Re: <nettime> The schizo-politics of The Pirate Bay, Inc.

[Matze Schmidt <matze.schmidt@n0name.de>]

Hi,

this curt discussion appears to have some misconceptions. TPB never was
a producing unit and never had no center but a sort of oneness. It
is/was a distribution point ('anti-market') with a considerably larger
production than its search-machines ever could have represent somewhere
else, which was mostly not connected to this label called "The Pirate
Bay" -- the act of symbolism of Advance Patrol [http://globalgonza.com]
proves this, it is the download not the production that happens on TPB.
Servers to run this distribution under a sexy name came from other
distribution circles and out of a production much more materially than
the contents of the torrents. There is in fact no torrent of
server-computers in this world, not in Sweden, not on the USA, not on
any island. I consider copying not as origin production but
reproduction. This is an ontological question.

The oneness is the label, allegedly organised in anarcho way of
operating mode and maybe schizo. But actually TPB stands not alone (see
above) and has no entity, no center which can act as schizo like a
centered subject, this being-one-subject would be a "philosophy of a
company". But I don't believe either it is a de-centered machine
(Deleuze) acting in a non-human manner only bound to the great idea of
sharing, the big oneness which holds all anarchos together. The story 
Neij tells us ("The one who wants to do something just does it.") is THE
paradigm of the 'new' intellectual worker (Symbolarbeiter) under the so
called postfordistic conditions, who is responsible for the progress of
the project under his own commando, which is the concrete commando of
the project, a comando internalised/introverted. And the implication or
better the inversion of an argument here is that this _owned commando_
looks like owning the project itself.

Remember that "The Pirate Bay" *is* a project not just a network, a
formation with technical 'open borders' but boundaries, protocols,
ports. Fredrik Neij instructed in February 09 (as far as I remember) his
lawyer to tell that they (who?) are the wrong defendants and that the
single user of the system is responsible for copyright issues (the
search-engine argumentation). So there is a "we" and an "they", a
boundary: The bootlegging is out there we are just (and only 'cause
we're biggest!) the engine to find stuff. But this Deleuzian engine --
the TPB-fantasy and Fleischer's argument as a last consequence -- is
never answerable for what material went thru the machine. We are
subjects, but we are machine. Sure, the state can never allow such. The
same state and its laws are forcing to generate the meantioned
boundaries, so that the freewheel reproduction is a phantasm as long as
it is build on the state. The off-shore search engine server farm is
consequentially the answer to this and this island became a deal.

best

Matze Schmidt

>      Why? If someone believes a new
>      text is needed, he just inputs it. Or if a graphic is ugly,
>      someone makes a better one. The one who wants to do something
>      just does it." <http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/02/neij/>

> But nor do I buy the Deleuzianism. At all. "Implicit schizo-politics"
> is a bit too ~useful for my taste


#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@kein.org