Interview with Rick Volkving

In this special interview, Rick Folkving, founder and leader of the Swedish Pirate Party, presents his opinion on a heated political debate in Sweden around the issue of copying information, assesses the political and technological perspectives of P2P, and speaks about the dangers of total observation of citizens in Big Brother society.

Debate about free file sharing.

Question: In the past few months, discussions about copyright in Sweden seem to have become hotter than ever before, and especially with the appearance of a reformist group in the parliamentary Moderate Party, the situation looks like the beginning of entering the final battle before legalizing free file sharing (filesharing) . How do you like it? Is it possible that the Reinfeldt government could actually end up reform and decriminalize filesharing, or is it too optimistic to expect it to happen before the elections in 2010?

Rick Folkving: Gandhi once said, what became a famous quote:
')
"At first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight with you, then you win."

I interpret the current situation as a definite shift. The fact that the deputies of the largest ruling party raised a shield and began to fight for our ideas is a huge step forward. Our ideas were not on the sidelines, we were just a little ahead of time.

What is remarkable about this is the moment when the enemy — forces that want to block culture and knowledge at the cost of total oversight — realized that they were under serious attack and reinforced each line of defense that they were able to create. For the first time we saw everything that they could enter into battle.

And this is ... nothing. All they can say is “a thief, we have rights, we want to leave our rights forever, nothing should change, we want more money, a thief, a robber, a thief”. And they pushed in front of themselves a few poor artists to deliver this message to the public. While we are talking about such things as limitation against abundance, monopoly, the nature of property, a 500-year historical perspective in the field of culture and knowledge, stimulating structures,
economic theory, delayed development of technology, etc. The difference in the intellectual level between the parties is astounding.

So now we know what the enemy has, and that he has absolutely nothing from the point of view of intellectual capital as a battle resource. However, they have the closest connections (bedside connections) with the current establishment. This is a serious threat to us at this stage.

I, however, do not see that the leading political parties are going to understand to the extent necessary. Some parties advocate the legalization of downloading files, while not decriminalizing file downloads, which is a clear sign that they do not in the least understand the current structural changes in society, but they simply realize that something needs to be done. Of course, this in itself is good, but not enough.

Karl Siegfried's own party, Moderates, is a technophobic Luddite on the verge of the Stone Age, which they have established as the official line. Even if the deputies from this party were the first to raise this issue seriously, I do not believe it. that their party line will change until the next election.

What Karl Siegfried and his friends have achieved, however, is the conviction that the topic will be one of the most important issues in the 2010 parliamentary elections, and perhaps even in the European elections in 2009. This is exactly what we want. We want to reflect this issue as completely as possible, discuss it, try to understand what is happening, and understand that this is more important than particular, say, children's care grants. The more actively we do this, the further we will advance to victory.

And the further we advance to victory - both in terms of the idea and in terms of supporting the Pirate Party - the more pressure will be put on the establishment politicians.

Question: In a speech during your US tour last summer, you came up with the idea of ​​a global IPR revolution, starting in Sweden, and then spreading to other European countries, and then to the whole world.
As they are now, things are far from moving along this plan. How do you see the situation in the world? What countries and forces, in your opinion, can act as the main threats to the positive development that you provide? Are there any positive developments outside of Sweden,
which would you like to mention?

Rick Folkving: What politicians at all levels do not understand is that the enemy is working internationally. If they triumph in one country, their strength in any other country points to this fact as a positive example and whines that they do not have the same advantages in the country where they live.

For example, France recently proposed a bill that would cut off Internet access for file-sharing people. This is just one example of draconian, oruela measures lobbied by the IFPI and MPA. The European Commission, often condemned by the adversary, was not given time and the opportunity to think about the situation as a whole - and more severe measures were pushed through to the pan-European DRM, as the last desperate stupidity.

Sweden was a bit ahead of its neighbors in terms of high-speed broadband. I had 10/10 Mbit in 1998, and 100/100 today. When you give technology to people, they discover what it can be used for. Ahead or not Sweden is in the field of technology - this can be discussed, but, frankly, I consider Sweden as a leader in the free file-sharing movement. When I speak to journalists abroad, they always ask me the question “how will artists be rewarded if
your suggestions come true? ". And almost never ask me this question in Sweden.

So, in my opinion, positive changes are occurring in Sweden and spread further. There are a number of significant intellectual forces in Silicon Valley who correctly see the situation, but they are not able to exert pressure on US politicians because of the political system
of this country, as we can do.

I also very actively take the opportunity to ask people to help us financially. We have a program where you can donate a small amount each month using PayPal. Every penny of stable income helps us spread ideas, educate more politicians, and influence the establishment. See our donations webpage. Remember that we have to do all this in our free time.

Privacy, Integrity, and P2P Technologies

Question: Recently, you have begun to pay more attention to questions of privacy and personal inviolability. In the discussion of free file sharing, it seems that the issue of personal integrity is already in itself a sufficiently strong argument to justify the legalization of file sharing. If we assume that
the main anonymizer p2p will disappear in a few years, then nothing but totalitarian state control and supervision of home computers will not be able to enforce copyright on the Internet. You share this
point of view?

Rick Folkving: Yes. People who have reason to believe that file sharing can be stopped with minimal intrusion into an area of ​​individual rights smokes good weed.

Earlier in the course of the debate, we generally threw back economic arguments, and focused solely on civil liberties and the right to privacy. It turned out to be a winning strategy, and my main report, “Copyright Mode Against Civil Liberties”, was praised as innovative.

Economic arguments are strong but controversial. There are also as many reports on copyright as there are interests in this area, and each comes to a new conclusion. If you just shout and throw reports through the volleyball net
another team, then the question arises about the reliability of the reports. When you move on to the undisputed topic of civil liberties, you put all the discussion on solid ground.

In any case, anonymous encrypted P2P is only a few years old (and BitTorrent encrypted is already becoming widespread). More interesting is the intensive growth of cell phone memory. When P2P debuted with the Napster network in 2000, the average hard drive was the same
memory size as my mobile phone today. Using existing technologies, BlueTooth 2, I can share the content of my mobile phone anonymously - say, in a cafe or something like that. Mobile phones will accelerate, become more and more capacious, they will be able to pass
more and more data, and will also become open to custom applications. I put on the fact that P2P applications running on Bluetooth are not far from the iPhone, for example. Imagine an anonymous data exchange that will take place on a subway train! The possibilities for this are very, very encouraging.

File sharing will find new ways - any measures taken to stop it will be ineffective.

In other words, you cannot stop file sharing without canceling digital communications altogether and / or establishing total control over it. The Internet was created as the world's largest copying machine, as the creators of the film Steal This Film II quite concisely said. File sharing occurs simply because it is possible, because the exchange of knowledge and culture has always been, albeit with the help of various media.

What really fears me is how politicians buzz to the beat with every demand from the copyright industry. The industry lobby simply performs its work, demanding basically improving the conditions for the industry, at the expense of other sectors of society. Politicians failed miserably, failed to understand the overall picture of their demands.

Big Brother Society

Question: In addition to file sharing, there seems to be a strong political pressure throughout the world to speed up the development of the citizen observation infrastructure, which is being advanced along with anti-terrorism argument. The Swedish Parliament does not appear to be
exception in this regard. Why do you think politicians in Europe perceive this dangerous development so easily, despite recent historical experience, such as East Germany (Stasi), etc.? What motivates them to turn a blind eye to the risk of the state of Big Brother? Is Europe still suffering from the hysteria of terrorism, or is there something else? For example, in Sweden, Piratpartiet seems to be the only political force concerned about the hasty creation of Orulelo society. What can be done to counter this trend?

Rick Folkving: That's right, and it seriously bothers me. Not only politicians hold this line. they are deluded and soldered in this interest with large corporations.

Now, remember one of the definitions of fascism: fascism is the unification of corporate and state interests, as a rule, accompanied by a sharp restriction of civil liberties.

We know exactly where this road leads, for we have seen those who walked on it before us. And although each step may seem compelling, we know what is the end point.

Each step, as a rule, is justified by the "effectiveness of law enforcement agencies." This is a trick - for who will oppose the bill, and demand INEFFECTIVE law enforcement agencies? In fact, this is a transfer of power from citizens and a reduction of civil liberties in favor of law enforcement. There were many governments that went down in history and the current ones, where the effectiveness of law enforcement officers was given priority: East Germany, the Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea, Chile under Pinochet, etc. The question that needs to be asked is, at what cost, is the effectiveness of law enforcement agencies bought?

When the iron curtain fell, everyone in the West rejoiced that the East would have the same freedom as in the West. It was impossible to assume that everything would be the opposite.

What we can do is talk to each other about what is happening.
The Swedish administration deliberately misled and secreted
about all new oruelovskih measures. They even proposed a law giving the police the right to monitor users of home computers through their own webcams.

In the sixties there were a lot of films about the future of Big Brother,
when the state installed cameras in every home. Now we are almost there.
The only difference is that we buy our own cameras.

A proposal for mass monitoring of telephone conversations on all communications crossing the country's border was introduced in 2005. Then he was refused because it received a negative reaction from the public. It was reinstated in the new administration, and is now awaiting a new vote this summer.

In the end, mystery, fear and deception are friends of the administration in advancing to
the state of Big Brother. What we can do is counteract
- that is simple, but also difficult - to discuss this topic. Be alert to
new laws, new proposals, and talk about them to our friends, our colleagues, and on the forums. Break the veil of mystery. After all, politicians want to be re-elected.

And there is no better way to get their attention than to threaten the basis of their power, as I discovered when I founded the Pirate Party.

01.12.2008

Translated from English: Dmitry Kremnyov

English text is here

This interview is Public Domain. Copyright, news stories, blogs, websites or wherever you wish.