Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Swedish Pirate Party Fails To Enter Parliament 224

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This discussion has been archived.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

Swedish Pirate Party Fails To Enter Parliament

Comments Filter:
  • Ye dogs! (Score:4, Funny)

    by grub ( 11606 ) <slashdot@grub.net> on Monday September 20, 2010 @09:42AM (#33634986) Homepage Journal

    Swedish Pirate Party Fails To Enter Parliament


    The Parliament had a portcullis made from the finest iron! The swine poured boiling oil on my mates from the battlements! But the archers... blast ye archers! The air was a maelstrom of quills and death!

    • Re:Ye dogs! (Score:5, Funny)

      by dkleinsc ( 563838 ) on Monday September 20, 2010 @10:04AM (#33635158) Homepage

      Swedish translation:


      Zee Perleeement hed a purtcoollees mede-a frum zee feenest irun! Zee sveene-a puoored bueeling ooeel oon my metes frum zee bettlements! Boot zee erchers... blest ye-a erchers! Zee eur ves a meelstrum ooff qooeells und deet!

      Errrrrrr! Bork Bork Bork!

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

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

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

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

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

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        My first thoughts as well. The Pirate Party is a stupid name. We have one in the UK but what's the point with a name that doesn't seem serious for a cause that is going to be hard to explain to the layman in the first place?
      • by RsG ( 809189 ) on Monday September 20, 2010 @10:32AM (#33635492)

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

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

        • I think normal people will have a hard time understanding Pirate Party politics anyway. Copying something is obviously wrong, explaining that it's a reaction to the RIAA's tactics, the way that people can buy and sell laws, and the way they want to monitor everything that's done online in the name of "copyright" is long and complicated.

          I prefer to explain it as the party for people who are fed up with the weasels we normally get to vote for, and leave it at that. The Pirate Party is unlikely to ever win ser

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by Hatta ( 162192 )

            Copying something is obviously wrong

            But, it's not. Creating scarcity where none exists is wrong. If that's not obvious to you, you don't really understand or support Pirate politics.

            • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

              by murdocj ( 543661 )

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

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

              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by Hatta ( 162192 )

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

                • by murdocj ( 543661 )
                  My post was so short, and yet you still managed to not read it. Well done.
          • by drsmithy ( 35869 )

            Copying something is obviously wrong [...]

            Why ?

            More importantly, how can it be "obviously wrong" when everyone does it ? (Literally, I've never known anyone in my life who hasn't violated copyright in some way, be it as simple as giving someone a mix tape, or something somewhat more illegal like copying rented games for people (back when CDRs were expensive). Heck, even my _aunty_ has some copyright-violating material, and she's well into her 60s and only been "on the internet" for a few years.)

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by Joce640k ( 829181 )

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

              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

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

        • There has been a lot of branding going into the Pirate Bay, Pirate Party, WikiLeaks, and even the name Julian Assange, whereas none has gone into the "Free Information" party. If I were to be asked who I would vote for it would definitely not be a party I have never heard of, no matter how chivalrous the name sounds.
          Why throw all that away? As a matter of fact, the way that politics is going, when a politician says he is for something (e.g. protecting the children), I tend to think the opposite (exploit the

      • Privacy party or integrity party would be better imho since that is the true core of the pirate party. Regardless, I don't think there is anything wrong with calling yourself the pirate party. It gives a bit of extra publicity in the beginning and people will become used the name eventually and will think nothing of it.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Tom ( 822 )

        Bullshit. A name has to stand for something, it doesn't have to be "good" in any sense.

        The green party is a good example. The were actually named simply "The Green" when they entered the german parliament. That's as silly a name as "Pirate Party". But people didn't care for the name, they cared for the program.

      • A few years ago in Finland, an Information Society Party was being organized, but it did not go very far. Both the name and the idea were considered bland, as most other parties had something to say about the information society as well.

        However, in the past two years or so, PP Finland has made great progress. It has been registered for the upcoming parliamentary election, and its number of members puts it in the same league with the smallest parties currently in parliament.

        Besides the catchier name, it

      • by Kjella ( 173770 )

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

        "The digital party" would make the party sound even narrower than they are. They may not have been heard, but they have a broader idea of civil rights and freedoms outside the Internet.
        "The free information party" only sounds like a watered down politically correct version of the pirate party.
        "The information protection party" sounds just wrong, because they're more an information liberation party.
        "Cultural preservation party" sounds like a spin-off of the racist SD. "Preserve Swedish culture".

        The problem i

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

        Sounds like a pretty accurate description to me, doesn't it? At least their honest about their intentions.

        Taking on Wikileaks was a stupid move on their part, that alone is reason enough not to vote for them. They were attempting clear abuse of the intention of the immunity laws.

        You may think these guys are 'doing good', but they really are just doing whatever they can t

      • When they did well in 2009, it seemed like part of the reason was the unusual name. It made people curious to find out more about them. Certainly it didn't seem to be holding them back, they did way better than expected for a minor party. Now that the haven't done so well, people are saying "drop the name." Maybe the change is due to actual political factors, not merely a branding problem.
      • Then they need to drop the childish name. "The Pirate Party" makes it sound like they are a bunch of rebellious kids flaunting how they like to break the law and get away with it.


        Seriously, I attended one of their meetings recently and it was a bunch of rebellious kids flaunting how they like to break the law and get away with it.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by sepelester ( 794828 )
      Parlamentet hade ett fällgaller av finaste järn! Svinen hällde kokande olja på mina stridskamrater! Men bågskyttarna, era förbannade bågskyttar! Luften virvlade av pilspetsar och död!
  • Oh, the Pirate Party (Score:2, Informative)

    by MrHanky ( 141717 )

    When the real news is that the swastica-waving "democratic nationalist" party Sverigedemokraterna got a seat in the parliament.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by j1976 ( 618621 )

      Actually they got 20 seats and a tipping point position, where they in theory could get power to deseat the sitting conservative/liberal government.

      But I agree with the point... the interesting (and scary) part about the election is that I can expect that one in every twenty people I meet down town actually voted for a nazi party.

    • by ardiri ( 245358 ) on Monday September 20, 2010 @10:02AM (#33635134) Homepage

      they got 20 seats

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

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

      • by MrHanky ( 141717 )

        I tried to find a photo of one of their people standing before a swastika, but for some reason Chromium doesn't allow pasting into a Slashdot submission form, so it's not much use (I'm not typing it in by hand). But if you google "about vlaams belang and sweden democrats", you should find it in an article on Little Green Footballs (an "anti-jihadist" site) saying these guys aren't good to be associated with.

        • by sznupi ( 719324 )

          Keyboard shortcut for pasting.

        • Little Green Footballs has had an impressive outbreak of common sense compared to the shit that used to be going on there. I suspect they have lost their "anti-jihadist" credentials a bit with their old core audience.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Posting AC as this is a really infected issue to be connected to.

        Sverigedemokraterna is not racists nor swastica waving. They are opposed, among other things, to the current immigration laws. In such a politically correct country as Sweden this defaults to racism. However the party has its roots, but has since been reformed, in the white supremacy movement, including some of its current high ranking officials.

        That aside, they do attract racist people and new-nazis.

        This is a semi personal analysis. But media

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

        Nobody who isn't retarded would wave a swastika and still believe they had a shot at getting elected. But you be the judge:
        But they were born out of the first wave of neo-Nazism in Sweden in the 1980's. Their original program consisted of (among other things):
        A ban on all immigration except for people from 'ethnically related nations'
        Government-sponsored repatriation of people of non-Nordic ethnicity.
        Banning all international adoptions, and ab

    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      by Xacid ( 560407 )

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

      They're practically the same as the conservatives in the States. You poor, poor souls.

      • That would be bad enough, but they actually formed out of various clearly neo-nazi, white pride organizations that decided to get serious about getting into the parliament. Yes, they have officially condemned the more extreme views but a huge amount of the members is made up of people who were swastica waving skinheads in the 90s and their hangarounds.
      • by hitmark ( 640295 )

        The old labels have no meaning any more, and one need to consider their actions and words very closely to see their true "label".

      • by gmhowell ( 26755 )

        Yeah, well, the Democrats in the States are practically the same as the conservatives as well.

    • They are hardly swastica-waving. They are slightly more covert about their racism.

    • They stopped waving swasticas in public in the late 90s when they decided to get serious about getting seats in the parliament. The party is made up of a mixture of former members of various neo-nazi, white pride organizations such as BSS (Bevara Sverige Svenskt - Keep Sweden Swedish), Nordiska Rikspartiet (The nordic state party), Framstegspartiet (The progression party) and Sverigepartiet (The Sweden party) though.
  • Politicians in other parties will be thinking about that 1% next time they sit down to dinner with the RIAA.

    • Politicians in other parties will be thinking about that 1% next time they sit down to dinner with the RIAA.

      That's not the real value.

      Politicians will be thinking about the evolution of that 1% in four years, when they prepare their programs for the elections.

      The final objective is not to get majority and change the laws, it's to force other parties to include those changes to win those few extra votes.

  • Kind of misleading (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 20, 2010 @10:11AM (#33635214)

    While the article is correct, the swedish green party, miljöpartiet, has officially supported decriminalisation of noncommercial filesharing since just after the EU election. I would guess that most of those who voted for the pirate party in the EU election voted for the greens now, since there was no doubt that they would get in.

    In fact, the greens were very successful in this election so despite the pirate party's failure, 7% of the riksdag actually supports legal file sharing which is not a bad situation in any way for the pirate movement.

    • by Kjella ( 173770 )

      They'll say it as an election promise, then throw it on the junk heap when negotiating with the rest of the red block. They might be a source of drift voters if the Pirate Party gets close to 4% but nothing will happen on its own.

  • Seriously, did anyone really think such a thing would make it through ?
    It's the "pirate" party for crying out loud, in what universe is the word "pirate" not considered a villainous term ?
    Romanticized, yes. Get's the girl at the end of a single Disney movie, no.
    • They got 7,1% of the vote for the EU parliament last year. Has there been a tenfold increase in how villainous a term "pirate" is in the last year?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 20, 2010 @10:19AM (#33635306)

    ...but you're anti- million-dollar lawsuits over a few dozen MP3s illicitly traded, fed-up at the viciously draconian DRM schemes being pushed on consumers, and frankly downright concerned that your children could cause you to lose your Internet access and your house over a file transfer.

    Is it seriously that farfetched to consider voting for a party this extreme when there's absolutely nothing in the middle of the spectrum as far as protecting consumers and citizens from runaway litigation and settlement schemes?

    I absolutely believe that you should pay for software if you want to use it and the author is selling it, I've actually started selling some myself. But who else is out there to rein in the gross overreach of the copyright lobby or seriously fighting for privacy rights at that level?

    • I must say, it's a relief seeing your post. I've been a little concerned that the moderate middle ground on the copyright issue may be shrinking. Actions by the Big Publishers have been polarising the issue somewhat, which is not entirely fair, since copyright is actually quite a bit bigger than them. I've been seeing more people here in favour of abandoning copyright, or almost as bad, abandoning copyright for non-commercial purposes (which is where 99% of the violations come from).

      We desperately need solu

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Hatta ( 162192 )

      There is no rational middle ground on piracy. If you're going to take the stance that copying is bad, you have to fight it all out. Scorched earth. Anything less, and you might as well legalize file sharing. The risks of getting caught file sharing are so low, that you must have extraordinarily draconian punishments for the risk/reward ratio to work out against file sharing.

      There are three choices. You are either for locking down *everything*, for locking down *nothing*, or you are for ineffectual bumb

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

    by xtracto ( 837672 )

    Society is still not ready for this progressive thinking mentality.

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

    We need to wait some time, maybe one generation, when politicians, leaders, and in general other decision makers (e.g. grown people with some power) are individuals who grown understanding the nature of media; how it can be shared in a costless manne

    • by King_TJ ( 85913 )

      Probably true, but I think the bigger problem is what I've stated before about the Pirate Party. They don't project a clear stance on any major issues not directly related to copyright. I'm all for the changes they propose, but I think it's a bit "excessive" to vote in a whole new political party just to address that, when there would be so many other unknowns about which way they'd vote on anything from foreign economic policy to education to war, to ??

      • by Hatta ( 162192 )

        I'm all for the changes they propose, but I think it's a bit "excessive" to vote in a whole new political party just to address that, when there would be so many other unknowns about which way they'd vote on anything from foreign economic policy to education to war, to ??

        Well, we have the current regime which is absolutely awful on digital rights AND foreign policy. We have a new party which is great on digital rights, and unknown on foreign policy. It seems pretty obvious which to choose.

    • We're also not ready for a post-copyright world.

      Ask me again when successful artists using P2P distribution exclusively are the norm instead of a vanishing exception.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by krelian ( 525362 )

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

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

      As much as I don't like it personally, I think the correct way to treat most Media is as a service and not a product. If a phone call costs almost nothing to t-mobile it does not mean t

  • by narooze ( 845310 ) on Monday September 20, 2010 @10:29AM (#33635444)

    "The Swedish Pirate Party did its best election campaign ever. We had more media, more articles, more debates, more handed-out flyers than ever"

    How does he figure that? I (a Swede) haven't heard or seen anything from them since the election for the European parliament. I think it would be more correct to call it their worst election campaign ever.

    • by Kjella ( 173770 )

      I think he was talking about the Pirate Party's own effort, in his own words from the Swedish newsletter:

      Så sett var det mycket enklare 2009, när allt vi behövde göra var att sitta still i båten och riskminimera; då kom valet direkt på debatter om FRA, Ipred och The Pirate Bay-rättegången som avlöst varandra, och med mätningar som låg konstant över 6% var det bara att hålla rodret stilla.

      "In that respect it was much easier in 2009, when all we needed to do was keep the boat steady and risk minimize; Then the election came directly on debates about FRA, Ipred and The Pirate Bay trial that took turns, and with polls that were constantly above 6% it was just to keep the rudder quiet."

      They did put in more effort than in the 2009 EU elections, they just got a fraction of a fraction of the att

  • So the truth finally comes out: now one gives a flying fluck.

    Not even surprising enough to warrant a sarcastic choke on the next sip of my coffee.


  • Sign of the times (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SmallFurryCreature ( 593017 ) on Monday September 20, 2010 @10:38AM (#33635602) Journal

    The swedish Democrats (read anti-immigrant party) did make it in. Intresting prediction by Gerald Celente in a dutch free newspaper today. "Hate of Islam can no longer be stopped". When even Sweden starts going natiolistic, you know things are bad.

    So, freedom of information. NO.

    No to immigrants. Yes.

    Sad. And yes there are issues, but the problem goes deeper then just Islam, you can see that with the Roma in France. There is a clash of cultures going on and a ruling elite that is totally in capable of dealing or even acknowledging this.

    The same free newspaper ran a story last week on the Roma being deported. It said the troubles started after Roma attacked a police station after police has shot one of them. Then it goes on to make the claim that this decision was totally wrong and ill thought out... NO, not the decision of the Roma to attack a police station in a country were there reputation already sucks, no, it is the FRENCH reaction to one of its police stations being attack in protest of the legal shooting of a criminal by foreigners that gets attacked.

    Talk about NOT getting the point.

    And no I am NOT going off-topic. The same applies to copyright infringement. The ruling elite would LOVE to make out that this is people stealing music from hard working artists who are begging for bread. What it is REALLY about is a mother scrubbing floors for a living putting a song performed by a multi-biljonair behind a video of child and uploading it on youtube to share with friends. If the copyright extortion industry had its way, we would have to pay a performance fee for singing "Happy birthday" and pay for having our earphones on to loud or if we whistle a tune. Any tune because every country has a collection agency that collects for every song regardless of whether the author wants it to be collected.

    Times are changing. The internet has changed the rules of copying and mass imigration has changed the rules about cultures meeting. And either we act on those changes or ignore them until things blow up. Remember the last time the ruling elite were unable to deal with a changing reality? I think it was about 1932 that it came to a boil. Read up on that era. There is plenty writting about the years after but far less about before. You can't stop it when it has happened, so how about learning from history how to stop it happening again?

    Copyright infringement is performed by millions, perhaps when so many do it, you just got to accept it as reality rather then try to protect the out of date business practices of a few filthy rich.

    If you look at the politicians who are pro-copyright, pro-internet filtering and pro-immigration, you notice that they all try to claim that their methods are working have worked for decades and any problems are just radical extremists. And if you are not careful a real radical will stand up and claim to have the answer and be listened to.

    What do they really want to do about filesharing? Create a war on filesharing? That went so well with the war on drugs. Put every filesharer in jail? Give every kid a criminal record for sharing Celine Dion? No, that is impossible especially since the police is undergoing budget cuts throughout Europe and has plenty of calls on its man power for the war on drugs and war on terror.

    And if you ask the current elite WHY they side with the copyright industry, you often don't get any better answer then 'eh, because that is how it always was'. No, copyright is a new thing. It was changed because of new tech, so why not change it again because of even newer tech?

    Either politicians change with the changing world, or they find themselves changed. Right now all parties in sweden have declared they won't work the new Swedish Democrats. Sure sure, we heard that before. Next election they will become far far larger because the current elite won't actually change anything and then they will have to work with them. And still they won't change a thing.

    The Roma were kicked out of France. It is to late to stop the revolution, it has already happened. 10 years ago, this would have been unthinkable. So the ruling elite didn't think about it.

    • And the revolution has already happened with music. In the times of Napster only a fraction of the population had access to reliable internet with acceptable speeds. The music industry did NOT adapt to the changing times and instead sued and then sat back congratualiting themselves on their achievement... and the times kept changing and now an entire generation has grown up were downloading is the norm.

      And NO, iTunes is NOT the counter revolution. Selling the songs for the same price but without the produc

      • You've made some interesting points, but I'm not convinced that they're fully thought-through. The current elite side with the copyright industry because that's where the money is--not because it's comfortable. The original copyright term was 7 years, plus 7 more if extended. The idea was that this is enough time to profit off an idea before opening it up to innovation. So copyright holders makes a ton of money and rather than wanting to actually work to continue their profit by creating new things, they ta
    • by oh2 ( 520684 )
      Bah. 94% of voters didnt vote for these racist nincompoops. They will be lame ducks, the established parties are not interested in cooperating with them.
    • by gmhowell ( 26755 )

      The left leaning countries of Europe laughed at the UK and the US as Thatcher and Reagan came into power. Sadly, they now learn that they are not immune to that kind of douchebaggery.

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

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

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

    - js.

    • No, keep it.

      It makes it very clear very quickly that you don't want to vote for any of them if they aren't smart enough to realize that they people who are old enough to vote for them are going to be turned off by the name.

      Names are only names, but in cases like this they give you a lot of valuable insight about the people behind the name.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by horza ( 87255 )

        Eh? I would have voted for them if they had a candidate in my area, and I'm nearly 37. I'm also very smart. Hmmm I've just looked at your comment history, and you have a long history of calling everybody but yourself an idiot. From now on I'll just ignore you.


  • "Pirate" party means that you already yield to MAFIAA slang, and fully accepts it. Real meaning of the word "pirate" is in ocean near Somali...
    A better name would be "Information democracy party", "Information freedom party" or the likes.

Someday your prints will come. -- Kodak