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.
humane cynicism of Diogenes vs. the shallow, rude and selfish cynicism of Costanza
Ummm, this means that Seinfeld was right to live across from Kramer, right?
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?)
So where can I download it?
Because proper tea is theft!
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.
Ok, I know that to elaborate on this one should read the fine book, anyway: the problem is not whether information and culture should be controlled, but the fact that in modern world such control Cannot Be Achieved without artificial barriers imposed to the people. Most people resent that and they are right.
In other words, one thing is the government censoring the press and the tv, but censoring internet access and fruition is different. It's more personal, like revoking freedom of speech.
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
"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"???
I was with him till this sentence. The control of culture is sometimes necessary???
I for one do not welcome our new Brittany spears-Clearchannel-Fox news overlords....
As for the control of information, that imo is a red-herring too. In a "free" society, there should be no control of information as the free flow of information is crucial to an informed citizenry, and thus to civilian oversight of governmental deeds and misdeeds.
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
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.
Oh, yeah. Sure it does.
taken! (by Davidleeroth) Thanks Bingo Foo!
...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!
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
One of the errors I often see is people confusing "anarchy" with "chaos". They two do not equate. There is no assumption of disorder or destruction with anarchy, unlike chaos. Anarchy is simply the individual choosing rather than having those choices made for them.
One of the more interesting aspects of Libertarian politics is a dedication to the principles of the constitution of the US, the Declaration of Independence, and other such things. As "The Importance Of" points out, this is a middle ground.
The original copyright and patent, for example, was enacted for only a limited time. This bears little resemblance to todays unlimited copyright. The abuse is based on the fact that politicians have only one motivation: Election. They sell law to the highest bidder.
This looks like a good book, and I hope to find a pirate e-version on the P2P networks soon.
(oh no, I'd never do that. really.)
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
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.
One of the errors I often see is people confusing "anarchy" with "chaos". They two do not equate. There is no assumption of disorder or destruction with anarchy, unlike chaos. Anarchy is simply the individual choosing rather than having those choices made for them.
h y.htm).
In the real world, there's little difference. Sooner or later, someone will make a choice that relieves you of a choice-- robbery, rape, murder, etc.
Larry Niven wrote an excellent short story on this, called Cloak of Anarchy (http://www.larryniven.org/stories/cloak_of_anarc
One could argue what point Mr. Niven was trying to make, but when I read it, I was well into being an anarchist, and that story started me on the road out.
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
"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/
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?