wk 7 P2P: “The Anarchist in the Library” and group 3: “The Political Economy of Peer Production”
Love and freedom maybe the motivations behind ‘anarchists’ as somewhat depicted in Vaidhyanathan’s article “Public Noises” – and yes, it is of utopian concerns that this be an important part of social order as it allows for democratic participation, however, the absence of any formal systems or governing bodies will undoubtedly result in civil disobedience public disturbances.
Whilst in the midst of the ‘information revolution’ and as ‘globalisation’ continues to change the world in allowing efficient “real-time” connection and communication internationally, developments of ‘social network sites’ and ‘peer-to-peer’ (P2P) distribution networks have risen in popularity. These recent forms of social organizations allow people from all backgrounds, with different interests and intent, to communicate, express themselves, share and exchange files and data and sometimes preach their beliefs beyond the restrictions of powerful institutions or political bodies – ‘Information Anarchy’. Vaidhyanathan cites that “digitalisation and global electronic networks make widespread anarchistic activity possible.”
The emergence P2P communication networks have changed social systems and challenged traditional human communication dynamics. Baewens defines ‘P2P’ as “not just a behaviour or process that takes place in a distributed network, they aim to increase the most widespread participation by equipotential participants. Baewens further adds that “there are no prior selection requirements to be a participant in P2P networks – the mere participation of a user is enough.” P2P is often called a ‘gift economy’ as participation involves no reciprocity and content producers are not paid. P2P networks are self-governing and also provide value-free data to its users.
As a technology, P2P modes of communication can be somewhat related to anarchy as it ultimately bypasses central mechanisms – as does anarchy moves to dispute capitalism/authority. However, certain issues arise as P2P networks poses threats to the marketing value of information or data shared within the network. Although, P2P network users do not necessarily ‘sell’ or achieve to profit from collecting others’ work or material, businesses/artists/media producers/authors are threatened by the dishonest claims and privileges P2P network users receive upon collecting, sharing, collaborating and altering ‘copyright’ items/material/information. An example of this is through music files sharing through networks such as Napster (since been eradicated) and Limewire.
As P2P networks are highly entertaining and valuable to its users, should there be such a marked concern to its infrastructure and functions? Should such a technological advancement be deliberated for the sake of ensuring artists, authors and proprietors continue to receive their millions and billions of profit whilst the processes of ‘copyright’ has gone beyond ridiculous? Furthermore, it may showcase similar ‘anarchistic’ characteristics socially yet it has not really threatened any socio-political systems.
