Interview With Leader of Sweden's Pirate Party 476
CrystalFalcon writes "Linux-P2P has published an interview with Rick Falkvinge, leader of the Swedish Pirate Party which is aiming to gain entry to Swedish Parliament this fall. (The party's founding was previously covered on Slashdot.) The party is totally for real, totally serious, and has seen approval ratings of 57% in some polls, with only four percent needed to gain seats. Its goals are to cut back copyrights, abolish patents, and strengthen the right to privacy."
here? (Score:4, Interesting)
Not Very Bright (Score:1, Interesting)
While I believe that many aspects of copyright are downright silly, this could be related to a kid whining about not getting what he wants.
worth noting (Score:1, Interesting)
I very seriously doubt 4% of the voting public is even aware of this party's existence. We already have three other new mobs of power-hungry morons^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H groups of upstanding, concerned citizens hogging the spotlight; don't expect this one to make much of a splash.
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't like the term "pirate". (Score:5, Interesting)
Sweden is a strong country as far as free information goes; very little is restricted. For example, the popular torrent website The Pirate Bay [thepiratebay.org], a warehouse of torrents for popular files is hosted in Sweden and hasn't had much problems with the Swedish authorities. Interestingly, its corresponding crime rate [indymedia.org] is one of the lowest in the world--60 people imprisoned per 100,000, as compared to the United States' 690.
Call me unpatriotic, call me crazy, but I think this "Pirate Party" might very well just be a good idea. It will give people a different perspective on things: It is possible to not restrict information, and still manage a flourishing--if not something greater--economy and society.
I, for one, welcome our new pirate overlords.
The Pirate Bay (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Abolishing patents (Score:5, Interesting)
No we don't, for the simple reason that it isn't true. Do the math yourself. Or, read up on some people who have:
Dean Baker [paecon.net]
George Monbiot [guardian.co.uk]
In fact, our very own Ericsson was founded by copying a Siemens telephone design. History shows, repeatedly, that countries and/or markets with little or no IP protection flourish for the simple reason that time-to-market and true innovation are much stronger incentives for the making of new creations than the stale state-imposed monopolies of patent and copyright.
No country, Schiff notes, has ever contributed "as many basic inventions in this field as did Switzerland during her patentless period".
Re:Abolish patents? (Score:5, Interesting)
Abolish patents? (Score:2, Interesting)
Here's what I mean: pharmaceuticals. Some countries still don't patent them; they also don't have a pharmaceutical industry. It costs a ton of money to create a new drug, and it takes a long time to make a profit of that drug. If no patent on the drug was allowed, then other companies would quickly copy the drug, and then sell it at a lower price than the developer of the drug would be able to. There would be no profit in research and development--so no new drugs would be developed, everyone would just copy each other's old drugs.
What would happen instead is something that already hinders the industry to a degree--trade secrets. Patents would be replaced by trade secrets. Since "the next big drug" usually comes from developments ontop of earlier research, each company would be totally separate not telling the other what its developed, so each company would be duplicating research to find out what another company had already discovered. So it is much more efficient to have patents where the discovery is published but protected. Then research need not be inefficiently duplicated at a huge wasteful cost.
I think that if patents were actually abolished governments would be required to take up the slack. It would be like public roads--no single entity profits from deciding to make a road unless they will make money. Since they can't make money of developing drugs without outside help, the government must offer that help--so the government would have to fund new drug development. Or, they could just use patents.
How would you like it if you were Motorola, and you spent $10,000,000 depeloping a new technology for a telephone, and then, 6 months after you put it on sale, all the other major companies have developed the exact same thing but can undercut your price because they only had to pay $500,000 for research and development (research consisted of dismantling your invention; development consisted of reproducing it)? According to the article, to make money Motorola needs to just develop something better than the last thing. So, it spends $10,000,000 developing something even better. 6 months later, Nokia had that copied and out on their new phones as well, also undercutting your price.
If you don't believe me regarding this scenario--look at history. Experiences exactly like this are the very reason that patent law came into existence in the first place. Do we really want to go back where we already were, find out again that it was bad, and then reimpliment patent law...ad infinitum???
Re:Not Very Bright (Score:3, Interesting)
They have NO interest in art & ALL interest in $$$. surely even the dimmest of you must realize this.
My art is REALLY good but i am now self employed doing something totally unrelated to survive & my art after that cause i love to.
Big Business could NEVER nurture art or artists, it's oil & water.
creativity and greed are complete opposites & its either one OR the other
please understand & put an end to this "copyright supports artists"
it really do not. at all
Rock On Pirate Party !!!!!!!!!
Re:Abolish patents? (Score:2, Interesting)
As a swede i will vote on the pirateparty this coming election. Not because i agree with _everything_, but because in some topics a voice of opposition need to be heard and taken seriously.
Bork bork!
Another problem with the US system (Score:3, Interesting)
You can't vote "NO!" to a candidate. You can only vote "Yes!".
So even if 55% dislike candidate A, but only 25% are fine with candidate A, if the 55% can't agree on who to vote "Yes!" to (or they stay at home in disgust) instead, candidate A has a good chance of winning.
Now I claim more people would vote if they could vote "No!".
It'll be worth it even if the candidate still wins - but with a net negative total
Re:here? (Score:2, Interesting)