The exact meaning of the word “Dada” is unknown. Some speculate it just means “yes, yes” from the Romanian. Others insist that it deliberately has no meaning at all and that’s the point. Whatever the word means, the movement primarily one of utter nonsense, irrationality, and chaos… aided by a profound cynicism stemming from the terrible predicament (the first world war and the dawn of modern warfare) that science and reason had led us to. While there was no collective aesthetic (like the enforced playfulness of Rococo) but works in the form of collage were popular, as were pre-surrealist illogical landscapes.

There’s art these days going on in museums and things, it’s true… Still, I can’t shake the feeling that it’s primarily a bunch of wankers chortling at one another about how inaccessible they’ve managed to become. In the meantime, some amazing things are being done by—for lack of a better label—the Boing Boing set: dressing up like zombies and mobbing downtown businesses, intense rivalries between the fictional stereotypes of pirates and ninjas [sic], a formalized dialect for adorable pets, and robust religions made up for the sole purpose (never admitted to) of pissing off other religions. All of these ideas are loosely but not entirely connected and online economies have sprung up to support them.

There’s already been a Neo-Dada movement (in the 60s) and it would be hard to label what’s going on now as distinctly Dada—as it replaces the critique of rationality with a distinctly nerdy science bent. But the new and old do share a general distaste for the faux sincerity of the establishment and contain an implicit attack on alienation by institutional means. Whether it’s religion or technology or public space, if feeling like it actually belongs to someone else has left you apathetic and disenchanted, put on a ridiculous costume and take it back. Then blog about it so others can follow your example.

Protecting the cultural commons might be the proud point-of-intersection for all of these seemingly random phenomena. The lack of any sort of copyright for “I has a flavor” allows an entire community to use and develop it. One might go so far as saying that this movement (which, if they ever admitted to being, would only do so ironically) is working hard to create a modern mythology so twisted and ridiculous that it just may be resistant to further exploitation.

Of course, once Dada went Surrealist it started making some serious money.

It’s possible, but not probable, that’s I’m just an out-of-touch curmudgeon completely unable to see any value in what “The Kids” are into these days. I don’t believe this to be the case, however, as I just watched an episode of MTV’s “The Hills” and, while it’s loathsome content left me pining for the days that MTV played videos (who didn’t see that criticism coming?), I still found it’s concept compelling. Documenting the dangerously petty lifestyles of Hollywood socialites is something I’m not sure even Steve Irwin would’ve been able to handle.

No, “Epic Movie” is wrong, wrong, wrong for a different reason. Watching a movie that makes a mockery of other movies, like Snakes on a Plane, Nacho Libre, or even X-Men: The Last Stand presupposes that the source material was not a mockery, something which cannot be said for any of those movies. In fact, seeing posters up around town of Pirate Captain Jack Swallows [sic] running from cannibals only suggests to me, “Look! We cannibalized a bunch of movies!” Do they think they’re being clever by making a funny movie by taking scenes from other funny movies? Like someone will think, “What a great idea! Just take other peoples’ great ideas!”

You can’t spoof a spoof. You look stupid trying.

That won’t keep people from going to see it, and even laughing at some parts, but I meant what I said about it being a milestone. Movies cost money and Hollywood has long since stopped being anything other than a business, if it ever were. The concept of “franchises” is not unique to the silver screen, though they perhaps exploit them most overtly. Wade through all the marketing and the thinking comes down to this, “Why take a chance on a movie people have never seen before?” It seems that “Epic Movie” has decided to take that question (which already turns my stomach) quite literally.

“Epic Movie” is a symptom of a much larger problem, like many things that suck are. Our mental space, just like our physical, is being knowingly polluted, for profit. It’s easy to see when raw sewage is being dumped in your backyard. It’s not as easy when the same waste is being dumped straight into your conscious or sub-conscious mind. I’m not willing to commit one way or another on whether projects like “Epic Movie” are systematic efforts to reduce the range of thought of which we’re capable, but some sort of decolonization needs to happen internally—and hopefully then spread to our theaters.

Seriously, this thing looks like an SNL episode.

To start at the beginning, The Pirate Bay deals in BitTorrents. A method of sharing very large files in an extremely efficient fashion, BitTorrents have become the cutting edge of what the RIAA and MPAA are afraid of. It’s like Napster but reliable in quality and speed. Uh oh.

Naturally, the Pirate Bay has received numerous take-down notices, asking them to remove the files from their site. Each one gets published on their website, sometimes with a snarky reply, and they have—as of this writing—never deleted a single torrent. Ever. Not even one.

A grand majority of the comments on Digg express hearty congratulations to the Pirates for standing strong in the face of rude American media conglomerates (it should be noted that The Pirate Bay operates from Sweden which has markedly different copyright laws than the U.S.). However, there are plenty of comments like the following:

I hope the pirate bay knows in the US, divulging trade secrets has the same punishment as treason.

Keep “fighting against the man” kids, then sit back and bitch when prices are going up. Hopefully the end result will be your mom and dad will lose their jobs and you’ll have to pay for those new rims you got for your Honda by working at McDonalds.

I hope they catch these leeches and “waterboard” them.

Such venom!

What the debate really boils down to is a discussion of pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional ethics. Under what level of development is The Pirate Bay operating? Here are the typical reasons that people follow rules:

1. Pre-conventional. Rules are followed only out of fear of the consequences. Might is right. If you can enforce it, it is moral.
2. Conventional. Rules are followed because they’re the rules. Society wouldn’t function without them. Right?
3. Post-conventional. Rules are followed when they’re good rules. Otherwise, personal codes of ethics take precedent.

Which of these apply to The Pirate Bay? They are obviously not afraid of the consequences; in fact, they verbally abuse their accusers. U.S. copyright laws do not apply to them, since they’re in Sweden (and Swedish society seems to be doing okay). Finally, The Pirate Bay has made in painfully obvious, at every opportunity, that they don’t find these rules to be “good rules”. From their perspective, there is no reason to follow them.

Now which of those levels best apply to the copyright-holders?

I am loathe to use the G word, but domestic anger over The Pirate Bay is one of the consequences of Globalization. The same lack of international law that allows corporations to lower costs by avoiding minimum wage, skirting environmental law or criminal negligence is playing out in the other direction by allowing those pesky Swedes to circumvent our enlightened copyright laws.

The poor RIAA plays right into the archetype, defining piracy thusly:

No black flags with skull and crossbones, no cutlasses, cannons, or daggers identify today’s pirates. You can’t see them coming; there’s no warning shot across your bow. Yet rest assured the pirates are out there because today there is plenty of gold (and platinum and diamonds) to be had. Today’s pirates operate not on the high seas but on the Internet, in illegal CD factories, distribution centers, and on the street. The pirate’s credo is still the same—why pay for it when it’s so easy to steal?

If that’s not a rallying cry for internet piracy, I don’t know what is. The first “Pirates of the Carribbean” made almost $50M in its first weekend, certainly telling people that they can be like Johnny Depp if they download some Shakira will not be a successful deterrent. Tragically, stories about all the heroic copyright lawyers (though some do exist) never seem to break out of the local art houses.

Is the pirate’s credo really as simple as “why pay for it?” Is that why people buy sexy pirates costumes for Halloween? Is that why there’s a Talk Like a Pirate Day? Is that why ninjas and pirates don’t get along? I somehow doubt it.

Personally, I think that pirates represent a postconventional morality where an individual has interrogated “authority” and found himself the only true metric of his own integrity. Pirates are do not break the law, they transcend it. Cap’n Jack Sparrow himself says that a pirate ship is freedom. Contrast this with the very un-freedom-y actions of the media Old Guard.

The “Future of Radio” panel at South by Southwest this year was downright depressing. The panelists were young, innovative, creative people with a complete grasp over the potential of the web to transform music and its role in our lives. However, for practically every question asked from the audience, the answer was “our licensing agreement won’t let us do that”. How much longer will we let the Old Guard play gatekeeper before we just make a new gate? The situation transforms from sad to laughable when you consider that pirate radio, in its most recent incarnation as podcasts, has essentially won. Afterall, why pay for it when it’s so easy to innovate around it?

Yarrr!