[p2p-research] Fwd: [fcforum] Fw: iPad DRM is a dangerous step backward. Sign the petition!

[Andy Robinson]

You're probably right, I'm probably never going to convince you.

But I do wish you'd stop pulling out all these silencing invalidatory
tricks.  Matters vs doesn't matter, works vs doesn't work, most people vs
small minority etc.

All subjective judgements on your part, but portrayed on the scale of grand
knowledges.

*"It hasn't worked in the many dozens of times it has been tried,"*

99% of human societies.  All societies start out stateless.  Only a tiny
minority of them develop states.  These ones have the habit of colonising
and subjugating everyone else.

*"It isn't any way people want to live (99.999% of us)"*

*sighs*...  you've interviewed how many?...  I think we'd exceed 0.001% just
with indigenous peoples who have resisted state control (the West Papuans
for example number in the millions).

As for the rest of the world...  I'm not sure as anyone really knows what
the vast swathes of the global poor really want - often including the global
poor themselves - but when they start articulating their own autonomous
politics, it often takes anarchistic (if not strictly anarchist) forms.
Most people don't like to be enslaved, and for there to be dominant people
there need to be dominated.  People who are dominated - who usually
outnumber the dominators - *tend not to like it very much*.  They have a
habit, very annoying to their 'betters' no doubt, of *fighting back*.  Of
course, if enough of them can be persuaded or tricked into thinking they can
be one of the dominators instead of one of the dominated - and if reality
seems to offer no options except to be one or the other - they might never
get around to asking which system they'd prefer.

I would also add that of this 99+% who supposedly prefer lawful state
societies, about 98% break the law in one way or another.  Which makes me
wonder whether they *really* prefer this kind of society, or just *fantasise
* that they do.

*"I like living in a world of laws,"*

Probably because you're not the one getting locked up.  You wouldn't like
living under someone else's laws.  It's only because you're lucky enough to
be in the in-group that you like it.  The underside of a truncheon does not
look so nice as the top side.

You are also quite probably benefiting from cheaper prices due to enslaved
(mainly black and Hispanic) prison labour, not to mention the others forced
into sweatshop labour through state expropriations and fear, though I doubt
you know it well enough for it to affect your preference for 'laws'.

*"I am more that willing to subscribe to US views of rights or those of the
Human Rights Convention."*

Strange, I don't remember things like intellectual property being in the US
Constitution or the UN Declaration on Human Rights.  The latter is
deliberately very quiet on issues of property relations and distribution.
The former...  well, suffice to say that if read literally it would require
dismantling most of the current US state apparatus.  The approach of these
kinds of rights documents is usually very similar to that which I set out
initially - there are a small number of basic rights which are either
absolute, or have priority as a group (they can only conceivably be trumped
by other rights within the group); these rights are *meant* to be an *outer
frame* within which a range of policies, specific social orders etc can then
be pursued.

But in practice, states will very often *violate the outer frame* either by
ignoring it, 'balancing' it against secondary concerns, reading secondary
concerns into it, or rendering the rights impotent by technical
interpretation.  This was how I initially discussed this issue at hand...
the DRM framework in this case, is a violation of the right to privacy (core
right), makes using a particular technology conditional on effectively
carrying around the state in your pocket - reversing the burden of proof
(Fifth Amendment violation - you are required to report on yourself through
the item signing in automatically), and creates the *technical
potential*for very serious violations of core rights such as
widespread political
censorship or restrictions on freedom of expression (such as the risk that
the government could order the removal of all copies of "Cop Killer" and the
addition of those who purchased it to no-fly lists; or the Chinese
government locking up and torturing everyone who has a Free Tibet song on
their playlist).

You responded that it is justified because of its positive aggregative
teleological effects (saving the music industry) and enforcement of
second-order non-core 'rights'/privileges/legal entitlements within a
particular system (suppression of piracy).  (This can be avoided - for now -
by not purchasing the product which implements this technology, but in cases
like mobile phones, market hegemony of dangerous technical practices was
followed rapidly by legislation to require them.  I would add that one is
only likely to refrain from buying something for these kinds of reasons if
one believes strongly that such technical measures are wrong).  But the
whole rights framework requires that core rights cannot be trumped by
aggregative teleological effects, non-core rights, or other kinds of
entitlements.  The core rights trump the other rights.  So you're willing to
endorse and draw symbolic capital from these kinds of rights discourses, but
not to uphold them when they're inconvenient for the pursuit of other
ethical positions you hold.  You aren't really prepared to operate them as a
limit on how and whether states and corporations can exercise power in cases
where you think their purpose is justified.  You aren't prepared to bear
their costs, and this means you don't really endorse them at all.



On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 8:29 PM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Andy,
>
> I think what you are espousing is a pretty vanilla form of anarchy.  I'm
> not going to convince you to change that obviously.  Maybe you'll convince
> someone else here of find those on a similar path.  But it isn't a path that
> most people are going to accept or find compelling.  For me, P2P is about
> meaningful impact and being compelling.  Others have other agendas.
>
> I like living in a world of laws, modes of change and liberties.  I also
> like living in a world of human rights.  I am more that willing to subscribe
> to US views of rights or those of the Human Rights Convention.  Both suit me
> just fine.  Do they go far enough?  No.  But that's the level where society
> is comfortable.  I cannot determine what I think laws ought to be and then
> just act as if that is the case.  Anarchists believe such approaches are
> desirable.  I don't.  It hasn't worked in the many dozens of times it has
> been tried, and it won't work anytime soon.  So, it really is a theoretical
> discussion.  The older I get, the less interested in those I am.  I like
> things that matter.
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20100203/72761f83/attachment.html>