>I know that most of the argument on this forum usually deals with stuff that happened in the last century, but I also know you are interested in thinking
>about what's going to happen in the next. The push to make these
>intellectual property rights stick seems to be the latest form of enclosure
>and, hence, a key front to fight the ideological battle. On the other hand,
>all of the press releases and propaganda around this issue claims to be
>acting for the workers in hollywood so I wondered how much solidarity you
>thought we should have around this issue. And, if nothing else, it is
>probably the first time the feds have been concerned enough about workers
>rights to take any action whatsoever in...well probably decades, if ever.
>So maybe that's heartwarming for some.
>
>
The crackdown on music and movie priacy is interesting as an example of how capitalism deals with a good suddenly becoming abundant rather than scarce, becoming decommodified. Economic textbooks generally say the subject is about how scarce goods are allocated efficiently, a la Lionel Robbins: "Economics is a science which studies human behavior as a relationship between ends and scarce means which have alternative uses." Once upon a time there was a cultural trope that eventually technology/capital accumulation would bring abundance and we'd be able to work less. Keynes talked about the "economic possibilities for our grandchildren" when the "economic problem may be solved".
But when the technological door opens to abundance in this small way, it's seen as threatening to industry (which it is) and the companies selling the product of course try eveything they can to suppress the technology and call in the state as enforcer.
So I think solidarity should go with the pirates rather than the 'workers in Hollywood' or the music or software industry. At present pirates are not exactly oppressed, having at least a computer and possibly a broadband connection, and music and movies are not exactly daily bread. But one branch of capital has suddenly opened up the possibility of socialising another branch, and for once it looks like history is moving our way, so why not embrace it?
It does cost to produce these things, especially movies. And an awful lot of artists' sweat. The other side of supporting piracy is working for alternative ways of providing for these costs since the market will increasingly not be able to. There are plenty of precedents - universities have kept open a non-market (well, relatively) way to produce and transmit knowledge for generations. Dean Baker has made one suggestion: http://www.cepr.net/publications/AFV.htm
Of course at present the market doesn't provide anything much for the vast majority of artists anyway - they have no realistic hope of making a living from their art and do it for the love of it. Lots of musicians see file sharing as an opportunity rather than a threat.
This is an issue that's increasingly going to affect writers too, so I'd be interested to know what the authors on the list think.
Mike Beggs