There was a time when
self-respecting Bengalis—and from what I read this was a pretty universally
prevalent hobby—religiously collected stamps. My friends collected stamps in
large leather bound black catalogues. But they were all inconsequential, stamps
printed by the millions and sent by the thousands, knived off of letters from
relatives abroad. I tried for a while myself, but forgot my catalogue in a taxi
one evening and that was that.
There is direct correlation
between the rarity of the object collected and the prestige of the collector.
Aristocrats collected books for generations over centuries. What came of this
hobby are the impressive hordes of printed marvel. Some of these have ended up
in university and government libraries, some have been dismantled and dispelled
with such carelessness that they have ended up with me. Such objects of desire are
also circulated through theft, from robbing galleries off their Goyas to
robbing school libraries off their John Updikes (like Charlie Mortdecai from
Mortdecai or Dean Corso from Ninth Gate). I have bought a few books from
roadside bookstalls—a hardbound biography of Yeats among them—that formerly
belonged to the St Xavier’s library, and I have no intention of returning them.
Private collections had long been
the milieu of the financially upward. For most, archiving is an elitist act, coupled
with an academic rigor, imbued in personal or secondhand nostalgia. It is also
in many ways ‘preservatist’, historicist, and ‘sanctuarist’. Sometimes the
impersonal translates into the personal in the process of archiving, through
the time and effort invested in the collection of objects (or thoughts, or
words… Arcades Project, anyone?). Photographs, documents, letters, relics,
curios, virtually anything. Tattoos are archival too, in that sense. They are
our mobile archives of memories, our archives of vernacular history.
But as regimented,
institutionalized disciplines fragment and break loose of their professional
bondages, things start to become more interesting, heartening, deep (if risking
vagueness, paradoxically), and beautifully diverse. Let’s draw a parallel
between what I just said about collecting and the Internet today. Once, only institutions
and the ultra-rich had video or audio libraries. Today, when all content is
uncoupled from their makers and are floating freely, digitally reproduced and innumerable,
waiting to be grabbed out of thin air and materialized in a very Djinn-Rushdie
fashion, we are all collectors and archivists. We download terabytes of
information from the Internet, sometimes legally, sometimes not so. They in
turn circulate, and multiply. I do not have one friend who does not have all
the ten seasons of F.R.I.E.N.D.S somewhere in their hard drive, or HIMYM, or
Game of Thrones, or all the albums of Pink Floyd or Nirvana. A hoarding
disorder coupled with external hard drives. Susan Sontag has said about her
library that it is her “archive of longings”; for the verbally-apathetic, it is
the download list and the hard drive. Also, digital content, infallible though
they are not, aren’t generally given to alteration or variation. Like a print
of cinema of the same cut is always the same across the globe, so is all other
digital content, resting in a cyber reservoir or in a personal computer.
But pleasantries apart, things
are getting more and more serious each day. There is not much to argue about
the illegality of downloading video or audio material from pirated sources free
of cost (although some things remain to be said about this), but the matter
becomes grave when it comes to something as crucial as education. There is much
hullabaloo about this, the democratic act of theft, and the Corporates and
governments are doing all they can to crack down on this to preserve, safeguard
their financial interests. But as they grow more and more strict, so does the
public grow more and more skeptical about the ethics of it all. Recently, with
the crackdown on online repositories of e-books like Library Genesis, academics
have finally raised their voice in spite of their vested interests in the
safeguarding of copyright laws and distribution of content (find the article
here). Arguments have been made for the sanctity of knowledge, the democratic
necessity of access to information, and against the greed of the few against
the need of the many. We are forced to consider that, for once, maybe theft is
the noble commitment. And after all, what is a criminal act – bombing innocents
or downloading books? Are the corporates right to own knowledge? Is ownership
their prerogative? Or does the true right to knowledge and information belong
to the masses?
The judgment, hypocrite lecteur, must be yours.
- Souraj Dutta
- Souraj Dutta
No comments:
Post a Comment
Let us know what you think...