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.
Nice to see a more nuanced definition of anarchy than we usually get in the mainstream news. For example, with the political conventions almost upon us, and protests scheduled for each, watch how often the mainstream press managed to slip in the word "anarchists" to describe some of the protestors, with the implication that anarchists are only interested in causing destruction.
In fact, here on /., we are all anarchists (well, other than the Microsoft toadies and PR people and the like). We don't want centralized control of information, but rather a free flow of ideas. Whoa, dude, like that makes us like anarchists or something! Relax, doesn't mean you're going to throw a brick through a Starbucks windows. Real anarchists don't do such destructive acts. 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?)
Never judge a book by it's cover. You never know, the publishers could have told the author to go get a snappier title because his original one (I don't know if there was a different one) was boring.
Why not read the book before debunking the title?
...throughout the book, Siva contrasts two very different regimes of information control: oligarchy and anarchy.
Perhaps this is explained in the book, but I don't think it's obvious how anarchy is a "regime of information control."
If you have that messy sort of anarchy - the type that usually just means no central authority in what people still want to consider a state - then it's not really the anarchy that's controlling your information, it's the control structures that have taken hold in the absence of central power.
This is probably just a case of lazy writing, but I wish there were an explanation of what the reviewer meant here.
This Like That - fun with words!
How about control of sensitive and possibly dangerous information? How about your medical records?
These types of information I can see as being controlled by nessessity.
Also, some cultural behaviours are deemed anti-social. Such as cannibalism. In some places this might have been acceptable, but in others it is not. Should this be uncontrolled?
I'm all for freedom of information and freedom of expression, but not when it's damaging to other people.
Silly rabbit
One thing that all these so-called intellectuals fail to take into account in their calls for revolution, is the fact that authors - people who actually take the time to sit down and write, for their readers, something worth reading - have a right to not have their works consistently and persistently changed.
... at the same time ensuring that persistent, consistent, alteration is the only constant.
... Intellectuals discussing 'property of intelligence' rights ought to factor that a lot more than they do. I didn't walk away from "The Anarchist In the Library" with anything more than yet-another dialectic view that 'the only true alternative to something is its opposite'.
The Natural Universe already takes its toll on every single word. Entropy is a tempest. As human beings, if there is one thing that our cultures has produced, is the evident desire to be something.
The right to be extends to authors. If I have published something, I have a right to not have that thing be constantly changed and altered by the world at large.
So far, technology has produced the paradox that it is simultaneously capable of reproducing things, perfectly, and guarantee'ing their 'sameness'
People who have something to say, have a right to be heard. That right includes the stipulation that, if you are relaying what someone has to say about something, to someone else, you have a responsibility not to alter that work.
Its an absolute, and we all know how impossible they can be, but change for the sake of change is destructive
And we know how tired a philosophical stance that is. Booo---orring... Bring on the real intellectuals, the ones who are capable of a little more than just pedantic materialism...
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
"But the book is no thoughtless, radical polemic; it seeks a moderate, well-articulated and researched middle ground."
Looks someone has been eating up those top-down memes with a spoon! And a big spoon, too!
Look, radicals are just about the only humans who actually DO think; everyone else just outputs a program. Well, that may be a little overbroad, but that is the gist of it.....
eat shiat and bark at the moon
I met a traveler from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read,
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed,
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look upon my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
-Percy Bysshe Shelley
1792-1822
Republicans are "conservatives" (in the United States sense - in Europe they would be referred to as "liberals")
Easy on the crack pipe there buddy - in Europe, Republicans would be defined somewhere between conservative and fascist. Democrats would fall between liberal and conservative. You don't have any socialists since they all fled to Canada a long time ago.
need a free COBOL editor for Windows?
You need to dig deeper before making such assumptions. Anarchy does not mean that security cannot exist -- it simply means that security would be provided through private enterprise (voluntary cooperation) rather than a forced collective. There is no objective reason why a service currently achieved through force couldn't be achieved through voluntary participation.
In the real world, there's little difference.
In the real world, there's no such thing as anarchy, and no such society will emerge during our lifetimes. The reason is simple. If a successful (peaceful, prosperous, voluntary) society were to emerge with no government (where the "right" to initiate force does not exist), it would be promptly destroyed by the current world superpower. There is absolutely no way that a person of policial power, who owes his success to organized coercion, is going to sit around and watch as a successful anarchy completely discredits everything government stands for.