Slashdot Mirror
The Anarchist in the Library
Basically, the book puts the information battles relating to culture and copyright into a broader context, ranging from Parisian enlightenment cafes through the latest copyright battles to the Zapatistas and Falun Gong. Unlike many recent books that deal with these issues, Siva doesn't approach them from a legal perspective so much as from a political/cultural/media theory basis. But don't let that scare you, the book is as readable as it is wide-ranging.
At its most basic level, The Anarchist in the Library is about control of information, both cultural and political. As Siva says in the last chapter, "This book was supposed to be about entertainment - the battle over control of digital music, text, and video ... But as I researched this new project, the world shifted beneath my feet ... My concerns moved to the regulation and control of all sorts of information, much of it cultural, much of it political." Thus, throughout the book, Siva contrasts two very different regimes of information control: oligarchy and anarchy.
Oligarchy we are all familiar with. It is the traditional, centralized control of information by the few. It is the system that, for the most part, we all grew up with and continues to be the default today. On the other hand, we've all heard of anarchy, but most of us aren't familiar with its deeper meanings and history. Siva helps us to understand anarchy as a serious positive political philosophy, something more than merely a reaction to oligarchy. To his credit, however, Siva fully endorses neither position. His is a course of moderation, avoiding the excesses and pitfalls of both sides.
The other theme that runs throughout the book is that of cynicism. Here Siva contrasts the civically engaged cynicism of the Greek philosopher Diogenes of Sinope, with the narcissistic cynicism of Seinfeld's George Costanza. Why cynicism? In Siva's words, "What could be a more ideal environment for a cynic than cyberspace...?" The question, however, is whether and how we can promote the responsible and humane cynicism of Diogenes vs. the shallow, rude and selfish cynicism of Costanza. Of course, it sort of depends on how you define rude. To make a point, Diogenes once masturbated in the market square. Says Siva, with tongue in cheek but also a valid point, "And nothing represents the overall nature and substance of the Internet better than masturbating in the marketplace."
Diogenes' zealous humanity is also an especially important consideration of Siva's. Whenever possible, Siva emphasizes consideration of the humane over cold theory. It is this concern with the humane, I think, that draws Siva from engaging with Metallica's issues with P2P to questions of terrorism and networks.
Framed by these themes, Siva proceeds to dig through the many information control issues that have come to the fore these past few years or so. He starts with Peer-to-Peer, of course, and moves through many of the issues constantly showing up in "Your Rights Online" such as MP3s, DeCSS, the broadcast flag, the Phantom Edit and many, many others. The path is not random, however; Siva is demonstrating the reactions between oligarchic control and anarchic response in the creation of culture, and that culture requires, even demands, some anarchy in order to thrive.
From this point, Siva begins to leave the world of digital rights and begins to explore other means of controlling information and culture, such as the subtle, sometimes nearly invisible assumptions made by many international institutions through trade policy and market regulations. The book also discusses how information and cultural controls (such as the PATRIOT Act) grow out of security concerns and fear.
At this point in the book, some readers who might have been nodding along in agreement so far may begin to disagree with some of the points Siva makes, as he takes on the WTO riots, "Techno-Libertarianism," and the war in Iraq. But the book is no thoughtless, radical polemic; it seeks a moderate, well-articulated and researched middle ground.
In the end, Siva's moderation is demonstrated as he concludes that there are seldom easy answers in a world where control of information and culture is sometimes necessary. Without giving specific answers, Siva argues for approaching problems from a particular perspective: with engaged, humane cynicism and a commitment to civic republicanism, both within and without our borders. It is a perspective well worth reading about.
[Full disclosure: I've met Siva a couple of times at conferences and corresponded with him by email on occasion. I would consider him a friend in the fight against copyright maximalism.]
You can purchase The Anarchist in the Library: How the Clash Between Freedom and Control is Hacking the Real World and Crashing the System from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews. To see your own review here, carefully read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
You know, I feel insulted. That's a perfectly legitimate Hindu name. There's tens of thousands of Indians in New York, and in the tech field for that matter. Don't be so culturally apathetic.
Oligarchy is the leadership of the few
Hierarchy Leadership by level (height)
anarchy the 'an' prefix means 'without' or 'not needing' as in anerobic bacteria (don't need air). or anachronism (outside it's time).
Anarchy is not the same as disorder. It's a situation where there are not static leaders. People might (and often do) show up to take things on, and gain respect for what they do. Other people can (and sometimes do) come in and duplicate and/or replace those other active and respecte members.
In an anarchy, one does not get respect by being a leader. One becomes an effective leader as a function of gained respect.
The early years of The Internet were especially like this. Anybody who wanted to could easily put their two bits into any discussion. Standards really became standards by use, and the years (sometimes) of discussions leading up to the creation of 'official' net standards occured because people realized that getting a consensus meant two things:
1: If everybody agreed, it would get wide implementation and acceptance very quickly.
2: If everybody agreed, there was likely not to be any big, unexpected, 'show-stoppers'.
( A side-effect was that internet protocols tended to allow a lot of freedom, such that things like the world wide web and P2P could be become centerpieces of the 'net more than a decade after the underlying protocols were designed).
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
It should be noted that the philosophical cynicism of the old Greeks has very little in common with the ironical and misanthropical sort of cynicism we think of these days. It's the same word, but a very different concept.
Philosophical cynicism was based on a doctrine of self control and asceticism. George Costanza's sort of cynisism is completely unrelated, and not philosophical at all -- it's just an attitude. Contrasting these seem pointless to me, but I haven't read the book. Diogenes was a funny guy, though.
Yes, there are (at least) 2 schools of thought in anarchist theory. There's the libertarian socialist branch, stemming from people like Bakunin and Kropotkin. More recently, and more strictly american, an individualist (and sometimes even capitalist) branch has developed, the originator of which is Max Stirner.
The latter has devolved and been co-opted by punks (in both senses of the word) who just think it's cool to spray paint "A" on things and wouldn't know who Proudhon was if you hit them with a copy of Qu'est-ce que la propriété. An elegant dismissal of such tactics can be found in "You can't blow up a social relationship.
If you would like to learn more about serious, thoughtful anarchism, I'd recommend reading Kropotkin's article for the Encyclopedia Britannica, and the Anarchist FAQ at infoshop. Personally however, I think the finest, most consice, and most persuasive statement of the ideals of anarchism can be found in Thoreau's Civil Disobedience.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
"That's the job of undercover police officers trying to make protestors look bad (I joke, I joke, such a thing could never, ever happen, huh?)"
you mean, like this picture of the undercover agitator who was caught at Bush's inauguration? http://www.civil-rights.net/