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

So...

[brilinux]

How do you say, "Yarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr" in Swedish?

Re:So...

[richie2000]

It's the same, actually. Talk like a Pirate Day is observed internationally and this year in Sweden it's on September 17 (election day). Arrr!

Re:So...

[CrystalFalcon]

Something like "Hum, de dum de dum, de dum de dum, de dum de yaaarrgh yaaargh yaaargh yaaargh bork bork bork".

Re:So...

[richie2000]

Yeah, well... Um. We moved it. And made it a three day affair. Starting on the 17th. Yeah, that's it. Right. Arr?

Re:So...

[Hogwash McFly]

Yårrrrrrrr

In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

global average temperatures are decreasing.

here?

[sjg]

I would be curious to hear arguments as to the viability of a pirate party in the US.

Re:here?

[CrystalFalcon]

Very slim, unfortunately.

In Sweden, you only need four percent of the votes TOTAL to gain seats in parliament, in stark contrast to the UK or US systems where you need to gain majority in a certain area. There just aren't many enough technically savvy to gain absolute majority in a geographical region.

Four percent across the country may not sound like much, but if the left- and right-wing blocks get 48% each, like they typically do, then the Pirate Party will hold the balance of power. And that is a very good bargaining chip.

(In the last election, the Green Party achieved this position, counting in at 4.2% in the election, and they got basically everything they wanted.)

The party's home page is at http://www.piratpartiet.se/ -- the main site is in Swedish, but there's an English translation as well. And as a shameless plug, the party is currently doing a fundraiser to buy the necessary ballots. :-) Those small pieces of paper you put in the voting box cost obscene amounts.

Disclosure: I am involved with the party and am a paying member.

Re:here?

[Distinguished Hero]

Four percent across the country may not sound like much, but if the left- and right-wing blocks get 48% each, like they typically do, then the Pirate Party will hold the balance of power. And that is a very good bargaining chip.
(In the last election, the Green Party achieved this position, counting in at 4.2% in the election, and they got basically everything they wanted.)

So 4% of the vote gets you 100% of the power... sounds like a great democratic system.

Re:here?

[krbvroc1]

Those small pieces of paper you put in the voting box cost obscene amounts

Why don't they just copy them?

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.

I don't like the term "pirate".

[TechnoGuyRob]

As we all know, today is the Information Age. For this reason, I believe that information should not be restricted anymore. I know that as an individualistic--as opposed to collectivistic--society we find the individual's achievements laudable and attributable. However, as we have seen over the past decade, movements towards free information have been very successful. "Piracy" has rampaged. Firefox has flourished. The internet has become (in my opinion, at least) one of the greatest inventions of mankind. EVER. Because of Tim Berners-Lee's refusal to privatize or commercialize the internet.

Sweden is a strong country as far as free information goes; very little is restricted. For example, the popular torrent website The Pirate Bay, a warehouse of torrents for popular files is hosted in Sweden and hasn't had much problems with the Swedish authorities. Interestingly, its corresponding crime rate is one of the lowest in the world--60 people imprisoned per 100,000, as compared to the United States' 690.

Call me unpatriotic, call me crazy, but I think this "Pirate Party" might very well just be a good idea. It will give people a different perspective on things: It is possible to not restrict information, and still manage a flourishing--if not something greater--economy and society.


I, for one, welcome our new pirate overlords.

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: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:worth noting

[CrystalFalcon]

No, the 57% poll was achieved by online newspaper Aftonbladet, with almost 100,000 readers participating.

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.

Re:Abolishing patents

[richie2000]

Do these guys realise that abolishing patents means the death of the chemical and pharmaceutical industries?

No we don't, for the simple reason that it isn't true. Do the math yourself. Or, read up on some people who have:

Dean Baker
George Monbiot

In fact, our very own Ericsson was founded by copying a Siemens telephone design. History shows, repeatedly, that countries and/or markets with little or no IP protection flourish for the simple reason that time-to-market and true innovation are much stronger incentives for the making of new creations than the stale state-imposed monopolies of patent and copyright.

No country, Schiff notes, has ever contributed "as many basic inventions in this field as did Switzerland during her patentless period".

Re:Abolishing patents

[richie2000]

Please citations on this one.

See "China, present day".

The industrial revolution occurred immediately after the institution of a patent system in the UK.

Looking at the Wikipedia article about the Industrial Revolution, one can not but notice this part about the causes of it:

Transmission of innovation: Knowledge of new innovation was spread by several means. Workers who were trained in the technique might move to another employer, or might be poached. A common method was for someone to make a study tour, gathering information where he could.

Doesn't sound like patents would have helped there, would it? After all, the whole point of patents is to prevent the transmission of information. In fact, it has been said that the revolution didn't take place until after James Watt's patent ran out:

Prior to the start of Watt's commercial production in 1776, there were 510 steam engines in the U.K., most using the inefficient Newcomen design. These engines generated about 5,000 horsepower. By 1800, when Watt's patents expired, there were still only 2,250 steam engines used in the U.K., of which only 449 were the superior Boulton and Watt engines, the rest being old Newcomen engines. The total horsepower of these engines was 35,000 at best. In 1815, fifteen years after the expiration of the Watt patents, it is estimated that nearly 100,000 horsepower was installed in the U.K., while by 1830 the horsepower coming from steam engines reached 160,000. The fuel efficiency of steam engines is not thought to have changed at all during the period of Watt's patent; while between 1810 and 1835 it is estimated to have increased by a factor of five. After the expiration of the patents in 1800, not only was there an explosion in the production of engines, but steam power finally came into its own as the driving force of the industrial revolution. In the next 30 years steam engines were modified and improved, and such crucial innovations as the steam train, the steamboat and the steam jenny all came into wide usage.
Against Intellectual Monopoly

Even more interesting is the fact that during the time that his patent was valid, Watt himself had little time to spare for making new inventions, he was too busy fending off "infringers" and trying to get a license to use the Pickard crack/flywheel, also patented. This mirrors the experiences of modern-day Swedish inventor Håkan Lans, who haven't been able to work since 1995 because he's been tied up in patent litigation. This effect alone should warrant an immediate abolishment for all patents as they create a terrible tax on humanity's resources.

All through history it has been the strongest economies that have had sound patent systems

Ah, but what is cause and what is effect? And what is a "sound patent system"? Does it really exist? You didn't read the links in the post you quoted, did you? Strong economies are created by strong market forces, the very same market forces who then seek to consolidate their own power by... waitforit... ..."protecting their IP".

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?

[Surt]

The problem most of us have with patents is just that they are so severely broken that we'd be better off with no patents than with the current system. Which is not to say that something in between might not be best, but it would need to be much closer to the no patents side of things than the current system, and so it will seem to many that abolishing patents entirely (and then if need be re-establishing a new system) would be a good solution.

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:Yo ho ho and a bottle of Absolut

[braun]

I'm sorry, but wanting to download a Swedish movie is concidered as an act of mental illness here.

Re:worth noting

[Imsdal]

So now we know that at least one person who cares about pirating is a skilled hacker. Somehow, I'm not surprised...

Re:Not Very Bright

[TripleA]

So, obviosly, you didn't read the article.

Piratpartiet proposes a five (5) year exclusive commercial copyright. That is more than enough time for most projects to reach a sound profit. And, as most people reading this now are aware, the non-profit sharing of music and other copyrighted materials tends to make the material sell more, not less. Just like having a song played on the radio.

For those who don't read Swedish...

[NumbThumb]

...here's the Wikipedia article on the Pirate Party

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: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:Not Very Bright

[Nondescrypt]

As a musician / artist i can honestly tell you THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO monetary incentive for me to do my art. I, like most real artists, do it because i love to, big business owns & controls all media & block all newcomers out. (except for the ones they control)
They have NO interest in art & ALL interest in $$$. surely even the dimmest of you must realize this.
My art is REALLY good but i am now self employed doing something totally unrelated to survive & my art after that cause i love to.
Big Business could NEVER nurture art or artists, it's oil & water.
creativity and greed are complete opposites & its either one OR the other
please understand & put an end to this "copyright supports artists"
it really do not. at all
Rock On Pirate Party !!!!!!!!!