Evolution happens because of errors in copying DNA, so in a sense, evolution requires copying.

But I’m not even sure Sunde meant it on that level, he likely just means that “if you don’t allow copying, you won’t evolve.”

“He asserts that piracy has everything to do with “democracy” and “freedom of speech,” which he equates with the freedom to share and the free exchange of cultural ideas – though he doesn’t elaborate further on why or how he believes these concepts are related. As the NYT points out, “some of [Sunde's] attempts to contextualize piracy didn’t really make any sense. (Copying is evolution? Don’t tell that to Darwin, or any biologist, for that matter.)’”

Well, one way they are certainly related is in how we learn. Most of the people I knew in High School that went on to college for some sort of artistic major started by copying, pasting, and remaking copyrighted materials. They trace or attempt to mimic copyrighted pictures, they create mash-ups of clips from their favorite movies or TV shows, and in each of these cases they are pirating something in order to create and express themselves in a new way.

In fact, I think the bit about “copying is evolution” is fairly straightforward when you’re not trapped in the unimportant details, and emblematic of the difficulties of explaining cultural creation and why the ability to borrow and expand on older cultural creations is important. Evolution occurs not just with new genetic material, but also by copying and reusing old material that may or may not have worked for previous life-forms, and this is the same with creative work: it combines old work in new ways, adding something else to it in the process and creating something new. Rip, Mix, and Burn, as it were.

I did really appreciate that quote from the NYT article, though. That is indeed a great summary of TPB.

-Dave

It’s worth noting, though, the the proceeds of the propsed sale were supposed to all be going to a political organization like The Pirate Party in order to fight out battles caused by people like TPB in the public and legislative realms.

Re: TPB, I agree that they seem to lack any solid ideological framework. After listening to the interview with Sunde and reading about his confrontational strategy in the NYT piece ( http://www.nytimes.com/external/gigaom/2009/09/12/12gigaom-the-pirate-bay-buyer-delisted-founder-talks-strat-83679.html ), Sunde comes off as somewhat smug. He asserts that piracy has everything to do with “democracy” and “freedom of speech,” which he equates with the freedom to share and the free exchange of cultural ideas – though he doesn’t elaborate further on why or how he believes these concepts are related. As the NYT points out, “some of [Sunde's] attempts to contextualize piracy didn’t really make any sense. (Copying is evolution? Don’t tell that to Darwin, or any biologist, for that matter.)”

Fred mentioned that TPB folks, lacking any real plan for reform, “just want to provoke people and let other initiatives pick up the pieces.” While this so-called strategy may sound childish and selfish, in many ways it establishes the grounds for debate (from which actual reform can eventually emerge). After all, we’re discussing the prominence of TPB case in this blog right now. By acting radically with neither a finance nor reform plan, TPB is also raising awareness of piracy and copyright law. I think the NYT best summarized Sunde’s point:

“‘If you go to the extreme, people have to go your way,’ Sunde told the audience at iWeek, adding that ‘it doesn’t really matter’ whether you actually believe in these radical positions or not. Play the bad guy successfully enough, he said, and you open up all kinds of doors for startups (like Spotify) to establish themselves as the good guys and operate services that the industry would have never agreed to in the first place.”

Thanks for the post, Dylan!

Thanks for posting this! Your point about the older generation making decisions for the more technologically-savvy younger generation is really interesting. There is certainly a difference between the older generations’ understanding of topics like these and our own.

Unfortunately, I think it’s just a cycle that will continue for awhile. The truth is that younger people will probably always be coming up with more advanced technology, and the older people will always be in charge.

I know we now view people like Sumner Redstone (see Greg’s post) as the unintelligible, overbearing grandpas, but I’m curious to see how we’ll react to future younguns’ when we’re Sumner’s age. Just a thought!

-Elena

Facts aside, I think the biggest problem TPB is that they lack a ideological framework outside nihilism and crypto-punk. On top of that, they don’t really seem to have a good agenda for reform.

The Pirate Party, however, seems to be interested in promoting non-commercial sharing and the dissolution of copyright for software. Which has some interesting implications for Linux (more on that later).

But the Pirate Bay folks seem to just want to provoke people and let other initiatives pick up the pieces.

This interview with Sunde of TPB at the Open Video Conference is really worth watching:

http://openvideoalliance.org/2009/06/ovc-interview-with-pirate-bays-peter-sunde-on-boing-boing/

Good comments!

That’s not really true concerning TPB. Their arguments are not economic at all, but what they argue is not exactly creative freedoms, or at least not directly. If you look at the other creations of The Pirate Bay such as Baywords and IPREDator, you’ll notice are aimed at protecting the power of the user through total annonymity and freedom of distribution of information. There is certainly an economic element to be had in their arguments but TPB has no driving principle about simply getting free content.

Fully 70% of all content downloaded through TPB’s torrent tracker is completely legal. And even for the remaining 30%, one can not be certain that a person who obtains an illegal copy will not purchase a legal one as well. TPB is not opposed to compensating authors, indeed with the proposed sale came vague rumblings of compensating rights-owners.

And the real devil here is right in what you said about “enabling distribution of creative works without permission and with the ‘intent’ to personally enjoy the work seems to cross the line.” Many different things on the internet “enable distribution of creative works without permission.” Search engines are one such tool, as are CD burning software, Torrenting and P2P programs and services, and even IM chat clients. However, not all people pirate the work for “personal enjoyment” either. Some pirate to sell it illegally, some to review it to see if it’s worth buying, some to re-distribute the work to a new and unserved audience as with Anime fan-subbing in multiple languages.

Overally, though, I’d like you to remember that TPB is just a new method of distribution of content as was radio, and television, and VCRs, and CDs, etc. Just because content is available online doesn’t mean people pay for it elsewhere as well (I pay for FiOS TV). Eventually people may come to prefer many of the advantages that digital distribution has brought, but by that point many common systems of compensation will have grown and evolved.

-Dave

But do you really sympathize with TPB? I fully understand that there are a number of problems with copyright law: noncommercial (and maybe commercial) remixing and parody should be allowed and the current copyright term is too long.

However, we need to draw the line somewhere. Blatantly copying, distributing, or enabling distribution of creative works without permission and with the *intent* to personally enjoy the work seems to cross the line.

TPB clearly wants to pirate creative works to avoid paying for it. They aren’t arguing for creative freedoms. Their arguments are solely economic: they don’t want to pay for creative works.

To the extent that laws reflect society’s norms, it seems difficult for our legal system to adjust quick enough to keep up with the pace. And technology’s speed merely exacerbates that.

Thanks for the post, Dylan!