Pirate Party Comes to the U.S. 543
Spy der Mann writes "Wired news has published an interview with the Pirate Party of the U.S., which was formed a week after the raid on Pirate Bay. The group patterns itself after Piratpartiet, the Swedish political party associated with The Pirate Bay, and says it wants to reform intellectual property and privacy laws."
I'll have to look into a donation... (Score:5, Insightful)
Or maybe the "Ugly Party"? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is what we need, but named horribly (Score:2, Insightful)
This is exactly what geeks across America have been hoping for: a group intended to defend the consumer's side in privacy and intellectual property discussions. But there's no way they're going to succeed in politics when they've named themselves the "Pirate Party". I don't think I even need to ask whether they realize that they're giving their opponents fodder for later complaints and insults.
Too bad it's futile (Score:5, Insightful)
But I support the idea. The idea has been picked up by our communists. I guess I'll become a comrade.
Re:This is what we need, but named horribly (Score:5, Insightful)
The sad this is, they appear to be serious! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is what we need, but named horribly (Score:3, Insightful)
Also this way the "piracy thing" is right there to discuss at the beginning instead of the **AA bringing it up at some other inopportune time.
Re:This is what we need, but named horribly (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'll have to look into a donation... (Score:5, Insightful)
Good start but needs more (Score:2, Insightful)
Just something to think about.
This is not what we need. (Score:1, Insightful)
Please. It's not like they're even going to get that far. This is nothing more than a couple of no-names who decided to set up a web page and call themselves a political party because they thought it was cool. Bring in a leader with teeth and some money and we'll talk.
overkill...? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The sad this is, they appear to be serious! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:truly not an american way (Score:5, Insightful)
Likewise, OSS was labeled as terrorism/communism by some, and now it is pretty much understood that it is one of the truer forms of capitalism (and charity).
Somewhere down the road, as ip laws are changed, this group may be changed from being consider terrorists to heros.
Re:I'll have to look into a donation... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is what we need, but named horribly (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not a normal political party. They do not want to act within the established sphere of law and government, they want to change them. Maybe calling themselves Pirates will make people (especially the millions and millions of people who want the same things) realize that the *AA's of the world are villainizing intelligent people who contribute to society. If someone identifies with the Pirate Party, maybe they'll say, hey, I don't feel good about being called evil all the time.
Note: obviously, I see your point, I could have made it myself and I don't think you're dumb, nor do I disagree with you all that much. But c'mon. Would a party by any other name be able to get attention, respect, and votes if they had the same agenda? I think if anything, somebody else would give them the nickname "the Pirate Party," and then they'd be guilty of dressing that up, but the public would still see the name "Pirate Party" being thrown around.
Have you seen '8 Mile'? In the battle at the end, where Em/B. Rabbit throws out all the obvious ammo his opponent would have? I see this as pretty similar.
It's an uphill, probably impossible battle in either case; it's just a bold stroke to come out with it and call themselves "the Pirate Party," and I'm interested to see where they go with it and how much we'll hear about it from other outlets.
Re:Or maybe the "Ugly Party"? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Too bad it's futile (Score:5, Insightful)
It's in there. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Too bad it's futile (Score:5, Insightful)
With the election system of the US, it's always 2 parties with nobody having thet slightest chance to muscle in, at best in local elections (which, frankly, have no impact on copyright laws).
But that's the best place to start, locally. Some small town, say here in NJ. A Pirate Party candidate runs, solicits donations via Internet, runs a clean campaign and overwhelms some lowlife local mayor by making him/her look out of touch with the modern world. If elected, that candidiate becomes a news item; next up - city council elections! You just work your way through, starting at the grass roots level, shoe-horning your way into every nook and cranny of local politics until you have a large enough power base to build state organizations. It's only a couple more jumps until you're in the national spotlight. The whole thing hinges, however, on getting youth to vote, because they would probably identify more strongly from the start with a Pirate Party candidate.
As an aside, the name is fine; after all there used to be "Whigs" and "Tories"; how lame are those?
Please spare me (Score:5, Insightful)
Public backlast against *IAA (Score:4, Insightful)
Sigal: I think the raid is what brought this whole thing to my attention, and to the attention of people around the world. The raid in Sweden could turn out to be the best thing that happened to the internet community. I think it backfired on the MPAA. They wanted to take down a site they thought was illegal, but everyone noticed that the MPAA is terrorizing the people.
No kidding. Whether or not the party manages to elect any members, its time to bring these issues to the public on every front possible, including the political front. A strong grassroots effort behind the Pirate Party would throw these tactics right back in the face of the *IAA organizations.
Re:This is what we need, but named horribly (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:YRO stuff (Score:1, Insightful)
In fact, to say that an organization or individual (government, business, or regular Joe) doesn't have the right to block whatever they want on their own private computers, certainly does directly interfere with my right to set my firewall and spam filters up however the fuck I want.
Go back to China, Commie.
i see alot of comments (Score:5, Insightful)
What's in a name? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Please spare me (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Too bad it's futile (Score:5, Insightful)
* The drinking age would be 18 again.
* Publicly owned Colleges and Universities would be Free
* Insurance rates would be equitable
* etc.. etc..
Fact is that they DON'T get involved in politics in large numbers because Public Schools, by and large, arn't preparing kids to be adults - they're makeing "human resources."
Ohh, and Mom and Dad are too busy working or playing with their riches to notice that big bright place outside the front door.
Re:I'll have to look into a donation... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Or maybe the "Ugly Party"? (Score:3, Insightful)
Take the EFF -- one one hand they try to be a legit public policy/civil rights organization, and on the other they wink and nod to downloaders with slick ads in Wired magazine. It's duplicitious and undermines their credibility. It's better to be honest and say ARRR. Go Pirate Party!
I see a lot of words (Score:1, Insightful)
Good luck next time, and don't get offended -- a lot of folks write like that when they first get their shiney new AOL trial CD in the mail.
Unelectable (Score:4, Insightful)
Granted, no established party is going to really take this issue on in such a way either so I guess it leaves the public that wants this type of reform SOL.
And this is why they will never succeed... (Score:5, Insightful)
Disney and all the rest of the those with vested interestes in intellectual property have more money than anyone could possibly counter with enough votes to make a difference.
It's all about the cash. Votes are just something to make you feel like you have a representative government.
Steve
Re:I'll have to look into a donation... (Score:5, Insightful)
At first, I thought that the views of the Pirate Party were even a bit too extreme, but after reading a bit deeper, it seems that I agree with them on almost everything - reward the author for a reasonable amount of time, and don't patent the third world into a slow, painful death.
Re:This is what we need, but named horribly (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:The sad this is, they appear to be serious! (Score:3, Insightful)
As do I. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'll have to look into a donation... (Score:5, Insightful)
I know it feels good to support the Pirate Bay or something, but this will amount to a hill of beans - or The Pirate Party's servers being raided periodically.
Re:Unelectable (Score:3, Insightful)
What's in a name? (Score:5, Insightful)
These guys are trying to throw a wrench into the machinery; calling themselves "The Pirate Party" helps.
If they can get themselves sued over the name, all the better. They need all the mainstream attention they can get.
Re:This is what we need, but named horribly (Score:2, Insightful)
Why bother with all this math? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hint 2: it doesn't take 100+ years to realize a profit on your intellectual endeavor, if that's your taste. Especially nowadays. As a general rule, your book/record/film is going to profit in its first five years of life or never. If anything, terms should be getting shorter as distribution & marketing technologies continue to improve.
Re:And this is why they will never succeed... (Score:5, Insightful)
Just a quick reality check to counter this sort of complete cyncism -- Crappy popular culture is pretty much the only thing of value that the US exports nowdays. The entertainment business is a critical national industry. So, of course politicians naturally support it.
Not to mention Hollywood being the largest industry in California, the most populous state. I can tell you that here in CA politicans aren't pro-*AA because of the money, but simply because that's what the jobs and economy is based on.
Entertainment is pretty much the perfect political storm -- you've got unions, you've got social liberals, you've got big business, you've got finance, you've got cultural imperalists, and a host of other groups supporting them. It's perfectly natural they have a ton of political power -- they don't *need* to bribe people.
There needs to be opposition to educate people and prevent the draconian types of proposals that always seem to be floating around in congressional committees. But ultimately is the US political establishment going to do anything to undermine entertainment? Never. What's good for Hollywood is good for America.
Re:I'll have to look into a donation... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's only futile because of you (Score:3, Insightful)
If no Presidential candidate gets a majority of the (electoral college) votes, then the House picks from the three highest (electoral) vote-getters. It does not go to whoever got the most votes (either popular or electoral). Having a third party prominent enough to compete against the Republicans and Democrats would just split the vote such that nobody ever gets a majority and we get a string of Presidents chosen by Congress - ultimately selected by the people, sure, but even more indirectly than in the current electoral college system.
Re:Too bad it's futile (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It's only futile because of you (Score:3, Insightful)
I see. So the lack of proportional party representation in the legislature, a century of gerrymandering, winner-take-all electoral college voting, and a bevy of exclusionary state election laws have nothing to do with it.
Re:I'll have to look into a donation... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Too bad it's futile (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that starting a 527 committee and/or hiring a lobbyist is a better idea. Put together some well placed bribes^H^H^H^H^H^H campaign contributions to existing Congressional representatives (since your chances of getting one elected are, to a first approximation, zero) to get them on your side.
Re:This is what we need, but named horribly (Score:5, Insightful)
Ugh. If someone likes your house, and they take it away from you, you no longer have it. If someone likes your house, and replicates it on their own property (the method is unimportant to this discussion), does that diminish the value of your home?
Why do you, as an artist feel that you should be able to mooch off your one big work for the rest of your life (and your children's lives, etc.)? Do you think it would be equitable for the person who painted your house to receive a royalty check every time someone admires your house? Should the plumber get a check every time you flush your toilet?
This is not intended as a flame. I seriously want to know, from someone who feels this entitlement, where do you draw the line? How can you make these comparisons with a straight face?
Re:I'll have to look into a donation... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why bother with all this math? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the biggest problem is the fact that corporations can hold copyrights. If something like a copyright is there to protect "artists" then corporations should have no say in it. If you have it attributed to an individual then I think that individual should be able to transfer it to another individual when they retire/die if they would like someone to continue their legacy.
If anything I think there should be more of a "use it or loose it" policy where if the content hasn't been published/manufactured/etc. for 10 years then it becomes public domain. So if "Music Group X" makes an album in 2010 and it only gets pressed for 2 years and production stops then in 2022 that music becomes public domain. If in 2019 one of the songs pops up on a sound track then that song get's it's clock reset until production of the sound track stops. Public performances by the copyright owner (movie in a theater/TV, band playing live, painting on display, etc) would also reset the clock. If a copyright is worth having then these things will still occur ANYWAY.
Re:I'll have to look into a donation... (Score:5, Insightful)
And, I'm pretty sure the Piracy Party is not supposed to be a 100% serious organization.
That's nice... and? (Score:2, Insightful)
These are what most people will want to know before signing up for a party.
Re:Why bother with all this math? (Score:5, Insightful)
It would also be good to go back to having to explicitly register copyrights with the Library of Congress, and to require that the LOC gets a free, non-DRM-encumbered copy in the preferred format for making modifications to it. Considering that the Public Domain is designed to foster modification, it only makes sense that a "compiled work" such as a software binary or lossy-compressed digital video wouldn't be useful, and therefore shouldn't be sufficient to use as collateral to earn copyright protection.
Re:Too bad it's futile (Score:3, Insightful)
Does this happen in practice? What other issues have been picked up by major parties due to a third party getting public attention? It's a nice theory, but are you sure it actually works this way?
Re:I'll have to look into a donation... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I'll have to look into a donation... (Score:4, Insightful)
What makes you think the EFF isn't seen in this light anyways? More importantly, what makes you think it's relevant to many people in the political establishment if they are pirates or piracy sympathizers? I was under the impression that politics focused on either providing what the people want or trying to push people into issues so they'd decide based on them. The "pro-public domain" camp fits the former (clearly this new party is about issues that voters care about). The only real issue is that it's hard to compare "Iraq War" and "Public Domain" as talking points, so it's hard to use it to drive votes. To that end, I'm not sure it's possible to make the political establishment really care at all until these "pirates" go about looting ships.
Ie, I really don't see this changing much of anything.
Re:I'll have to look into a donation... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I'll have to look into a donation... (Score:5, Insightful)
Piracy is robbery committed at sea. Copyright infringement is
See, one involves killing and stealing. The other involves copyright infringement.
One has the effect of immediate and tangible harm to the victim. The other has the effect of infringing on someone's copyrights.
They're both crimes, but they're different kinds of crimes.
If someone tries to rob you at sea, and you fight back and kill them, you're probably justified. If someone is tries to infringe on your copyrights, and you kill them, you're probably a psychopath.
Re:I'll have to look into a donation... (Score:5, Insightful)
What on earth makes you think they should give a fuck? If you stand around politely waiting for permission from the "political establishment", you'll never get anywhere.
Re:This is what we need, but named horribly (Score:4, Insightful)
He didn't create the money in the bank. He created something of value (to someone) and was paid for it. He got paid for the perceived value he added. If he stopped adding that value, he would stop getting paid. Now he has enough money that he can invest it in other venues that add value, and claim some of the reward for that added value, but that is neither here nor there. It's the same thing for office workers. They stop adding value they stop getting paid. Let's say I'm a psychologist. I create contentment (if I'm any good). Do I get to control the level of contentment in the people I treat after I'm done treating them? I created it (it wasn't there before I did my work). Is it not mine?
No problems here. This is really how I feel it should work. You created something, you got paid for your work. As a painter, or a sculptor you charge admission to view your work. As a singer you hold concerts. As a songwriter, you write music for singers to sing.
And if you found that people were not willing to pay this much, would you complain about the fact that you couldn't make a living at it?
I imagine the pun was unintentional. In any case, this is simply not true. If you are a good plumber, then people will continue to call on your services. If you are a good artist, people will continue to call on your services. If your plumbing skills are sub-par, you are likely not going to be able to make a living at it*. Same thing for an artist. If nobody likes your work enough to make it worth your while to continue to produce it, why should you continue to get paid for the work that you did in the past? The biggest difference I see is the potential glamor of being a big name artist means there is a glut of supply there. Contrast the number of people who wish to be a rock star as a career, versus the number of people who dream of being a plumber.
I still feel my question is left unanswered. Where does this sense of entitlement to be paid for past work come in?
Re:This is what we need, but named horribly (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm going to answer your rhetorical question. Yes. Obviously it does. But the person who created the magical device is obviously putting more value into society than I am. He has found a far more efficient method of building houses. Assuming that his method is not stealing the resources (and I do mean stealing in the sense of depriving someone else of them), more power to him. Looks like I might need to adapt. Perhaps there will be those who value a hand built house more than a "magicly" made one (look at the cost of Amish hand made furniture versus machine built for an example). Perhaps I can continue to build houses and even charge more for them...
By the same respects, the next house I'll buy is going to cost much less (or be free). Sure I have incurred a net financial loss (the money I invested in purchasing the house in the first place), but the value of the house to me has not dropped at all (it is still home, sweet home). By the same respects, such a shift in the value of the housing market (a very different beast from entertainment) would have a profound effect on the economy. This is really where that analogy falls apart.
In any case, I have a job. I get paid for the work that I do. I would feel guilty holding my past work ransom. It's just who I am. As such I don't understand how someone else feels no guilt (quite the opposite in some cases) at doing so.
That's all well and good, and a choice that each of us has to make. I can see granting a limited monoploly on the work to promote the creation of more work as a compromise... But how does that excuse passing the benefits to those that had no part in the creation of the enrichment? How does that justify a perpetual reward for a fixed amount of work?
I have no artistic talent. I can't draw my way out of a paper bag, I can't carry a tune worth a spit, when I see a block of wood, I don't see the scupture within, I see a bock of wood. There was never any question of which path I was going to take. I'm also a bit risk adverse, so I didn't become an investment banker either. But I do a little trading as a hobby. Do you see a parallel?
The funny thing is I'm paid for my mind and my ingenuity. I do make money off my ideas as a problem solver (at its most basic level). Just not perpetually. I have to continue to solve problems to be paid. *shrug*
All in the name (Score:2, Insightful)