Steal This Film II (2007) - full transcript - stop by if you're interested in the nutritional composition of food
Is it a good thing or a bad thing

that it's becoming harder maybe

impossible to encapsulate

information in discrete
units and sell them?

The simplistic answer, the answer
that you get from Hollywood

and the recording industry
is - it's a disaster.

This is not a film about piracy.

The recording industry's been freaked out.

The movie industry's been freaked out.

The suits don't know
how to think about this.

This is not a film about sharing files.

They put a lot of money into

making those movies
making that music.

So they want to get something back.

but the way they're trying
to stop the copying now

it's definitely not working.

It's a film that explores massive
changes in the way we produce

distribute and consume media.

Ever since Napster, the music industry
has been trying to kill file sharing

Napster was this huge global party
of everybody suddenly had access

to the largest music library in
the world. And what'd they do?

Well, they went after Napster
and they shut it down.

Napster, Aimster, Audiogalaxy.

Grokster. IMash - Kazaa

All of these companies were sued.

And in the end - essentially - the
entertainment industry succeeded

in driving that technology out of
the mainstream commercial field.

The industry's turned to suing
individuals, hundreds of individuals

ultimately thousands, now
tens of thousands of individuals

for downloading music
without permission.

Existing players are trying to

make certain things happen that

in retrospect will
seem kind of barbaric.

If you're talking about the distribution

of cultural material, of music

and cinema, well there is a long history

of whatever the incumbent industry

happens to be, resisting whatever
new technology provides.

Cable television in the 70's was

viewed really as a pirate medium.

All the television networks
felt that taking their content

and putting it on cables
that ran to peoples houses

was piracy pure and simple.

The video recorder was

very strongly resisted by Hollywood.

There were lawsuits immediately
brought by the movie studios who felt

in fact, who said publicly that
the VCR was to the American

movie industry what the "Boston
Strangler" was to a woman alone.

New information technologies provide
Hollywood and the recording industries

with fresh channels on which to
sell products, but they can also

open unplanned possibilities
for their consumers.

The sheet music people
resisted the recordings.

The first mp-3 player by Diamond-Rio
sort of the initial company

long before the iPod, they
were met with a lawsuit.

The possibilities suggested by
Peer-to-Peer technologies

have prompted the
entertainment industries

to react in an unprecedented way.

Traditionally, copyright infringement
has just been a civil matter.

If a copyright owner catches you
doing something wrong,

they can sue you and force
you to pay them money.

Criminal infringement liability,
the ability to prosecute you and

throw you in jail, has been reserved
for circumstances of commercial

piracy, circumstances where
someone has made 500 copies,

is selling them on the street
as competition for the real thing.

Well, in recent years, copyright owners
have not been satisfied with that.

They've wanted to reach out and
have criminal recourse

against people who are engaged in
non-commercial activities.

We recognize and we know
that we will never stop piracy.

Never. We just have to try to make it

as difficult and as
tedious as possible.

And we have to let people know
there are consequences.

If they're caught.

What they've sought to do,
is sue a few people.

Punish them severely enough
that they can essentially

intimidate a large number
of other people.

It's really as though they decided
to intimidate the village they would

just chop of the heads of a few villagers,
mount those heads on pikes

as a warning to everyone else.

The fact that the DVD right to own is the

new weapon of mass destruction in the world

is primarily for the fact that a 50 billion
dollar film can be reproduced

at the cost of literally 10 or 15 cents.

There is a fantastic quote by Mark Ghetty,

who is the owner of Ghetty Images,

which is a huge corporate image
database, and he's one of the largest

intellectual proprietors in the world.

He once said intellectual property is
the oil of the 21st century.

It'a a fantastic quote, you could
condense it to one word

that is, war.

He declared war with that
saying we will fight for this stuff

these completely
hallucinatory rights to

images, ideas, texts
thoughts, inventions

Just as we're fighting now for
access to natural resources.

He declared war.

Strange kind of war.
I would take it serious.

But it's ridiculous and
serious at the same time.

This is not the first war

that has been fought over
the production, reproduction

and distribution of information.

People like to see the contemporary

and the digital era as
some kind of a unique

break. And I think the important
point to make here is

not to see it as a unique break,
but really to see it as a moment

which accelerates things that
have already happened in the past.

Before the arrival of the printing
press in Europe in the 1500's,

information was highly scarce
and relatively easy to control.

For thousands of years, the scribal
culture really hand-picked the people

who were given this code to transmit
knowledge across time and space.

It's an economy of scarcity

that you're dealing with

People are starved in a
sense for more books

There are images from the 16th century

of books that were chained, and had

to be guarded by armed guards

outside a heavy, heavy door

because it was very, very dangerous
for people to have access to that.

Print brought with it a new
abundance of information

threatening the control over ideas
that had come with scarcity.

Daniel Defoe tells of Gutenberg's
partner Johann Fust, arriving in

15th century Paris with a
wagon load of printed bibles.

When the bibles were examined,
and the exact similarity of each book

was discovered, the
Parisians set upon Fust

accusing him of black magic.

About to change everything, this
new communications technology

was seen as the unholy
work of the Devil.

All of the emerging nation-states of

Europe made it very clear that

they would control information
flows to the best of their ability.

The printers were the ones who were

hunted down if they printed

the forbidden text.

So, more than we think of persecuting

the authors but it was really the
printers who suffered most.

As print technology developed
in Europe and America

its pivotal social role
became clear.

Printing becomes

associated with rebellion
and emancipation.

There's the governor of
Virginia, Governor Berkeley

who wrote to his overseers in
England in the 17th century

saying, "Thank God we have
no printing in Virginia,"

"and we shall never have it
as long as I'm governor."

This was a reaction to the English
civil war and the pamphlet wars and

they were called paper
bullets in that period.

The basic idea of censorship in

18th century France is a concept

of privilege, or private law.

A publisher gets the right to
publish a particular text, that is

deny it to others, so
he has that privilege.

What you have is a centralized

administration for controlling

the book trade, using censorship

and also using the monopoly
of the established publishers.

They made sure that the books that

flowed throughout a society were

authorized - were the authorized
editions - but also were within the

control of the state within the
control of the king or the prince.

You had a very elaborate
system of censorship

but in addition to that
you had a monopoly

of production in the
booksellers' guild in Paris.

It had police powers.
And then the police itself

had specialized inspectors
of the book trade.

So you put all of that together
and the state was very powerful

in its attempt to control
the printed word.

Bot not only was this apparatus
incapable of preventing

the spread of revolutionary thought,
it's very existence inspired

the creation of new, parallel
pirate systems of distribution.

What is clear is that
during the 18th century

the printed word as a force
is just expanding everywhere

You've got publishing
houses printing presses

that surround France in
what I call a "fertile crescent"

dozens and dozens of them
producing books which are

smuggled across the French borders

distributed everywhere in the
kingdom by an underground system.

I have a case of one Dutch printer who
looked at the index of prohibited books

and used it for his publication program

because he knew these were
titles that would sell well.

The pirates had agents in
Paris and everywhere else

who were sending them sheets of new
books, which they think will sell well.

The pirates are systematically doing
I use the word, it's an anachronism

market research.

They do it I've seen it in hundreds
and literally thousands of letters.

They are sounding the market.
They want to know what demand is.

And so the reaction on the part
of the publishers at the center

is, of course, extremely hostile.
And, I've read a lot of their letters.

They're full of expressions like
buccaneer and private and

"people without shame or morality"
etc.. In actual fact, many of these

pirates were good bourgeois in
Lausanne or Geneva or Amsterdam

and they thought that they were just

doing business.
After all, there was no

international copyright law and
they were satisfying demand.

There were printers that were almost
holes in the wall or down in the -

if they were printing
subversive material

they could sort of hide
their presses very quickly.

People used to put them on rafts
and float down to another town

if they were in trouble with the
authorities. It was very movable.

In effect, you've got two systems
at war with one another.

And it's this system of
production outside of France

that is crucial for the Enlightenment.

Not only did this new media system
spread the Enlightenment, but

I won't use the word prepared
the way for the Revolution.

It so indicted the Old Regime
that this power - public opinion

became crucial in the collapse
of the government in 1787-1788

In Paris, the Bastille had
been a prison for pirates.

But in the years before the
Revolution the authorities gave up

trying to imprison pirates. The
flow of ideas and information

was too strong to be stopped.

And I think that's the dramatic
change that was affected by

the printing revolution
That all of a sudden

the emergence of a new reading public
the emergence of an undisciplined

reading public which were not subject
to the same norms of reading or

the same norms of relation to
knowledge as it was in the past.

It was a dramatic shift.

The fundamental urge to copy

had nothing to do with technology.

It's about how culture is created.

But technology of course
changes what we can copy

how quickly we can copy
and how we can share it.

What happens when a copying

mechanism is invented? And you can

take the printing press
or you can take bittorrent.

It shapes people's habits.

It gives people completely new
ideas how they could work

how they could work together
how they could share

what they could relate to
what their lives could be.

There's no way that an
absolutist political system

can totally suppress the
spread of information.

New media adapt themselves
to these circumstances.

And often, they can become even more
effective because of the repression.

Why should improvements
in our capacity to copy

be linked to social change?

Because communicating so fundamental
to what we do in the world

is itself and act of copying.

The one technique that brought
us to where we are is copying.

Sharing is at the heart of
in some senses, existence.

Communication, the need to talk
to someone, is an act of sharing.

The need to listen to someone
is an act of sharing.

Why do we share our culture?
Why do we share language?

Because we imitate each other.
This is how we learn to speak.

This is how a baby learns.
This is how new things

come into society and
spread through society.

Basically what keeps us together
is that we copy from each other.

When the spoken word was our
only means of communication,

we traveled far and wide
to deliver it to others.

Later, as we began to
communicate in written form,

Armies of scribes
multiplied our ideas.

Our urge to communicate is so strong

that we have always pushed the
tools available to us to the limit.

then gone beyond them,
creating new technologies

that reproduce our ideas on
previously unimaginable scales.

In 1957, the USSR launched Sputnik.

In response, the American government
authorized massive blue-sky spending

on science and technology
overseen by a new

Advanced Research Projects Agency

It was ARPA developing
the ideas of visionary

computer scientist Joseph Licklider.

that came up with the concept
of networking computers.

It's been hard to share information.

For years. The printing press

of course was the great step
into sharing information.

And we have been needing
for a long time some better

way to distribute information
than to carry it about.

The print on paper form
is embarrassing because

in order to distribute it you've
got to move the paper around

And lots of paper gets to be bulky and
heavy and expensive to move about.

The ARPAnet was designed to allow
scientists to share computer resources

in order to improve innovation.
To make this vision work,

ARPAnet had to allow each machine
on the network to reproduce

and relay the information
sent by any other.

A network in which peers shared
resources equally was part of a

massive shift from the corporate and
commercial communications systems

of the past - in which messages
radiated from a central point

or down through a hierarchy.
There was no center

And no machine was more
important than another

Anyone could join the network,
provide they agreed to abide

by the rules, or protocols
on which it operated.

Ever since, really, the 60's onwards

packet switch networks are the

predominant style of
communications used today.

Increasingly so in both voice and data.

The western world was transforming
itself from the rigid production systems

of Fordism to fluid work, lean
production and just-in-time delivery.

A post-centralized, friction-free
economy needed a

a communications
system just like this.

We didn't build in the 1970's

networks of hierarchs.

The computers that existed in the

world were all multimillion-dollar

machines and they basically related
to one another in very equal ways.

One of the really important
characteristics of the internet is

that it's extremely decentralized

and that the services on the internet

are invented and operated
by other network users

You know the network is built so that

there's nobody in
charge that everybody has

control over their
own communications.

In relying on the internet, society
was bringing into its very center

a machine whose primary
function was the reproduction

and distribution of information.

It's an inherent function of the

networks that we use today that

this data is stored,
copied, stored, copied

normally transient, normally very
fast, you know, in milliseconds


specialized pieces of equipment
such as switchers, routers, hubs etc.

Do this all in the blink of an eye
but it's the way networks WORK.

What ARPA's engineers had produced
was the blueprint for a massive

copying machine without master.

which would grow at a fantastic
rate into today's internet

So this entire area is bristling

with information transfer
of one type or another

For instance the local council,
Tower Hamlets and Hackney

we're sort of on the border here
have some of the surveillance traffic

and security cameras linked via
wireless networks themselves.

The spectrum environment is
getting very dirty, or noisy

Every single packet that flies through
the multitude of wireless networks and

through the internet is listened for
stored in memory and retransmitted, ie

it's copied from one, what's called
network segment, to the next

our immediate environment now,
our immediate ecosphere is so

broad, so large that you
cannot contain information

very easily anymore, you cannot
stop or censor information or stop

the transmission once it's out there
It's like water through your hands

It's like trying to stop a
dam from bursting.

I would say right now, we are likely
in range of wireless microwave

radio transmissions that are most
likely breaching some sort of

copyright law
right at this moment.

To try

on the back of modernism

and all this international law

to make profit out of his own

ungenerosity to humankind.

One of the main battlegrounds

in law, in technology now is

the extent to which it is possible

to exclude people from information,
knowledge and cultural goods

the extent to which it's possible
to enclose a bit - if you will

of culture, and say it's in a container

you have to pay me
in order to access it.

You can make something
property if you can build a fence

for it, you can enclose something,
if you can build a wall around it.

In the American west, the
range land was free, and

all could graze it because it
was too expensive to fence it

barbed wire changed that and
you could turn it into property.

Culture came in these boxes.

Control came naturally as part

of the process of the existence

of the medium itself.

There's a thing, a book

a record

a film that

you can hold onto and
not give somebody else

or you can give it to them.

And the whole payment
system was built around:

Do I give you this
unit of information?

or don't I give it to you? And
that was how the whole model

of copyright was built
from the book on up.

What used to be property -
music, cinema - now becomes

very, very easy to
transmit across barriers.

We have today the ability to make

copies and distribute
copies inexpensively.

If one copy leaks out on the internet
very rapidly it's available to everyone.

One can always try to create artificial
boundaries, technological boundaries

which prevent us from sharing files
prevent us from sharing music etc.

But how do you create
a wall or a boundary

against the very basic
desire of sharing?

I think the war on piracy is
failing for social reasons.

People like to communicate.

People like to do, to share things.
People like to transform things and

technology makes it so easy
that there's no way of stopping it.

The new generation is just copying stuff

out of the internet. It's the way they're

brought up. They started with Napster

music is free to them. They don't
consider music being something you

pay for. They pay for clothes.
They pay for stuff they can touch.

Intellectual property is -
What the fuck is that?

I've never bought a
piece of music in my life.

We don't think it's illegal
'cos everyone's doing it.

We can't really be blamed for just

downloading something that's
already on the internet.

People think it's legal

'cos it's like copying, like, without
the copyright or something.

If it's a crime, why put it on there?

So whether you're using a
long-lost peer-to-peer system, like

the original Napster, or you're using
Gnutella, or you're using bittorrent

the principle here is that you are
actually engaging in internet

communication as it was
originally designed, you are

able to serve content
as well as consume.

Especially after the Napster lawsuit

we saw an emergence of a lot of more

decentralized file-sharing services.

Computer programs that people could
run on their own computers that would

make them part of the network,
without having any one place

where there's a master list
or a master coordination.

What this means is that in fighting
file sharing the entertainment

industry is fighting the fundamental
structure of the internet.

Short of redesigning and re-engineering
either the internet or the devices we

use to interact with the internet,
there's nothing that Hollywood or

Washington or Brussels or Geneva
can do anything about.

They shattered Napster into millions of
little pieces, spread across computers

all around the globe
and now if you want

to shut it down, you have to track down
every single one of them and

turn it off. And they just can't do that.

They send out letters every month
trying to shut down a couple

here and there but it just doesn't
work. There are just too many.

It's out of the bag now.

Once it's that far distributed,
it's really going to be hopeless.

You can sue people forever.
You can sue a handful of

college students, university
students in the United States

You can sue the investors of Napster.
- and Napster - You can sue the company

that provided the software for Kazaa.
But it doesn't shut anything down.

We recognize and we know
that we will never stop piracy.

Kazaa lost a big case in the United
States in the Supreme Court.

Kazaa and Grokster and
a set of other companies.

So those companies no longer
operate. But the network still

works, in other words,
the interface is still

installed on millions of computers
and people still use them.

never stop piracy

The music industry, if they want
to stop file sharing, there's no

central computer for them
to go to and shut it down.

They have to go all the way
to the ends of every wire.

They have to snip all the
cords across the globe.

So when the Pirate Bay got shut down

last year, and during the raid

Amsterdam Information Exchange, AM6

reported that 35% of all the European

internet traffic

just vanished in a couple of hours

The files have been shared.
There's no way back.

You can't - it's not about
shutting down bittorrent

it would be about confiscating
everyone's hard drives.

The files are out there. They
have been downloaded.

They're down, there's no up
anymore. They're all down.

never never never

There's nobody you can go to and
say: Shut down the file sharing.

The internet's just not built that way.

We're surrounded by images.

Every day, everywhere. There's
nothing you can do about it.

But the problem with these
images is that they're not yours

People's lives are determined by
images that they have no rights to

whatsoever, and that's - I'd say
it's a very unfortunate situation.

There's this work of mine that
people have described as a series

of unattainable women, in fact it's

a series of unattainable images.

The one last mission of cinema is to
make sure that images are not seen.

That's why we have DRM - copy
protection - rights management

region coding, all that stuff
but if an image is seen

then it tells you one thing:
it's not your image

it's their image.

It's none of your business.
Don't copy it. Don't modify it.

Just forget about it. You can't
just say - hey it's just a movie

It is reality. It's a very
specific reality of properties.

Radio. Television. Newspapers. Film.
At the heart of all of them there is

a very clear distinction between
the producer and the consumer.

And the idea is a
very, very static one.

That here is a technology that
allows me to communicate to you.

But it's not really a conversation
that one has in mind.

It use to be, if you had a
radio station or television station

or a printing press.

You could broadcast your
views to a very large

number of people at
quite a bit of expense

and a fairly small percentage of
the population was able to do that.

The materials were produced by
some set of professional commercial

producers, who then controlled the
experience and located individuals

at the passive receiving end
of the cultural conversation.

I'm John Wayne.

We believe in many things
but I'm John Wayne.

If you wanted to change the way
the television broadcast network

works - good luck

you're going to have to get the
majority of the shareholders to

agree with you - or you're going
to have to replace some very

expensive equipment.

In the world of that universe where
you needed to get distribution

there were gatekeepers
that stood in your way.

I know that there's gatekeepers out
there at every level by the way

certainly production,
funding, exhibition.

They can get fucked
as far as I'm concerned.

You would need to satisfy the lawyer
for the network or the lawyer

for the television station or radio
station that what you've done is

legal and cleared and permissions
have been obtained - and

probably insurance has
been obtained before

you could get into the channels
of mass media communication.

The number of people who could
actively speak was relatively small

and they were organized around
one of the only two models

we had in the industrial period to
collect enough physical capital

necessary to communicate
either the state or the market

usually based on advertising.

This is the question
that faces us today.

If the battle against sharing is
already lost - and media is no longer

a commodity - how will society change?

Those whose permission was required
are resisting this transition

because control is a good
thing to get if you can get it.

The control

that used to reside in the very
making of the artifact is up for grabs.

Should we expect changes as massive
as those of the printing press?

There's plenty of people who are
watching, you know, the worst kind

of Soap Opera right now they're
a planet and I can't save them.

As hard as I've tried,
I can't save them.

But do we need saving? Will
there still be a mass-produced

and mass-oriented media
from which to save us?

Music didn't begin with the phonograph

and it won't end with the
peer-to-peer network.

alright, listen

man, I couldn't give a shit if you're
older this young'n's bin colder

give it ten years then I'm going to be
known as a better than older I swear

now people stayin colder
so don' try n tell me your older

you could be roller or be more music
mix tapes promos and everythings

out there, so don't try
tell me I don't

The panic of the movie industry
and the music industry is that

people could actually start to produce

and that file sharing networks
- file sharing technology

enables them to produce stuff.

To do this I'm colder
better than most out older

I take out any that are younger

diss me, are you dumb you're an idiot you
will never get this chip of your shoulder

this kid's colder than you were
when you were this age [...]

please don't play - why you can't
see that playtime's over.

playtime's over - since year six
i been a playground soldier

dem days were lyrical dat lyrical G
but now everything is colder

now there's content flows and
everything - mix tape promos

everything - who'd you name your
favorite MC, I'll write the sixteen

make him look like...

People have lamented much
the death of the author

what we're witnessing
now is far beyond -

It's the becoming producer
of former consumers.

and that suggests a new
economic model for society.

why? cos I'm going on show
I move fast - goin on show

like your team be out for the ratings
by my team be out for the do(ugh)

in the air tha show - eh what
we're goin on show

so your put man pay me - I'm doin no less
I got the vibes, that run down the show

It's not so much the fact
that the Phantom Menace is

downloaded 500 times, or 600 times etc.

Yeah of course, there is an imaginary
specter of economic loss that informs that

but the real battle
or the real threat

lays in a shift in the
ways that we think of the

possibilities of ourselves as creators
and not merely as consumers.

It's like a whole network

This is something that I've given out
and I've let people download it and

they can download it, do what they
want I've made a blog about it

saying oh look, DJs you can
play this where you want

There's this guy in
Brooklyn and he's just

done a remix of it, just like - It's
totally different to what I thought but

He's just - this guy from Brooklyn
and I really respect that he came

back to me and said look
and it's going on his mix album.

One of the things that intrigues me
tremendously about the proliferation

of material that's out there in the world for

people to grab, is the potential
creation of millions of new authors.

Thanks to the internet,
thanks to digital technologies

the gatekeepers have
really been removed.

People can take more of
their cultural environment

make it their own use it as
found materials to put together

their own expressions
do their own research,

create their own communications,
create their own communities when

they need collaboration with others
rather than relying on a limited

set of existing institutions or on
a set of materials that they're not

allowed to use without
going and asking

Please may I use this?
Please may I create?

Basically, in terms of samples not many

people go out of their way to clear samples

Right about now I've got the things on the

fruity slicer like this on different keys

it's just different parts of the sample
actually just some Turkish shit i don't

even know who it's by - like
it's just some random sample

I make mainly instrumentals so
really I've made a tool for that

to sort of MC to anyway

It's good that people are ruthless

enough to use another person's tune

and record themselves spittin bars over it.

Look I'm takin over now but then
the game says too free to october now

I'm fuckin it up - listen
it's over now i'm settin the pace.

how they gonna slow me down?
look - it's over clown

I got the skippigest flows in town
plus - you niggas can't fuck wit my

word play - I switch it back -
DJ bring it back

Sometimes you get the big
artists freestylin your stuff

sort of put it out there on their CDs
and you don't even know about it

We live in this world in which

absolute abundance of information

is an everyday fact for a lot of us
and this means we have a certain

attitude towards the idea of
information as property.

It's like you've heard, sharing is in
our blood, so the struggle to hold

on to knowledge and creativity
as a commodity by force it's

going to be met by our strong urge
to share, copy and cooperate.

Kids, if they sample my music

to make their music, that would be

another good thing as well
I would like that as well

I want them to do that.
If I made an old tune,

take a bit from it, drop something
over it and make it music

make it big - if you can
do that - do that.

When you put primary materials
in the hands of ordinary citizens

really, really interesting
things can happen.

I ain't no musician - I just know
how to make things sound good

I want to make people realize their
own value - I want them to realize

that they are the masters of their
own content, that they are

they create something, they can share
it if someone else created something

they can contribute, they can help
they can get it and use it

the way it's supposed to be.

So it's a terrorism of the mind
that actually sustains concepts

like intellectual property
it's a terrorism that's

grounded on an idea of

brutal repression of that
which is actually possible.

If everything is user-generated
it also means that you have to

create something in order
to be part of the society.

I think one of the things that we are
seeing coming out is culture where

things are produced because
people care about it

and not necessarily because they
hope other people will buy it.

So what we will see is things made
by the people for themselves.

I don't think I know a person who
just listens to it and doesn't try

and get involved in some way
by producing or something

You know all these things that
are taking the copyright industry

totally by surprise - and they're
scrambling with and not able to

deal with - for the next generation
it's just part of the media landscape

They're natives, they're natives in
that media landscape absolutely.

And they're not alone.

I think of myself as a pirate.

We are pirates.

I'm a pirate

I'm proud cos I get my music
free so it's alright - I'm proud

I think we need to have a broad
conversation - it's probably gonna

be an international conversation
where people who make things

and people who use things - I'm
talking about cultural works -

sit together and think about what
kinds of rules best serve these

interests, I don't know that we're
going to agree, but I think we need

to ask a little bit more about utopia
we need to really figure out what

kind of a world we'd like to live in
an then try to craft regulations to

match that - being
reactive doesn't cut it.

The future isn't clear for sure but
that's why we're here, we're trying

to form the future, we're trying to
make it the way we want it - but

obviously most people want it to be
and that's why we're doing this.

Let's build a world that we're
actually gonna be proud of, not

just a profitable world - for a few
very large media companies

Making money is not the point
with culture, or media - making

something is the point with
media, and I don't think that

people will stop making music,
stop making movies

stop making - taking cool
photographs - whatever

Although it's difficult to believe
it now, we can do without the

entertainment industries, we'll find
new ways to get the stuff we want

made - we want a world in which we
can share, work together and find

new ways to support each other
while we're doing it. This is the

world we're tyring to
bring into being.

A force like this, a power like
this. Zillions of people connected

sharing data, sharing their work,
sharing the work of others

this situation is unprecedented in
human history, and it is a force

that will not be stopped.

People always ask us who are
the League of Noble Peers?

And we tell them, you are. I am.
Even your bank manager is.

That's why I'm a vague blur. It's
kind of like: Insert yourself here.

Because we all produce information
now, we all reproduce information.

We all distribute it. We can't stop
ourselves. It's like breathing.

We'll do it as long as we're alive.
And when we stop doing it,

we'll be dead.