Peter Sunde on the Swedish Culture Minister

Peter Sunde of The Pirate Bay has written an article in response to recent comments by the Swedish Culture Minister, Lena Adelsohn Liljeroth, published in the Swedish newspaper, SvD. Here is my attempt at translation.

How do we get the culture minister to listen?

Published: May 27, 2009, 12.54. Last changed: May 27, 2009, 13.53

The Culture Minister's statement on The Pirate Bay shows that the establishment has difficulty in understanding new sectors of society that arise, for example via the Internet. Therefore we would like to invite her to the Venice Biennale in which the TPB will exhibit. Perhaps she will listen to us, writes Peter Sunde Kolmisoppi.

A few days ago our Culture Minister, Lena Adelsohn Liljeroth, spoke regarding her feelings about The Pirate Bay spectrial. She has been quoted as saying "This may not be appreciated by some, but I was one of those who expressed his pleasure over the ruling in Pirate Bay case," she said.

Apart from it being generally poor judgement for a minister to speak on a specific case, Lena Adelsohn Liljeroth chose to do that because she thought it was important to comment whilst at a meeting with some foreign composers of popular music, or as i see it, creators of little culture, where she just got to eat well and have plenty to drink.

Her statement is a symptom of a lack of communication between political leaders and non-established channels. Our rulers have fixed groups to which they respond and do not get around to some of the new groups that have arisen, for example via the internet.

This is not the first time this has happened. Even [Swedish Minister of Justice] Beatrice Ask has previously made judments about TPB as minister. This happened during the Olympics when the Justice Minister said that TPB gave Sweden a bad name internationally. This was followed by thousands of people mailing in their positive perceptions of the TPB to her - a very positive set of documents which unfortunately did not even merit a comment from Beatrice Ask. But at least we tried to get her to listen.

Therefore, we will try again: I wish to hereby officially invite Lena Adelsohn Liljeroth to another cultural event, the Venice Biennale. There, on a major world art Biennale, The Pirate Bay will exhibit their project 'Embassy of Piracy'.

It is a great honor for us and for Sweden to be invited and we are very proud. We would appreciate it if our culture was able to rejoice together with us.

Unfortunately we do not have any money to pay for the visit (for some reason, it is difficult for us to culture although this is not the first time we set out on an international art exhibition). Fast as I understand it is still not okay to receive any expensive gifts / dinners as elected.

We hope that Lena Adelsohn Liljeroth turn up for their own so we also have the opportunity to present our views on culture, although we do not have the same elite status as other cultural practitioners she supports.

PETER SUNDE KOLMISOPPI

The Pirate Bay

Copywrong

The attempts of the film and music industry trade cartels to treat all those who copy works that those bodies perceive as their own as criminals is somewhat laughable, as seen in the recent documentary Fake Trade. It is based upon five dubious premises:

Firstly that those who copy at home or fileshare for no gain are just as criminal as international counterfeiting gangs making millions of dollars. Home copying does not launder money, it does not survive by forcing people into near slavery, its only impacts are on the increased dissemination of materials which would otherwise be restricted by the ability to pay and on the failing market in those forms of intellectual property distribution.

Secondly, that such copying is somehow the same as counterfeiting safety critical items like pharmaceuticals or car tyres or items with both a tangible and intangible value such as designer watches or clothing. A computer copy of film or music track neither safety critical nor does it have a tangible value, it cannot be worn, it does not tell the time, it is entirely ephemeral, it performs no function other than stimulating the emotions or intellect.

Thirdly, that the current system meets the needs of the market. There is an abundance of supply; more people wish to make music and films than the purchasing power of the market can sustain yet consumers do not see the benefits that this would normally entail. The normal reasons for this kind of breakdown are failures in the market infrastructure such as physical transport problems external factors such as general economic failure or the operation of cartels and monopolies that restrict supply to raise prices above the level the market would otherwise reach.

Fourthly, that they have an immutable right to make money the way they always have done. In this way they resemble such economic dinosaurs as are to be found in the tobacco industry; they must either evolve their way out of that economic niche or die.

Finally, and most economically erroneously that the market exists for the benefit neither of the producer or the customer but that of the intermediary. Such systems have often been promoted throughout history and have always foundered without considerable state intervention to prop up what become moribund monopolies. Eventually the state tires of subsidising the profits of these private cartels and legislates a new regulatory framework.

It is up to those of us who recognise these facts to lobby our representatives to hasten the end of the old order and replace it with something befitting the 21st century rather than one that was suited to the needs of the 18th century.

Clearly we are in a period of transition between the old copyright based business model and what ever will replace it. It is less than three hundred years since the Statute of Anne brought the modern concept of copyright into law. This itself had only been introduced following fifty years of upheaval in which the old system of licensed printing had been brought to its knees by the increasing efficiency of the printing industry.

The RIAA, MPAA et al are in the position of a Town Criers' Guild objecting to literacy and printing because they promote the reading of newspapers. Now Pandora's box has been opened there is no way to cram digital copying and downloading back into it.

It may well be that the consequence of the developing technologies of today will be to change recorded media into a promotional tool for live events. Alternatively, media groups may only be able to sell recorded work if there is sufficient added value, creating a listening or viewing experience that cannot be obtained by the mere playback of a digital file.