Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Pirate Party Comes to the U.S.

Comments Filter:
  • by Iguru42 ( 530641 ) * on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @01:40PM (#15577104)
    We could certainly take a long hard look at copyright law in this country. It's become clear to me that the public domain is, for all intents and purposes, closed. Everytime Mickey gets close to falling into PD congress will suddenly find it in their interest to extend copyright.
    • by cayenne8 ( 626475 ) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @01:46PM (#15577148) Homepage Journal
      "Everytime Mickey gets close to falling into PD congress will suddenly find it in their interest to extend copyright..."

      Arrrghhh.....Our first pirate party act, will be to capture that scurrvy ridden rodent, and have him walk the plank....yarrr....

    • by Elvis Parsley ( 939954 ) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @01:51PM (#15577199)
      It's not closed, but it is narrowing. It'd just take a few deft strokes of legislation to return the limit on copyright to something reasonable, but that damn mouse keeps buying up the legislature. What we need to do is get a time machine and have someone write into the Constitution an explanation to the effect that "Steamboat Willie" must eventually go out of copyright.
      • It's in there. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Mateo_LeFou ( 859634 ) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @02:02PM (#15577318) Homepage
        It says "securing for limited Times". What needs to made clear(er) in the Constitution is that Copyright laws that demonstrably do *not "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" are not valid.
        • by geobeck ( 924637 ) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @02:38PM (#15577581) Homepage

          What needs to made clear(er) in the Constitution is that Copyright laws that demonstrably do *not "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" are not valid.

          So every movie Rob Schneider has ever made should be public domain the moment it's released. But that would mean Rob Schneider movies would never show a profit... and no more of them would never be made...

          Let's get this amendment approved ASAP!

        • Re:It's in there. (Score:4, Interesting)

          by cptgrudge ( 177113 ) <cptgrudge@gmail . c om> on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @02:44PM (#15577640) Journal
          Perhaps new copyright legislation should define the "limited time" as one half of the total average lifespan of an American citizen, according to an unbiased source (where do we get this statistic now?). Have it be measured and applied every 10 years. That way, copyright holders and their agents will have a real interest in the extension of the human lifespan as well, not just copyright!
          • by Mateo_LeFou ( 859634 ) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @02:55PM (#15577732) Homepage
            It seems to me that a limit is in there -- the term and scope have to serve the purpose of the clause. Any number you pick is going to seem arbitrary to someone; what's needed is a method, developed by an impartial party, for counting the costs and benefits of any proposed term. Hint: retroactive term extensions are B.S. You don't need to provide incentives to produce things that already exist. It'd be great to just start there and fine-tune as we learn more.

            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.

            • I don't know if I fully agree with IP lifespans getting shorter.. With production costs of things like movies and games getting higher and higher due to consumer demand of better looking special effects/graphics (interesting enough music production costs are getting lower due to equipment costs getting cheaper) it's in the best interests of those industries to continually piggy back off of the same franchises (see Mario version X, Fast and the Furious 3, etc.)

              I think the biggest problem is the fact that
              • by mrchaotica ( 681592 ) * on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @03:55PM (#15578187)

                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.

          • by tepples ( 727027 ) <{tepples} {at} {}> on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @03:01PM (#15577790) Homepage Journal
            Perhaps new copyright legislation should define the "limited time" as one half of the total average lifespan of an American citizen, according to an unbiased source (where do we get this statistic now?).

            The US Census Bureau exists to implement the constitutional requirement for an enumeration. A hard limit of half a life expectancy would be easy to implement based on data that the Census Bureau and similar government agencies already publish. But then pegging the copyright term to the progress of medical arts it might make the copyright industry support the drug industry.

          • Re:It's in there. (Score:5, Interesting)

            by ArsonSmith ( 13997 ) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @05:36PM (#15578780) Journal
            How about have it so copyright extention is paid for. You get your first 10 to 20 years as it is now, then you have to pay a renewal fee every say 3 to 5 years that doubles each time. Eventually it would become unprofitable to continue to pay the renewal and you'd have to release to the PD.
      • by Firehed ( 942385 ) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @02:35PM (#15577560) Homepage
        Well, at this point, the only way for something to enter public domain is to specifically release it there. Creative Commons and whatnot are a good step forward - I quite agree with the Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 (do whatever you want with it, just don't profit without the creator's permisson or release derivative works under some other license) - but last I heard, someone was trying to abuse that too. The 90+ years after the death of the original author is insane right now, seeing that the grandchildren of the author have probably died by that time - methinks something like 5-10 years depending on the medium (how long is content really profitable for anyways?) then it goes into a CCANCSA2.5 or similar for another fiveish, then goes into public domain. I'm all for Information Wants To Be Free, but the creators of the work should be able to profit from it for a reasonable amount of time.

        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.

    • by Mad Dog Manley ( 93208 ) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @01:55PM (#15577242)
      The Pirate Party doesn't need to win any elections to succeed. All they need is some publicity and public support, and major parties will be forced to adopt their policies. Or, one major party adopts it in order to gain an advantage.
      • by hador_nyc ( 903322 ) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @02:22PM (#15577447) Homepage
        The Pirate Party doesn't need to win any elections to succeed. All they need is some publicity and public support, and major parties will be forced to adopt their policies. Or, one major party adopts it in order to gain an advantage.
        You've just described the history of all the successful third parties in American history.
      • One thing to note is that this party seems to transcend traditional left/right ideological lines and subsequently will not "draw" from one of the major parties like the Greens or Libertarians*. If the Pirate Party ever gets anyone to run for office, they won't be decried as spoilers. At least, it would take a master spinmeister to do so.

        *I don't subscribe to this belief, but many do. Perception is reality.

      • Approval Voting (Score:4, Informative)

        by samtihen ( 798412 ) * on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @02:46PM (#15577661) Homepage
        And this is where Approval Voting [] comes into play.

        Basically, the idea is that you may vote for as many of the candidates as you approve of.

        For instance, a good chunk of people enjoy many of the ideas that the Libertarian party believes in. This same chunk of people often has to make a choice between voting for a democrat or a republican, because everyone knows third parties stand no chance here.

        Now, under the Approval voting system, you could vote for both the Libertarian candidate and the party you would have ended up voting for had you no choice.

        Now, I do not believe that the Libertarian party would win. What I do believe is that they would receive a much larger number of votes, and many of the idea would be much harder for the main two parties to ignore.

        The same, of course, would happen to the Pirate Party. They are not going to win, let's face it. But, if they were to receive a vote from 15-30% of the population (a reasonable goal), the major parties could not ignore that.

        What makes this system so great, however, is the incredible ease of implementation. It isn't complicated for voters to understand, and ballots could already support multiple votes.
    • by blackmonday ( 607916 ) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @02:06PM (#15577348) Homepage
      I agree wholeheartedly, but one correction. Its not the character of Mickey Mouse that would become Public Domain, it's "Steamboat Willie" - the cartoon in which Mickey first appeared. Important Distinction.
    • by maillemaker ( 924053 ) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @02:32PM (#15577531)
      >Everytime Mickey gets close to falling into PD congress will suddenly find it in their interest to extend copyright.

      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.

      • by NutscrapeSucks ( 446616 ) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @02:58PM (#15577766)
        It's all about the cash. Votes are just something to make you feel like you have a representative government.

        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.
  • The should not have given their party a self-defeating name.
    • by $RANDOMLUSER ( 804576 ) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @01:52PM (#15577207)
      How about the "Let's Party"?
    • Actually... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @01:55PM (#15577239)
      Honestly, at this point, I *do* support piracy.

      After seeing how the Republicans are selling my ass out to the telecoms in the house*, I--someone who has been registered as a republican for as long as he could vote--am dumping that party until it comes to its senses.

      Keel haul the blaggards!

      * There are plenty of reasons to dump them, not just Net Neutrality. It's just that that's the absolute last straw. At this point, I feel like I'm throwing my vote away voting for either of the two main parties, anyhow so I might as well vote with someone I agree with...
    • Publicity is essential. I don't think that it's a big loss for them if they are critiziced over their name because they'll be killed by the media cons just for their agenda
    • True enough. "Copyright Reform Party", or "Intellectual Property Reform Party" or, I dunno, I'm not one of those political campaign managers, but almost anything would be better.

      Actually, "Privateer" evokes a revolutionary-era image of our forefathers fighting for freedom from the (still) hated British.

      But, these guys cant seriously expect votes, it's just a publicity stunt to get people to notice them and get some press. Unfortunately, they'll likely make a joke of the whole issue and hurt the cause more
      • What's in a name? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by mattis_f ( 517228 ) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @02:45PM (#15577654)
        Actually, that's what I thought at first when they showed up in Sweden too - but I've come to the conclusion that "Pirate Party" is pretty darn clever. It's provocative and attention grabbing ... with the "Copyright Reform Party" or your other suggestions, all we're getting is another EFF. Who are doing an amazing job, of course, but they're not exactly well known (beyond slashdot circles).

        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.
    • I actually have a lot more respect for Pirates that wear it on their sleeve than the usual Slashdot Bitch about RIAA/MPAA/BitTorrent/DRM/etc that tries to dance around the issue or pretend it isn't really about downloading whatever you please for free.

      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 sa
    • by ceeam ( 39911 ) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @02:34PM (#15577552)
      To quote
      <Brenty> You know, I think the media really fucked up when they called it "software piracy"
      <Brenty> Everyone WANTS to be a pirate
      <Brenty> If they'd called it "software faggotry" everyone would still buy all their shit
  • Pirate Bay US (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Miadlo ( 954294 ) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @01:46PM (#15577149)
    And I thought they were joking when I saw a comment on Digg or here, (cant remember which), that there was going to become a Pirate Bay USA, will never happen but good to see a little good come out of the RIAA and USA make jackasses out of themselves in the raid.
  • by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @01:46PM (#15577153)
    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 I support the idea. The idea has been picked up by our communists. I guess I'll become a comrade. :)
    • by HardCase ( 14757 )
      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).

      Don't tell Jim Jeffords [] or Bernie Sanders [].

    • by Mad Dog Manley ( 93208 ) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @01:59PM (#15577292)
      The Pirate Party doesn't have to get elected to get their point across. Political parties whose platforms are based on a single concept (e.g. intellectual rights reform) merely have to prove they have popular support, and then one or more major parties will pick up (or pirate, lol) their idea to add to their votes.
    • by Billosaur ( 927319 ) * <> on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @02:03PM (#15577329) Journal

      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?

      • by Panaflex ( 13191 ) <> on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @02:20PM (#15577436)
        Hey, if the "youth" voted,
        * 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.
      • Since none of the issues important to the PP are decided at the local level, can you explain how a PP mayor would govern differently from a non-PP mayor? You'd need to broaden the PP's platform to include issues that have some local effect, such as free municpal Wi-Fi.

        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

    • by stratjakt ( 596332 ) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @02:15PM (#15577410) Journal
      You, and people like you, saying it's "futile" and third party votes are "wasted" are the cause of the two party problem. You've helped brainwash the american voter into thinking it's a coin toss, and he should pick the "lesser of two evils".

      Then on election day, we see some bullshit like "49% people favor John Kerry and 51% people favor George Bush". Which we all know is wrong. Nearly everybody, in the last election, thought both candidates sucked.

      Vote for who you want to vote for. They may not win, but we won't be sending some assclown to the whitehouse with some bullshit "51% american support" argument. The next time the republicrats win, I want to see the number say "7%", followed by maybe Greens or Libertarians with 4% and 5% type numbers. I want the numbers to clearly demonstrate what the people want.

      If that were to happen, and the two parties will realize just how tenuous their connection to the voters are, and things will start to change.

      But instead, all of the apathetic slugs out there contribute the the problem by saying "I really like blah-blahs positions but I dont want to waste my vote so I dunno, Hillary Clinton I guess".

      Vote for the Pirate Party if you like them. They don't have to win to send a message.

      • No, I'd say the Twelfth Amendment [] is the cause of the two-party problem:

        The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President.

        If no Presidential candidate gets a majority of the

      • You, and people like you, saying it's "futile" and third party votes are "wasted" are the cause of the two party problem.

        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.

    • by thebdj ( 768618 )
      Actually not quite true. While we have not seen it happen on a national scale yet, it is not unknown for independents or third parties to win seats in the House or Senate. Also, look at past presidential elections and you will see 3rd parties stealing electoral votes in certain states. Another person gave you a few examples of independents, there is also a former governor from Minnesota that no one would've predicted.

      This is especially true during times of "fierce social change." See the election just
    • by Ossifer ( 703813 ) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @02:26PM (#15577482)
      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).
      It's even worse for single-issue parties. The design of the American democratic system essentially precludes these parties from gaining power--the lack of a proportional party-based legislature, and the lack of an excutive branch formed out of the legislature. The former situation requires a newcomer to win a substantial number of districts outright to have any real power, and the latter precludes a small number of legislators from such a single-issue party from wielding lynchpin power in forming governments.

      Compare this to say, Sweden, where you vote for parties, and any party garnering over 4% of the vote (country-wide) gets legislative representation, without having to have majority support in any region. Then, such a party can make demands upon the larger parties seeking their support in forming a government.

      I'm not advocating either form of democracy (I've seen the downside of both systems, having lived in both above-named countries), I personally dislike political parties and their influence. In fact the US constitution was intentionally crafted to prevent the influence of "factions" (source: The Federalist Papers), however futile this effort was...
  • Avast! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Cleon ( 471197 ) <cleon42 AT yahoo DOT com> on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @01:47PM (#15577164) Homepage

    It be about time that someone be takin' up the mantle of IP reform and greater privacy! Fer sure, the twin armadas of the Republicrats and Democans have failed to take it on, and e'en the Libertarians and Greens don't talk too much about it.

    Avast, mateys! Perchance finally there be a Party worth votin' for.
  • by Ilsundal ( 3288 ) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @01:48PM (#15577179) Homepage
    I'm not very confident in a group that's set to reform our copyright/patent system when they cannot even have enough common sense to realize that a name such as "The Pirate Party" is NOT going to be taken seriously here in the U.S. This time is investment is better spent on something that has somewhat of a chance in hell.
  • Newsletter? (Score:4, Funny)

    by tulmad ( 25666 ) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @01:49PM (#15577184)
    I like what you have to say and would like to subscribe to your newsletter. :D
  • Slogan: (Score:5, Funny)

    by Shadow Wrought ( 586631 ) * <shadow,wrought&gmail,com> on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @01:50PM (#15577194) Homepage Journal
    Join our Party and fight Global Warming!
  • by DG ( 989 ) * on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @01:52PM (#15577216) Homepage Journal

    Holy convergance of idealologies Batman!

    We all know Al Gore is all about Global Warming (See Here []), and we also know there is a direct link between the number of pirates and the average temperature of the earth! (See Here [])

    This cannot be an accident - it's fate!


  • overkill...? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by AxemRed ( 755470 ) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @01:53PM (#15577221)
    I'm not necessarily a fan of what the Pirate Party represents. But, sometimes, overkill on the other side of the problem may work to balance the mess out. I just hope that we can eventually find a happy medium.
  • Yes.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by insanarchist ( 921436 ) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @01:54PM (#15577232)
    ...why's the rum gone?! (Look away kiddies, this post be rated ARRRR!!!)
  • So spot on, judging from this text only, it seems that I agree with all they say! (hmm, which is the definition of "good", right?) If I were American, I'd vote for them. But wait, I'm Swedish!
  • waste of time (Score:4, Interesting)

    by spongman ( 182339 ) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @02:03PM (#15577325)
    why don't all these groups that want to repeal such and such bad law, or change this law, or whatnot, just get together and lobby for campaign finance reform. once that's done they can actually have a snowball's chance in hell of actually getting done what they originally set out to do.
  • Please spare me (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bryankwalton ( 872344 ) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @02:04PM (#15577330)
    I agree that we need to seriously reform the patent system in the United States. But the Pirate Party isn't going to do this. In fact, one might argue that all it will successfully accomplish is marginalizing the issue and its supporters. There are dozens (if not more) third parties in the US. It is very hard (and in this day and age almost impossible) for a third party to have any electoral success (it does happen on a community level in certain places around the country). There are key differences between the electoral systems of most European countries and the US. In the US, we have a single-member district system that is winner take all. It makes our system functionally a two-party system. Most of Europe has a proporational representation system. Voters in Europe vote for the party, not the candidate. All that is needed for a small party to gain seats in a parliamentary body is to get over the threshold (whatever that threshold may be). Sometimes, that threshold is as low as 5%. Here in the US, you need a plurality of the vote at least (in some parts of the country, you need an outright majority). The pirate party getting 50.1% of the vote? I don't think so. Even 40-45%, not likely. To insist on something like this, just because it works in Sweden is to deny the reality of the electoral constraints place upon the US system.
    • Re:Please spare me (Score:5, Insightful)

      by HikingStick ( 878216 ) <<moc.liamtoh> <ta> <remeir10z>> on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @02:15PM (#15577404)
      I think the real power in the pirate party will be as a gauge to the primary parties as to how important this issue is to consumers. If the party posts large numbers of members, Donkeys and Elephants may consider addressing some IP issues, just as a way to grab those potential votes. Of course, RIAA may simply try to hack/buy the pirate party roster as a list of possible new defendants in their next round of lawsuits...
  • by Mad Dog Manley ( 93208 ) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @02:04PM (#15577335)
    From the interview:

    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.
  • by DigDuality ( 918867 ) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @02:10PM (#15577373)
    bashing the name. Most of the time i agree. I, myself, support things like the Green AND Libertarian parties over the Republocrats. I love Defective by Design, much like how i have much respect for the Green and Libertarian parties in the US, the Pirate Party in Sweden, and quite a many groups that may or may not be political parties. There's lots of great advocate groups out there fighting for noble causes.. for smaller government, tech rights, privacy rights, IP law, workers rights, environmental rights, you name it. But most of all of these groups suffer a similar fault and that's one of presentation. Very rarely do they show us that they're professional, they're websites look like crap, they're protests are childish, their statements to the public.. while i might agree with, can get a bit ridiculous at times. Groups like these people who can do something about it.. simply will never take seriously. I'm suprised Defective by Design has done what it has. But frankly if Richard Stallman wants to be taken seriously his needs to quit being a sappy bitch, cut his hair, trim his facial hair and learn how to dress and address professionals, government leaders, and the public. None of these groups that i adore so very much stands a chance in hell, until they can present themselves in a manner the rest of the world will take serious. Generation after generation, people simply don't seem to grasp this concept... and it's a trivial fact of life that makes a huge fucking difference that none of us are going to change. And until people wake up and quit prancing around in obnoxious outfits outside of corporate and government offices, they will be written off as nutbags, hippies, drug addicts, radicals, etc.. Now all of this being said.. The language has already been firmly planted about pirates and piracy. It's engrained into the entertainment and technological culture as it stands. This word isn't going away. I sit and i watch as the word "liberal" has become a dirty dirty word.. and watch the Democrats and Greens try to re-identify themselves as "progressive".. and it's not really working. This country is leaning towards Dems, not b/c this nation is liberal..but b/c they're tired of Republicans. It's really hard to escape a word and play semantics and hope you're new identification for what you do will take a stronger hold. As we've seen with the word "nigga" (though this has nothing to do with professionalism or politics), it's much easier to make an insulting word.. empowering. It has a very "stick it the man" attitude about it and gives way for great marketing. While i don't find it to be the height of professionalism and the ability to be taken seriously.. what are they going to call themselves? The Sharing Party? You think tree huggers get picked on.. that'd be nothing compared to this. I mean seriously.. there's not many names i could think of that would fit. The "lets not always maximize profits party". I mean.. maybe i'm not creative, but you tell me what would be a better idea.
  • by Senzei ( 791599 ) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @02:12PM (#15577389)
    Let me know when the Ninja Party makes its way to the US. Ninjas beat pirates any day. I'm sure they would totally flip out and pass an act abolishing copyright, the *AA, and panhandling all at once. The first two for obvious reasons, the second and third because ninjas don't like whiners.
  • Privateers (Score:3, Funny)

    by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @02:13PM (#15577395) Homepage Journal
    If a party designed to "reform real property laws" called itself the "Robber Party", I would never vote for it, send it money or let its rhetoric/policies influence my politics.

    I'd call the cops.
  • by Bob_Robertson ( 454888 ) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @02:32PM (#15577528) Homepage [] The New Mercantilism [] Patently Absurd l [] The Fraud of Intellectual Property [] Mises Economics Blog: Bill Gates: Anti-IP Movement Is Communist

    I wish the Pirate party far better success than the Libertarians have had. It is surprising that the message of Liberty does not resonate in the United States.


  • Unelectable (Score:4, Insightful)

    by east coast ( 590680 ) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @02:32PM (#15577530)
    The problem with parties with a limited scope on issues is that there is far too much room for the elected officle to slide in his own agenda. What would a party with such a small target issue do when it comes to other issues is anyones guess and it makes them a political loose cannon that serious political party supporters are going to have a problem funding even if their target issue is a good one.

    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.
    • Re:Unelectable (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Sparr0 ( 451780 )
      To some of us this doesnt matter. I actually do not care whether abortion is legal, what the drinking age is, how the latest airline strike is handled, or which way any of a dozen other "hot" issues go. The things I care about are the things no current spotlight politicians talk about, such as privacy, freedom, and Freedom.
  • thanks (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MBraynard ( 653724 ) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @02:36PM (#15577569) Journal
    Someone doesn't understand how politics work in this country. The role that parliamentarians have in other governments is actually devolved to the individual voters in this country. We, individually, determine who the actual leaders are rather than voting for a party who may or may not win a majority and then negotiates without consulting the voters on what will constitute a government.

    As such, the Pirate party will, if it gets anywhere (and it won't) would just suck off energy from the Democrat party.

    If they were wise, which they are not, they would recognize the way to have their voice heard and actually get stuff done is to act as a caucus within one of the two established parties.

    Years and years ago the presidential campaign of Pat Robertson did the same thing. After LOSING, they formed an organization known as the Christian Coalition. They decided not to form their own political party but to ingrain themselves and take over the Republican party from the ground up. They were largely successful. The Christian Coalition on the national level is just a shel but their mission has largely been accomplished and they, in many cases, _are_ the Republican Party.

    The Democrat party can be taken over (or at least heavily influenced) in the same way by an organized group - but it seems the Pirate Party is not it.

Fear is the greatest salesman. -- Robert Klein