Skip navigation

In “Porous Legalities and Avenues of Participation,” Lawrence Liang argues that “porous legalities” often are “the only modes through which people can access and create avenues of participation in the new economy” (8). By this, he means that “porous legalities” provide liminal spaces within which individuals can navigate and engender new venues for economic (re)integration. Liang provides the example of “music companies” in India that “worked with illegally obtained components to ensure cost effectiveness of their product” (10). Such a company thus circumvents legality through this enclave of illegality and does so throughout with an “elastic idea of legality” (10). A company in Delhi, T-Series, subscribed to such a notion of “elastic illegality”, and eventually made the cassette into “a bazaar product” (10). This measure managed to produce “a mass commodity” through their idea-in-action of “networked production” (10). And, in the aftermath of such navigations of liminal spaces of law, “the ad hoc world of innovation” is certainly “based on very porous ideas of legality” (10).

In the conclusion, Liang writes: “Social struggles can then be seen also as struggles for the redistribution of legalities and illegalities produced in social conflicts, and porosity serves as a metaphor to understand the continuous struggle for the appropriation of the means of production of legality and illegality.”

But is such a condonation of illegality warranted? Should we bypass the laws in place if they yield economic prosperity and profits? Why does the author willingly condone these porous legalities? Even if we might argue that “copyright endangers the free flow of information within the public domain”, does that give license people to commit digital acts of piracy?