In the first of his openDemocracy essays on peer-to-peer technology, Siva Vaidhyanathan presents a neutral view of information oligarchs and information anarchists; and in the second of his essays he seems to come down heavily on the side of the anarchists, arguing that peer-to-peer file sharing is a positive force for cultural dialogue and diversity.
I dont want to let the information oligarchs off the hook, and I certainly dont have the naïve faith in governments and regulators expressed by Bill Thompson in his response to Vaidhyanathans first essay. But it seems to me that Vaidhyanathan is insufficiently critical of the anarchists in the peer-to-peer debate, and paints rather a romantic picture of them.
Ideals and opportunities
Thompson leaps down Vaidhyanathans throat, somewhat pedantically, for the technologically inaccurate use of peer-to-peer as a metaphor for various social and technological developments. Thompsons criticism is, to a certain extent, legitimate any analysis of the relationship of peer-to-peer technology to society should take care to explain the technology clearly for the layperson, before constructing elaborate metaphors. Peer-to-peer is a mystified category, not very well understood outside of techie circles, and therefore requires clarification.
Having said that, I think that Thompson is too hasty in shooting down Vaidhyanathans ideas. When Vaidhyanathan argues that, peer-to-peer file-sharing systems ... attempt to recapture or at least simulate the structure and function of the original internet, I take him to mean that file-sharing is an attempt to recover the original ideal behind internet communication, not to replicate the technology exactly. And when Vaidhyanathan argues that, because most of what happens over peer-to-peer networks is relatively anonymous, servers and clients are not responsible for the ramifications of their communicative acts, I take him to mean that those who use peer-to-peer technology have greater opportunity to act irresponsibly even if they are not, technically speaking, completely anonymous.
While the desire to recover the early ideals of the internet on peer-to-peer networks is admirable; I feel that it has been betrayed by the actual behaviour on them irresponsibility. This irresponsibility is the principal reason why the peer-to-peer anarchists and their radical credentials deserve to be questioned.
Not without public debate
Take the issue of file-sharing. Freedom of speech, and fair use of creative works by the public, are laudable causes to fight for. But they need to be fought for as a matter of principled conviction, not as a matter of irresponsible behaviour. During the Napster controversy, it was assumed by many that mass civil disobedience was somehow equivalent to a proper political debate. When large numbers of people (arguably) flouted copyright law by downloading files from Napster, it was wrongly assumed that such activity in itself constituted a political case against present-day copyright law, and against the interpretation of copyright law by the content industry.
Im the last person to denigrate civil disobedience, which can be important to politics. And Im the last person to uphold excessive intellectual property laws. But unless civil disobedience is accompanied by informed and principled political debate, then it threatens to result merely in an escalation of cynicism on both sides of a dispute, encouraging the authorities to respond to threats in an increasingly draconian manner. Civil disobedience without proper debate also lets the authorities off the hook, by failing to engage with them intellectually.
The most unhelpful assumption, on the part of those who believe in internet freedom, has been that this freedom will be guaranteed by technical default, rather than as a result of principled conviction and argument. This assumption used to apply to the internet as a whole, but since it has transpired that the internet can be regulated for example, through self-regulatory regimes the assumption has now attached itself to peer-to-peer networks, which have become the new fictional holy grail of a space which cannot be regulated.
Governments, anarchy, or antichrist?
Vaidhyanathan succumbs to the fallacy that peer-to-peer networks cannot be regulated, when he argues that, peer-to-peer communication is unmediated, uncensorable, and virtually direct. Bill Thompson is quite right to correct him, explaining why it is, wrong to claim that P2P file sharing networks are unmediated and uncensorable. In truth, the Internet 3.0 that Vaidhyanathan predicts, where various freedoms on the internet are compromised, differs from todays internet mainly in degree, not in kind. All in all, Vaidhyanathans argument that, as a set of tools, anarchy can be an essential antidote to tyranny is far too generous. Anarchy is, by and large, completely inadequate as an antidote to tyranny.
This doesnt mean that Thompson is correct either, when he argues that the real choice we face is, whether the network ... is run by the corporations in their interests or by democratically accountable governments in the interests of us all. By and large, governments are incapable of doing anything proactive about freedom on the internet without undermining it. John Perry Barlows infamous Declaration of the independence of cyberspace of 1996 may be a somewhat utopian document, but its central message governments, leave the internet alone is one we could do with hearing more of today.
Thompsons characterisation of governments as our protectors from unscrupulous corporations is not helpful. The unfortunate corollary of the belief that Microsoft and AOL Time Warner are the antichrist, is the belief that the regulatory authorities are Christ incarnate. When commercial organisations are responsible for technology that shapes the way we communicate and interact online, then we are right to be suspicious and critical of these organisations. But the potential threat to freedom posed by actors in the marketplace, motivated by profit however important or successful they may be is of a different, and far inferior order of magnitude, than the potential threat to freedom posed by the state, motivated by politics.
What of Vaidhyanathans assertion, in his second essay, that information anarchy helps to preserve cultural dialogue, cultural diversity and cultural vitality? Is this not one instance where the peer-to-peer anarchists can be said to be on the side of the angels? Not necessarily. Peer-to-peer networks have certainly been a great boon to the cross-fertilisation of cultural products and cultural influences, especially in the face of todays excessive intellectual property regulation and unimaginative, risk-averse entertainment industry. But for peer-to-peer networks to take the credit for the benefits of cultural cross-fertilisation would be false.
Cultural expansion
In his excellent essay, Plunderphonia avant garde musician Chris Cutler looks at a peculiar side effect of the invention of recording technology, namely the availability of musical recordings as raw material for the organisation of new music. He traces the history of plunderphonics back to a Dada performance in 1920, and gives a comprehensive overview of key examples since. Plunderphonics led to the use of samples that was made popular by hip hop and electronica, and these trends have created a minefield of copyright issues for the music industry to contend with.
The volume and diversity of content available on peer-to-peer networks, and by extension the new opportunities for plunderphonics (such as the mashes described by Vaidhyanathan), constitute an interesting moment in the ongoing battle between the unfettered creative impulse and the myopia of the entertainment business. Vaidhyanathan has spoken elsewhere of how copyright disputes in the early 1990s diminished rap music, by militating against transgressive sampling, and it would appear that similarly transgressive plunderphonics stand to be diminished by the content industrys current war on file-sharing.
So Vaidhyanathans argument that, peer-to-peer music distribution...has been all about decorporatisation and deregulation, and that music distribution has lower barriers of entry than ever before, is fair enough. But in celebrating the diversity of the content available on peer-to-peer networks, Vaidhyanathan seems to champion diversity as an end in itself requiring special attention and praise. This is a view that leads rapidly to the relativistic claim that all creative works are of equal worth, and/or that everybodys taste is equally valid by mere virtue of it being personal to them.
It is a bad sign that Vaidhyanathan has to pull out that hoary old example, Matthew Arnolds 1867 text Culture and Anarchy, as a straw man against which to pit peer-to-peer anarchy. This actually does a disservice to Arnold, by misrepresenting his argument. Yes, Culture and Anarchy and its conservative descendants among them FR Leavis Mass Civilisation and Minority Culture (1930), TS Eliots Notes Towards the Definition of Culture (1948) and Roger Scrutons Intelligent Persons Guide to Modern Culture (1998) are reactionary texts, motivated by the elites fear at the prospect of mass barbarity.
But despite themselves, these texts also contain a progressive element, of wanting to uphold the best that has been thought and said in the world (as Arnold defined culture) for the benefit of humankind as a whole. In Culture and Anarchy, Arnold argues that the expansion of our humanity, to suit the idea of perfection which culture forms, must be a general expansion. Perfection, as culture conceives it, is not possible while the individual remains isolated. Thank goodness, then, for the internet.
Another quarter for the jukebox
The ideal of the celestial jukebox, to which file-sharing has given rise, is not antithetical to the more progressive aspects of Arnolds thought. But it will appear to be, if peer-to-peer networks are wrongly taken as a confirmation that anarchy is the ideal (dis)organising principle for culture. Inasmuch as the lower barriers of entry than ever before offered by peer-to-peer networks are a good thing for culture, it is not because they give rise to an infinitude of cultural products of equal merit. Rather, it is because they make great work easily available, and they enable people to appropriate great work in interesting new ways, without censure.
As for the international dimension of cultural diversity that Vaidhyanathan discusses, yes, the international character of the internet and of peer-to-peer networks has doubtless been a cultural boon. But this international character is also fairly banal, or at least it should be in an ideal world.
The true test of whether peer-to-peer networks have helped to internationalise culture will be when we stop talking about the fact that they have. Such an objective is not helped by the category of world music, which implies that you owe a debt of respect to whatever youre listening to because its ethnicity makes it worthy. Enough of such patronising etiquette.
Rather than celebrate a universe of difference, as the peer-to-peer anarchists seem keen to do, we would be better off celebrating what it is we have in common. Rather than going out of our way to listen to world music, we should be taking advantage of the celestial jukebox to listen to, and make, great music.
