In his recent essay, The Pirates of Scandinavia, Per Bylund discusses recent developments in Sweden, and closes with an excellent observation [all links in original]:
In a recent raid against a Stockholm-based company Swedish government goons were explicitly (illegally) directed by representatives of the Hollywood guild, acting on the guild’s and US government’s mandate (official comments), ensuring everything on the premises was confiscated. Surveillance cameras, before being covered or destroyed by the government hat people and representatives of the guild, caught the anti-pirate mob on tape making sure no equipment was left behind. ....
Piracy, in this case, is simple sharing of information, often movies, music, or images, over computer networks. Such file-sharing violates copyright laws and such actions are thus claimed to be "theft" (even though nothing has been forcefully taken from the creator). A cartel of governments and mega-corporations are working to ban technology and the free exchange of information in order to protect the state-granted privilege of "intellectual property."
In a not too distant future this cartel is very likely to put an end to piracy and through it increase its own powers. Rights have never been a core concept in Swedish legislation, and the encumbrance the few existing rights are to the government in exercising its important authority needs to be done away with. As always, the "threat" of new technology is used to boost government power, and ordinary people are the ones who end up paying the bill.
So one better choose side; either you’re with the government or you’re against it. Pirate or civilian alike.
The attempts to muzzle information exchanges aren’t happening just in Sweden, of course; whether under the guise of “copyright/patent protection” or DRM, my guess is that any country that is sufficiently technologically advanced is wrangling with these issues. But I’m not so much interested in what governments are doing ... I am wondering what side various pro-freedom individuals will choose.
I was not at all surprised to learn that F. Paul Wilson supports the copyright system—after all, he is not an anarchist. Anyone who’s some minarchist variant can work a defense of copyrights and patents into his or her view of minimal government; and while I may not like that view, I have to admit that it is, at least, a logically consistent structure.
So here’s what gets me: I know of a few proclaimed anarchists who also support copyright and/or patent protectionism. And I simply cannot wrap my head around that mix—how can one claim to be against government in toto while supporting one of its most far-reaching, freedom-stifling tools? I’ve observed one or two such individuals lament digital rights management ... do they not see that DRM, copyright, and patents are all cut from the same cloth?
I would very much like to see a defense of this position by a pro-“intellectual property” anarchist. As Bylund points out, “either you’re with the government or you’re against it”. But I won’t be holding my breath for one.
IP is Impossible
I respectfully submit that in an anarchist society that not only would IP be wrong, it would be impossible. IP requires government force to back it up.
ISP's wouldn't, for instance, give up subscriber records without a government-backed warrant. Unless the RIAA types want to hire a private army like Blackwater and show themselves to be thugs. Oh, wait they already have done that, just using the cops to do their dirty work. At least then they would have to pay for the thugs themselves. They couldn't use my tax money to do it.
Sentiment is growing against the RIAA and the MPAA now, even with the 'legitimacy' of the government backing them up. Without that, they would be simply seen as thugs, and people would fight back. Some kicks down somebody's door in an anarchist society, and they are likely to be shot.