An open letter to the Italian people

On the 6th of July the Italian Authority for Communication wants to pass its new censorship policy for the Internet. On that day Italy might be joining the ranks of China, Thailand and other repressive regimes, allowing for a mandatory top-down control over the flow of information and communication on the Internet through the state. What makes Italy different from those countries, is that the governments there are at least decent enough towards their people to be honest about their policies. As with many other issues, the Italian authorities disguise this effort, claiming the regulation is needed in order to protect the violation of copyrighted material.

This article will aim at explaining the absurdity around any censorship for copyright reasons, and why this move will also establish political censorship in a country that needs more government transparency and accountability than any other in Europe, and consequently why this and future approaches have to be fought at all cost — in the interest of a democratic Italy with citizens free and well informed.

* Would we have wanted anyone to be able to regulate Gutenberg?

There are few revolutions in the history of humankind that can be compared to the one initiated by the Internet. The main problem we have with this Internet thing is that most of us do not understand it, and consequently we do not understand what it means for us and what it means for the future.

A similar revolution happened a few hundred years back, when with the invention of the book print, Gutenberg broke an existing paradigm. The copying of books, their distribution and the subsequent enlightenment of the reader had before this invention been exclusively available to a small circle of people, most of them being either rich religious clergy. This limitation in the way knowledge and thus enlightenment could be spread is what divided humankind into two: Those kept in an age of darkness and enslaved by lack of better knowledge, and those allowed to enhance their horizons and in a position to exploit that advantage to rule over the rest.

Gutenbergs invention broke this paradigm, and over the next few decades
allowed for a great majority of people getting access to knowledge. It paved the way for the age of enlightenment to come, opened for an age of intense technological progress, and ultimately became one of the pillars of modern society.

In the years following this invention, little did most people understand what a great impact it would have on their future. With the internet we are caught in a similar situation, most of us do not know what this revolution will mean for all of us.

* The copyright lie and a needed shift in paradigm *

To understand the current copyright situation used as the basis for the argument of the Italian regulator, we again have to look at history. While Gutenberg's invention was great, and the abilities to share, to copy, books had been made much easier, the process of printing was still only available to those that could afford to operate a printing press. Over time the cost for this technology declined and printing became more common, allowing for more opinions to be spread and thus a more diverse debate to be had in society.

In the beginning of the 21st century we saw the introduction of radio as another milestone in the history of the propagation of content. This technology marked yet another important shift in paradigm. One that was laborated on brilliantly by Prof. Lawrence Lessig, and that I will try to paraphrase here.

In the times before the emergence of the radio it was common for people to
gather outside during warm summer nights and sing popular songs. People
were interpreting and performing songs of various kinds to their liking.

The concept of copyright was not known in such a society. Those songs that were popular and hence performed, copied, by people, gained worth through this creative process of recreation. It was what made them popular and hence successful. Copies of songs were a sign of respect and admiration for the work of an artist. This society was a read-write society, one of creators and re-creators, not one of mere consumers.

The radio introduced what you could call a read-only culture in respect to the way society dealt with creativity. Suddenly the whole concept of copyright started to matter for creative work. The ability to broadcast had become a business, and the industry representing artists created a system to profit from this business. We, the people, became consumers. The right of being creators was taken from us. The creative capacity of the human was put in a box and crippled.

The internet is what has shifted that paradigm back to a read-write society. It allows all of us to not only consume, but also to create and moreover, broadcast our creation. We can once more be creative producers. If you don't know what I mean, go to Youtube (while you still can) and watch [...] . [For example, watch this Sora Cesira "The Arcore's nights"]

There are many examples already today of artists going alternative routes in respect to sustaining themselves, and most of those routes are highly beneficial for the artist. Cutting out the middle-man actually makes sense for artists. German band Deichkind for example decided to cancel all agreements with its producers and instead produce themselves. All their music is available for download for free, and the band consequently has received an increasing popularity. They live mainly from concerts and merchandise, and financially do better than anytime before. They are one of many examples of a successful shift in paradigm for the artists.

This paradigm shift is what is threatening to a media industry that is existing solely on the basis of having a monopoly over the creative work. Similar to only the elite able to copy books before the Gutenberg print, only this elite picks who is deemed an artist, who is worth being heard or seen and how the creative work of those artists is spread. It is an industry built on a monopoly of power, one built on the ability to fully control creativity. With the internet and the broad availability for cheap but professional production of creative works, the days of
this industry are counted. And that is a great thing for humankind and its creative potentials.

* Beyond copyright: the Italian case

The current effort in Italy to establish legislation and infrastructure to censor the internet for any violation of copyright has two main sources: first of all it is that industry that is pushing for this crackdown. A dinosaur refusing to acknowledge that its era is over. We can see that all over the world, and regularly attempts are made in this direction. The so-called Three Strikes regulation in France is one such example. The United Nations have recently declared that no copyright
interest would could justify a censorship of the Internet. Moreover the UN via their special commissioner have declared that the Internet for the sake of free exchange of information should be regulated as little as possible. Similar, the EU parliament has declared that access to the Internet is the basis for participation, and therefore must not be established. The French effort has to be revoked. And even the biggest music corporations have by now spoken out against blocking of Internet access.

Secondly, and this is why this effort is so dangerous in Italy, you have allowed most of your media to be in the hands of the man that rules your country. What was supposed to be the independent forth estate, the aggressive and strong checks and balances of power, has largely become nothing but an agent of those powers. This especially is true for those read-only powers that seem to be attracting lots of you with superficial Silicon and Botox. Today, as propagated by the tube in your country, it seems to be more about Botox and Silicon than about brains, talents and important content.

Does it not make you wonder why the powers keeping you busy with this crap want to be able to censor the only medium whose message they cannot control?

* The bigger picture

You have to understand that governments all around the world are not shy of coming up with propaganda to justify strict regulation for and the ability to filter the Internet. In Germany and Australia we saw such efforts in 2009. Internet filters to stop the spread of child pornography. Certainly a more noble cause than protecting the business interests of an industry, but just as flawed in its principles. It was argued that the system will not be used for anything but filtering child pornography, yet many industries were already lining up to issue
pressure on the government as soon as the law would be passed.

It never was, due to the important work of activists in Germany resulting in an informed and broad uproar against this law through civil society. Today, two years later, we have the next ones pushing for such a group. This time it is about "illegal" gambling on the Internet. They will not succeed.

A main question is what is illegal anyways, and what will be in the future. We live in a time today in which we have access to this great technology that the Internet represents, but basically are not ready for it. The Internet is a tool of a global society, one that has no borders in the sense that we know them. It is a tool of the future world we are developing into. The more we cripple it today, the less healthy our development into a just and enlightened global society will be. We must not let this happen.

Now that the UN is about to declare access to the Internet as a human right as of its importance for the future and democracies, do you really want to go in the opposite direction? Defending your rights to freely communicate and share information would be so easy — you have all the world standing behind you, defending you from the little man seeking to maintain complete control over you the people. We will stand behind you. 

All you have to do is make the first step and say no to July the 6th.