Isn't Filesharing A Socialist Activity?

the file sharing community, by circumventing the publishers distribution rights, are collectivising data product ownership.
i think that it is probably socialist and revolutionary and at least anarchist in the true situationist lineage of anarchy
the community is also peopled by many from nations traditionaly hostile to challenges to property and socialist ideas generally
i wonder what they think
is filesharing political?
why do you do it?
how do you rationalise it?
is filesharing 'un-american'?

It capitalizes your funds. Spend less on records, more cash in pocket.

Its theft, it has nothing to do with politics, and I'm okay with it. :huh:

LOl...ok you could try to complicate this all you like, but I agree with Jibbler. Someone who steals a video from a video store is not a socialist. And in essence thats what we're doing. We're a bunch of guys and gals to cheap to buy this stufff. Pure and simple. :D

http://images.google.com/images?q=tb...ters_ids_.jpeg

The patron saint of Filesharing

I think file sharing will have\is having many social and political reprecusions.

It is important to note that the recording and movie/t.v. industries aren't really all that capitolist themselves. There are few companies that monopolise nearly all media. The value of it is what they set it at, there is no real competition going on. I know lots of very tallented musicians who aren't rich or famous. Sure most pop stars are great preformers, but lots of people could do what they do with millions in advertising, promotion, and personal trainers. They're not that special. They didn't really earn that money.

IMHO the advent of filesharing is akin to the invention of the printing press. Free (or near to free) access to all sorts of recorded media is what the masses are going to get out of the 'information age'. This is our right.

Just because it may not be viable in the future to make $10,000,000 by recording an album doesn't mean people will stop making music. It just means that music will be controled and defined by the people who love to make it, instead of some Hollywood suit who only cares about the bottom line.

Although your question is a nice one :lol: i think this debate better can be held in the lounge...

when you rip stuff off you usually try to sell it or at least keep it yourself
this sharing thing is something different, lots of people rip and share CDs they have bought
stealing is your rationalisation of what you are doing when you are 'sharing' ie. downloading [i'm guessing]
but the actual network of file sharers is more complex and less profitable than old fashioned property crime
people devote hardware and bandwidth to this stuff, buying land and then sharing it wouldn't be theft
i'm not trying to complicate this i'm just trying to look at it through an indirectly pragmatic lens
why is it? :huh:
the topic is directly about filesharing jetje
and what motivations might make people devote such energy and resource
i know it's good to give in order to get but people seem driven to give
look at the verifieds!


ed. clarification & type

Quote:

---

Originally posted by echidna@18 May 2003 - 17:42
the file sharing community, by circumventing the publishers distribution rights, are collectivising data product ownership.
i think that it is probably socialist and revolutionary and at least anarchist in the true situationist lineage of anarchy
the community is also peopled by many from nations traditionaly hostile to challenges to property and socialist ideas generally
i wonder what they think
is filesharing political?
why do you do it?
how do you rationalise it?
is filesharing 'un-american'?

---

I file share because I can't get enough music with my wages, even though I go out and buy music ,at least, 3 times a week!! Plus there's the advantage of getting rarities and unreleased tracks. I rationalise it by not giving a fuck about it!! I'm taking advantage of a decent, convenient product - as are all filesharers. I've always swapped music with my friends, now I can do it globally with anyone. If this happens to be against the law so be it!!

As for filesharing being political, I don't really think it is. Most of the users, and I'm generalising here, couldn't give a shit about the political motivations of filesharing. Sharing can't be anarchist because we are relying on multi-national companies to produce our computers, give us the communications technology to contact other computer owners, etc, etc. Socialism, although a nice idea, isn't gonna happen. Some "filesharers" are more equal than others!!! :lol: It doesn't work globally either, as evidenced by the fall of the Eastern Bloc countries in the late 1980's - early 1990's.

Also, echidna, why do 90% of your posts contain some sort of Anti-American sentiment or a few lines that could be interpreted as inflammatory?? Have you got a problem with the USA?? I don't think capitalism was created by the USA? It is as old as human civilization, check your history books for details!! I suppose you think America invented sharing as well. Sad. :P

Quote:

---

Originally posted by soopaman

Also, echidna, why do 90% of your posts contain some sort of Anti-American sentiment or a few lines that could be interpreted as inflammatory?? Have you got a problem with the USA?? I don't think capitalism was created by the USA? It is as old as human civilization, check your history books for details!! I suppose you think America invented sharing as well. Sad

---

if read all my posts you might understand that i have no gripe with north americans who live south of canada [excepting war-mongers & fools]
i didn't think it would be inflamitory to equate socialism with un-american [remember the fifties]
i'm just curious
and more so as to the overwelming adherance to P2P and aversion to politics
trade, communication and crime are all political and relevent to filesharing
and all national juristictions have been breeched so it's a bit interesting
why can't filesharing be examined politically?

and i've gotta protest the move of this topic from filesharing, it is SO about filesharing
it's at least as relevant as the gender balance of P2P or topics of legality/illegality :angry:

Well if you have so much problems with the moving, i place it back...
If it derails from the topic it will be moved to the lounge again ;)

I will not argue the point whether file sharing is political or not. However in answer to your opening question I cannot really see how you are defining it as Socialist.

Socialism works on the basic concept of "From each according to his means. To each according to his needs".

On the basis that file sharing is open to everyone then the means test (pardon the pun) is irrelevant. Indeed it could be argued that it is the people whose means are least (don't have a PC with internet access) have no access to the system. As such it is anything but Socialist.

I won't start on needs, that just opens a whole can of worms on the difference between needs and wants.

not sure wether i agree or dissagree with wether filesharing is a socialist activity or not but i was just wondering....

what exactly is wrong with socialism???

http://www.scottishsocialistparty.org/images/logo.gif

I think it's Darwinism in its purest form. We're all trying to perpetuate the genes of those who, even if not close kin to us, think the way we do. :lol: :lol: :lol:

It is socialist, because ultimately what we are engaged in is creating a collective, where all digital media is freely available to all. This is revolutionary because the multi nationals are no longer in control, and unless they can stop us they will wither away and die.
Just because I own a PC, I don't see that disqualifies me from being a socialist, or from using it for socialist means.
Of course those whose means are least do not have access to the collective. That is a criticism of global politics and not of filesharing. Socialism has always involved any tools at your disposal.

I think it is also certainly anti-american, in that filesharing is anti-capitalism. The irony is millions of Americans are subverting their own capitalist system.
I agree most filesharers never consider the politics of filesharing, but filesharing is always a political act.

There is an interesting book entitled "Folklore of Capitalism," written by Thurman Arnold, former US Attorney General and Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court. I recommend it to anyone serious about exploring economic labels. Maybe things are not what they're named to be... It's available from Amazon for only a few dollars.

Quote:

---

what exactly is wrong with socialism???

---

I dont think anyone here has discusses any hate for socialism. Just that typically i nthe United States Socialism is looked down upon. Even though with programs such as Social Security and Welfare we in reality have a Socio-Democracy. A democracy with some socialist ideals...i think its worked out nicely so far :D

I think a lot of you are confusing communism and socialism... :huh:

:ninja:

I hope you don't think that using all those large words and complicating something as simple as sharing files impressed us. By the way this..."i think that it is probably socialist and revolutionary and at least anarchist" how on Earth would it be considered anarchy? It is not run by the government.

I think it is anarchist because millions of people are telling the goverments around the world to fuck off and screw there laws and that in my opinion is very anarchist.

anarchisme = liberal socialisme, so basicly you agree.. B)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Allende1973@18 May 2003 - 22:26
It is socialist, because ultimately what we are engaged in is creating a collective, where all digital media is freely available to all. This is revolutionary because the multi nationals are no longer in control, and unless they can stop us they will wither away and die.
Just because I own a PC, I don't see that disqualifies me from being a socialist, or from using it for socialist means.
Of course those whose means are least do not have access to the collective. That is a criticism of global politics and not of filesharing. Socialism has always involved any tools at your disposal.

I think it is also certainly anti-american, in that filesharing is anti-capitalism. The irony is millions of Americans are subverting their own capitalist system.
I agree most filesharers never consider the politics of filesharing, but filesharing is always a political act.

---

Bunkum

1. Socialism is not the creation of a collective. It is the creation of a society where those who are capable of producing do so. They also ensure that everyone's needs are met. No "I'm all right jack" attitude.

2. The fact that other people do not own a PC is the issue here. As they are the most needy and do not have access to the files then the filesharing process, by definition, cannot be described as Soclialist.

This is not a criticism of either Socialism or Filesharing. Just a statement that they are not the same thing.

Socialist? Communist? I prefer pirate or cheap bastard who don't want to pay for music and movies. It's more pleasing to the ear. ;)

I think it's a stretch to equate filesharing with political motives in the first place, really. ;) Otherwise we can equate political motives to anything. "I only buy organically grown fruit so I'm helping out the Green Party." :lol:

:ninja:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Allende1973@18 May 2003 - 16:26
It is socialist, because ultimately what we are engaged in is creating a collective, where all digital media is freely available to all. This is revolutionary because the multi nationals are no longer in control, and unless they can stop us they will wither away and die.
Just because I own a PC, I don't see that disqualifies me from being a socialist, or from using it for socialist means.
Of course those whose means are least do not have access to the collective. That is a criticism of global politics and not of filesharing. Socialism has always involved any tools at your disposal.

I think it is also certainly anti-american, in that filesharing is anti-capitalism. The irony is millions of Americans are subverting their own capitalist system.
I agree most filesharers never consider the politics of filesharing, but filesharing is always a political act.

---

Where all industries are owned by the government and goods are given out by the government rather than sold is communism.
State-sponsorship of companies/industries and price supports are socialist government intervention.
Gray and black markets are laissez-faire capitalism. ("Prices" are set by what people are willing to pay/do to get what they want possibly in disregard of government controls.)
Guess which one file sharing falls under. :D

If it is 'anti-American' behavior then so too was the Boston Tea Party, which dumped a state-supported company's tea into the bay. The creation and enforcement of copyrights, trademarks, and patents are socialist government supports of a company or industry and often results in huge government-supported monopolies/oligarchies. Were we actually 'dumping tea', we'd be DESTROYING ORIGINAL CDs in stores (literally burning them :lol: ) instead of just copying them. What we're doing is closer to smuggling or at very worst theft-of-services (usually from the record company, because the artists seldom own rights to music they made.)

If we are reducing any value on the goods we are sharing (often imperfect copies of), it is the artificial/inflated prices we are reducing. (see also: music industry convicted of illegal price-fixing and cost the U.S. music consumer at least $400 million between 1995-2000.) We are NOT reducing the price to 0, because you can't 'play this game' without a large initial investment (a computer) plus additional monthly funds (an internet connection.) By the same logic, there is resale value still for TV shows both to tv stations and consumers, not in spite of VCRs but rather BECAUSE of them. It was once possible for a music company to have nearly 100% control of the market and 0% market share just by discontinuing sales of old music or NEVER releasing a band's album because 'it wouldn't sell'. Filesharing has made that level of control nearly impossible. Still I think media companies will evolve instead of dying, like they did with VCRs.

Anarchy is anti-government/NO-government, lawlessness, and/or disorder/chaos.
Filesharing does NOT seek to destroy governments -- it doesn't blow up buildings, it isn't terrorism, it almost can't be used to make money (to fund illegal activities -- with exception of Kazaa Gold :P), and it can't even 'reach' people who don't go reaching for it.

"I got a virus off Kazaa!"
"But you don't even USE Kazaa!"
"Yeah but I installed it on my computer 6 months ago and Norton says Kazaa.exe is infected -- so I must have gotten a virus off Kazaa!"
(These quotes are made-up but similar to what I've read online...) :rolleyes:

You enter in a word you're searching for... you only get back a list of what others share which match/contain that word. You try to download from that list... sometimes you succeed, sometimes you don't.

Calling filesharing pure anarchy like saying GOOGLE is subversive. (China says it is...) :ph34r:

Quote:

---

I only buy organically grown fruit

---

OMG! We dont take kindly to your tree hugging kind. Everybody...grab your torches..theres a green among us! DOWN WITH THE NADER SUPPORTER!

Oh and Switeck amen man. Relating filesharing to any form of political ism is ridiculous.

:lol: I don't buy organically grown fruit. It was just the example I came up with. It's too expensive. ;) And if I really want fresh apples I'll just grab them off the trees in my backyard. :D

Edit: And I think you're more green than I, friend. :P

:ninja:

Quote:

---

And I think you're more green than I, friend.

---

GROGGMAN NOT LIKE LITTLE MAGE...GROGGMAN SMASH!!!!! No but seriously, yeah I thought that exact same thing after I posted it...oh well. Oh and, about the organic, yeah I was just being facetious. Ok...Ill let the rest of ya debate this some more...nite B)

Edit: Forgot to mention, that although I dont agree that filesharing is socialism, this is a great thread. Keep them ideas coming.

I knew you were being facetious. ;)

But I'm not a mage.

Because there is no magic.

:ninja:

*Sigh*...fine...Ill make one last post tonight...ahem [clears throat]

:x (its the only green one...)
GROGGMAN NOT LIKE SHORT LITTLE GUY WHO LOOKS A WHOLE LOT LIKE VIVI FROM FF9 AND ALL THE OTHER BLACK MAGES FROM THE EARLY FF's FOR THAT MATTER *breaths*...GROGGMAN SMASH!!!!

It's only Vivi because there isn't a picture of Nakor anywhere. :D

:ninja:

Quote:

---

echidna wrote:

the file sharing community, by circumventing the publishers distribution rights, are collectivising data product ownership.

---

Bull. Read Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution. This is the first mention of rights for creators and innovators. It was meant to be a "limited time" right. And it was meant to a right "exclusive" to the creator/innovator. The Copyright Act of 1789/1790 was the last Constitutional copyright act. Subsequent copyright acts violated both the "limited time" and "exclusivity" mandates and are therefore unconstitutional. They just haven't been challenged as such ... yet.

And regarding "collectivising data product ownership," our Founding Fathers had a phrase for it -- the public domain. Organizations like Public Knowledge and the Electronic Frontier Foundation are fighting right now to both preserve the public domain rights (yes rights) we still have and restore those that have been taken away.

And file-sharers individually? They are performing acts of civil disobedience ... a time-honored tradition from Henry David Thoreau on down to Martin Luther King, Jr. (and beyond). And if you're wondering why the Founding Fathers demanded both "limited time" rights and "exclusivity," research England's 18th Century law called the "Statute of Anne" ... and why that law became necessary. You'll discover that this country's founders feared the creation of rights kingdoms (estates, companies or corporations, licenseers) like what we now see today in the RIAA, the top-5 media cartel, and "corporate cops" who seek the power to do dirty work without legal mandate to do so.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Switeck@19 May 2003 - 18:32

Anarchy is anti-government/NO-government, lawlessness, and/or disorder/chaos.
Filesharing does NOT seek to destroy governments -- it doesn't blow up buildings, it isn't terrorism, it almost can't be used to make money (to fund illegal activities -- with exception of Kazaa Gold :P), and it can't even 'reach' people who don't go reaching for it.

---

Your understanding of anarchy is wrong
it develped in the late 19th & early 20th centuries as a serious political philosophy
you historical knowledge is incomplete you should research the real anarchists and the situationist international

Quote:

---

Where all industries are owned by the government and goods are given out by the government rather than sold is communism.

---

I think we are talking about different things. 'True' communist ideals have little to do with the experience of the USSR or China, where one elite simply replaced another.
Anarchists are not proposing simply disorder, but rather a exsistence where controlling influences- government, church, armies, industry, etc- are no longer of relevence. This becomes possible with society organised into local communes with no central control. :D
Oh, and we don't need to physically burn CD's to destroy them. Every item I burn is one less I would have had to buy.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by echidna+19 May 2003 - 10:52--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (echidna @ 19 May 2003 - 10:52)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Quote:

---

Originally posted by -Switeck@19 May 2003 - 18:32

Anarchy is anti-government/NO-government, lawlessness, and/or disorder/chaos.
Filesharing does NOT seek to destroy governments -- it doesn&#39;t blow up buildings, it isn&#39;t terrorism, it almost can&#39;t be used to make money (to fund illegal activities -- with exception of Kazaa Gold :P), and it can&#39;t even &#39;reach&#39; people who don&#39;t go reaching for it.

---

Your understanding of anarchy is wrong
it develped in the late 19th & early 20th centuries as a serious political philosophy
you historical knowledge is incomplete you should research the real anarchists and the situationist international[/b]

---

Are you saying that anarchism is NOT anti-government/no government or the other part (lawlessness and/or disorder/chaos)?

If my understanding of anarchy is wrong, does that mean that filesharing is TRYING to destroy governments -- by blowing up buildings, funding terrorism, and influencing people through its subversive messages?
<!--QuoteBegin--Allende1973@19 May 2003 - 13:00

Quote:

---

Where all industries are owned by the government and goods are given out by the government rather than sold is communism.

---

I think we are talking about different things. &#39;True&#39; communist ideals have little to do with the experience of the USSR or China, where one elite simply replaced another.
Anarchists are not proposing simply disorder, but rather a exsistence where controlling influences- government, church, armies, industry, etc- are no longer of relevence. This becomes possible with society organised into local communes with no central control. :D
Oh, and we don&#39;t need to physically burn CD&#39;s to destroy them. Every item I burn is one less I would have had to buy.[/quote]Sorry, I meant "communism" as it has been practiced on large-scale...

"True" communism is an ideal the same way true capitalism, true socialism, and true anarachism is. Add REAL people to the equation, and none of those happen. :P

And every time you copy a CD instead of buying it, you are not only NOT destroying the original -- you are in fact ENLARGING the supply... the very opposite of destroying it&#33; Now, there&#39;s 1 extra CD that someone ELSE could (but probably won&#39;t...) buy. The perceived demand, as seen by music stores, is decreased because sales versis inventory drops -- so the price should drop if it were close to a capitalistic economy. Also the price should drop for OLDER albums due to reduced demand caused by loss-of-interest, market saturation, and perceived value.

Are you saying we&#39;re &#39;peaceful anarchists and communists&#39; like Gandi and Martin Luther King Jr?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Switeck@19 May 2003 - 22:25

Are you saying we&#39;re &#39;peaceful anarchists and communists&#39; like Gandi and Martin Luther King Jr?

---

Are you saying that Gandhi and King were "peaceful anarchists and communists ?

Quote:

---

And every time you copy a CD instead of buying it, you are not only NOT destroying the original -- you are in fact ENLARGING the supply... the very opposite of destroying it&#33; Now, there&#39;s 1 extra CD that someone ELSE could (but probably won&#39;t...) buy. The perceived demand, as seen by music stores, is decreased because sales versis inventory drops -- so the price should drop if it were close to a capitalistic economy. Also the price should drop for OLDER albums due to reduced demand caused by loss-of-interest, market saturation, and perceived value.

---

Sure, but by opting to share we are dropping out of the capitalistic economy. We are not trading, or seeking any kind of recompense. We are enlarging the supply of music/movies/whatever, but the amount of media that is actually purchased will drop and drop.
it&#39;s not a black economy because no one is making any money.

totally agree with what you said about people and Kazaa virus though :huh:

Who told the OP that the socialist ideal is wrong?
They were sadly mistaken, I&#39;m afraid.
I live in a heavily democratic capitalist country (Canada).. but socialism isn&#39;t wrong.. it&#39;s just misused.
Sadly, it was thought up by humans.. greedy, blood thirsty humans. :P

Anyway, P2P is socialist.. as it is for the people. Nobody gains, but you must be working-class to use it sort of deal.
K-Lite doesn&#39;t get no money from me, personally... but I get thousands of dollars worth of software, music and movies.

If you think it&#39;s a capitalist ideal, you have no idea what you&#39;re talking about.

The reason most Americans are anti-socialist is directly related to the mis labelling of a small political party during the 30&#39;s and 40&#39;s. A group of people calling themselves the "National Socialists" started a wee skirmish that eventually involved America. Actual socialism or communism for that matter can not work. The carrot and stick is the only thing that will work when dealing with humans. Any liberal or socialist agenda only feeds the unwilling. Creating a society of overweight, unbearable whiners that... whoops. I think I had better stop there. :o :o

Quote:

---

Originally posted by echidna@18 May 2003 - 16:42
the file sharing community, by circumventing the publishers distribution rights, are collectivising data product ownership.
...
is filesharing &#39;un-american&#39;?

---

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country...corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war."
...President Abraham Lincoln


... ol&#39; Abe was worried about the prospect of dictatorship by corporations.

It looks like it&#39;s un-american not to fileshare.

:D