Interview With Leader of Sweden's Pirate Party

CrystalFalcon writes "Linux-P2P has published an interview with Rick Falkvinge, leader of the Swedish Pirate Party which is aiming to gain entry to Swedish Parliament this fall. (The party's founding was previously covered on Slashdot.) The party is totally for real, totally serious, and has seen approval ratings of 57% in some polls, with only four percent needed to gain seats. Its goals are to cut back copyrights, abolish patents, and strengthen the right to privacy."

Comments

Abolishing patents

[lovebyte]

Do these guys realise that abolishing patents means the death of the chemical and pharmaceutical industries? These are 2 industries that I have worked for and I cannot see them surviving without patents. Maybe they should go and talk to some people in these domains.

Abolish patents?

[PFI_Optix]

Bad idea.

Obviously patenting has run amok and needs to be fixed, but I don't see where anyone would benefit from the elimination of patents. "Hey guys, I've got an idea...let's remove the ability to make money off massive R&D investments by making it so that people who didn't do any of the work can produce and sell a product as soon as it comes to market!"

Copyrights run way too long, but are a good thing; people work hard to produce works and should be given some legal protection so that--if they choose--they can profit from those works. It encourages the creation of new works by allowing people to make a career of it.

I really think that people who think intellectual property is a bad thing think that simply because they are out of touch. Or maybe they've just never had ideas/works that were original enough to be protected under IP laws and so they don't know what it means to have an idea stolen. Taking away the protections the law currently gives would discourage new ideas because they would no longer be profitable.

Re:Abolish patents?

[chrysrobyn]

Abolish patents? Bad idea.

I used to agree with you. I used to believe that patents were necessary for innovations to see the mass market, necessary for companies to see the return on investment necessary to put forth the effort. These days, however, I'm less certain -- and I hold 6 patents and am about to file for #7.

In theory, companies put forth a pile of R&D and in return receive some exclusivity over the idea. In practice, a whole lot of companies race towards the same goals, and filing the patent is the finish line. At that point, sometimes exclusivity creates prices so high that the population can't benefit only the elite. Beyond that, there are companies which exist solely to patent ideas and license out the implementation (even when the implementation is the expensive part).

If Sweden abolished patents, they'd probably see some innovation suffer-- but they'd see a whole bunch of industries moving in to take advantage. For example, generic drug makers would love to do business there. Reading patent applications from the rest of the world and then using that as a list of things to explore, they'd do great business from Europeans who travel over the border to get their Rx at lower prices (how much lower would be a question for competition).

There are many companies today which believe that patent portfolios are actually a liability -- they're an advertisement for less scrupulous companies in other countries (see above paragraph), and they're limited to 17 years of protection. A tight company with good control over trade secrets can see the advantage for decades.

Re:Abolish patents?

[Gulthek]

You, and many others, make the assumption that creative people only create for monetary gain.

Taking away the protections the law currently gives would discourage new ideas because they would no longer be profitable.

So no one would have any new ideas without copyright/patent law? I disagree in the strongest possible terms. Creative people won't go away without the ability to milk one creative endeavor for over three generations.

Example: the Creative Commons, blogs, flickr.

Exploring further, let's look at bands and the music industry. It used to be that bands made their money touring, and any exposure to their music was advertising for one of their performances. With record signed labels the bands don't actually make money, they pay back the money that the record labels spent on them. All of their music is actually the label's music, and the label doesn't play gigs. The label makes its money by selling copies of the recorded music and any exposure to the music had better have been paid for directly (purchased media) or indirectly (radio) by the consumer. In modern terms the artists are the whores and the labels are their pimps.

The only case I can think of where copyrights/patents are helpful is with major R&D investments (drugs). I submit that the pursuit of profitable drugs has created a culture of pill popping where prescription drugs are advertised on television. Seriously useful drugs that would cure the patient aren't desirable because it is far more profitable to create drugs that moderate symptoms and must be repetively taken. I propose that the expenditure of funds to create medical drugs should be put forth by world governments in a similar manner to space exploration funding. By this I don't mean to discourage garage labs (ex: the current private space ventures), nor that the labs should be run by the government and drugs be given away for free, but that the bulk of the R&D funding should be footed by the government as a social good (ex: roads, schools, or universities).

Re:I don't like the term "pirate".

[Vellmont]

Last time I checked murder, rape, and child abuse are still illegal in sweden. I'm fairly certain that the same drugs that aren't legal here are illegal in Sweden. I'd guess there's far less steep penalties for drugs though, and probbably just treatment.

One thing I do know about Sweden is they treat they take rehabilitation of criminals very seriously. In the US we throw people in a hole for a few years and try to forget about them. I saw something (can't remember which station) on TV about different justice systems around the world, and Sweden treats their criminals better than many Americans live. Even I thought it was a bit overboard, but if it works it works. The one really funny thing was that the inmates still complained about prison, even though it looked more like a day care than a prison. One guy complained about having his urine tested for drugs every day. I'd guess any US prisoner would jump at the chance to trade with that guy.

I don't think it's quite fair to compare Sweden to the US though. They're very different cultures, so picking out one factor and saying that's responsible for the lower crime rate isn't necessarily valid.

Re:worth noting

[JanneM]

Even one seat in the swedish parliament would be a huge victory.

It would. It won't happen. 4% nationwide is a huge barrier, and it's a rare thing indeed for a party to be able to.

And this election year, as I mentioned, there are already a couple of other new parties with a lot more visibility and general appeal sucking away the available pool of risktaker voters. Notably, even the most visible, most believable new party is currently polling at below 1%.

Far easier is to get local seats; this happens in a few places every year. Those parties are focusing on local issues, on the other hand.

So, the party is a fun idea, a good exercize in democracy, and possibly a very good way to raise awareness of copyright issues, but no, it won't get seats in parliament.

Re:I don't like the term "pirate".

[Jedi_Knyghte]

As we all know, today is the Information Age. For this reason, I believe that information should not be restricted anymore.

The author of the parent comment appears to think the connection between these two statements is obvious. Even if I grant the premise in the first statement (and is it accurate to claim that "the Information Age" is the correct characterization for our current society--enough to derive norms from it?), I do not see that the second conclusion immediately follows from it.

Furthermore, even if both the premise and the conclusion are granted, that still leaves open the question: "What is information?" Am I entitled to anything whatsoever that can be reduced to a bitstream? Privacy advocates would rightly scream at that idea. So in the end I doubt strongly that the parent author's conclusions truly follow from his premises.

Re:Only but a dream in the US

[Keruo]

Imagine what 5 year copyright/patent expiry cycle for commercial products would mean.
People would have to constantly create something new and interesting, instead trying to milk the 30 year old cow.
It would cut some profit, but if the innovation took off, the technological advancements would be worth it.
Too bad, no-one seems to understand this.

Re:here?

[justthinkit]

There is one other problem with the American system, maybe the worst of all.

Omnibus bills that ram through dozens of other bills with one main bill. If you like the main one, everyone assumes you will vote for that. Even if the other stuff is borderline criminal.

Omnibus bills suit most politicians of course, allowing them to ram through more legislation with as little thought as possible so that they can get back out on the golf course.

Re:here?

[pafrusurewa]

Basically, what your saying is: "I wish there were a system where someone who is really smart could decide who the sensible people are, and just let them make decisions"

Bullshit. The system in the US is set up in a way that makes change next to impossible. Because if you don't vote either Democratic or Republican you "waste your vote" (can you imagine the disbelief in the rest of the world when actual US politicians say that and apparently are serious, see the entire "Ralph don't run" campaign? We wouldn't call that "democracy" here). And government members actually say that there isn't room for a third party in the US. Unbelievable.

And it remains that way precisely because neither of the two big parties would have anything to gain from real change.

And then you have the entire Electoral College thing. Democracy indeed.