Forgot your password?

Swedish Pirate Party Fails To Enter Parliament 224

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the bet-nobody-donated dept.
pickens writes "TorrentFreak reports that with 95 percent of the votes counted, it is clear that the Pirate Party will not enter the Swedish Parliament. The Party is currently stuck at about 1 percent of the total vote, nowhere near the 4 percent threshold it needs. This means that neither WikiLeaks nor The Pirate Bay will be hosted under Parliamentary immunity and the Party won't get the chance to legalize non-commercial file-sharing or criminalize 'copyright abuse' as they planned. 'The Swedish Pirate Party did its best election campaign ever. We had more media, more articles, more debates, more handed-out flyers than ever. Unfortunately, the wind was not in our sails this time, as it was with the European elections,' says party leader Rick Falkvinge. The party will now have to wait four more years before they have another shot at entering the Swedish Parliament. 'Each generation must reconquer democracy,' adds Falkvinge. 'Nobody said it was going to be an easy fight.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Swedish Pirate Party Fails To Enter Parliament

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Democracy? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by IndustrialComplex (975015) on Monday September 20, 2010 @09:50AM (#33635056)

    How is democracy related to stealing revenue from other people?

    If this was successful... whats next, the auto theft movement for "Rightfully freeing car from their owner for anyone to use."?

    I'm going to need to to repeal some environmental laws on my property then. Ever since they passed a law prohibiting me from mining there, I've been unable to extract revenue from that resource.

    In case you missed my snark, how can you steal revenue from an object that you yourself own? Once a work is released, it becomes public property. The only thing these people 'own' is the granted right to control the reproduction of that public property. That right is granted by the government. I fail to see how the government ceasing to grant that right would be theft.

  • Re:Democracy? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 20, 2010 @09:58AM (#33635110)

    Piraty Party itself ignored whole area of jobs, healthcare and so on. The actual important things that government should take care of, and what majority of people care about. For most people they are more important than the ability to get entertainment for free. That's how democracy works.

  • by Fackamato (913248) on Monday September 20, 2010 @10:03AM (#33635140)

    Is it "swastica-waving", though, or are they "just" racist?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 20, 2010 @10:16AM (#33635266)

    Then they need to drop the childish name. "The Pirate Party" makes it sound like they are a bunch of rebellious kids flaunting how they like to break the law and get away with it.

    If they want positive economic and legal reform, then they should adopt a name that is expressive of such reform, in a mature and positive light.

    Maybe some thing like "the digital party" or "the free information party" or maybe pull a trick out of the other side's hat and choose something like "the information protection party" or "cultural preservation party."

    I hope four years is enough time for them to grow up.

  • We Are Now Ready (Score:2, Insightful)

    by xtracto (837672) on Monday September 20, 2010 @10:22AM (#33635328) Journal

    Society is still not ready for this progressive thinking mentality.

    The people currently working in the government grew in a time when media (or intelectual property as some want to call it) was a scare resource, thus they do not understand the current situation.

    We need to wait some time, maybe one generation, when politicians, leaders, and in general other decision makers (e.g. grown people with some power) are individuals who grown understanding the nature of media; how it can be shared in a costless manner, and the advantage that such thing provides. We are still not ready, but we are getting there.

  • Re:Democracy? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 20, 2010 @10:26AM (#33635408)

    Most voters are not people who would vote for someone just because of one narrow point.

    You must be young?

  • by RsG (809189) on Monday September 20, 2010 @10:32AM (#33635492)

    That's an excellent idea. I know if a candidate was up for election where I am, and was a representative of the "Pirate" party, most people would think it was a joke (like the Rhinoceros party). The only votes they'd get would be for shits and giggles.

    Conversely, if they represented the "Free Information" party or something that conveyed the same idea but was less clunky sounding, they'd be taken seriously. Hell, the Green party habitually gets taken seriously, and they're much for fringe, and have a sillier name.

  • Re:Democracy? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) on Monday September 20, 2010 @10:44AM (#33635706) Journal

    How is democracy related to stealing revenue from other people?

    If majority A wants to screw minority B, then democracy has got you covered! Well, to within a constitution, but constitutions have never covered all possible methods of screwing.

    However, democracy doesn't protect against stupid decisions. Democracy is only as good as the people who use it.

    (Mods, bring it on! I'm not even trolling, but it never stopped you before!)

  • by RsG (809189) on Monday September 20, 2010 @10:53AM (#33635860)

    Not that I entirely disagree with you, but...

    You doubtlessly dismiss stuff all the time, because your first impression left you disinterested, or gave you cause for dismissal. Not just political parties, obviously, though likely those as well. A book you might have liked, but the title and cover just threw you, and you didn't pick it up. A TV show that might have been good, but the name and TV guide description left you thinking it'd suck. A charitable organization whose purpose you'd have supported, but for the dumb acronym and campy saccharine pitch they threw.

    And even if you're somehow above all that (doubt it), most people aren't. Why would you expect it not to apply to a political party? People make snap judgments every day.

    Now, you might say that politics is more important, and that people should apply a greater standard of examination than they do for entertainment. But I ask you: have you paid any attention to all those far-out third parties that doubtless populate your local politics? No. You'd dismiss most of them at first glance.

  • by JackSpratts (660957) on Monday September 20, 2010 @11:01AM (#33635994) Homepage

    It's dead in the water I'm afraid.

    It may have been funny in the Swedish dorms, but it's holding you back and globally now.

    Time to get serious. And this from a pirate. So have a burial at sea, make it walk the plank, whatever. But jettison the moniker.

    - js.

  • by Joce640k (829181) on Monday September 20, 2010 @11:09AM (#33636124) Homepage

    Is it any more stupid than "Liberal", "Labour" or "Conservative"?

    If a new party came along calling itself the "The Conservative Party" you'd probably come up with a few jokes. Their original name ("The Whigs") is even better.

  • by krelian (525362) on Monday September 20, 2010 @11:11AM (#33636154)

    The people currently working in the government grew in a time when media (or intelectual property as some want to call it) was a scare resource, thus they do not understand the current situation.

    In a way Media is still a scarce resource. Media doesn't appear out of thin air and the actual cost of developing Media are much higher now then they used too. I am not even sure that the price (to the end user) of media has even caught on with inflation. The only thing that is cheaper these days is distribution of the media.

    As much as I don't like it personally, I think the correct way to treat most Media is as a service and not a product. If a phone call costs almost nothing to t-mobile it does not mean that it's somehow right or fair to not pay them for the service. In order to be able to offer the service in the first place they had to put a lot of money in to create the infrastructure. If companies are not allowed to recuperate their costs they will simply stop investing.

  • by murdocj (543661) on Monday September 20, 2010 @12:32PM (#33637528)

    Great. I'll take your bank account access information and post it online. By hiding that information you're obviously creating scarcity where none needs to exist. After all, you'll still have a copy of the information, so making an exact duplicate can't be wrong.

    Oh, you say you'll lose money that way? Well, that's the same argument copyright holders make.

  • by Hatta (162192) on Monday September 20, 2010 @12:48PM (#33637802) Journal

    This is a particularly retarded analogy. My bank account information is not covered by copyright. It's not even especially secret. It's printed on every check I mail out. There's nothing wrong with copying that information as many times as you like. You only run into problems when you use that information for fraud.

  • by horza (87255) on Monday September 20, 2010 @02:03PM (#33639042) Homepage

    BitZtream is obviously a little retarded himself. At the moment some Swedish residents have trouble going around and beating up people that are gay/black/muslim/etc, it's not the kind of thing people turn a blind eye to. So those that wish to are obliged to vote for a suitable candidate that will help them. On the other hand the whole country is quite happily pirating digital material to their heart's content, so there is less impetus to vote Pirate. Personally I think the Pirate Party is an excellent idea, and their members quite well reasoned, however trying to get a single-issue party into any national parliament is incredibly difficult.


  • by Joce640k (829181) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @04:49AM (#33646606) Homepage

    'Socially acceptable' doesn't make something right. eg. Keeping slaves used to be socially acceptable (almost required if you wanted to get ahead in society).

  • by totally bogus dude (1040246) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @05:32AM (#33646754)

    But 'socially acceptable' doesn't automatically make it wrong, either. You dodged the question and tried to derail the conversation by making reference to an emotionally-charged issue, which has absolutely no relevance to the discussion.

  • by davev2.0 (1873518) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @08:30AM (#33647992)

    So, it is OK to copy information as long as you don't use the information.

    But, when you make a copy of information, you use the copy repeatedly.

    And, it is not defrauding. It is correcting an artificial scarcity using YOUR assets. Just like you claim you are correcting an artificial scarcity using SOMEONE ELSE'S assets

There's a whole WORLD in a mud puddle! -- Doug Clifford