However, streaming services are not the alternative to sharing.

The true power of P2P file-sharing is in the ability to remix. The media shared can, to an extent, be deconstructed and used to create new content. YouTube puts this capability on display: fan-made video clips that combine original footage with pre-recorded music, or original music that samples cultural snippets (sound-bites for example) with pre-existing footage. The ‘remix culture’ is growing rapidly as more and more people appropriate content outside the notions of copyright. Sharing and remixing is nullifying the perceived notion of content ownership. There is only content, and what you can do with it.

The shift we are seeing, and it is one that has been emerging over the past decade, is from the passive consumer to the active producer. Roland Barthes’ The Death of the Author claims that the author’s role in the meaning of content is being diminished, as meaning, significance and value is increasingly determined by the audience. The new era into which we are moving involves consumers taking the material that exists and making changes to produce new derivative works. Culture is created, duplicated, withdrawn, modified and put back. This process is endless, and it’s how our world changes.

Hollywood knows – and this is something I will cover in a later essay – that they cannot possibly recoup their ‘losses’ from ‘piracy’. There is simply too much content out there for everyone to purchase. With copyright being constantly extended, more and more content is expected to be bought. At $10 a DVD, how many people are going to buy one hundred DVDs per year? One thousand DVDs? The funds simply aren’t available for the majority to consume the vast amount of content in existence, but they consume what they can.

A new report by the Swiss government argues that unauthorized file sharing is not a significant problem, and that existing Swiss law—which allows for downloading copyrighted content for personal use—is sufficient to protect copyright holders. It considers and rejects three proposed changes: a French-style “three strikes” law, Internet filtering, and a mandatory collective licensing regime that would impose a fee on all Internet users that allowed unlimited file-sharing.

Drawing on statistics from the Netherlands, which is similar to Switzerland in terms of demographics, Internet infrastructure, and copyright law, the report estimates that a third of those over the age of 15 in Switzerland share copyrighted works without permission. That may be because, despite the best efforts of copyright holders and government officials, the majority of Swiss Internet users can’t distinguish between legitimate and illegal sources for copyrighted material.

Yet the report argues that the spread of file-sharing is no great cause for concern. It argues that consumers spend a roughly constant share of their disposable income on entertainment expenses. Money saved on buying CDs and DVDs are instead spent on “concerts, movies, and merchandising.”

– Timothy B. Lee, ARS Technica.

The MPAA and RIAA must acknowledge this. Surely they cannot be so ignorant as to rubbish these studies? Assuming that they do accept this, why do they still insist that every copy be strictly accounted for? The answer, I will venture, is “control”. They can control what you watch, how you watch it, and how you interact with it, by enforcing their copyright monopoly strictly.

Streaming is merely a continuation of this. You return to being a mere observer. There is no opportunity for you to remix the content. It is static. Fixed. Controlled. Don’t even think. Just watch it, hear it, shut up. You can’t make it better. You can’t mould it into a different shape.

The fact that the 4 major phonographic companies have taken a participation in Spotify…while allowing it to provide access to their catalog, should act as a warning. This behavior can be seen as an effort to retain, in this new channel, the same strong control over which works reach the attention of the public that they have in classical publishing. Furthermore, if streaming becomes the dominant form of access to works, individuals would be turned into passive receivers.

– Philippe Aigrain, Sharing: Culture and the Economy in the Internet Age, p. 46.

Streaming may improve access, but it is merely a compromise. Free access to culture, with revenue being generated through advertising, is not a substitute for ‘piracy’. The issue is not in how people access information, but in how that access allows them to interact with the content. Interaction is a two-way street. We must never forfeit our ability to interact with media, even if that means rejecting services that allow free or cheap access. Streaming is great for passive consumption, and it should work alongside peer-to-peer sharing, not replace it.

Free content is great – modifiable cultural building blocks are better.

We had a visitor at our church the other night. Perhaps this man has visited your church as well. When one of our ushers greeted him before the service and inquired as to this man’s line of work, he would only say that he “travelled a lot.” He sat through the entire service, THEN revealed that he had attended only to observe our church for possible violations of the copyright law.

– Jack Decker.

It comes as a surprise to many Christians that the most popular modern translations of the Bible are heavily copyrighted, notably the New International Version (NIV), the front matter of which states:

The Holy Bible, New International Version. Copyright © 1973, 1978 by International Bible Society. This copyrighted material may be quoted and/or reprinted for non-commercial purposes up to and inclusive of one hundred (100) verses without express written permission of the publisher, providing the following credit line appears with the material being quoted: Taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION © 1973, 1978 by the International Bible Society. Quotations and/or reprints for commercial purposes or in excess of one hundred (100) verses, or other permission requests must be directed to an approved in writing by the International Bible Society.

– Taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION © 1973, 1978 by the International Bible Society.

This seems contradictory to the espoused Christian ethic of “sharing is caring” and “go forth and spread the word,” unless the latter was intended to be read as “go forth and spread the word [after paying licensing fees].” If Christ had copyrighted the Sermon on the Mount he would have made a killing: the life plus seventy years is still effective for Jesus, as according to the Christian belief he is technically still living. This then applies to all quotes from God and the Messiah.

However, the doctrine of man has always defeated the doctrine of God. The Church* has been one of the main forces in promoting the ‘permission culture’ in which we live. They objected to the printing press, claiming it was the work of the Devil because it reduced their ability to hold a monopoly over both faith and information – monasteries were the main source for painstakingly hand-reproduced texts. In the modern world, where knowledge is so freely available, control is largely lost, except in financial terms, and so copyright is very much strictly enforced and promoted by Christian institutions and individuals:

Early in 2002 a well known international speaker hosted a conference at my home Church. Attendance at the conference came at a reasonable price that, judging by the attendance, would pay both the Church’s expenses and pay for the speaker. During a recess I was chatting with one of our Church members who had been instrumental in organising the event. I asked if the conference was being recorded…and was told that it was being recorded, but that the organisation that the speaker belonged to retained the copyright on the recording. That left me with a sour taste in my mouth.

– Philip Ward**.

But what does the Bible say of copyright infringement? A Google search for the term “Christianity file-sharing” showed two articles of interest that reflect the general Christian attitude:

…they call it file sharing. So kind, so generous…it would make your mother proud, right?…“File sharing,” in the way it is most commonly used today, is really “file stealing.” When you rip your latest CD purchase, put it up on Kazaa, and “share” it with the world, you’re giving people something that you don’t have the right to give them. You might argue that copying a digital file isn’t really stealing, since the original file hasn’t been moved at all, but you are denying the creator of that digital work the right they have to make a profit on that work…If you are a Christian and you are “sharing” files that you don’t own, hopefully you are experiencing some inner conflict. That inner conflict is most likely the Holy Spirit prompting you to come clean.

– Jonathan Smith.

The perceived scarcity of Christian music seems to convince people they have license to steal it…Isn’t it just like Christians to stab other Christians in the back? You can say all you want about the record companies making most of the money, leaving very little for the artists, but the fact remains that downloading music is every bit as illegal as stealing a CD from the shelves of Best Buy. If you wouldn’t walk out of the store with a CD you did not pay for, why would you download it? The answer is obvious – no one can see you! It seems like an invisible, victimless crime.

– Tim Challies.

Yet neither of these actually reference the Bible: there is no use of God’s word to justify these opinions. As God can see both past and future, it is foolish to say that he did not envisage intellectual property becoming an issue. The Bible also mentions intangibles:

…I say unto you, that every one that looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

– Matthew 5:27 (American Standard Version)

Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer.

– 1 John 3:15 (American Standard Version)

It is clearly evident that the Bible is no stranger to the intangible – to thoughts and ideas. We begin to understand that copyright and notions of intellectual property were not created by God: they are artificial constructs created by man and used by Christians and non-Christians alike to hold control over their subscribers. Being a copyright reformist is therefore not a sin.

Does the Bible argue against copyright? Is it pro-reform itself? Not quite, however it does provide some food for thought.

…in him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and unto him.

– Collosians 1:16 (American Standard Version)

Copyright is not necessarily God’s will, and the Christians among us need to remember Jesus’ approach to money – he threw the markets from the temple.

Copyright has no place in Christianity when it interferes with the capacity of spreading the word of God, or prevents people from raising their voice in praise and worship because they have not paid man for the privilege.

###

[*Used in a historical sense to refer to institutionalised Christianity in general.]

[** Copyright 2002 Philip Ward. Verbatim copying, translation and distribution of this entire article are permitted without royalty provided the copyright notice and this notice are preserved.]

The copyright lobby and its many faces and fronts are being given an audience with the Attorney General’s Department and platform on which to pressure ISPs into an industry code for ‘dealing’ with file sharers .–  Rodney Serkowski

Serkowski, the then president of Pirate Party Australia, requested minutes and documents relating to the meeting under the Freedom of Information Act 1982. After considerable delay for a request of this nature, the documents were finally released. Pirate Party Australia will be releasing a press release after they have finished analysing the documents, however we have noted the following:

This is what freedom of information looks like in the Twenty-First Century.

For many it’s a hard concept to grasp, and for others it’s something to be afraid of. The internet is a marketplace, it’s a cultural phenomenon, it’s a library, it’s a video depository. The power of the internet is almost limitless. It breaks down barriers of communication, opens new channels of communications, allows you to embark upon new and exciting projects with people from all over the world. It’s big. And it’s been big for a while. But the single characteristic that makes the internet stand out from most human endeavors is that it’s ours.

We make the rules.

The internet users make the rules for the net. To understand the gravity of the above statements, we must embark on a brief history lesson.

In the very late 1960s, the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) began work on a network of computers that would by the early 1980s have linked more than two hundred computer terminals across the United States and beyond. Its purpose was to share information. It was a paperless xerox machine designed to give people with the ability to connect the capacity to copy and share data. There was no central point. Users could connect directly and share information with whoever they wanted, without needing the permission of an administrator middle-man.

‘ARPANet’ was the precursor of the internet. Its purpose was to copy and share information.

The internet is a common law jurisdiction by default. Common law arose in England in the Middle Ages, and was based on customs, cultures and traditions. Judges would travel around the nation resolving disputes and use their resolutions to create precedent for following decisions. The internet is self-regulating. There are codes that must be followed, actual hardware and software protocols required to network, but also behavioral protocols, or ‘netiquette,’ that must be observed. Disputes are resolved within communities so that while there might be problems from time to time, the internet largely exists as a jurisdiction that needs little extra help. Rules get established through precedent, and therefore the internet is a common law jurisdiction.

This is not to say that the internet is perfect. In the “real world” there is murder and rape and all sorts of debased behavior. This is not the fault of the system but the fault of the humans involved in it. Much the same goes for the internet. Pedophiles, cannibals, kidnappers, people who access, manufacture or distribute “kiddie porn” and used car salesmen also exist online. None of this would happen without human input. However, the majority of internet users, as in civil society, are not the ones at fault, and in fact many individuals and even groups react strongly to such behavior (perhaps “hacktivist” collective Anonymous are an appropriate example of a group reacting against those members who bring shame to the largely well-mannered internet society).

One of the most astounding things about the internet is its liberating power. Lola Voronina makes the point that a nine year old girl in Paraguay is able to communicate with the same rights as any other internet user. Whose opinion is more valuable? Neither. Because they are both on an equal footing. There is no one around to make value judgements about what should and shouldn’t be published: everything can be published. Everything can be shared. One of the biggest problems that has been faced by literary and artistic works is the issue of distribution. Only the most popular works could be distributed, because the time and money was not available to finance the publication of books, music and films targeted towards niche markets.

The record industry, for example, had to make choices, and they can’t be blamed for it. They outlaid vast amounts of monetary resources to build recording studios, and the capacity to record absolutely everything just didn’t exist. There was limited amounts of time and money. Vinyl cost a lot to press. Distribution was expensive. It was more economic to record what could be a big hit than to record a less popular artist. Until now.

The cost of a digital audio workstation is currently so astonishingly cheap that it is not impossible for an artist to record and produce themselves in their own home. The concept of ‘value judgements’ has largely been removed, and what music gets distributed is no longer in the hands of the record companies. It has been returned to the hands of the artist. The recording industry enjoyed their period of control over music, and now the sun is setting for them.

A dilemma is then created. If it is affordable to produce and distribute record, there are few limits on what can be heard. In Australia, the German band Die Ärzte will not be found in any mainstream record stores. The internet alleviates this issue: we can import music direct from Germany with minimal cost. The internet has freed our culture, removed barriers of value judgements, of commodification, and of distance. Thus we can share our culture with whoever wants it.

Furthermore, art is not a one-way conversation. The musician calls, the audience responds. The audience calls, the musicians responds. Musicians are dependent on a culture to contribute to – they do not live in a vacuum. The dialogue that occurs is them plucking inspiration out of the culture, interpreting it, and putting it back. They are partaking in a discussion that has few, if any, rules.

The notion of intellectual property has changed this. Suddenly you can own a slice of culture. You have exclusive rights over a piece of art, inspiration from which came from a pre-existing culture. Does the artist pay royalties to God for the landscape he is painting? Copyright is an artificial construct, intended originally to reward the artist for their hard work in forming a creation from the raw materials provided. It has since evolved into a way of establishing a monopoly over culture to build one’s fortune, a fact proven by the continual and unnecessary extension of the copyright term to where it is not given back to the culture from whence it came until seventy years after the ‘owner’s’ death.

From the above, several conclusions may be drawn. Firstly that the rules of the internet are made by the users; secondly that the internet is a technology that facilitates copying and sharing en masse; thirdly that art is not produced away from culture, but is shaped from the existing cultures; and fourthly that the creators have not much more right over their work than those who contributed to the climate from which they could be hewn.

The fight against piracy is lost. Why? Because the internet is ours, and the culture is ours. We make the rules, and if you aren’t going to play by them we don’t want you. If you refuse to share, we don’t need you.

The BitTorrent network alone accounts for anywhere between 43% and 70% of the internet traffic in any given region. The internet users have chosen what they want. They want to utilise the internet to share. They want to use it as it was originally intended. Culture is not, and never will be, a commodity. Culture is the backbone of society. Music existed long before the record industry, and it will continue long after it. Hollywood might fall, but films will still be produced.

At the core of the human existence is love. Culture will flourish not from self-interest, but from genuine love, and a desire to share without restriction. We need to reclaim the internet and reclaim our culture.

It’s our.world.