Pirate: the definition
p2pnet news view P2P:- The corporate movie and music industries labelled us pirates, we posted on Monday.
It was part of the intro to Crosbie Fitch’s Pirate’s Code, and so be it, we went on, “But we can wear the label as a badge of honour, and as an acknowledgement that we have our own honourable moral code to live by.”
Crosbie suggested a, “moral code for those engaged in the piracy of intellectual works, in accord with the philosophy of natural rights as expounded by such 18th century luminaries as Thomas Paine (Father of the American Revolution)” »»»
- Spread mankind`s good works of art and knowledge to the four corners of the world.
- Create and publish your own work, enjoy and share each other`s, use it, build upon it, thrive and prosper.
- Pay others to do good work as you would be paid to do yours.
- Restore everyone`s liberty accept no surrender, deny privilege.
- Guard our apprehension of the truth against those who would impair it.
- Respect each other`s privacy abet no burglary, remedy theft.
- Protect life, for all, as equals.
But what, exactly, is a pirate?
Here’s Crosbie once again »»»
Pirate n.
- a. One who robs at sea or plunders the land from the sea without commission from a sovereign nation.
b. A ship used for this purpose. - One who preys on others; a plunderer.
- One who makes use of or reproduces the work of another without authorization.
- One that operates an unlicensed, illegal television or radio station.
- (chiefly 21st century Internet) One who asserts and defends natural rights.
A pirate asserts and defends the natural right to liberty typically through file-sharing (qv 3. unauthorised reproduction) contrary to publishing corporations` amassed privilege of copyright.
A pirate asserts and defends the natural right to privacy typically through technical measures and by campaigning against its invasion by state or corporations (whether to detect copyright infringement or to profile individuals to better target advertising to them).
AHARRRRRRRR !!!!
April, 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It`s really easy! Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
April 29th, 2009 at 9:37 am
A “pirate” is also a type of sex act!
April 29th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Please enlighten me so i might indulge?
April 29th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Me too!
April 29th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Dont bother…. I just googled it….The Angry Pirate… Wont be indulging in that. Wife would kick me back…lol.
April 29th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
ROFL!!
I could just see that, er, coming!
She’d be swingin’ that lubber from the shaggin’ yardarm!
: )
April 29th, 2009 at 11:49 pm
Well, Ok guys………..
On a more serious note here, a well written bit defining
net pirates. Well done Crosby, I’ll use your definition!!
April 30th, 2009 at 1:00 am
Crosbie, Ezee, everybody else:
Good article, but…..
Do we REALLY need another rehash of the godawful “hackers vs. crackers” debate?
You see this shit infesting Linux-related boards: “We’re REAL hackers! We’re law-abiding! Not like those goddamn Script kiddies!”
Feh — as if being “law-abiding” was this wonderful thing in and of itself, irrespective of the nature of such “laws”.
Okay, so the Corporatocracy needs yet another slur-term (”Pirates!”), and some of us have done a brilliant job of “reclaiming” it.
My question is: what are we going to DO with that?
Let’s examine the definitions, and think about them — there’s really not that much difference.
“1. # a. One who robs at sea or plunders the land from the sea without commission from a sovereign nation.
b. A ship used for this purpose.”
Key word here is “without commission from a sovreign nation”. Interestingly enough (and keep this in mind) corporations derive the PRIVILEGES such as limitation of liability and legal “personhood” from governments (”Sovreign nations”.) This fact is important, but we seldom hear about it much.
“2. One who preys on others; a plunderer.”
Hmm, like ostensibly “private” mercenary outfits like Blackwater International, maybe? (Oh wait, they don’t fit definition 1, because they’re “commisioned by a Sovereign nation”
“3. One who makes use of or reproduces the work of another without authorization.”
Now, the interesting thing about definition 3, is that it implicitly accepts the “permission culture”.
The various exeptions to existing copyright law, and the “public domain” itself) take a very different view:
“Fair use” and “first sale” are both instances where the law recognizes that you don’t HAVE to resort to begging for such “authorization”.
In fact, the entire point of the public domain, is that past a specifically-delineated time, the State will no longer coercively act to FORCE such begging, or punish “unauthorized” uses.
Now notice definition 4:
“One that operates an unlicensed, illegal television or radio station.”
The collusion between State and commerce here is obvious. FCC “spectrum auctions” are another instance of the same thing.
Now we get to Crosbie’s new 21st-century definition:
“One who asserts and defends natural rights.
A pirate asserts and defends the natural right to liberty typically through file-sharing (qv 3. unauthorised reproduction) contrary to publishing corporationsâ amassed privilege of copyright.
A pirate asserts and defends the natural right to privacy typically through technical measures and by campaigning against its invasion by state or corporations (whether to detect copyright infringement or to profile individuals to better target advertising to them).”
So basically, what all of the definitions boil down to is this:
“Pirate (like ‘terrorist’), is an anti-word, intended to conjure up all sorts of negative associations and imagery, while concealing the essense of it’s own defintion.”
The essential attribute of all those types of “pirates”, is that their actions lack “the sanction of a soverign nation.”
The State has either granted, or with-held, a particular privilege: whether it is a coercive monopoly like copy”right”, a “license” to broadcast, raping/pillaging/killing civilians (strictly a military activity, but lately “outsourced” to corporate rent-a-thug “contractors”), or engaging in the heinous “crime” of file-transfer.
It all comes down to the State granting, or with-holding, privileges.
So it’s way past time for us to stop agonizing over whether or not we’re “law-abiding”.
Truth is, some “laws” desperately need to be broken, and broken EN MASSE.
And, some privileges need to be rescinded — such as corporate “personhood”, and probably the veil between corporate and personal assets.
When you really examine things, there IS no such thing as the “private” corporation — it’s an organization structure which requires the largess of government to be able to exist at all.
So let’s not go down the same road as the “hacking vs. cracking” thing, Okay?
Good article, Crosbie.
April 30th, 2009 at 9:45 am
Well, Henry, there are going to be good and bad pirates, just as there are white and black witches.
Many of the seafaring pirates were quite happy to set slaves free on any slave ships they encountered, and it’s likely many had a well developed set of ethics – as opposed to simple spite and greed.
There are even good and bad libertarians, i.e. the latter being libertines.
However, the point is that like ‘queer’ the epithet can be reappropriated by those against whom it is used, and subverted into a positive term, indicating that those who cast it as a pejorative are the ones whose honour should be doubted, and mercantile privilege questioned.
April 30th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
Crosbie:
“mercantile privilege questioned.”
Exactly the point I was trying to make: those in power love to trot out terms like “pirate”, “terrorist” or “subversive”, hoping that people will reflexively shy away from anybody tarred with such labels, rather than analyzing the situation reasonably.
What I don’t like — and yeah, I maybe reading too much into this — is how in among all the “reclaiming” going on with the term “pirate” there’s also stuff about “freetards”, and how supposedly certain p2p folk are in it for the “wrong” reasons (as if the RIAA gives a shit WHY anybody is daring to question runaway IP monopolies.)
Bottom line is: even while we’re working toward changing particular laws, there needs to be somebody out there saying, in effect: “hell yes, 30 million people are breaking the law, because it NEEDS to be broken.” I dunno if I see that happening, hence the guy who posted here several days ago, lamenting “Freetards” while also defending the p2p scene and denouncing the RIAA’s tactics.
We need to come to grips with the fact that — WHATEVER our motivation for supporting/using p2p technology/defending the public domain/resisting runaway IP laws/speaking truth to (corporate) power — from the point of view of those in power, we’re ALL essentially thesame, in that, at base, we DO want to preserve at least a small subset of culture which doesn’t require paying THEM.
You see this over on torrentfreak all the time — the bullshit between those defending “private trackers”, the elitism of those involved in teh “release Scene”, idiots like that “reasoned mind” person who — admitting to be the biggest “freetard” out there — is still mysteriously dissaproving of the whole deal, and still seems to believe that the corporate thugs really DO “deserve” their monopolies.
That needs to change. We need to get to the point where at least some of us are willing to come right out and say: either the “laws” are change, or we’ll continue to break them, EN MASSE, on principle.
That’s why I think “Grey Tuesday” was such a brilliant thing — people were willing to put themselves “out there” to thwart Sony’s attempts at “cease-and-desist” censorship.
Actually, this gives me an idea for an article submission: “the music-blog as a subversive act.”
Frankly, I’ve come to the point where I don’t think it’s POSSIBLE to be involved with the p2p scene “for the wrong reasons”, if that makes any sense.