing one file? One Euro – the cost of the copy – or the millions that the copyright industries claim has been lost as a result of the multiple copies around the Net?
Not only that, but Section 4 on Criminal Enforcement uses a definition of “piracy on a commercial scale” that includes “indirect economic or commercial advantage.” Obviously, everyone that shares digital files without paying derives indirect economic advantage; and because there is no *minimum* level of infringement specified in ACTA, that means that sharing a single MP3 could in principle lead to criminal charges and imprisonment.
Moreover, another clause stipulates that signatories “shall ensure that criminal liability for aiding and abetting is available under its law.” Even linking to a site that holds unauthorised copies of copyright materials is clearly aiding someone download them, and therefore in principle, because of the very broad definitions employed by ACTA, anyone on Facebook or Twitter who points to a video clip that has not been authorised, and which has some advertising around it (thus making it “commercial”) could be subject to criminal charges and imprisonment.
These are just some of the examples of the way in which the inclusion of digital infringement alongside counterfeits has led to a situation where ordinary users of the Internet may find themselves threatened with criminal proceedings and imprisonment.
Other major issues include the fact that ACTA requires authorities to “order an online service provider to disclose expeditiously to a right holder information sufficient to identify a subscriber whose account was allegedly used for infringement.” That is, guilty upon accusation, and no right to privacy.
Since ACTA has been drawn up and agreed behind closed doors, there is now no way to amend these problematic passages. In order to protect European citizens from the disproportionate punishments that ACTA provides for, to preserve their privacy and the assumption of innocence before being proved guilty, the only solution is for the European Parliament to reject ACTA when it is presented for ratification, and for new treaties to be drawn up that deal with counterfeits and digital infringement separately.
Og mens den danske regering og andre har travlt med at stikke blår i øjnene på os alle sammen, er der forhandlinger i gang om TPP, en opfølger til ACTA, der ganske enkelt vil udstede retningslinjer for, hvordan en computer overhovedet må virke, hvis den skal kunne afspille musik. Der er virkelig og for alvor grund til at være på vagt og stoppe ACTA nu!
Cory Doctorow har en lang artikel på Boing Boing, hvor han forklarer hvorfor DRM aldrig vil virke, og hvorfor kampen for at gennemtvinge kopibeskyttelse og afbryde adgangen til The Pirate Bay og diverse andre “uønskede” hjemmesider kun kan lykkes, hvis man forbyder folk at have computere.
Doctorow sammenligner denne type lovgivning med den situation, der ville opstå, hvis man med henvisning til et stigende antal bankrøverier ville forbyde biler at have hjul. Det er et vigtigt argument. Artiklen er værd at læse i sin helhed, men nedenstående citat fanger en central politisk pointe:
The important tests of whether or not a regulation is fit for a purpose are first whether it will work, and second whether or not it will, in the course of doing its work, have effects on everything else. If I wanted Congress, Parliament, or the E.U. to regulate a wheel, it’s unlikely I’d succeed. If I turned up, pointed out that bank robbers always make their escape on wheeled vehicles, and asked, “Can’t we do something about this?”, the answer would be “No”. This is because we don’t know how to make a wheel that is still generally useful for legitimate wheel applications, but useless to bad guys. We can all see that the general benefits of wheels are so profound that we’d be foolish to risk changing them in a foolish errand to stop bank robberies. Even if there were an epidemic of bank robberies—even if society were on the verge of collapse thanks to bank robberies—no-one would think that wheels were the right place to start solving our problems.
However, if I were to show up in that same body to say that I had absolute proof that hands-free phones were making cars dangerous, and I requested a law prohibiting hands-free phones in cars, the regulator might say “Yeah, I’d take your point, we’d do that.”
We might disagree about whether or not this is a good idea, or whether or not my evidence made sense, but very few of us would say that once you take the hands-free phones out of the car, they stop being cars.
We understand that cars remain cars even if we remove features from them. Cars are special-purpose, at least in comparison to wheels, and all that the addition of a hands-free phone does is add one more feature to an already-specialized technology. There’s a heuristic for this: special-purpose technologies are complex, and you can remove features from them without doing fundamental, disfiguring violence to their underlying utility.
This rule of thumb serves regulators well, by and large, but it is rendered null and void by the general-purpose computer and the general-purpose network—the PC and the Internet. If you think of computer software as a feature, a computer with spreadsheets running on it has a spreadsheet feature, and one that’s running World of Warcraft has an MMORPG feature. The heuristic would lead you to think that a computer unable to run spreadsheets or games would be no more of an attack on computing than a ban on car-phones would be an attack on cars.
And, if you think of protocols and websites as features of the network, then saying “fix the Internet so that it doesn’t run BitTorrent”, or “fix the Internet so that thepiratebay.org no longer resolves,” sounds a lot like “change the sound of busy signals,” or “take that pizzeria on the corner off the phone network,” and not like an attack on the fundamental principles of internetworking.
The rule of thumb works for cars, for houses, and for every other substantial area of technological regulation. Not realizing that it fails for the Internet does not make you evil, and it does not make you an ignoramus. It just makes you part of that vast majority of the world, for whom ideas like Turing completeness and end-to-end are meaningless.
Det er ikke mig, der siger det, det er Bjørn Bredal i Politiken. Jeg ville ikke selv gå helt så vidt, se herunder. Men først Bredal:
Senest satte EU ’beskyttelses’-perioden for musikoptagelser op fra 50 år til 70 år. Et lodret vanvid, som følger op på det samme vanvid, som i 1990’erne førte til udvidelse af ’beskyttelses’-perioden for døde komponister, forfattere, malere etc.: Kunstnerne dør – og så skal de beskyttes!
Logikken er til at græde over, og det var slemt nok, så længe ’beskyttelsen’ var 50 år: Vi taler helt enkelt om en syg mekanisme, der flytter penge over fra den levende kunst og de levende kunstnere til deres arvinger og især til hele den industri, der administrerer rettigheder.
Lige for tiden er det især filmindustrien, der forlanger sig bedre ’beskyttet’. Folk downloader film fra nettet uden at betale, og det går selvfølgelig ud over filmindustriens indtægter. Og muligvis er der ræson i at bremse den trafik på en eller anden måde – i nogle få år efter at en ny film har haft premiere.
Det er frygtelig forkert, når fortalere for ’mere beskyttelse’ på et eller andet område straks sætter sig op på en høj moralsk hest og taler om ’tyveri’ og ’kriminalitet’ hos dem, der glad og gratis bruger løs af kunsten.
Billedsproget spærrer for udsigten til de praktiske problemer, der skal løses, og fører til det ødelæggende galimatias, som rettighedsindustrien er blevet. Det er forfærdeligt, at Det Kongelige Teater ikke kan opføre en opera af Richard Strauss uden at betale en formue til den for længst døde komponists oldebørns advokater; at lærere på skoler og universiteter ikke kan vise et billede af Picasso uden at begå en ulovlighed; ja: eller at en gymnasielærer ikke kan vise den lille dumme kommentar, du læser netop nu, til sine elever, uden at gymnasiet skal betale royalty for det.
Jeg vil så meget hellere have, at 100 gymnasieelever læser min kommentar, end at jeg får et par hundrede kroner udbetalt fra et firma, der for tiden vokser fuldstændig vildt i sin egen ødelæggende logik og hedder Copydan eller Tekst og Node, eller hvad det aktuelle navn nu er for den rettighedsindustri, der søger at hindre, fordyre og forkrøble udbredelse af tanker og ideer.
Bjørn Bredal og Politiken kunne selv gøre noget for at gøre det muligt for gymnasieelever at læse Bredals kommentar uden at betale for det – de kunne blot udgive bidrag fra Politikens egne skribenter under en Creative Commons-licens, der tillader ikke-kommerciel genanvendelse, hvilket også dækker uddannelsessystemet.
Generelt om ophavsret har den amerikanske juraprofessor Lawrence Lessig foreslået en “totrinsraket”: At ophavsretten gælder 21 år efter udgivelse og herefter mod et gebyr kan fornys i endnu 21 år. And that’s it.
Det ville formentlig løse de fleste af de problemer, Bredal her påpeger.
Fildeling og “piratkopiering” er nu anerkendt som religion i Sverige, med CTRL-C og CTRL-V som hellige symboler. Man må forstå, at juridiske indgreb mod The Pirate Bay fremover vil være at betragte som en krænkelse af religionsfriheden. Bag initiativet, der selvfølgelig skal betragtes som en slags spøg, ligger en elegant finte over for musik- og film-industriens “pirat”-bekæmpere:
In an interview in 2007 or 2008 (I believe, not sure about the date) the swedish lawyer for the MPAA, Monique Wasted, got a question about her views on the people advocating file sharing. Her answer was that “It’s just a few people, very loud. They’re a cult. They call themselves Kopimists.”
She called file sharers “a cult”. But she should know, because besides working for Hollywood she’s also been working as a swedish legal counsil for the church of Scientology. She has for instance helped them sue the swedish government over copyright infringement for putting their bible up as publicly viewable evidence in a court case.
It made me think that it might be benefits to look at what we do as a religious movement. One of the fun things working with The Pirate Bay has always been that we’ve started lots of fun crazy projects. Some work, some (most) fail. I started researching what kind of angle it would give us if we registered a religion.
When the Swedish state church was split from the government, a law about religions was passed to make it possible for anyone to get their religion accepted as long as they had some sort of organisation. The law states that the content of the religion itself is never tried, only that the organisation is there. The law is hence very wide and in order to not be abused for economical reasons, that part of the religion is a separate step, So you won’t get any money from the government (or tax benefits) without a lot of more bureaucracy. But that’s not interesting in this case.
The more interesting thing is that religions in general (I will not go into details here, it’s fun to find out for people in the end) are a bit more protected than political movements. In Sweden the law about freedom of religion is absolute – which means that no other law is higher. That means that laws that is designed to, for instance spy on you, might not be allowed if you commit yourself to your religious act.
In some religions (I don’t know about Kopimistsamfundet yet, maybe they can answer) there’s a Seal of Confession – which means that when you talk to a priest in the congregation, the priest have to keep what you say confidential. This is respected in some countries as law, where the courts can not make the priest testify against the individual. And some religions – at least the Mormons as far as I know – consider all members of the church to be a priest. This is probably the thing that I love the most with kopimism as a religion – we can have yet another form of P2P communication – Priest2priest. With no legal right for anyone to listen in to the conversation perhaps. This must be researched.
Since I’ve had a lot of things to do, projects to start, my church was never started. My working name for it was Church of Copying Kopimists (or short: C.O.C.K. just for the lulz). I told some friends about my idea and in the end they really liked it. This is one of the essential things with how the internet and kopimism works – if you don’t do it, someone else will. I didn’t have to do the work, since the idea that spread was good enough. After a year of iterations it actually worked.
Link: Kopimi as religion
I 1996-2001 udkom et tidsskrift ved navn FAKLEN. Det vakte en del opsigt med en skarp kritik af den autoriserede bibeloversættelse fra 1992 og en humanistisk vinkel på højredrejningen og den udbredte racisme i Danmark, som på længere sigt ville underminere menneske- og borgerrettighederne og true retsstaten. Samtlige 21 numre var redigeret af Rune Engelbreth Larsen med hjælp fra et stort antal frivillige medarbejdere. Jeg bidrog selv med nogle få artikler og stod for dele af tidsskriftets hjemmeside fra 1998 og frem.
Mange rystede dengang på hovedet af disse forudsigelser (som historisk interesserede især kan genfinde i tidsskriftets faste sektion Samfundsudsigten), men under VKO-regeringen 2001-2011 blev denne hovedrysten desværre kun gjort alt for grundigt til skamme. Dette gælder ikke mindst under den “rædselsperiode” under Løkke (2009-2011), hvor Dansk Folkeparti nærmest kunne få, hvad de pegede på i form af pointsystemer, udvisninger, lømmelpakke og helt uhørte retspolitiske stramninger, endda med S og SF-stemmer. Med regeringsskiftet i september 2011 synes udviklingen at være på vej i en anden retning. Den meget faretruende udvikling 2001-2011 understreger desværre, at Faklens analyse kun var alt for præcis, og bladet selv en kun alt for nødvendig humanistisk stemme dengang i 1990erne.
I perioden 2001-2011 har hjemmesiden Faklen.dk fungeret dels som arkiv over tidsskriftet, dels som et “webtidsskrift”, der jævnligt har bragt humanistiske indlæg fra den offentlige debat og vægtige originale indlæg.
Men 15 år er længe nok, og Faklen havde selvfølgelig sin egentlige betydning i de fem år, det udkom som tidsskrift. Faklen.dk vil derfor fra i dag ikke længere blive opdateret, men vil fungere som et rent arkiv over perioden 1996-2011. Hvis du har lyst, står det dig frit for at gå på opdagelse i artiklerne fra det trykte tidsskrift, et udvalg af hjemmesidens artikler fra 2002-2006 samt alle dem fra 2007-2011. Hvis du har udenlandske venner, er du velkommen til at anbefale dem den engelske sektion.
Arkivet vil blive liggende som tidsdokument over perioden 1996-2011, men der vil ikke blive tilføjet nye artikler, som sidens introtekst nu forklarer:
Faklen.dk er et online-arkiv, der bevarer perspektiver og analyser, som har bidraget til humanistiske vinkler på kultur og politik i en turbulent politisk periode i Danmark fra 1996-2011.
Og mere er der vel ikke at sige. God fornøjelse, hvis du kommer den vej forbi.