Pirate Party Gains Another Seat In EU 156
Posted
by
timothy
from the soon-only-pirates-won't-be-pirates dept.
from the soon-only-pirates-won't-be-pirates dept.
bs0d3 writes "Amelia Andersdotter is a member of the Swedish Pirate Party elected in 2009. Originally her votes were not enough to beat fellow pirate Christian Engstrom for a seat on the European Parliament. Today the EU has redrawn the lines and 12 countries are to gain one or more MEPs — including Sweden, where Andersdotter is set to be confirmed."
The only people in the world and the party that i (Score:5, Interesting)
i have given no allowance or authority to any other party, or representative, up till this point.
Re:The only people in the world and the party that (Score:2, Troll)
Re:The only people in the world and the party that (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, now. I respect the right of anonymous people to be misinformed, even loudly. There's no need to call them names.
I have voted for them every chance I've gotten and I download everything I possibly can from iTunes, to the point of getting a US account. I also don't have a Spotify account since I don't like the pittance that the artists are awarded in contrast to what the labels themselves get for zero work. At least with radio, they send people out to bribe radio stations (which I'm against, but they *do* something). I can afford to, and am willing to, pay for music, movies, games and so on, and if that's what it was all about I wouldn't be writing this. I don't think that I'm a complete anomaly in the Pirate Party voter base. The current party leader is a publisher.
What voting for them is about for me is to put an end to compromising civil rights and democratic tradition in order for some industries to supposedly stay afloat. It's also about stopping communication surveillance that's almost completely useless and at any rate remarkably disproportionate and ineffective. (Search for "FRA law".) And, yes, as part of the party program is a plea to make sure that non-commercial file sharing is decriminalized because every possible (and quite a few impossible) obstructions are either contra-productive and/or violates basic laws or rights more severely that warranted. The whole green party bloc in the European Parliament has adopted Christian Engström's positions on this issue.
I suppose it's easy to just short-circuit to "I WANT FREE MP3S PLZ", but there really is more to it than that.
Re:The only people in the world and the party that (Score:2)
Greens are against urbanism, therefore they won't get my vote.
How you can be against urbanism and pro-technology at the same time, I have no idea.
What we need is a party that wants to put technology and research at the center of our society, not one with reactionary ideas about being in symbiosis with nature.
Re:The only people in the world and the party that (Score:2)
I suppose it's easy to just short-circuit to "I WANT FREE MP3S PLZ", but there really is more to it than that.
Yeah. FLAC.
I keed, I keed...
Re:The only people in the world and the party that (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah.
OR, you could check the actual data from the election researchers where the Pirate Party has had successes, which shows a different picture.
The naive mindset (Score:2)
Yes. Everyone everywhere is an idiot, or care as much about things like intellectual rights and content restrictions as the average American, which is not at all.
Of course.
Why, that's exactly why there could never be successful concert that used only creative commons works and artists rather than big names!
Oh wait.
Re:The only people in the world and the party that (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:The only people in the world and the party that (Score:5, Informative)
As far as I know, the Pirate Party does NOT support the end of copyright. They support reducing it substantially. So if you cannot support a party that supports copyright, this isn't the party for you.
Re:The only people in the world and the party that (Score:2)
True, but non-commercial copyright isn't just reduced it is gone if the Pirate Party gets their policy through. So you can't make a Harry Potter movie from the Harry Potter books without paying royalties, but sharing both the book and the movie would be fully legal. That would of course make the movie rights much less worth, so I'd say it's pretty close.
Re:The only people in the world and the party that (Score:2)
That isn't an "of course" at all. The correlation might as well be the complete opposite of what you assert.
Re:The only people in the world and the party that (Score:3)
Copyright needs to end.
I can't agree with that, but it certainly needs reform. Twenty years for a copyright would be OK with me, and I don't think sharing or other noncommercial use should be illegal. I think they should go back to making a copyright date on a work mandatory (it isn't because the terms are so rediculously long). I'd like the registration fees to drop back down to twenty bucks or even farther.
Copyright has been a good thing in the past, in its present form it's an abomination that hinders creativity.
Re:The only people in the world and the party that (Score:2)
Re:The only people in the world and the party that (Score:2)
The idea of copyright is a strange holdover from medieval economics
Nope. Wikipedia:The Middle Ages (adjectival form: medieval, mediaeval or mediæval) is a periodization of European history from the 5th century to the 15th century.
Copyright was invented after the advent of the printing press and with wider public literacy. As a legal concept, its origins in Britain were from a reaction to printers' monopolies at the beginning of the eighteenth century.
The Queen of Anne statute in Britain was enacted fully three centuries after the medeval period. It protects authors from publishers (and publishers from other publishers), who wouldn't have to pay anyone for writing. Folks would still write without copyright, but not nearly as many. I can't see how abolishing copyright could be good for society, and you don't say how you think it would be.
Re:The only people in the world and the party that (Score:2)
Without copyright, we would likely have MORE written, and interestingly enough, a higher proportion of what is written would be informative instead of for the purposes of entertainment.
Re:The only people in the world and the party that (Score:2)
There are very few places where we still allow privately held legal monopolies.
Lets see, the gas company, the electric company, the water company, the ISP... probably well over a quarter of my income goes to monopolies.
Some utilities are owned by cities or counties, but most are corporate-owned. And yes, I agree that a telcom monopoliy is awful, but not a copyright (which should be a far more limited time, life+70 years is insane). I can listen to music without buying a CD, I can read a book or watch a movie without buying one -- they're available at the local library.
What makes you think that more would be written without copyright? And although I enjoy learning, what's wrong with entertainment? I probably read twenty novels for every nonfiction book I read.
Re:The only people in the world and the party that (Score:2)
I don't think sharing or other noncommercial use should be illegal
I don't know if this would be a good thing or a bad thing, but it would lead to a rather interesting world where corporations would probably end up sharing stuff... that their competitors produce. Would be rather amusing to see a release of say Windows 8 freely patched and distributed with the authenticity and quality we expect from Apple.
Re:The only people in the world and the party that (Score:2)
The key word in that sentence is "noncommercial".
Re:The only people in the world and the party that (Score:2)
How many studioes/publishers accept a movie/book that is not likely to turn a profit within a year or at best 2?
Copyright was explicitly made to entice creators to make their works availible to the public, by giving their work certain protection, the protection itself is not the main purpose of the copyright.
Re:The only people in the world and the party that (Score:2)
I've been working on The Paxil Diaries since 2003, it'll be in book form soon (I need permission to add a 40 year old poem by a dead poet). You have to give the guy who's working on something by himself a little time. An author or musician who doesn't have to do anything to do but write can get a book or album done in a few months, but for those of us with a day job there just isn't enough time.
Plus, most movies take a couple of years to shoot, by the time it hits the theaters your five year limit is halfway gone. IIRC, Star Wreck - In The Pirkinning took over five years to "film" because it was all volunteer part timers making it. With a five year copyright, it would have been in the public domain before shooting was finished.
When you reach your fourth decade you'll start to realize just how short five years really is.
Re:The only people in the world and the party that (Score:2)
Plus, most movies take a couple of years to shoot, by the time it hits the theaters your five year limit is halfway gone. IIRC, Star Wreck - In The Pirkinning took over five years to "film" because it was all volunteer part timers making it. With a five year copyright, it would have been in the public domain before shooting was finished.
The copyright monopoly clock starts ticking AFTER you've finished.
Re:The only people in the world and the party that (Score:2)
They should make copyrights non-transferable too, to avoid the situation where an artist who composed a song loses the right to play it or is simply boned by the record label on royalties.
Copyright is free, BTW, you don't have to pay anything or "register" your work. The moment you make something you own the copyright on it, although in practice you may need to create some evidence of that in order to enforce it in court at a later date.
Re:The only people in the world and the party that (Score:2)
They should make copyrights non-transferable too
Agreed.
to avoid the situation where an artist who composed a song loses the right to play it or is simply boned by the record label on royalties
Part of that boning is that under copyright law, phonorecords are automatically "works for hire" -- the label holds copyright.
Copyright is free, BTW, you don't have to pay anything or "register" your work.
Copyright is granted as soon as the work is "afficed in tangible form", but you can't sue anyone for infringing unless you've registered the work with the US Copyright office. The fee is $30.
Re:The only people in the world and the party that (Score:2)
Part of that boning is that under copyright law, phonorecords are automatically "works for hire" -- the label holds copyright.
Wrong. Big labels wish they were and they've tried several times to remove the huge legislative block which prevents them from making recordings works-for-hire but they've failed. Recordings are owned by the artist who usually assigns the copyright to the label. It's close to the recording being work-for-hire but the main difference is that the artists can change their minds 35 years after they've assigned their copyright and get their recordings back. Sit back and watch the hillarity ensue in 2013 when the 35-year term comes into effect for the first time.
Re:The only people in the world and the party that (Score:3)
Re:The only people in the world and the party that (Score:3)
Does it bother you at all that that is not at all what he said? I ask because it makes me sad to see a human being incapable of parsing a very simple piece of text.
This is the actual problem. That the MAJORITY of people these days, cannot parse factual statements, let alone analyze and cross compare them.
Plato feared that the majority of people were too stupid to be allowed to have a vote. In 2,000 years, while the amount of knowledge AVAILABLE to people has increased; sadly, the basic intelligence of people has not.
Re:The only people in the world and the party that (Score:2)
Re:The only people in the world and the party that (Score:2)
One question: do you have a better solution than democracy?
Re:The only people in the world and the party that (Score:2)
Wow, you're not only not stupid, you're psychic, too. How long have been able to read minds?
Re:The only people in the world and the party that (Score:2)
Re:The only people in the world and the party that (Score:3)
Not a right, but a duty.
It has become an overt political act. How else to act against their hostility? I'll take suggestions.
Re:The only people in the world and the party that (Score:3)
Not buying it would be the duty. Stealing it happens because you want something that you don't have. They can be totally separated.
Re:The only people in the world and the party that (Score:2)
That would be like telling the patriots in the original Boston Tea Party that they should have just not bought the tea.
Sometimes, political acts have to be overt and transgressive.
Believe me, I have no interest in seeing Hangover 2 or Harry Potter and the Temple of Doom Part 2. Those so inclined might not be downloading them because they want to see such crap, but because they want to seed such crap, as a non-violent act of civil disobedience.
Maybe you don't agree with such a view, or civil disobedience at all, or maybe you object to the anonymity of the seeders, but surely you can understand that such an act can be a political action. It's not so different from picketing a store that has unfair labor practices. Remember, when the Freedom Riders sat down to eat in a Mississippi lunch counter, they were breaking a local law, not because that diner happened to have the best patty melts, or because they were hungry after the long drive, but because the transgressive act itself was an expression of moral outrage. In this case, seeding is like a boycott with a hard-on.
There are plenty of reasons to feel moral outrage against the RIAA and MPAA and other **AAs.
(but not the GNAA, who are a swell bunch).
Re:The only people in the world and the party that (Score:2)
Stealing it happens because you want something that you don't have.
Or, in this case, copying.
Re:The only people in the world and the party that (Score:2)
Things are way past the point of pirating movies although this started that way. On the other hand they could rename themselves the privacy party with little ill effect.
Re:The only people in the world and the party that (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The only people in the world and the party that (Score:2)
That confusion is only natural when the MAFIAA equates piracy with the same level of wrongfulness that nanny staters do with "think of the children!"
Re:The only people in the world and the party that (Score:2)
I don't support Piraty Party stance on copyright and patents - I consider it to be too extreme (e.g. they want to legalize "personal" sharing, which really means any non-profit redistribution - this effectively makes copyright worthless, even if it's still on the books). Even so, I would support them, for the simple reason that they are a minority (so far, at least), and cannot bend things their way altogether. What they can do is try to balance out, or at least moderate, the other extreme that we currently have at the peak of its power - the never-ending copyright term extensions, myriads of trivial patents granted on flimsiest reasons etc.
Just keep in mind that any vote for a mainstream party, other than possibly Greens (and even then it depends on the country) is a vote for the likes of RIAA. From that perspective, tactical voting for Pirate Party makes perfect sense.
Re:The only people in the world and the party that (Score:2)
Not exactly what the pirate party stands for. Downloading copyrighted material is at best a side issue.
But, assuming that it is the "platform", well compare it to more mainstream parties (in the US or the EU) and you'll notice that these have no recognizable party program at all?
Mermaid tears (Score:5, Insightful)
I cannot support this party.
I do not support ANY political party that tries to extract tears from mermaids.
Re:Mermaid tears (Score:5, Funny)
Please mod parent insightful. Tear extraction from mermaids may be the correlative catalyst that explains why the number of pirates is reducing global warming [venganza.org]!
I can't possibly be the only one... (Score:3, Insightful)
Even at best, to try to take the name at face value, their naming suggests they are advocating something that is strongly associated with disobedience and anarchy.
They need to grow up, IMO.
(This post is probably going to get modded as a troll, but it's still my honest opinion.)
Re:I can't possibly be the only one... (Score:5, Funny)
As a member of the PPDCP (purple polka dot clowns party) I find this post highly offensive.
Re:I can't possibly be the only one... (Score:2)
Re:I can't possibly be the only one... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I can't possibly be the only one... (Score:2)
Re:I can't possibly be the only one... (Score:5, Interesting)
For years the UK had a party called "The Monster Raving Looney Party" which was lead by "Screaming Lord Sutch".
It was always rather special seeing the candidates on the podium waiting for the results, and there often being some fool in a silly hat up there. I think politics in the UK has since become much more pompous. Nothing wrong with a silly party or two - especially when it begins to sound like the only one making sense.
Re:I can't possibly be the only one... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I can't possibly be the only one... (Score:2)
"The Monster Raving Looney Party"
I actually can't help but think these folks were run by geniuses.
Policies such as banning farm vehicles from public roads between the hours of 7am and 9am and 4pm and 6pm. One of the best policies ever IMO. No more tractors fucking up the commute home or making thousands of people late for work!
Re:I can't possibly be the only one... (Score:2)
Re:I can't possibly be the only one... (Score:5, Informative)
At least they are being honest in their party name!
Personally I wish this party would get elected http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Monster_Raving_Loony_Party [wikipedia.org]
Re:I can't possibly be the only one... (Score:5, Interesting)
The Loony Party has in fact won a few elections, and also beaten major UK parties on occasion. As far as Pirate Parties go, I think an age difference might be at work here: Younger people like myself are used to listening to cogent arguments from people dressed in jeans and a T-shirt up against idiotic arguments from people in suits and ties. So we've learned the lesson that appearing respectable isn't all it's cracked up to be.
Re:I can't possibly be the only one... (Score:5, Insightful)
Politics is stupid. Might as well be forthcoming about what you stand for.
Uh... (Score:3, Insightful)
Last I heard, the Tea Party wasn't an actual political party, just a bunch of whiners. Something to put on the end of your conservative political resume, not a specific political party you were a member of.
I mean, ignoring the fact that it was nothing more than a Republican vassal puppet.
You're right about the GOP, but I can't see it as anything other than an a funny way of saying they're regressive old twats.
Re:I can't possibly be the only one... (Score:2)
Re:I can't possibly be the only one... (Score:2)
Short version: They were rioting hooligans that were pissed off at the government and no one thought their actions were in good form except for like-minded anti-establishment types.
It alienated whatever friendship remained among the British Lords. Benjamin Franklin said that the damage would have to be repaid. It incited other violence and destruction. We're taught at school that it was an act of nationalistic pride. While it did move us closer to revolution, it wasn't as clean and pretty as the propaganda that Samuel Adams spread around at the time.
Re:I can't possibly be the only one... (Score:2)
They were rioting hooligans that were pissed off at the government and no one thought their actions were in good form except for like-minded anti-establishment types.
History repeats itself, it would seem. Who would have thought?
Re:I can't possibly be the only one... (Score:2)
The Tea Party is a reference to the Boston Tea Party
From the antics of those involved, it's more like the Mad Hatter's Tea Party.
Re:I can't possibly be the only one... (Score:3)
Any more silly than "The Tea Party?"
Depends. Are you referring to the Mad Hatter's Tea Party, or the immensely stupider modern one?
Dems, donkeys, work, and determination (Score:2)
How about one that represents itself with an ass?
Technically, the Democrats don't use the donkey officially But even so, of course a symbol of work and determination would represent a pro-worker party. Read what I wrote earlier about donkeys [slashdot.org].
Re:I can't possibly be the only one... (Score:3)
complaining about the name just shows a lack of understanding of the issues of the party, completely.
Considering the "rent is too damn high" party and how the democratic and republican party logos are about the worst animal choices possible (donkey/elephant? really?), I'd say that the issue has nothing to do with the name.
Kettle, meet pot.
Re:I can't possibly be the only one... (Score:3)
The elephant and donkey were originally used in political cartoons lampooning the parties.
A political cartoon by Thomas Nast, published in Harper's Weekly on November 7, 1874, is considered the first important use of the [elephant] symbol.[15] In the early 20th century, the usual symbol of the Republican Party in Midwestern states such as Indiana and Ohio was the eagle, as opposed to the Democratic rooster. This symbol still appears on Indiana, New York,[16][dead link] and West Virginia[17][dead link] ballots.
The most common mascot symbol for the [Democratic] party is the donkey, although the party never officially adopted this symbol.[113] Andrew Jackson's opponents had labeled him a jackass during the intense mudslinging in 1828. A political cartoon titled "A Modern Balaam and his Ass" depicting Jackson riding and directing a donkey (representing the Democratic Party) was published in 1837. A political cartoon by Thomas Nast in an 1870 edition of Harper's Weekly revived the donkey as a symbol for the Democratic Party. Cartoonists followed Nast and used the donkey to represent the Democrats, and the elephant to represent the Republicans.
Re:I can't possibly be the only one... (Score:3)
As a member in good standing of the Monster Raving Loony Party, I am deeply offended by this post.
Re:I can't possibly be the only one... (Score:5, Informative)
There are very good reasons for that name, the most obvious being that a party with the same platform by any other name had remained an unseen web page.
For more, check the article "Why the name Pirate Party?" here: http://falkvinge.net/2011/02/20/why-the-name-pirate-party/ [falkvinge.net]
Re:I can't possibly be the only one... (Score:5, Interesting)
You only feel that way because you have been propagandized from birth. Look nobody should want to live in a world run by pirates, in cannons on stolen ships lets kill people and steal their stuff, sense. That world of might makes right sucks, want to know what can be worse than that? A world run by tyrants.
Our Western republics are day by day being taken over by small group or ruling oligarchs with tyrannical and authoritarian ideas on dictating your life cradle to grave, and you shot at becoming one of them is growing smaller by the hour as they slam the latches on your shackles closed. I was listening to the radio this morning and in the context of another story the speaker matter of factly stated many young Italians will never have a steady job!
Wow you know what the means it means they will always be in debt and always depend on hand outs, by extension following some process to get those handouts, and having to empower the people who give them those hand outs even at the cost of their opportunity to perhaps eventually not need them. They will never know independence; Its a kinder gentler form of SLAVERY.
With tyrants if you stand up you will be crushed, well unless you lead a successful revolution. With pirates, if you take a shot odds are you will be killed but you are little more likely to prevail than against an installed tyrant. Best part is if you win against a pirate you are the new pirate king (little K).
I'd take Pirates over the current world leadership, if asked to make a choice.
Re:I can't possibly be the only one... (Score:2)
Re:I can't possibly be the only one... (Score:2)
Then why not call themselves the Freedom Party?
Such a name would unambiguously state their agenda, and firmly represents their platform in a positive manner, rather than sounding like a childish plea to gather attention because their platform doesn't have sufficient merit to gather interest on its own.
Re:I can't possibly be the only one... (Score:2)
I was listening to the radio this morning and in the context of another story the speaker matter of factly stated many young Italians will never have a steady job!
What you say about Italy is interesting. I've been thinking recently that the people who created the European Central Bank, and removed the ability for those countries to inflate their currency, are the new thieves of the economy -- and knew full well what they were doing. It's working almost as well as the Federal Reserve Banking system. The root of it is fractional reserve lending; for more info Google for Zeitgeist, they now have 3 movies and are working on a fourth.
It's childish... (Score:5, Informative)
But not in the way most people would be thinking.
Remember, Piracy was adopted as the major branding slogan by content publishers because they thought it would have negative connotations. Accuracy and truth were not a part of it; they were going for psychological hits rather than any actual reasoning based off of logic and justice.
In calling it a "Pirate Party" they are mocking the originators of the term. It had already lost its meaning and reversed, becoming an average term, and now used by a political party as a straight-out rallying term of endearment against anachronistic corporations and the politicians they control.
Which is in and of itself quite petty, and thus childish. Still amusing, and still a group of politicians that I'd trust further for many issues (completely unrelated to piracy or media) than most others.
Re:I can't possibly be the only one... (Score:5, Insightful)
But please consider this : many democracies were introduced with pirating at least partly involved.
The greek were pirating the phoenicians
The Vikings all of Europe
And the British pirated on Spain
-
Maybe we can expect some democracy in Somalia soon?
Re:I can't possibly be the only one... (Score:3)
And the British pirated on Spain
Piracy or Warfare? It was technically only piracy during peace-time. When privateers were sailing with a mandate from the king (to attack the merchant or war vessels of specific nations) it was a form of economic warfare.
Certainly it wasn't just the British either- this was a "legitimate" form of warfare across all of Europe. The French on the British and Spanish- the British on the Spanish and the French. The Spanish on the Dutch.
The stereotypical pirate during peacetime though were not operating on the goverment and had nothing to do with nationbuilding (certainly not with democracy building)- that was about individuals seeking private gain.
Continental Europe saw Britain as a nation of corse nation of pirates and brigands during the 17th and early 18th century because Britain was more successfull at this form of warfare in comparison to the economic footprint of Britain at the time.
Re:I can't possibly be the only one... (Score:2)
what I had in mind was the 'rules' a pirate signed in times of Henry Morgan.
same risk ( yer life ) same reward - only the navigator got double
The greek were notoriously active as pirates during the Minoan time and then again during the Romans
And the left-over of the Phoenicians later operated as Corsars in the Western Mediterranean way past the Roman Empire.
Re:I can't possibly be the only one... (Score:2)
It was not "legitimated warfar".
If you where operating a privateer with or without "a letter of marque" and got caught you where considerd a pirate and got executed.
If you operated an ordinary war ship and got into prisson you most of the time simly where a prissoner of war.
Re:I can't possibly be the only one... (Score:2)
The French would also execute English and Welsh archers (or in some cases if they were lucky mutilate their hands, or just chop off the fingers) but take other soldiers as prisoners of war.
Doesn't mean the archers were not legitimate soldiers because they were frequently executed or treated more harshly. It just meant the French were more afraid of them.
Privateers operated for the king and country- the crown would pay them for any vessells they captured or give them a cut of the booty they took from the enemy.
So- they are conducting hostile acts- against a nation the king is at war with- and being paid by the government.
It really isn't much different that a navy ship. It is commission based pay rather than a flat naval rate.
Re:I can't possibly be the only one... (Score:2, Flamebait)
strongly associated with disobedience and anarchy.
They need to grow up, IMO.
Are you saying 'SHUT UP AND OBEY' your corporate overlords ? get back to watching fox, fascist !
Re:I can't possibly be the only one... (Score:2)
It was the music industry that started calling copyright infringers "pirates".
Re:I can't possibly be the only one... (Score:2)
her votes were not enough to beat fellow pirate Christian Engstrom
Christian is doing great work [wordpress.com] in the EP (he almost stopped the 20 year copyright term extension for sound recordings), so I'm glad he made it in. While I'm happy to see the PP getting an extra seat, I'd prefer these seats coming from people that stop voting for their same old, same old party they supported for the last 20 years and give off a clear signal about their digital rights and privacy rights.
Re:I can't possibly be the only one... (Score:2)
Wearing "pirate" as a badge of honor gets literally less than zero respect from me (and just shy of wholehearted contempt), because I believe that copyright holder's interests should be preserved, and not disrespected. As the whole point of being a pirate is to practice the latter, I find no reason to respect their attempt at reappropriating the term as a positive thing. One might as well be, in my view, reappropriating a term like "embezzler", for example.
Lest you believe me to be some copyright corporation's paid shill, allow me to say that with absolutely no less fervor or enthusiasm, I laud the creation and utilization of copyrighted works that the authors have chosen to make freely available, and I wholeheartedly endorse the notion that a consumer should be free to do with, for their own personal use, whatever they might happen to want to do with an authorized copy of a copyrighted work. I loathe the notion that copyright is virtually eternal in the USA... the point of copyright is that it is supposed to be for a limited time, and in my own personal opinion, I believe it should be closer to about 15 years, rather than the something like 90 odd years that I think it's at right now. I consider laws like the DMCA to be an abomination because they decimate consumer freedoms without offering them anything in exchange. When people choose to make copies for other people, however, for any reason that is not explicitly exempted by fair use guidelines (which copyright holders implicitly agree to when they utilize copyright in the first place, since that is part of copyright law), they tread on the copyright holder's lawfully granted rights, and I firmly draw the line there... and I'm just not likely to sympathize with them.
Re:I can't possibly be the only one... (Score:2)
Mark,
You are wasting your breath here. I think you are correct, but you are speaking to a bunch of people who see the ability to get something, hell anything. by anyone and put it on a torent for all to have as some sort of inalienable right.
Re:I can't possibly be the only one... (Score:2)
Re:I can't possibly be the only one... (Score:2)
The clause reads as follows:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
The framers did not define the phrase "limited time" so that has been left up to the congress, ie: "the people" and therefor if you want to get that defined you have to make the changes in the CFR.
Here is a general explanation of the definition of a "limited time" as it currently exists"
The term of copyright for a particular work depends on several factors, including whether it has been published, and, if so, the date of first publication. As a general rule, for works created after January 1, 1978, copyright protection lasts for the life of the author plus an additional 70 years. For an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, the copyright endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first. For works first published prior to 1978, the term will vary depending on several factors. To determine the length of copyright protection for a particular work, consult chapter 3 of the Copyright Act (title 17 of the United States Code). More information on the term of copyright can be found in Circular 15a, Duration of Copyright, and Circular 1, Copyright Basics.
If you don't like that, then it is time to start working on your senators and congressman. Get enough of a ground swell going that those people will see that they will not be re-elected if they don't change it and guess what, it will get changed.
Re:I can't possibly be the only one... (Score:2)
Re:I can't possibly be the only one... (Score:2)
Consider, if you treated copyrighted works EXACTLY as you say they should be treated (as opposed to the way the law now claims they should be), the RIAA and co would not hesitate for a second to call you a pirate. The Pirate Party recognizes that (note that they are not advocating abolition of copyright either) and says "fine, so we're pirates!".
You're entitled to not like the name, but you shouldn't read so much into it. You don't necessarily believe that "Honest Al's Used Cars" is honest, do you?
Re:I can't possibly be the only one... (Score:2)
That, I believe, may be the sanest answer I've heard to address this matter out of any response to my previous remarks (I'm still shocked as hell that it didn't get modded as troll or flamebait, by the way.. it may be my honest opinion, but I was sure it would be thought of as deliberately trying to push people's buttons).
Notwithstanding, I believe that the system can be changed by working within it. Sure, there are exceptions to this (most profoundly in matters involving human or civil rights), but for something like copyright, it should be entirely possible to effect positive change by using the existing system to reform itself, rather than resorting to disregarding the portions of it we don't agree with, no matter how stupid we might believe them to be.
From what I've heard about the pirate party, they are, in fact, advocating some principles I believe in myself... however, they could have accomplished the exact same ends by calling themselves the "Freedom Party", which could put a far more positive spin on what they appear to be trying to accomplish. In the end, however, a name like "pirate party" still seems to reflect a measure of immaturity, and with that, connotes an inability or unpreparedness to fully accept the responsibilities for all of their decisions and their actions.
Re:I can't possibly be the only one... (Score:2)
I can see where you're coming from, it certainly is cheeky. Perhaps a bit less so when you read the story [falkvinge.net] of how the name came about, but still somewhat and from the very beginning.
It's a matter of taste, but personally, I appreciate a bit of cheek, particularly in the face of hypocrisy such as the *AA, two organizations whose members are famous for their "creative" accounting and for starting out as patent infringers, and the politicians in their pockets.
Re:I can't possibly be the only one... (Score:2)
Yes, but they are garnering attention under a name that *VERY* heavily implies that they aren't interested in working within it at all. There's a saying about "good intentions"... and a less than desirable conclusion. Are you familiar with it?
Anyways, I remain resolute in the belief that going with a name specifically designed to gather attention *because* it is... well... outrageous, since I can't really think of a better term... sort of reminds me of a child who acts up deliberately to gather attention, even though what they might really want attention for is perfectly innocent.
Re:I can't possibly be the only one... (Score:2)
Looks to me like you agree pretty much exactly with the pirate party, but you let a name stop you from voting for what you believe in.
More fool you.
Re:I can't possibly be the only one... (Score:2)
It's no sillier than the American rebels adopting Yankee Doodle as a patriot's song, now is it?
And, as a matter of fact, they are advocating several things that the old guard consider disobedient and anarchic. So in that sense, it is a great descriptive name with a dash of nose tweaking.
It's not like they call themselves the boing boing farty pants party, now is it?
Re:I can't possibly be the only one... (Score:2)
Even at best, to try to take the name at face value, their naming suggests they are advocating something that is strongly associated with disobedience and anarchy.
In case you forgot, the Pirates did not invent the term, they were called so by industry propagandists. They took on a label given to them by their adversaries. And they did not take it on to express their taste for "disobedience and anarchy". Calling the party "Pirate Party" actually was both the obvious and also the cleverest thing to do. This way
Re:I can't possibly be the only one... (Score:4, Interesting)
Ever heard the terms Tory [wikipedia.org] (outlaw, brigand) and Whig [wikipedia.org] (cattle driver)?
Very often, names of parties are given by their detractors, not their supporters. Judge them by the enemies they make...
Re:Whig Party (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Whig Party (Score:3)
Let us not forget the Mugwumps, as well! And the Tory party themselves are celebrated with a name that was originally Irish for "robber".
Re:I can't possibly be the only one... (Score:2)
Well... traditionally, how a party is named usually reflects their agenda in some way.
As I have no interest in furthering the cause of piracy (I refer to media piracy, specifically), I don't see any point in voting for them.
Now, I'm aware that's not their actual agenda (probably... they don't actually deny it anywhere that I've seen) , but, like I said... I think that they need to grow up and live in the real world. People that not only show a lack of any effort to present themselves as outwardly respectable, but appear to be going out of their way to present themselves as rebellious and disrespectful of cultural norms, barring civil and human rights issues, are not terribly likely to get much respect from me... nor from, what I would imagine, a good portion of our society.
Re:I can't possibly be the only one... (Score:3)
Re:I can't possibly be the only one... (Score:2)
I think that they need to grow up and live in the real world.
Are they still trapped in the matrix or something? What is the "real world"? Is it whatever ideas you agree with?
barring civil and human rights issues
So because you don't think the issue is important enough, it isn't? I've always thought that simply following the majority because they are a majority is a bad idea.
Does the Swedish pirate party have a logo? (Score:5, Interesting)
Because using Slashdot's "piracy" logo seems a bit counter-productive. Wikipedia shows a logo for the international organization [wikipedia.org].
Re:Does the Swedish pirate party have a logo? (Score:4, Informative)
Obscure... (Score:2)
This makes me want to pilly the Cursed Islands and defeat Vargas the Mad but I don't have my bravery badge,
Re:Obscure... (Score:2)
While barbarians rumble in the distance?
Re:First (Score:2, Funny)
You have the second first reply to the second first post...