Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Piracy Books Politics Your Rights Online

Pirate Party Releases Book of Pirate Politics 158

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the entitled-yarr-yarr-end-copyright-yarr dept.
ktetch-pirate writes "If the SOPA/PIPA blackouts were a wakeup call to many people, then the U.S. Pirate Party has released a book that might help explain some of the issues. The book covers issues such as Corporate Personhood, the 4th Amendment, the history of copyright, and how DRM laws are made. There are even cartoons from Nina Paley throughout to add a bit of humor. DRM-free eBook versions are available to download from the book's site, or you can buy a paperback edition from Amazon for ten bucks." The book is under the CC BY-NC-SA, and features essays from the likes of Lawrence Lessig and Rick Falkvinge.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Pirate Party Releases Book of Pirate Politics

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    True pirates only believe in a keg of rum and a fair splittin' o' the booty!

  • by sonoftheright (1372723) on Tuesday January 24, 2012 @04:55PM (#38810479)

    ... are thoughts concerning the possible destruction of the universe were I to pirate the Pirate Party's book on Pirate Politics.

    • by SJHillman (1966756) on Tuesday January 24, 2012 @04:56PM (#38810495)

      Pretty sure that's why it's DRM-free. For the sake of the Universe.

    • by ClintJCL (264898)
      You wouldn't need to, since TFA said they have it to download for free. The only way you could pirate it would be to buy a paperback and manufacture conterfeit paperback copies.
      • by Anonymous Coward

        No...because of the license, if you were to take the work, adapt it into a new, commercial work and either did not give them attribution or made it look like they endorsed your new work, you would be violating the license and would technically be pirating it. Part of me would find it hilarious if the MPAA or RIAA purposefully did this and started selling it for a penny. Although they'd have to be very careful or their adaptation may stray into the realm of a protected parody.

        • by cp.tar (871488)

          If they did that, they’d get hit with the very same rules they’re forcing on us. It would be more than hilarious.

      • by operagost (62405)
        I assume that would be perfectly OK, because they are totally against copyright.
      • by tehcyder (746570)

        You wouldn't need to, since TFA said they have it to download for free. The only way you could pirate it would be to buy a paperback and manufacture conterfeit paperback copies.

        Say I did that, would the pirate party sue me? And for how much?

        • You wouldn't need to, since TFA said they have it to download for free. The only way you could pirate it would be to buy a paperback and manufacture conterfeit paperback copies.

          Say I did that, would the pirate party sue me? And for how much?

          A hundred bottles of rum and a chest of gold coins. Aye, that be what they be suing you forrrr. Aaaaaahhrrr!

    • by cp.tar (871488)

      Well, the Pirate Party published a pamphlet on pirate politics precisely to prevent people from possibly pirating it by putting it up for purchase-less download.

    • ... are thoughts concerning the possible destruction of the universe were I to pirate the Pirate Party's book on Pirate Politics.

      ...while through my mind runs a different tale of Universal destruction by Pirates, wherein I ask The Pirate Bay to print me a 3D printer with their 3D printer.

    • by mcgrew (92797) *

      Kids... sheesh... ever heard of Abbie Hoffman? Steal This Book! [wikipedia.org]

      "It's embarrassing when you try to overthrow the government and you wind up on the Best Seller's List."

      What was old is new again!

  • by Kevin McCready (1553337) on Tuesday January 24, 2012 @04:57PM (#38810499)
    Hopefully we might one day move towards the revolutionary notion of a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. Yes I know it's terribly problematic determining the parameters, but if the principle was accepted we'd be a lot further ahead.
    • False. We must all work to support the ability for individuals to become billionaires.

      Of course, don't tell anybody that for one person to become a billionaire, a WHOLE LOTTA people have to be zeroinares.

      • Yes, don't. Especially since it's wrong [wikipedia.org].

        • by tehcyder (746570)
          It doesn't matter, as all the money generated by this magical non-zero-sum-game economic activity should be equally divided amongst the population anyway.
    • by Flammon (4726) on Tuesday January 24, 2012 @05:21PM (#38810869) Homepage Journal

      Exactly! Doing something once and getting paid a hundred million times for it is a loophole in our system and it desperately needs to be fixed. Sadly the people who took advantage of this loophole have made enough money which has given them power to control the goverment and preserve the loophole.

      • by kiwimate (458274)

        Exactly! Doing something once and getting paid a hundred million times for it is a loophole in our system and it desperately needs to be fixed.

        Why?

        • by Fned (43219) on Tuesday January 24, 2012 @06:28PM (#38811951) Journal

          1) Because it produces no value. Copyright is meant to encourage the creation of new works by rewarding the creator, rewarding the creator is not the end goal. There is some encouragement provided by creators seeing a tiny, tiny percentage of other creators become rich, but that effect is more than nullified by the chilling effect of big media locking down the public domain for ever and ever. Eventually, no one will be able to create anything new without paying someone a fee based on some ancient crap no one except the rights-holder remembers.

          2) Because copyright as it currently stands is incompatible with computers. Copyright seeks to monetize individual packets of information, and individual packets of information inside a computer system have zero value; in fact, individual packets of information in a computer can't even be made to have value without breaking the computer, since all a computer actually does is separate information from permanent media so that you can copy, destroy, or muck about with it at no cost.
          Copies mean nothing in Computerland, only creation and access have value.

          • by kiwimate (458274)

            Because it produces no value. Copyright is meant to encourage the creation of new works by rewarding the creator, rewarding the creator is not the end goal.

            And how does piracy change this?

            Because copyright as it currently stands is incompatible with computers. Copyright seeks to monetize individual packets of information, and individual packets of information inside a computer system have zero value

            You might just as well say individual letters of the alphabet have zero value. Or individual globs of paint have zero value.

            I like Karlb's question on your post. How do you respond?

        • by jd2112 (1535857)

          Exactly! Doing something once and getting paid a hundred million times for it is a loophole in our system and it desperately needs to be fixed.

          Why?

          It's called "The Golden Rule". He who has the gold makes the rules.

        • by mcgrew (92797) *

          Because art is like science and technology, in that what exists now is built on what came before. Imagine how technology would stagnate if patents lasted as long as copyrights? Well, that's how art has stagnated since the Bono Act. It needs to be repealed.

      • by brit74 (831798)
        > "Doing something once and getting paid a hundred million times for it is a loophole in our system and it desperately needs to be fixed."

        The problem with the "copyright means that creators get paid over and over for doing something once" argument is that prices reflect that. A movie that costs $400 million dollars to create can be yours for $10. Software that costs a billion dollars to create get paid-off by a huge number of small payments by individual people. There's nothing wrong with getting p
        • by Flammon (4726)

          That's how the system is supposed to work and if it did, I'd have no problem with it. Unfortunately, that's not how it works. It's much more complex than that and you're seeing exactly what they want you to see. You say that Starcraft 2 would not have been created because nobody is going to pay $100 million but that's not true. I didn't pay for Starcraft 2 until it was finished and the $100 million had already been paid for. Who do you think paid that money up front? Honest gamers? Nope. Investors. Most of

          • by tehcyder (746570)
            And, of course, you conveniently ignore the fact that these investors were what made it possible for Blizzard to spend 100 million developing the game.

            There is nothing special about games and software compared with any other commodity. Someone invests in my widget making company, paying for manufacturing equipment, set up of offices and all the rest, and then when I sell enough widgets I can pay them interest, a share of profit or whatever.

            You cannot have a sensible business model based on "you inves
            • by Flammon (4726)

              You cannot have a sensible business model based on "you invest 100 million so that we can develop this game, then we'll give it away for free afterwards because people are only going to pirate it anyway". You won't get the investment in the first place, and your next game will have to be made for free, including people's time.

              Sure you can.

              http://www.kickstarter.com/ [kickstarter.com]

              • by brit74 (831798)
                Yeah, I remember that time that a company got $100 million dollars by using a Kickstarter campaign.

                Did you know that no videogame has ever reached $100,000 on kickstarter? The most-funded videogame project I could find on Kickstarter (called "Grandroids") topped out at $56,000. Why, that'd get you a software developer and an artist for a whole six months!
                http://www.kickstarter.com/discover/categories/video%20games/most-funded [kickstarter.com]
          • by brit74 (831798)
            Who do you think paid that money up front? Honest gamers? Nope. Investors.
            First of all, I have doubts that Blizzard needs to go to investors. I'm sure they've got enough money in the bank from World of Warcraft to self-fund themselves. I know a few things about self-funded ventures because I've created software which was funded *SOLELY* by my own savings. Did that stop pirates from pirating it? Of course it didn't. Pirates still feel entitled to free entertainment.

            Second, do you think that investo
        • by bug1 (96678)

          Copyright is government granted monopoly designed to _prevent_ competition, your arguments dont hold water.

          Sharing the cost of production is a fine idea when there is true competition such as commodities, products built to standards, but anything with artistic value has no equal, there can be no true competition.

          • by brit74 (831798)
            > "Copyright is government granted monopoly designed to _prevent_ competition, your arguments dont hold water."

            What are you talking about? When I create new software, copyright is used to prevent filesharing (i.e. my users doing an end-run around paying for it and getting a free copy) and it prevents commercial piracy (i.e. someone going and selling my software without my permission and pocketing all the money for themselves).
            • by bug1 (96678)

              This is the section of the parent post i responding to.

              "Over time, the prices tend to equalize around a point where (cost of production) = (average revenue from a single purchase)*(number of purchases). Why is this the case? Because of competition."

              My point is that argument cannot apply to artistic works.
              Good painting get more expensive over time, Vincent van Gogh's painting started of worthless, and over time became priceless.

              The reason is that "Cost of Production" cannot factor the value of a unique human

      • by bug1 (96678)

        Agree, another way of saying it is ...

        Society should encourage people to work rather than to have worked.

    • The value of a unit of work entirely depends upon the perceptions of the people who benefit from said work. As such, it varies with many variables, including location, culture, material availability, labor availability, alternative benefit availability, time, etc.

      It is very easy to deem that someone else is overpaid because of the low value their output has to you personally, without taking into account the high value it may have to the people who are actually paying for it. The opposite is also true.

      The

    • by tehcyder (746570)

      Hopefully we might one day move towards the revolutionary notion of a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. Yes I know it's terribly problematic determining the parameters, but if the principle was accepted we'd be a lot further ahead.

      I, for one, welcome our new communistic from-each-according-to-his-abilities to-each-according-to-his-needs overlords.

  • Education (Score:4, Insightful)

    by omganton (2554342) on Tuesday January 24, 2012 @04:59PM (#38810531)
    I have been waiting for this. Blackouts and protests can raise awareness, but those interested yet lacking knowledge require a targeted repository of information on the issues at hand. The distribution of knowledge is the best way to prepare the masses for the lengthy and technical debates that are sure to arise regarding SOPA/PIPA in the following years.
    • by BasilBrush (643681) on Tuesday January 24, 2012 @05:09PM (#38810683)

      I've been waiting for it too.

      The book is under the CC BY-NC-SA

      Ha! I'm going to sell it without attribution. What are you going to do about it, Pirate Party?!

      • by Tokolosh (1256448) on Tuesday January 24, 2012 @05:44PM (#38811273)

        Put it on Megapload.

      • Re:Education (Score:5, Insightful)

        by CRCulver (715279) <crculver@christopherculver.com> on Tuesday January 24, 2012 @06:04PM (#38811557) Homepage

        Ha! I'm going to sell it without attribution. What are you going to do about it, Pirate Party?!

        The Pirate Party opposes the present understanding of copyright, but it does not oppose the moral right of the author to be credited. It can be argued that copyright is a recent innovation (the early US legislation noted that it is a government fiat to spur creation, not a natural right) and alien to most people, but claims that authors have the right to be credited stretch far back into antiquity.

        Basically, copyright violation and plagiarism are two different issues.

        • The Pirate Party opposes the present understanding of copyright, but it does not oppose the moral right of the author to be credited.

          Not quite. Their licence forbids others to sell copies of their book. That is indeed a copyright claim. They are trying to dictate what I do with the copies I make. How can they do that unless they claim to own them?

          And what if I oppose the "moral right" of the author to be credited. What's to say the Pirate Party are right and I'm wrong? Has not the Pirate Party demonstrated that they believe the moral course of action for me is to act based on my beliefs, not the author's beliefs. Therefore they should u

          • by tehcyder (746570)

            Basically, copyright violation and plagiarism are two different issues.

            Burglary and robbery are two different issues.

            Uh oh, you'll have the "copying is not theft" twat-bots after you now.

        • by brit74 (831798)
          > "The Pirate Party opposes the present understanding of copyright, but it does not oppose the moral right of the author to be credited.

          One of the oft-cited excuses for piracy is that "you can't stop us / copyright is incompatible with computers because they are designed to copy bits!" The fact of the matter is that the Pirate Party can't stop anyone from deleting the attribution. So, using the same excuses that they use to legitimize piracy, other people can justify removing attribution. If the Pi
    • by Tuoqui (1091447)

      Yeah the website is temporarily down due to slashdot...

      LOIC got nothing on Slashdot :D

  • Slashdotted. Figures.
  • The book is under the CC BY-NC-SA

    So it's copyrighted?

    • by Rostis (797)
      That's a license, not a copyright. The copyright is by default.
    • Re:Cool! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Tubal-Cain (1289912) on Tuesday January 24, 2012 @06:17PM (#38811795) Journal
      The primary goal is copyright reform, not abolishment.
      Copyright isn't evil; it's just being abused heavily.
      • by russotto (537200)

        Copyright isn't evil; it's just being abused heavily.

        If copyright isn't evil, why does it run around wearing a Snidely Whiplash mustache and tying people to railroad tracks? OK, they're mostly neckbeards and not maidens, but still...

      • "Copyright isn't evil; it's just being abused heavily."

        It's more then just abused heavily corporations have outright stolen the public domain, any attempt at reform will be blocked and consistently attacked again until it's back where it started. I really hate how ignorant some slashdotters are about copyright history.

        Do you really think the people and companies behind the following will not attack and overturn reform at the first chance they get?

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act [wikipedia.org]

      • by brit74 (831798)
        > The primary goal is copyright reform, not abolishment.
        Just so you know: Nina Paley (who'd mentioned in the summary as creating cartoons for the book) believes in the total abolition of copyright. She thinks everyone should be able to to anything with other people's copyright - including sell it. In the past, she has attacked people who believe in the legalization of filesharing but think commercial copyright should still exist.
      • by tehcyder (746570)

        The primary goal is copyright reform, not abolishment. Copyright isn't evil; it's just being abused heavily.

        I don't think so. The anti-copyright argument on slashdot (and I assume for the pirate people) is s that digitally copying something costs nothing so therefore why should anyone ever pay for a copy? That certainly involves scrapping the idea of copyright entirely.

  • The site to get the eBook is down. If only The Pirate party had access to some kind of distributed download system that could handle the traffic...

  • . . . on 'giving ebooks away for free' comes out.
  • by frank_adrian314159 (469671) on Tuesday January 24, 2012 @07:08PM (#38812559) Homepage

    I read the first few essays and, though I agree with the sentiments therein, I found most of them rather poorly written - either unsure of their target (e.g., most non-computer-geek persons will not know what a "zombie botnet" is and how it relates to DNS, which is also not described) or incredibly dense in legality or just scattered (jumping from point-to-point with little connection). As a document, the whole thing would be unreadable by the normal man on the street. If you actually want a good example of what a publisher and the editorial services they should provide bring to the table, you need do little more than try to read this document. The distance between where this document is and where it should be to be effective (which should demonstrate the amount of work it would take to bridge the gap) is also a good indicator as to why these intermediaries deserve to be paid for these efforts.

    If you want to kill copyright, you should put out a document showing that the services of those paid by copyright is no longer necessary. This document, though heartfelt, is crap.

    • by Kijori (897770)

      I was going to post something very similar to this. The great irony of this publication is that none of the essays or stories are of the same standard as their copyrighted, for-profit alternatives.

      The strongest argument, I think, that is tendered against copyright reform that would legalise sharing is that making it more difficult to make money from content creation would lead to an impoverishment of content. Creating good content is expensive, both in terms of time spent creating it and money spent on copy

  • I was hoping to find a Pirate Party response to Richard Stallman's essay [gnu.org] on how the Swedish Pirate Party's proposed short term of copyright creates a needlessly unequal opportunity between copylefted free software and proprietary software upon entry into the public domain. In the same essay Stallman proposes a fix that resolves the unequal opportunity.

    It's the unequal results upon entering the PD that is unfair: Proprietors don't release source code so upon entry into the public domain their works would be

  • I wish they'd release a new movie!

    (that was a joke)

  • by Yvanhoe (564877) on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @07:49AM (#38816981) Journal
    That seems fundamentally wrong to put a -nc there.

Mathemeticians stand on each other's shoulders while computer scientists stand on each other's toes. -- Richard Hamming

Working...