Pirate Party Founder Steps Down After 5 Years 183
ktetch-pirate writes "Five years to the day after he created the first Pirate Party, Rickard Falkvinge has stepped down as leader of Piratpartiet, the Swedish Pirate Party. The announcement was made in a webcast with Falkvinge and his deputy Anna Troberg, with Troberg taking on his duties effective immediately."
So he's retiring to Patagonia right? (Score:2)
And in another few years, Anna will retire and another will come along.
They should think about franchising...
good riddance (Score:2)
This is good for the Pirate Party (Score:5, Informative)
I definitely believe that this is a good move. Rickard Falkvinge is a very charismatic person, but also a controversial one. He's enthusiastic, he knows how to reach the headlines and has done a wonderful job of founding the party and establishing an awareness of these questions in Sweden. The problem is that he lacks political tact. He's committed at least two really bad faux-pas, one statement in which he defended the right to keep but not buy child pornography and one time when he asked for personal funding from the party members, suggesting as they would be gifts they didn't need to be taxed. On top of that, there is a common view that the Pirate Party is Falkvinge's own private project and that he is something of a cult leader.
Therefore it is great to have Troberg on board as a leader. She is less technical and more personal than Falkvinge, but first and foremost she's much better suited to running an organisation than Falkvinge ever was. She will be able to handle people without driving them off, she's competent and she radiates credibility in a way that a party with the word "pirate" in its name needs desperately. Falkvinge was great for kick starting the party but Troberg is just the right person to take it to the next level. She has a tough job though - the party flopped in the 2010 elections and without a lot of hard work there is a risk the party will dwindle and be largely forgotten well before the 2014 EU parliament elections.
Long live Dread Pirate Rickard! (Score:2)
Bah... nobody would surrender to the Dread Pirate Anna.
Re:Copyright Rocks (Score:5, Interesting)
You know what would rock even more? If we could have both music and movies and and all the other art that we can spread across the world to everyone with a computer virtually for free as well as having the poor artists not starving.
An it would totally rock if everyone had access to all digitalized culture legally, so one wouldn't have to feel bad or fear a one in a million chance of personal economic disaster.
And we can. All it takes is a little socialism. Let the people decide what they like by downloading stuff and give those artists a living wage paid for with taxes.
(Another solution, even easier to administer, would be basic income http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_guarantee [wikipedia.org] )
Anyway... Socialism FTW and fuck you and the horse you rode in on. Peace.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Yeah, wouldn't it be great if we can just have everything for free and have the government provide everything? That's genius. And since money magically appears out of nowhere, it's foolproof. Now all we have to do is force people to work and we're golden.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you replying to the part about basic income? Are you stupid or something? Do you think all people would settle for whatever little the basic income would give them? Most people would want to work to get paid so they can get fancier food, a bigger house and more stuff.
Re: (Score:3)
I find the response I almost always get from my suggestion on how we should deal with food stamps interesting. I s
Re: (Score:3)
Well, given that we have multi-generational welfare families, yes.
That's because welfare, by the time you get all the free prescriptions, transportation, eyeglasses, etc.etc that's all covered, pays over 200% what a minimum wage job does. When you're not qualified to do anything, then welfare gives you a ridiculously high wage.
Hence, the problem you mention.
Re: (Score:3)
In other word, minimum wage is way too low.
Re: (Score:2)
And the solution is quite easy: Disallow paying people less than what's required to survive.
Welfare's primary and often only function is to give people a way to sustain themselves. This is (or should be) barely more than what is required to survive. If now companies are allowed to lower salaries to the point where they offer not more than what welfare already does, it is only logic for people to stay on welfare instead of taking the job, especially if the salary is the ONLY incentive to take that job (e.g.
Re: (Score:2)
I suggest we make a K-ration type food. Make it taste horrible, yet be healthy. I mean taste REALLY bad. Then just give it away.
To make that work you would have to outlaw chilli sauce.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They usually come around when it is pointed out that feeding someone food that tastes bad is not abuse. We do it to children all the time.
I've always thought it was abusive to make children eat food that they did not like.
Re: (Score:2)
Anything that tastes bad enough that you can't get used to it or cover it with ketchup or something will make it so that you can't keep the food down.
Re:Copyright Rocks (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see how multi-generational welfare families are any morally worse than multi-generational wealthy families, yet tons more complain about the former than they do about the latter. Idle is idle. Both are a net drain on society, but in different ways.
Re: (Score:2)
The former is worse because they get paid with money taken from their fellow citizens at gunpoint. The majority of wealthy families are not out robbing people to keep their coffers full. In fact the majority of them are small/medium business owners whose families worked quite hard for that money. The Rockerfellers and Kennedys are the exception not the rule when it comes to family wealth, and for the most part the wealthy families give plenty back to society rather than just sitting around sucking on the
Re: (Score:2)
The former is worse because they get paid with money taken from their fellow citizens at gunpoint.
Generally people who have little more than they have - I've noticed that panhandlers tend to hassle people who look like they've little more than themselves. Ditto burglaries and car thefts (neighbours).
The majority of wealthy families are not out robbing people to keep their coffers full. In fact the majority of them are small/medium business owners whose families worked quite hard for that money. The Rockerfellers and Kennedys are the exception not the rule when it comes to family wealth, and for the most part the wealthy families give plenty back to society
No, very few do. I'm wealthy - I pay less tax on my income than others whose incomes are lower, I don't cheat on tax - but if you're on 50Kpa you don't have anything to negative gear - yes I worked hard for my accumulation of profits. But let's not confuse "wealthy" with "mega-rich". I've got no serious grip
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know how criminality was brought into this. We're comparing idle wealth with idle poverty.
Take a 25 year old guy who sits around eating cheetos and watching TV all day: If he's poor and on welfare, people are critical of him, he's lazy, he's not a contributor to society, etc. But if that guy (same behavior) was the grandson of the CEO of Exxon, well suddenly we have no problem with his cheeto-eating? I say they're morally equivalent:
1. Neither produce anything for society.
2. Neither live off their o
Re: (Score:2)
Or take a person who sits around all day posting on Slashdot?
The US is particularly judgmental about laziness. Not as bad as Prussia, where the King would personally beat anyone he noticed idling about, for his own good, as well as the good of the nation, of course, but bad enough. Welfare queens are considered about the lowest life form in the nation, no better than thieves, and worse than used car salesmen and ambulance chasers.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see how multi-generational welfare families are any morally worse than multi-generational wealthy families, yet tons more complain about the former than they do about the latter. Idle is idle. Both are a net drain on society, but in different ways.
The former pay taxes, the latter don't. I don't know what kind of arithmetic or economics you are using, but how are wealthy families a "net drain"?
Re: (Score:2)
edit: The other way around of course
Re: (Score:2)
It's worth mentioning that wealthy slackers consume far more goods and services than impoverished slackers. A wealthy slacker uses several nice homes, eats lots of fine meals, sees the best entertainment, etc etc. A impoverished slacker uses a small apartment,a bus seat on occasion, and some basic food.
If you think about it in terms of resources rather than dollars, which is more immoral: producing nothing and consuming a great deal, or producing nothing and consuming enough to keep alive?
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, you now suddenly went from "wealthy family" to "wealthy slacker". Second, a slacker who spends money for goods and services is obviously better for the economy that somebody who doesn't.
Re: (Score:2)
"Second, a slacker who spends money for goods and services is obviously better for the economy that somebody who doesn't."
No they really aren't. They are worse because they are taking up productive capacity for unproductive ends. If a fantastically wealthy person happened to be say the CEO of a company and were more productive if they were say eating excellent food (or if they were motivated to do more / better by getting nicer food) then that nicer food in some sense represents an investment (even if it is
Re: (Score:2)
How did we get into a Malthusian dystopia all of the sudden? Please just follow your ideals, cancel your internet subscription and go live under a rock.
Re: (Score:2)
You'd soon get people that would take the entire truckload, then sell it as fertilizer or something like that. Whenever you give away something for free you need some sort of a mechanism to stop a single person from taking it all. How about a 'ration-cafeteria'? You can take as much as you want, you just have to eat it right there and then.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I don't know if I'll use the word abusive either, but it does seem needlessly assholish to make something taste so foul that someone will need to starve themselves for several days before being willing to consume the ration. Not to mention not eating for those days will impact health and stuff. I'd opt for making ok tasting food that only comes in one flavor and probably make it porridge like. Humans crave variety in their diet, and spending weeks eating the same mush will probably make most folks wan
Re:Copyright Rocks (Score:5, Interesting)
Since it's Sunday, and I have nothing better to do. Let me humor you with a long reply.
Yes, it would be great if we can have everything free. That's called the Star Trek economy [wikipedia.org]. Once we have production-grade replicators or nth-generation Repraps [reprap.org], that will become a reality, indistinguishable from magic. Now, if all that we need to manufacture something is the work to haul some amorphous lump of matter and dump it into the replicator, then the value of money degrades to that of a household chores bribe: Hey, Junior, can you fetch me some dirt from the back yard. I promise, I'll drive you to the ballgame this Sunday.
That's it, as far as goods that we can hold in our hands are concerned. We're not yet at the Star Trek level as far as physical objects are concerned. Every single iPhone or Prius has to go through some form of manual intervention, a worker who has to assemble the bits and bolts. You can't just download the blueprint for a laptop and feed the binary data to any of today's state-of-the-art 3D printers. And even if you can, you still need special materials that you can't ask Junior to fetch from your back yard.
On the other hand, duplicating an eBook or an Mp3 is as easy as typing "cp *mp3 /media/My_Copy" or simply plugging in your iPod Touch and clicking the appropriate prompt button. As far as digital goods and objects are concerned, we are already at the Star Trek level. So the work needed to product a piece of music is limited to the very act of making the actual recording, not the reproduction. Once the master has been made, endless copies can be made.
So, I'm sure you'll ask, who'll pay for the initial step? Those hungry for novelty and innovation. If nobody wants to pay to hear a new version of the Goldberg Variations, then we're stuck to listening to the old recordings by, say, Glenn Gould, or until some bored amateur decides to record and foist on us her atonal version of Bach.
Don't underestimate boredom as a motive for innovation and progress. It's what made Wikipedia the dominant source of information in the Internet, millions of bored users deciding to contribute their little tidbits of information.
Yes, Wikipedia still needs money to operate its servers. But that is minuscule compared to the quantity of "free" editing and writing work contributed by bored users, trolls, and government agents. We don't pay for the pizza but for the pizza delivery.
Re: (Score:2)
Once we have production-grade replicators or nth-generation Repraps [reprap.org], that will become a reality, indistinguishable from magic.
We'll never get there. The powerful people whose wealth and power are wrapped up in our dominant "few producers / many consumers" wealth redistribution scheme will never allow it.
If we ever get close to the Star Trek replicator, I guarantee you that the IP, know-how and everything related will be suppressed and destroyed by the small ownership class who profit from scarc
Re: (Score:2)
Free market capitalism
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
As far as copyrighted works are concerned, history shows people are quite content with working for free on their own already.
Well, not *everyone*, but losing Lady GaGa and Justin Bieber ain't no big loss anyways, all the good music is indie in any case.
Re: (Score:3)
Considering that middle management and bureaucracy continue to expand, pointless consumerism runs rampant, obsolete or oversized corporations get billions in subsidies and tax loopholes, and the largest sector of the US economy is now finance (surpassing all goods-producing industries combined), it's arguable that we've long passed the point where society required full employment to provide its needs, and we have now entered the phase of endlessly inventing new high-paid welfare jobs that do little other th
Re: (Score:2)
One thing that is highly questionable is if the basic income would stay so basic. At least here in Norway, when you add up the people on all forms of benefits including retirement benefits and the public sector they're almost 50% of the voting population. Over the next years the wave of elderly means a majority will be getting their money from the government. On the short term that means the more they give to themselves, the richer they will get. At least until the private sector gives up funding everyone e
Re: (Score:2)
No but the "base minimum income" idea has its merits.
First, it would provide a social security for everyone. I'm quite convinced it would reduce crime quite a bit (and I'm not alone in this), first because the fundamental need for petty crime ceases to exist (=getting money to buy food, or getting food altogether) and even the least in the population have something to lose (the very LAST thing you want is people who have literally nothing to lose).
Second, poor ("dumb") people are more likely to spend money
Re: (Score:2)
If I fully owned my own home and the ground under it (no rent, no HOA dues, etc.), subtract $150 per month for utilities, and that's still enough to eat out for two meals almost every day. So although I wouldn't sit on my backside, I probably wouldn't work, either. Instead, I'd spend my time doing something more meaningful than working to make a profit for someone else---creating art or music, teaching, social programs for the poor, etc.
On the flip sid
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If they don't like any kind of digitizable culture, they can sulk and murmur along with everyone who doesn't like roads or hospitals or public schools or whatever else taxes gets us, in my opinion. :)
The anointed artists would represen
Re: (Score:2)
Not all people like music... should those people be forced to help fund musicians through taxation?
They're not getting out of it today. Even if you disregard the direct levies they're subjected to on recordable media and similar in many countries, IP rights are still equivalent to other widely spread taxation points on the economy.
Even if you avoid paying it in the first degree, you'll pay for it in a general higher cost of living; you'll pay the slightly higher price for a haircut as the hair saloon pays a
Re: (Score:2)
Where I live we have a system that provides even less work incentive than BIG and the unemployment rates are pretty similar to those in the US, although the unemployed here do live in more humane conditions. But people on the whole don't want to be unemployed because government money may keep you fed but it doesn't buy you a shiny new game console. Also, most people have an inherent urge to feel useful. I'm not saying this is because they're good people, but it's just the case that we're wired that way, it's probably some ancient tribal instinct. Quite apart from the economic feasibility (which is just fine) there is also the question that I for one don't want to live in a society in which there are people who have to beg for money and/or starve. A civilised society simply doesn't tolerate such squalor. I don't care if some unemployed people don't want to work (as long as they're not too plentiful) and in any case I think a good society would give unemployed a stipend and help to get back on life's tracks. As for the music payment scheme, I don't know if I agree with GP. Not all people like music... should those people be forced to help fund musicians through taxation? On the other hand maybe cultural development is for the public good to a sufficient extent... I'm on the fence.
I live in a country where the taxpayer does subsidize the "yarts" I also support the idea that it's a waste of money - if the government funded "yartists" were so fucking deserving they wouldn't need a taxpayer hand out.
Ah - spittle! The free screen cleaner! :-D
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So did the English Language, Baseball, apple pie, and George Washington, but we still call those American.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes it does. It really grew out of the English game rounders.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rounders [wikipedia.org]
http://joeposnanski.si.com/2010/11/08/history-lessons-with-bud/ [si.com]
Re: (Score:2)
By your terms I guess that all music was influenced by some caveman hitting a hollow log with a stick too and by that same logic the music made today is just a lightweight rip off of Ogga the Hunter circa 50
Re: (Score:2)
You've done a great job trying to create an argument to support a faulty conclusion to preserve your world view.
For that, I commend you. You have a future in politics and/or internet based arguments. I wish you the best of luck in the new year.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Its not that I know I'm wrong or that I know I'm right. Its a response to an argument that is clearly headed nowhere as its left the realm of objectivity.
We agree on the facts, disagree on semantics. You responded to facts with an argument about how to interpret those facts. That's not fun for anyone. From your responses it seems clear that you are not an emotionally disinterested party: all of your arguments will be centred around feeding that emotionally twinged pre-conceived conclusion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why stop at muric and other art forms? Why not have all thing available for any amount you wish to pay?
I want to buy food? Great, I'll go to the Walmart and take whatever I want and pay whatever I want. And I don't have enough money, or just don't feel like paying? Have the government give everyone a living wage.
And why stop there? You want a new oven? Same thing. Don't pay! Have the government subsidize it.
Although Art has many lofty goals, it is also a source of income for people. If the artist demand a p
Re: (Score:2)
"I want to buy food? Great, I'll go to the Walmart and take whatever I want and pay whatever I want."
You can copy it, not take it, the original has to stay at Walmart.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it's easy to copy a song, however, the artist that created it still needs to be paid. If everyone copied for free, then he has a problem. And I don't think he should be living on a government grant. He deserves more than that, and definitely more than the cashier in Walmart.
Re: (Score:2)
It may be so, but I was talking about Soviet Russia, AKA U.S.S.R, AKA the greatest experiment in socialism .
Re: (Score:3)
I second Basic Income, it would be a great way of not only encouraging creative activities, but new small business creation as some of the risk is taken away with an unconditional basic income no matter what. And it would guarantee that no one dependent on existing programs fall through the cracks and risk homelessness or even starvation for lack of money, while at the same time virtually eliminating the costly bureaucracy surrounding the existing programs. A basic income guarantee is unconditional, it is n
Re: (Score:2)
And just where do we get the money for "basic income"? Who pays?
Don't just say "the government", because that just takes the question up a level, to where does the government get the money to pay you? Etc.
Actually, I'm all for the government paying anyone and everyone a basic income. Only thing is, to get it you have to do whatever work its is that the government needs done. Roads. Garbage collection. Sanitation. School bus drivers.
If the government is going to pay out money, they should darn well get somet
Re: (Score:3)
Requiring people to work for their basic income sort of defeats the purpose of an *unconditional* basic income..
As for who pays, the taxpayers of course, just as they pay for the myriad of programs designed to keep people off the streets now. The added cost in Sweden at least would be pretty minor, it is a pretty small group of people who are completely left out in the cold, but they do exist. The reduced cost of the bureaucracy behind all of the means-testing going on in the various agencies would cover pa
Re:Copyright Rocks (Score:5, Insightful)
You know what else we could do? Just put copyright back to place. To the good old days where you have to register your copyright and where it's only lasted 14 years.
We should limit copyright even more because with the internet it's so easy to publish. The limit should be 5 years now, with +5 years extend.
With a sane copyright law the artists and the publisher could come up with new ideas how to make money instead of be depended of an indefinitely state granted monopoly. What we have now is already socialism. It's worse, it's planed economy.
With the political power that such groups as the RIAA and MAFIA have and the laws behind them (100+ years copyright, DMCA, etc.) we could just make them government owned like in China and call them Office for Arts, Music, Movies.
With a limited copyright we could finally have a rich public domain, which is the most import factor for new innovation. Without a rich public domain there are no work available to build upon, for which all works we have now are build upon older works and ideas.
Re: (Score:3)
We could even go with the fashion industry's concept, which doesn't have any copyright protection at all. And as we know, fashion designers are notoriously poor, don't have a chance to earn a decent living, and we are forced to wear the same design for dozens of years because no one has any incentive to create new clothes designs.
Or we could be the food industry, where recipes aren't protected by anything, not even trademarks (the trademarks itself are protected though). And as we know, no one ever got rich
Re: (Score:2)
That's not a copyright, that's probably a "community design", which was introduced into European law and came into effect on Apr 1 2003. It's protection term is 25 years from the day of registration, if the yearly maintenance fee is paid. Unregistered designs are protected for three years.
Re: (Score:2)
Only a fool would repeat an experiment that failed with the exact same parameters, hoping that it would be a success next time. What makes you think Copyright won't be abused/extended (again!) in the next iteration by the very same economic forces that abused/extended it in its current form? Will there be no $LOBBYIST(s) a la Disney in the fut
Mod parent up! (Score:2)
How is this either troll or flamebait? Slashdot mods gone insane with rage. Could it be the mention of socialism? McCarthyism still seems to be running high among Americans.
Mod parent up!
Re: (Score:3)
and the horse you rode in on.
The horse I rode in on is an experimental bio-fueled vehicle.
The complaints about its exhaust are overblown.
Have they improved on it? Nay.
Re: (Score:2)
Let the people decide what they like by downloading stuff and give those artists a living wage paid for with taxes.
So all the RIAA and MPAA have to do is fudge a little download information and divide the payout however they want. We can trust them not to do that, right?
Quick question: WTF ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY HAVE YOU BEEN FOLLOWING?!!!
Re: (Score:3)
You know what would rock even more? If we could have both music and movies and and all the other art that we can spread across the world to everyone with a computer virtually for free as well as having the poor artists not starving.
An it would totally rock if everyone had access to all digitalized culture legally, so one wouldn't have to feel bad or fear a one in a million chance of personal economic disaster.
And we can. All it takes is a little socialism. Let the people decide what they like by downloading stuff and give those artists a living wage paid for with taxes.
(Another solution, even easier to administer, would be basic income http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_guarantee [wikipedia.org] )
Anyway... Socialism FTW and fuck you and the horse you rode in on. Peace.
Or - any artist, performer, actor, director, writer who feels strongly about defending the way the current studio/distribution system treats them - publicly put up their paypal (or bank account details). An account the studios don't control. Then those that support the artist - but not the distributors, can donate money directly. What's that going to hurt? If they recieve money, and they don't want it - they can donate it to a worthy cause. But you can bet the studios won't let that happen!
In Australia - wi
Re: (Score:2)
So, instead of the current system, where the 10% of a creative work's users/viewers/listeners that don't pirate pay for its production, we'll have a system where you essentially have to pay for a creative work whether you use it or not?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think Pirating is the best way to go either. FOSS and creative commons is.
Pirating can help, in a way, though. When done by all the middle class kids, it should make politicians realize they're criminalizing an entire generation and that that isn't a good thing or that there isn't even anything they can do about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Good point about the drug wars. I'd like to point out that other places than the US may be better soil for sane legislation, though. (Not that I'm too optimistic about that.)
Re: (Score:2)
If that is what the people want, the people will download it and based on those numbers, money could be sent their way. If people don't want to download the banging of trashcans together for eight hour a day, they won't and that particular art wouldn't be paid for by taxes.
Of
Re: (Score:2)
If that is what the people want, the people will download it and based on those numbers, money could be sent their way.
Since the downloader invests nothing bar his ISP, it would be easy for an artist ('n'friends) to artificially boost the download numbers.
(Not criticising the general idea, but an unspoofable "download tracking system" would be hard to pull off. An idea I suggested (pre-iTunes) was a licensing system to replace digital copyright. Teh governmentz sets up a central Music/Film/Book Library server containing all published digital works. Vendors subscribe to it, which gives them the right to resell any work. The
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What exactly do you have against the term "living wage"? Did it murder your grandmother or something?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've never heard it associated with unions or smugness. That's a pretty politically charged take on a benign, neutral term. I've always seen it as simply the minimum hourly wage necessary for an individual to meet basic needs, food, clothing, shelter, etc. We use the term to differentiate from "minimum wage" which is set by law and often has nothing to do with how much it takes to live. Why bring politics into it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, it may be tough to nail down and definitely varies region-to-region, but the whole point of having the term is to make the point that what the government calls "minimum wage" is not necessarily a wage that someone can actually live on.
Saying the term itself is smug and politically charged is like saying the word "gun" is politically charged because some people support "gun control".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I like the flamebait. Always entertaining. Though it's so hard to determine whether the trolls are lying or actually believe it. But sentences like that are golden. The rule is quite explicitly that "sweat of the brow" is not protected. That is, if you take someone else's plans and build a house, you have no copyright to the result, no matter how "beautiful" it is. It was not a creative work on the part of the builder. The same with any other act wher
Re: (Score:2)
He finally realized what a dirty, thieving bastard he was trying to get everybody to be.
As a copyright infringer, I often break into peoples' houses and rob them blind!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
All kidding aside, most of the people who spit on copyright are mostly the ones who'd hear nothing about putting up their money on what is a start up venture like signing a band. Whil
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright is NOT the issue - it's the distraction. (Score:4, Insightful)
You are not entitled to the sweat of their brows or all the time out of their lives that it takes to actually learn how to play an instrument, become a good actor, etc.
Neither is the RIAA/MPAA, who gets about 90% of the profit from these artists with almost none of the work behind them.
It's way to easy to see the whole "piracy" issue as *just* two opposing viewpoints. And, to me, neither view stacks up. I strongly suspect both camps are being naive and manipulated. And here's my reasoning:-
My point here being that neither party is "completely" right. Copying doesn't reduce the industries revenue stream as much as claimed - though it doesn't make the impact the industry claims it does. I'll leave the value of promotion out of this - it's a red herring.
Why would an immensely profitable industry spend a fortune on a demonstrably pointless pursuit? The assertion that they are total idiots contradicts their success.
Follow the money is the method that should be applied. Do that and it appears obvious (to me) that the "industry" is spending vast amounts of money because it is a cost effective way for them to protect their income. The mistake pro-pirates make is believing the product is the income stream. IMO they are wrong and have been deliberately been fooled.
The industry is profitable and powerful because it controls distribution. The RIAA/MPAA campaign is not about stopping copying it's about stifling an alternative distribution network.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that wouldn't affect anyone. If they only take more when they don't have to pay, if they had to pay, no one would be making more.
I believe there might be a certain amount losses in sales to copyright violations, but a whole lot less than the industry want us to believe. And as you say, there's a lot more to it than sale of recordings. Which might benefit from increased distrubution even if it isn't increased sales.
Re: (Score:2)
Guys, there is a very simple solution to this problem: make the publishers go away.
Agreed
Artists can sell their music on the internet, they don't need publishers who record their CDs anymore.
Only when the audience can hear about them - web pages rely on search engines - which can, and will, be gamed. Fine if you're Devo or Radiohead, maybe ok if you're Courtney Love, and if no one has ever heard of you? You what - rely on SEO experts?
The internet is no more a threat to the established studio monopoly than radio or television - bittorrent over the internet is the threat. It's the subversive technology. Web sites are no more a threat to the existing system than ads in local newspapers and j
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it didn't work for Radiohead [snip]
Dunno if Radiohead is a good example of music people want to listen too. I only liked the first three albums - if memory serves "Rainbows(?)" was the donate if you want it album - that I don't have it, and can't think of a track from it, should speak for itself.
I used Radiohead as an example of a name that could command an audience. My point being that having webspace alone wouldn't replace the existing (limited slot) promotion system unless the artist is already established.
As to whether sufficient money w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Have you seen Pioneer One? It has the first two episodes out, and it's not bad. Reminds me of X Files at times, with a bit less budget.
No - but bloody good point - I remember seeing it advertised on the PirateBay, and reading up on it. I meant to find out what it was like and forgot. Thanks for the reminder.
Re: (Score:2)
My point being that having webspace alone wouldn't replace the existing (limited slot) promotion system unless the artist is already established.
And my point being that even being established doesn't really mean success. For all the free press and supposed non-fan "donations" that were made Radiohead still couldn't pull it off. What happens when artists start putting out stuff on the web on a regular basis with no backing and no
Re: (Score:2)
>>> it's about stifling an alternative distribution network.
Is that why I have to wait 30 days before I can see the latest SGU or Caprica episode on syfy.com? Yep. Well if they think I'm going to pay to subscribe to Comcast and Syfy Channel, then they can just think again. I can wait a long, long time until I can see it for free or cheap (DVD rental).
Re: (Score:2)
I have DSL at home.
And high-speed at work.
Only when I'm stuck in a hotel do I have to downgrade to dialup. So when I'm at home (or work) I watch an episode off syfy.com
Re: (Score:2)
You can't expect much subtlety in catch phrases and propaganda. But I can assure you that the thought process doesn't end there when pro-pirates are concerned, and I assume the same is true for the anti-pirates.
Copying information has been easy and nearly costless for quite some time. What the internets have provided us with is a very easy and nearly costless way to connect people and publish and distribute information. All organizations (in its most inclusive meaning) that have benefited from the earlier s
Re: (Score:2)
Copying as theft is, well, obviously rubbish.
It is not rubbish, it is fact.
Go take some pictures of your head. Maybe if you could make a coherent point you would get the same air time in real life as you get on the web.
Hint: what you are *trying* to say is "copying causes loss". If you can't say what you mean you're just pointing and grunting. I read your rant before I judged it, making my brain hurt trying to follow your logic doesn't engender sympathy.
AC is for a purpose - using it because you're scared to post from behind a pseudonym like the rest of us - just demonstrates you
Re: (Score:2)
Re:There, fixed it (Score:4, Funny)
They shouldn't have announced it. Anna Troberg could have started calling herself Dread Captain Falkvinge and nobody would have noticed.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, isn't she one of the chicks that was banging the Wikileaks guy?
Since Anna Troberg is a lesbian that's not very likely...
Re: (Score:2)
Well for all we know he might have been banging all the Annas in Sweeden, but we know that Anna Troberg hasn't complained about it anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is parent modded as troll? He's got a very valid opinion on the matter. About 90% of all rape allegations in Sweden don't even result in charges.
So you "believe" the assertion that "looking" at women in Sweden can "easily" get you sued or arrested or sued is not a troll? No need to state your true agenda either.
If I'd modded it I'd have kicked it down as "off topic", your post on the other-hand is a "troll".
"Valid opinion" == sophism. So's your second sentence. No matter how strongly you feel you've somehow been wronged (or slighted) making up bullshit to support your viewpoint will always work against you.