Home Page
05.31.2007 (previous | next)
Pirates of the Charles River

A planning notice on last weekend's Harvard Free Culture Conference noted:

On Friday May 25th, Disney launches “Pirates of the Caribbean, at World’s End”, a movie about a diverse community coming together to fight the far-reaching and oppressive East India Trading Company to preserve their freedom-loving lifestyle (sound kind of familiar?). Free Software Foundation and Free Culture activists will be heading to the Boston Common theater . . . to help educate the movie-going public . . . .

The propaganda ju jitsu here is brilliant. Hollywood’s glorification of pirates does indeed undercut its efforts to brand illicit P2P file sharers “pirates.” Nor did the glorification start with Johnny Depp and PoC, either -- order up the 1942 classic Black Swan and prepare to be appalled at its depiction of rape, rapine, and murder as jolly good sport.

So the FCM logic seems to be that since Maureen O'Hara learned to love being kidnapped by Tyrone Power, Hollywood too should lean back and enjoy the P2P world.

Fortunately, that Black Swan style of thinking is rather out of favor these days, and it should go out of style with respect to creative content, too.


As National Review Onlinecolumnist observed,
"Perhaps we need a refresher course in what pirates are."

Just as a carjacker steals your car, pirates steal your ship. A pirate ship would come alongside their victim, invade it, then kill and rape and throw overboard at random, keeping cargo and valuables for themselves. They had those skull-and-crossbones emblems for a reason. At one time, travel on the seas meant taking your life in your hands, and if that danger is rarer now, it’s because brave men still fight pirates. A small square white-on-black bumpersticker reading “Pirates are Mean” might be educational.

So the inference that the British government killed civilians in order to save merchandise from pirates is outrageous; governments killed pirates in order to save civilians, and it’s a good thing.

posted by James DeLong @ 8:30 AM | Free Culture Movement

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | Post a Comment(3)


Comments

This description of pirates shows just how inappropriate it is to brand peer-to-peer file sharing as "piracy" (leaving aside how much of it is in fact "copyright infringement"). Yes, the term "piracy" for copyright infringement is about as old as the Statute of Anne, but only recently has it been applied to individuals engaged in small-time, noncommercial pursuits. Pirates - the robbing and murdering kind, today more often called hijackers or terrorists - are still a big problem, especially in the far east. Disney has helped to show us why we should stop applying that term to media customers.

Posted by: John Gordon at June 1, 2007 9:38 AM

Noel, you might want to comment on Richard Stallman's essay accompanying the fourth discussion draft of GPL3 released on 5/31. Here's the relevant part:

"Some argue that competition between appliances in a free market should suffice to keep [DRM] to a low level. Perhaps competition alone would avoid arbitrary, pointless misfeatures like “Must shut down between 1pm and 5pm every Tuesday”, but even so, a choice of masters isn't freedom. Freedom means you control what your software does, not merely that you can beg or threaten someone else who decides for you."

I would be interested to hear your thoughts on this. Would you say that for customers, voting with their dollars is the most important freedom and therefore, competition WILL encourage firms to build DRM that's palatable to consumers? Or would you say that consumers' desires as to the features and restrictions built into the products they buy are secondary to the maintenance of a robust market (through DRM)?

Posted by: John Gordon at June 1, 2007 3:52 PM

John, I'll reply to you rather than Stallman's passage.

1) the ability to "vote" with purchasing power is an essential freedom of consumers.

2) the market, and competition, will shape the DRM market.

3) no, consumers' interests will not be subverted by interests in maintaining DRM. Unlike the FOSS movement, where you hear ridiculous things like "is it good for FOSS," DRM is not a good in itself. DRM is valuable to the extent that it balances the interests of producers and consumers.

Posted by: Noel at June 2, 2007 4:39 AM








 
IPcentral WebLog

Blog Main

IPcentral Blogosphere Archives

Search the Blog

Recent Posts
  - IP and Marginal Cost
- Academics and Copyright
- More on Jammie Thomas from DOJ
- More Studies of Downloading
- Facebook, MySpace, and Network Externalities
- Copyright and the University: An Academic Symposium
- Tyler Cowan on Chinese Movie Piracy
- More WHO Antics--Roger Bate Reports
- Patents, Meds, and the Developing World: Clips & Links
- Jermaine Dupri's Gripe with iTunes
Archives by Month
  - December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
  - (see all)
Archives by Subject
  - Academia
- Access: Commons, Fair Use, Orphan Works, Public Domain
- Accounting
- Analog Holes
- Antitrust
- Art
- Aspen
- Big Tent
- Biotech
- Books
- Comments from Readers
- Counterfeit
- Digital Americas
- Digital Europe
- Digital Europe 2006
- DMCA
- DRM & Watermarks, etc.
- Economics, Game Theory & Public Choice
- Enforcement & Remedies
- Free Culture Movement
- Games
- General
- Infrastructure
- International
- Internet: P2P, Search Engines...
- Legislation and Legislators
- Liberty and IP
- Markets: Business, Investment & Innovation
- Media: Video, Music...
- Patents
- Pharma
- Physical Property
- Prices, Terms, and Licensing
- Privacy and Security
- Radio
- Software
- Spectrum & Wireless
- Standards
- Supreme Court
- Tax-Funded IP
- Telecom
- Theft of Service
- Universities
Links
 

Site Feed

  - Atom
- RSS 1.0
- RSS 2.0
We welcome comments by email - look for a link to the author's email address in the byline of each post. Please let us know if we may publish your remarks.


 
Home Page