The debate about file-sharing must face an ideological shift in logic or forever to remain as the selfish act of a defiant middle class that refuses to pay. The reasons and rationale for piracy must not be defined by the industries that attempt to shut it down, nor must the reasons reflect simple personal gain.

Right now the battlegrounds of file-sharing are about who controls the distribution of American Culture. We as fellow pirates must recognize that there is no more satisfaction in having an external agency dictate what aspects of our artistic and entertainment identity we receive.

But first we must all recognize very specifically what is at stake, our  ability to control and own the works of art and entertainment that are common and uniquely American experiences. I agree that definitive and longest lasting incarnation of American art is indeed the genius of the media industry. American culture will forever be remembered for it’s movies, music, and television. Media is America and it is American to fully embrace these outlets. The impact of good entertainment on someone’s life alone is an argument against these items as simply products. It is hard to say that Raging Bull is nothing more than a movie to be produced and consumed by an audience till the next film comes along.

Raging Bull is more, it is art. The music of Jimi Hendrix is more than an album to be sold in a 2 disc special edition. It’s music that helped define a cultural revolution and generation of Americans. Media is our culture, it is our identity.

File-sharing is a fight for who we are as Americans.

For better or worse we focus our lives around entertainment and it affects us deeply and personally. We cannot separate from it. When we understand how integral these “entertainment” pieces are to day to day life it begins to frame the argument for file-sharing differently. This is no longer about dodging the cost of a CD or movie, this is a fight for who controls our cultural heritage. Control will go either to a few production companies that view it all as simply a cadre of goods to distribute at their cost to the people, or to those that embrace these works of mainstream art and welcome them into our homes and affix the true meanings to their quality.

But to accept this view one must still bring the rights of the producers into this argument, for do they not have the right to control how their own productions are used? I answer yes and no. This is complicated. It’s hard to judge when something goes beyond a small work thrown out and poorly received and the cultural violations of an E.T. revision. While it’s true that we cannot have the works of art and entertainment we have today without allowing for the massive industries and the gigantic budgetary demands that huge entertainment requires, we still must debate who ultimately controls the role of the product in society.

By allowing Viacom to tell you exactly how their products are going to affect you by dictating how you view, revisit, and discuss their release you are no longer in control of your opinion. You are now simply experiencing the product in a very controlled and specific manner that limits exploration and free decision. But on the other side, Viacom has a right to earn a profit for their works.

But it is unjust for a company to dictate the terms of consumption and dictate the terms of value. One of these must not be in their control. Either the audience dictates how much the work is valued by how they pay (Netflix subscriptions) , or they dictate exactly how they consume in response to a price outside of their control (gasoline prices). The battle of file-sharing is about wrestling one of these controls out of the producers hands. This is not saying all media should either be free access and/or free in cost, those that create must be able to earn a living in order to sustain the environment that allows for media to be a viable career choice.

But the current industries are inherently flawed, vicious in protecting stability, and resistant to obvious change; this radicalizes everything.

In an open market economy each business competes for an audience and market share. It is fluid, dynamic and efficient. Media does not fit this model, it is a regulated and protected oligopoly. Six major corporations control the entire top to bottom production of new media. From the generation of an idea to the “classic” edition release of the DVD 20 years later all of it is in the control of a static agency that is immune to the vicious efficiency of the free market.

These companies are exempt from the American model of business competition.

When an industry stands outside of market competition and enforces a lawsuit policy of protecting it’s status, it must be fought. This is not exclusive to movies or music or television. Each of these branches can be brought back to the fold of the same primary players that have spent the past one hundred years of industrial and entertainment innovations closing the gaps and expanding control over all aspects of entertainment. They in fact have a lot at stake in keeping their markets stable and predictable, but this is not how our society feels business should function. Americans don’t inherently enjoy protecting saturated and stagnant markets.

Technological revolutions and the wide adoption of networking communications in the home in the form of the World Wide Web and the internet has created a familiar yet brand new form of personal interface to the world. Through this new interface we can access a plethora of anything that can be broken into binary.

Instead of embracing these changes and seeking new way to provide a product to the people there was a revulsion to easy dissemination on the corporate level. It was a technology to be scoffed, undermined, belittled, and now assaulted within the judicial system.

This is unfortunate. Americans have a genuine habit of preferring to purchase instead of stealing. People believe that the quality is inherently better with the validity of a purchased product and it’s legal. But Americans have also always acted in quiet and angry retaliation to flagrant abuses of authority. Big Media has done more to perpetuate the fight against their copyright policies of control rather than actually suppressing any of it. The active pursuit of peer to peer networking has given rise to torrents and distributed anonymous sharing. For every server closed down others move to fill in the gaps.

And this is the struggle at it’s heart. Entertainment is our identity and those that create these arts are stating you cannot access it unless it’s on their terms under their control, and at their prices. If you do not do it their way you cannot have it and you will suffer retribution.

This is not the philosophy of art. America has been supreme at the fusion of business practices of distribution and the cultural impact of art. American media is a dominating global export for a reason. We got it right, and now those that stand as custodians of the product have overstepped their reach and asked for too much.

The argument about file-sharing should not be about what you get for free, but why these agencies think they have total control over a product once it hits a market. Does Ford demand a cut when you sell your Taurus to a friend, or tell you how much you should charge? Does Apple require you to pay their company when a friend borrows your laptop? No. Once you pay, the product is yours. Your use is your use. Only with digital based media is there a massive effort to control all aspects of ownership.

No more.

When you download you are voicing your opinion on the industry as a boycott. It’s a vote with your money that says “I dictate the value of this product, and how I use it; not you”. Refusing to buy into a system that abuses its consumers, the courts, and exploits those on the working wage end of the production is a refusal to accept these as sound and ethical business practices.
This is not about getting the latest episode of Heroes for free, this is about keeping American culture in the hands of Americans.

If you want to make sure that the correct people get paid for the use of their product, that is admirable, but the debate cannot stop there. Stables of honest and decent entertainers still fall under the arms of these massive and threatened companies. Be smart in how you spend, and send an even more powerful message by refusing to spend and refusing to accept how the world will be given to you.

File-sharing and illegal downloading is an act of defiance and protest in the face of an aging and beligerant industry do your part to open this market back up, and keep fighting for a free and open market. Once the chains are broken they can never be put back on. We control the distribution, we control the value, we control the cost, we control how these works impact our lives. No one else is allowed that influence.

Power to the people.

Or, how I went to Ellis Island and learned to love Scandinavian robot immigrants in disguise.