One of the tenets that really stroke me was the one that had to do with property:

“Hackers must calculate their interests not as owners, but as producers, for this is what distinguishes them from the vectoralist class. Hackers do not merely own, and profit by owning information. They produce new information, and as producers need access to it free from the absolute domination of the commodity form. Hacking as a pure, free experimental activity must be free from any constraint that is not self imposed. Only out of its liberty will it produce the means of producing a surplus of liberty and liberty as a surplus.”

As far as I am concerned, I have mixed feelings concerning this tenet. Indeed, I do agree that in order to produce, a hacker (or a producer if you will) has to have free access to information. To do so, information should not belong to someone.

However, I also feel that sometimes, a producer might have taken a lot of time to be able to produce his work, In that sense, it would be unfair to just take the producer’s work, and use it as if it were one’s own. In this case, I am talking about independent producers. I really don’t mind hacking works produced by multinational corporations, for those works have usually a capitalistic meaning to them.

To conclude, I feel that if it doesn’t follow an “art for art’s sake” approach, and if it mainly is directed by capitalistic motives, it should be hacked. Otherwise, it should not. Property is in the hands of those who are willing to give it away.