Slashdot Mirror


Pirate Party Comes to the U.S.

Spy der Mann writes "Wired news has published an interview with the Pirate Party of the U.S., which was formed a week after the raid on Pirate Bay. The group patterns itself after Piratpartiet, the Swedish political party associated with The Pirate Bay, and says it wants to reform intellectual property and privacy laws."

136 of 543 comments (clear)

  1. I'll have to look into a donation... by Iguru42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We could certainly take a long hard look at copyright law in this country. It's become clear to me that the public domain is, for all intents and purposes, closed. Everytime Mickey gets close to falling into PD congress will suddenly find it in their interest to extend copyright.

    1. Re:I'll have to look into a donation... by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Funny
      "Everytime Mickey gets close to falling into PD congress will suddenly find it in their interest to extend copyright..."

      Arrrghhh.....Our first pirate party act, will be to capture that scurrvy ridden rodent, and have him walk the plank....yarrr....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    2. Re:I'll have to look into a donation... by heinousjay · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The everlasting extension of copyright isn't really the issue here, anyway. They should rename themselves "The Entertainment Wants To Be Free Party," because that's all they stand for. Unless you think the Pirate Bay is doing a brisk business in Steamboat Willie.

      --
      Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
    3. Re:I'll have to look into a donation... by Elvis+Parsley · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not closed, but it is narrowing. It'd just take a few deft strokes of legislation to return the limit on copyright to something reasonable, but that damn mouse keeps buying up the legislature. What we need to do is get a time machine and have someone write into the Constitution an explanation to the effect that "Steamboat Willie" must eventually go out of copyright.

    4. Re:I'll have to look into a donation... by Mad+Dog+Manley · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The Pirate Party doesn't need to win any elections to succeed. All they need is some publicity and public support, and major parties will be forced to adopt their policies. Or, one major party adopts it in order to gain an advantage.

    5. Re:I'll have to look into a donation... by blackmonday · · Score: 4, Informative

      I agree wholeheartedly, but one correction. Its not the character of Mickey Mouse that would become Public Domain, it's "Steamboat Willie" - the cartoon in which Mickey first appeared. Important Distinction.

    6. Re:I'll have to look into a donation... by blackicye · · Score: 5, Funny


      "Everytime Mickey gets close to falling into PD congress will suddenly find it in their interest to extend copyright..."

      Arrrghhh.....Our first pirate party act, will be to capture that scurrvy ridden rodent, and have him walk the plank....yarrr....


      Not if the Ninja party has anything to say about it.
      I've heard Disney just signed Masaaki Hatsumi http://www.geocities.com/mrdsouza/hatsumi.html as their first line of
      defense..

      *ducks*

    7. Re:I'll have to look into a donation... by Meagermanx · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, they want to open up the pharmaceutical patents and expand the privacy of Americans, too. So that's "healthcare wants to be less expensive" and "ourinformation wants to be private."

    8. Re:I'll have to look into a donation... by hador_nyc · · Score: 5, Insightful
      The Pirate Party doesn't need to win any elections to succeed. All they need is some publicity and public support, and major parties will be forced to adopt their policies. Or, one major party adopts it in order to gain an advantage.
      You've just described the history of all the successful third parties in American history.
      --
      - Mike
      Once you've lost your temper, you've lost the argument - Me
    9. Re:I'll have to look into a donation... by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Informative

      As a registered trademark, the mouse would still not be free game - except as pertains to images of him used in steamboat willie, which could be utilized with impunity, as could the entirety of the film itself.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:I'll have to look into a donation... by stinerman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      One thing to note is that this party seems to transcend traditional left/right ideological lines and subsequently will not "draw" from one of the major parties like the Greens or Libertarians*. If the Pirate Party ever gets anyone to run for office, they won't be decried as spoilers. At least, it would take a master spinmeister to do so.

      *I don't subscribe to this belief, but many do. Perception is reality.

    11. Re:I'll have to look into a donation... by Firehed · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Well, at this point, the only way for something to enter public domain is to specifically release it there. Creative Commons and whatnot are a good step forward - I quite agree with the Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 (do whatever you want with it, just don't profit without the creator's permisson or release derivative works under some other license) - but last I heard, someone was trying to abuse that too. The 90+ years after the death of the original author is insane right now, seeing that the grandchildren of the author have probably died by that time - methinks something like 5-10 years depending on the medium (how long is content really profitable for anyways?) then it goes into a CCANCSA2.5 or similar for another fiveish, then goes into public domain. I'm all for Information Wants To Be Free, but the creators of the work should be able to profit from it for a reasonable amount of time.

      At first, I thought that the views of the Pirate Party were even a bit too extreme, but after reading a bit deeper, it seems that I agree with them on almost everything - reward the author for a reasonable amount of time, and don't patent the third world into a slow, painful death.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    12. Re:I'll have to look into a donation... by IAmTheDave · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And this is why the "Pirate Party" will never be taken seriously. There are legitmate organizations like the EFF, etc., that are all for copyright overhaul. Creating "The Pirate Party" removes a degree of legitimacy from anyone calling for copyright reform.

      I know it feels good to support the Pirate Bay or something, but this will amount to a hill of beans - or The Pirate Party's servers being raided periodically.

      --
      Excuse my speling.
      Making The Bar Project
    13. Re:I'll have to look into a donation... by twofidyKidd · · Score: 4, Funny

      And with any luck, Pirate will become the new Terrorist will become the new Communist.

      --


      Hades, PoD: Official Advocate
    14. Re:I'll have to look into a donation... by toad3k · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well on the other hand, "Electronic Frontier Foundation" doesn't make headlines. "Pirate Party" does.

    15. Re:I'll have to look into a donation... by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You assume the political establishment sees the EFF as legit. At best they're perceived as gadflies or the ACLU B-Team. At worst, pirates or piracy sympathies.

      --
      Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
    16. Re:I'll have to look into a donation... by jb.hl.com · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yes, but their name refers to copyright infringement. Not exactly the best way to get across the message that what you REALLY care about is cheap drugs for everyone and privacy for all (admirable goals).

      --
      By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
    17. Re:I'll have to look into a donation... by Tim+C · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So if the EFF is seen at worst as "pirates or piracy sympathies", what on earth makes you think the political establishment will take the Pirate Party seriously? At *best* they'll be viewed as being worse than the EFF.

    18. Re:I'll have to look into a donation... by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because they wear their goals on their sleeve and aren't pretending to have some bogus policy wonk solution to make everybody happy. Does the EFF really support some mandatory RIAA Tax, or are they just trying to condone piracy with a wink? They're not fooling anybody.

      And, I'm pretty sure the Piracy Party is not supposed to be a 100% serious organization.

      --
      Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
    19. Re:I'll have to look into a donation... by hackstraw · · Score: 5, Funny

      And this is why the "Pirate Party" will never be taken seriously. There are legitmate organizations like the EFF, etc., that are all for copyright overhaul. Creating "The Pirate Party" removes a degree of legitimacy from anyone calling for copyright reform.

      However, it is scientific fact that global warming is due to a lack of pirates, so with the advent of a pirate party global warming will reverse itself!

    20. Re:I'll have to look into a donation... by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 4, Funny

      Add to that that when election time comes around, people can't vote for the EFF. I can see a lot of people who are fed up with the two party system going "hmm... Marxist, Libertarian, Green... Hey... this looks neat! a Pirate party!" I bet they'll steal a lot of the Marijuana and Rhino party votes.

    21. Re:I'll have to look into a donation... by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 3, Funny

      There's also ninjas. They can flip out and kill a whole boatload.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    22. Re:I'll have to look into a donation... by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 5, Interesting

      hey should rename themselves "The Entertainment Wants To Be Free Party,"

      Pirate Party rolls off the tongue - your name sucks. In today's media saturated world, that's important. I for one would love to be the first Pirate President.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    23. Re:I'll have to look into a donation... by BigCheese · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But pirates have cannons that can kill ninjas before they get close enough to use their ninja-fu.

      --
      The obscure we see eventually. The completely obvious, it seems, takes longer. - Edward R. Murrow
    24. Re:I'll have to look into a donation... by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >So if the EFF is seen at worst as "pirates or piracy sympathies", what on earth makes you think the political establishment will take the Pirate Party seriously?

      What makes you think the EFF isn't seen in this light anyways? More importantly, what makes you think it's relevant to many people in the political establishment if they are pirates or piracy sympathizers? I was under the impression that politics focused on either providing what the people want or trying to push people into issues so they'd decide based on them. The "pro-public domain" camp fits the former (clearly this new party is about issues that voters care about). The only real issue is that it's hard to compare "Iraq War" and "Public Domain" as talking points, so it's hard to use it to drive votes. To that end, I'm not sure it's possible to make the political establishment really care at all until these "pirates" go about looting ships.

      Ie, I really don't see this changing much of anything.

      --
      Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
    25. Re:I'll have to look into a donation... by Chris+Pimlott · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Of course their name refers to copyright infringement! Of course they identifying with criminals! The whole point of the party "infringment" shouldn't be a crime. The whole point is disagree with the current laws regarding copyright and that a large portion of the general population be on the wrong side of legality because of it. The head of the Swedish Pirate Party, had a good response in a recent Wikinews interview:

      Oh, [piracy of software, movies, music, etc.] is a crime. That's the heart of the problem! The very problem is that something that 20% of the voters are doing is illegal by punishment of jail time. That's what we want to change. Where the established parties are saying that the voters are broken, we are saying it's the law that is broken.
    26. Re:I'll have to look into a donation... by ElleyKitten · · Score: 2, Informative

      A lot of medical R&D is done by the government, or with government grants. Also, opening up patents is not "stealing from the rich". It allows competition.

      --
      "What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
    27. Re:I'll have to look into a donation... by ryusen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      but just how many votes can they really get? and how many candidates can they field? seems to me liek a waste of time. the time and money would be better spent on public awareness campaigns and lobbying.

      --

      I believe sex is highly over rated... unless it involves me
    28. Re:I'll have to look into a donation... by mike_the_kid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Right, but piracy doesn't accurately refer to copyright infringement.

      Piracy is robbery committed at sea. Copyright infringement is ... copyright infringement.

      See, one involves killing and stealing. The other involves copyright infringement.

      One has the effect of immediate and tangible harm to the victim. The other has the effect of infringing on someone's copyrights.

      They're both crimes, but they're different kinds of crimes.

      If someone tries to rob you at sea, and you fight back and kill them, you're probably justified. If someone is tries to infringe on your copyrights, and you kill them, you're probably a psychopath.

      --
      Troll Like a Champion Today
    29. Re:I'll have to look into a donation... by ultranova · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So if the EFF is seen at worst as "pirates or piracy sympathies", what on earth makes you think the political establishment will take the Pirate Party seriously?

      What does it matter ? The question is whether the voters will take them seriously - no, on second thought, it only matters if the voters will vote for them, even as a joke.

      You know, I'd really like to see an eyepatch-wearing and cuttclass-wielding pirate march into the White House and declare himself the High Captain of the United States. And the parrot will be the Vice-President.

      <flamebait>Hey, a murdering maniac who's actually been in battle (hence the eyepatch) is a step up from one who hasn't, since he might actually know better than to march headlong into a quagmire. And pirate captains actually led the assaults instead of hanging back and coming to reap the glory once the fight was (thought to be) won.</flamebait>.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    30. Re:I'll have to look into a donation... by M.+Baranczak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      what on earth makes you think the political establishment will take the Pirate Party seriously?

      What on earth makes you think they should give a fuck? If you stand around politely waiting for permission from the "political establishment", you'll never get anywhere.

    31. Re:I'll have to look into a donation... by siriuskase · · Score: 4, Interesting

      First, we need to do something about how in the USA, it is almost impossible for a third, fourth, or fifth, not to mention more, party to win an election. When the Repulicrats talk about election reform, they talk about small tweaks that don't do much of anything useful. They stay from any fixes that give more than 2 parties a fighting chance. The Libertarians, Greens, Pirates, etc, don't have much in common except that they aren't electable under the current system. Everyone needs to get together with only one plank, to replace the current election system, then we can hold another election a month or two later. There are democratic governments all over the world we could study and emulate. I kinda like what they do in Australia - voting is mandatory for all citizens, but they have some really cool parties ye can choose as a protest or whatever.

      --
      If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
    32. Re:I'll have to look into a donation... by dolphinling · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Easy. Over 30% of drug company money is spent on marketing. With no patents, all drugs become "generic". No marketing is needed for generic drugs, because they're all the same. That's 30% of costs that drug companies aren't paying, and therefore 30% of costs that aren't passed on to consumers. Consumers now save 30% on their drugs. Tax them 15%, and spend that money on R&D grants. Consumers now save 15% over the original amount, and R&D has doubled.

      Yes, that's a very simplified chain of events. However, the people who research this kind of thing are pretty sure that yes, that's about what would happen. If you're interested, I suggest you read up on it (I have only in small amounts, I'm more interested in the other parts of the Pirate Party platform).

      --
      There are 11 types of people in the world: those who can count in binary, and those who can't.
  2. Or maybe the "Ugly Party"? by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The should not have given their party a self-defeating name.

    1. Re:Or maybe the "Ugly Party"? by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 4, Funny

      How about the "Let's Party"?

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    2. Re:Or maybe the "Ugly Party"? by swarsron · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Publicity is essential. I don't think that it's a big loss for them if they are critiziced over their name because they'll be killed by the media cons just for their agenda

    3. Re:Or maybe the "Ugly Party"? by stratjakt · · Score: 3, Interesting

      True enough. "Copyright Reform Party", or "Intellectual Property Reform Party" or, I dunno, I'm not one of those political campaign managers, but almost anything would be better.

      Actually, "Privateer" evokes a revolutionary-era image of our forefathers fighting for freedom from the (still) hated British.

      But, these guys cant seriously expect votes, it's just a publicity stunt to get people to notice them and get some press. Unfortunately, they'll likely make a joke of the whole issue and hurt the cause more than help it, like when some elitist hollywood jackass get's all political and drags the party image into the mud.

      Most people would vote GNAA before Pirate.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    4. Re:Or maybe the "Ugly Party"? by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I actually have a lot more respect for Pirates that wear it on their sleeve than the usual Slashdot Bitch about RIAA/MPAA/BitTorrent/DRM/etc that tries to dance around the issue or pretend it isn't really about downloading whatever you please for free.

      Take the EFF -- one one hand they try to be a legit public policy/civil rights organization, and on the other they wink and nod to downloaders with slick ads in Wired magazine. It's duplicitious and undermines their credibility. It's better to be honest and say ARRR. Go Pirate Party!

      --
      Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
    5. Re:Or maybe the "Ugly Party"? by ceeam · · Score: 5, Funny

      To quote bash.org:
      ---------------------
      <Brenty> You know, I think the media really fucked up when they called it "software piracy"
      <Brenty> Everyone WANTS to be a pirate
      <Brenty> If they'd called it "software faggotry" everyone would still buy all their shit

  3. This is what we need, but named horribly by ThinkingInBinary · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is exactly what geeks across America have been hoping for: a group intended to defend the consumer's side in privacy and intellectual property discussions. But there's no way they're going to succeed in politics when they've named themselves the "Pirate Party". I don't think I even need to ask whether they realize that they're giving their opponents fodder for later complaints and insults.

    1. Re:This is what we need, but named horribly by Virak · · Score: 2, Funny

      Agreed. Everyone knows ninjas are superior.

    2. Re:This is what we need, but named horribly by xiphoris · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ah come now, if a political party called the "Whigs" can be reputable and successful enough for the history books, I think an openly tongue-in-cheek Pirate Party stands a chance :-)

    3. Re:This is what we need, but named horribly by KevDude · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe its a bad name, but when I saw it originally, I said to myself, "are these guys serious? I have to see what they're really about." I think a lot more people will think the same way...

      Also this way the "piracy thing" is right there to discuss at the beginning instead of the **AA bringing it up at some other inopportune time.

    4. Re:This is what we need, but named horribly by DirePickle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A party called "The Reformation of IP Law Party" won't get any press. We already have tons of third-parties that people don't even know exist. The flame-mongering Pirate Party might draw some notice. And in this case, I think any press would be good press.

    5. Re:This is what we need, but named horribly by ABoerma · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The Swedish party is named horribly as well, and they seem to be doing quite well.

    6. Re:This is what we need, but named horribly by greenbird · · Score: 4, Funny

      With that name they'll get the religious left on their side. As a Pastafarian I can state that by definition our religion will have to fully support the Pirate Party.

      --
      Who is John Galt?
    7. Re:This is what we need, but named horribly by Draconnery · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What should they do? Cave to the normal customs of politics and call themselves the "People's Party for Free and Democratic Property Rights"? We've lived with euphemisms long enough that it's a banality that "the longer a country's name is (the more words like 'free' and 'democratic' it contains), the worse the country is."

      This is not a normal political party. They do not want to act within the established sphere of law and government, they want to change them. Maybe calling themselves Pirates will make people (especially the millions and millions of people who want the same things) realize that the *AA's of the world are villainizing intelligent people who contribute to society. If someone identifies with the Pirate Party, maybe they'll say, hey, I don't feel good about being called evil all the time.

      Note: obviously, I see your point, I could have made it myself and I don't think you're dumb, nor do I disagree with you all that much. But c'mon. Would a party by any other name be able to get attention, respect, and votes if they had the same agenda? I think if anything, somebody else would give them the nickname "the Pirate Party," and then they'd be guilty of dressing that up, but the public would still see the name "Pirate Party" being thrown around.
      Have you seen '8 Mile'? In the battle at the end, where Em/B. Rabbit throws out all the obvious ammo his opponent would have? I see this as pretty similar.
      It's an uphill, probably impossible battle in either case; it's just a bold stroke to come out with it and call themselves "the Pirate Party," and I'm interested to see where they go with it and how much we'll hear about it from other outlets.

    8. Re:This is what we need, but named horribly by Xzzy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Right. Through history, a lot of names that originally were "stupid" have lost their insulting nature and turned into respected titles. Actions do in fact speak louder than words, so if this party can actually accomplish something I'd think their choice of words for their name will cease to be a bother.

    9. Re:This is what we need, but named horribly by alaloom · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We are so accustomed to our government's BS, we are actually asking for it. Our government has been feeding us beautified names for a while now: - Patriot Act - Republican polls shown the more descriptive "Spy-on-all Act" name was not popular. - Medicare Medicine Bill = hidden name for more money to the drug companies; why else would the bill prohibit the governments from negotiating better drug prices. I wonder who thought of that rule! - Fair Tax sounds better than Sales Tax. Fair to whom is the real question. - We are fighting insurgents in Iraq, even though more than 90% of them are Iraqis! Oh and Iraqis are not in a Civil war, even though they are two or more factions fighting to rule the same country. Our "Civil War" was a civil war, even though the South was not trying to overtake the US governent, they were just trying to liberate from it. It's actually refreshing to see something boldly named to reflect it's real function. Pirate Party, I like it, now all we need is the Anti-Medical Party, the Freedom Party, the.... you know what, it's about time for a revolution, isn't it?

    10. Re:This is what we need, but named horribly by General+Fault · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Right! And just the opposite as well. Many names that start as a publicly positive term can be turned into an insult. Just think Liberal:
      1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
      2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
      3. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
      4. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
      (websters)

      And now it somehow means "damn pot smoking hippie".

      --
      No man is an island... But I wouldn't mind having a bigger moat.
    11. Re:This is what we need, but named horribly by srvivn21 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Personally, I think copyright should be perpetual as long as someone decided to will on the ownership it and folks paid to keep it current in the copyright system. Why? Because as an artist, if I create something, you should not take enjoyment or admiration of my piece to meaning that you now own a piece of my property. Lot of people like my house -- should it revert to my neighbors just because they like what I own? Some of them think so and have acted upon these beliefs.

      Ugh. If someone likes your house, and they take it away from you, you no longer have it. If someone likes your house, and replicates it on their own property (the method is unimportant to this discussion), does that diminish the value of your home?

      Why do you, as an artist feel that you should be able to mooch off your one big work for the rest of your life (and your children's lives, etc.)? Do you think it would be equitable for the person who painted your house to receive a royalty check every time someone admires your house? Should the plumber get a check every time you flush your toilet?

      This is not intended as a flame. I seriously want to know, from someone who feels this entitlement, where do you draw the line? How can you make these comparisons with a straight face?
    12. Re:This is what we need, but named horribly by shark72 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Ugh. If someone likes your house, and they take it away from you, you no longer have it. If someone likes your house, and replicates it on their own property (the method is unimportant to this discussion), does that diminish the value of your home?"

      You build and sell houses. Somebody invents a magical device to copy your houses and build them at no cost, and then gives them away for free. Does that interfere with your ability to sell the houses that you have built?

      Put another way: you can buy a house for $200K. It costs that much because it took time, effort and materials to build. Or, you can get an identical house next door for free, because of the aforementioned magical machine. The person who offers to give you this house did not invest in its creation. What incentive would you have to buy the house when you could get it for free?

      Or, more to your point: somebody duplicates your house next door. When it's time to move, they sell it for far less than you paid for yours. Your other neighbors who copied your house do the same -- after all, they got their house for free. Does that diminish the value of your home? Absolutely.

      "Why do you, as an artist feel that you should be able to mooch off your one big work for the rest of your life (and your children's lives, etc.)? Do you think it would be equitable for the person who painted your house to receive a royalty check every time someone admires your house? Should the plumber get a check every time you flush your toilet?"

      Poets, novelists and musicians pretty much have the lowest per capita income. It is far, far, far easier to make a decent living as a house painter or as a plumber. This is why copyright exists: to incent people to participate in a profession that largely pays shit, but has the potential to improve society. That "promote the progress of science and the useful arts" sort of stuff. This is what many laws do: they address inequities if the value to society makes it worth it.

      If you truly believe that this is unfair -- if you think that artists are mooches and don't deserve to have their rights respected -- you can conduct a thought experiment. Rewind your way back to the time you were 18. Would you have rather have taken the path of trying to make a living as a composer, songwriter, author or poet? Making enough money off of your ideas to support yourself and your family? Or, do you think it was a safer -- and ultimately more lucrative -- choice to follow the path you have?

      One can judge a society by the value they place on their artists, composers, educators, and so on. You likely hope for a society where mooching artists can be put in their rightful place -- and that's fine. But I think it's sad.

      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
    13. Re:This is what we need, but named horribly by srvivn21 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      First off, thanks for the reply. I get the distinct impression that we are on opposite sides of the fence and will never see eye to eye on this issue. Your taking the time to reply and keeping a civil tone with someone who poses a question that might seem threatening speaks volumes of your character. Anyway, on to the discussion...

      Because its my creation. Why should Bill Gates 'mooch off' his millions of dollars he has in the bank every year? Why should office workers mooch off their salary? To me, this line of questioning is just as assinine as yours. I create something, I control it. It doesn't matter if it can be duplicated -- in fact, it makes it all the more morally right for me to control if it can be copied.

      He didn't create the money in the bank. He created something of value (to someone) and was paid for it. He got paid for the perceived value he added. If he stopped adding that value, he would stop getting paid. Now he has enough money that he can invest it in other venues that add value, and claim some of the reward for that added value, but that is neither here nor there. It's the same thing for office workers. They stop adding value they stop getting paid. Let's say I'm a psychologist. I create contentment (if I'm any good). Do I get to control the level of contentment in the people I treat after I'm done treating them? I created it (it wasn't there before I did my work). Is it not mine?

      If I build a house and sold it, I got paid and thus no longer need to get paid for someone admiring my house. You pay me upfront for a song what I think its worth and I'll sell it to you wholesale. I've done this a few times. I had a song I worked on that ended up on an aging pop singers album a few years back -- the guy wanted his grandson to get some writing credit even though he did absolutely nothing. I told the guy that I'd just sell it outright as opposed to waiting around for the royalties (which anyone in the music industry knows the songwritting credit is where the money comes from). The singer agreed and cut a check and we signed over all rights to him and his grandson.

      No problems here. This is really how I feel it should work. You created something, you got paid for your work. As a painter, or a sculptor you charge admission to view your work. As a singer you hold concerts. As a songwriter, you write music for singers to sing.

      Oh yeah -- if I were a plumber, I wouldn't install residential toilets -- I'd buy a storefront and set up the cleanest pay toilets downtown and charge everyone $10 a plop.

      And if you found that people were not willing to pay this much, would you complain about the fact that you couldn't make a living at it?

      Or I'd just put in toilets as normal plumbers do and be happy that I had a decent job that didn't worry about going out of style and that I was pretty much guarenteed a specific amount of money a year that was well above the nations average. Being a plumber is a lot less of a crapshoot than being a musician...

      I imagine the pun was unintentional. In any case, this is simply not true. If you are a good plumber, then people will continue to call on your services. If you are a good artist, people will continue to call on your services. If your plumbing skills are sub-par, you are likely not going to be able to make a living at it*. Same thing for an artist. If nobody likes your work enough to make it worth your while to continue to produce it, why should you continue to get paid for the work that you did in the past? The biggest difference I see is the potential glamor of being a big name artist means there is a glut of supply there. Contrast the number of people who wish to be a rock star as a career, versus the number of people who dream of being a plumber.

      I still feel my question is left unanswered. Where does this sense of entitlement to be paid for past work come in?

    14. Re:This is what we need, but named horribly by srvivn21 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You build and sell houses. Somebody invents a magical device to copy your houses and build them at no cost, and then gives them away for free. Does that interfere with your ability to sell the houses that you have built?

      I'm going to answer your rhetorical question. Yes. Obviously it does. But the person who created the magical device is obviously putting more value into society than I am. He has found a far more efficient method of building houses. Assuming that his method is not stealing the resources (and I do mean stealing in the sense of depriving someone else of them), more power to him. Looks like I might need to adapt. Perhaps there will be those who value a hand built house more than a "magicly" made one (look at the cost of Amish hand made furniture versus machine built for an example). Perhaps I can continue to build houses and even charge more for them...

      Or, more to your point: somebody duplicates your house next door. When it's time to move, they sell it for far less than you paid for yours. Your other neighbors who copied your house do the same -- after all, they got their house for free. Does that diminish the value of your home? Absolutely.

      By the same respects, the next house I'll buy is going to cost much less (or be free). Sure I have incurred a net financial loss (the money I invested in purchasing the house in the first place), but the value of the house to me has not dropped at all (it is still home, sweet home). By the same respects, such a shift in the value of the housing market (a very different beast from entertainment) would have a profound effect on the economy. This is really where that analogy falls apart.

      In any case, I have a job. I get paid for the work that I do. I would feel guilty holding my past work ransom. It's just who I am. As such I don't understand how someone else feels no guilt (quite the opposite in some cases) at doing so.

      Poets, novelists and musicians pretty much have the lowest per capita income. It is far, far, far easier to make a decent living as a house painter or as a plumber. This is why copyright exists: to incent people to participate in a profession that largely pays shit, but has the potential to improve society. That "promote the progress of science and the useful arts" sort of stuff. This is what many laws do: they address inequities if the value to society makes it worth it.

      That's all well and good, and a choice that each of us has to make. I can see granting a limited monoploly on the work to promote the creation of more work as a compromise... But how does that excuse passing the benefits to those that had no part in the creation of the enrichment? How does that justify a perpetual reward for a fixed amount of work?

      If you truly believe that this is unfair -- if you think that artists are mooches and don't deserve to have their rights respected -- you can conduct a thought experiment. Rewind your way back to the time you were 18. Would you have rather have taken the path of trying to make a living as a composer, songwriter, author or poet? Making enough money off of your ideas to support yourself and your family? Or, do you think it was a safer -- and ultimately more lucrative -- choice to follow the path you have?

      I have no artistic talent. I can't draw my way out of a paper bag, I can't carry a tune worth a spit, when I see a block of wood, I don't see the scupture within, I see a bock of wood. There was never any question of which path I was going to take. I'm also a bit risk adverse, so I didn't become an investment banker either. But I do a little trading as a hobby. Do you see a parallel?

      The funny thing is I'm paid for my mind and my ingenuity. I do make money off my ideas as a problem solver (at its most basic level). Just not perpetually. I have to continue to solve problems to be paid. *shrug*

      One can judge

  4. Pirate Bay US by Miadlo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    And I thought they were joking when I saw a comment on Digg or here, (cant remember which), that there was going to become a Pirate Bay USA, will never happen but good to see a little good come out of the RIAA and USA make jackasses out of themselves in the raid.

  5. Too bad it's futile by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    With the election system of the US, it's always 2 parties with nobody having thet slightest chance to muscle in, at best in local elections (which, frankly, have no impact on copyright laws).

    But I support the idea. The idea has been picked up by our communists. I guess I'll become a comrade. :)

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Too bad it's futile by govtpiggy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Third parties tend to seem futile at the time but it isn't surprising to see the major parties slowly adopt the major parts of the third parties platform given time. We saw it years ago with the Populist Party and I wouldn't be surprised to see bits and pieces of Green or Libertarian Party philosophy emerging from the Democrats and Republicans in a few decades.

      --
      do you know squarepusher?
    2. Re:Too bad it's futile by HardCase · · Score: 2, Interesting

      With the election system of the US, it's always 2 parties with nobody having thet slightest chance to muscle in, at best in local elections (which, frankly, have no impact on copyright laws).

      Don't tell Jim Jeffords or Bernie Sanders.

      -h-

    3. Re:Too bad it's futile by Mad+Dog+Manley · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The Pirate Party doesn't have to get elected to get their point across. Political parties whose platforms are based on a single concept (e.g. intellectual rights reform) merely have to prove they have popular support, and then one or more major parties will pick up (or pirate, lol) their idea to add to their votes.

    4. Re:Too bad it's futile by Billosaur · · Score: 5, Insightful

      With the election system of the US, it's always 2 parties with nobody having thet slightest chance to muscle in, at best in local elections (which, frankly, have no impact on copyright laws).

      But that's the best place to start, locally. Some small town, say here in NJ. A Pirate Party candidate runs, solicits donations via Internet, runs a clean campaign and overwhelms some lowlife local mayor by making him/her look out of touch with the modern world. If elected, that candidiate becomes a news item; next up - city council elections! You just work your way through, starting at the grass roots level, shoe-horning your way into every nook and cranny of local politics until you have a large enough power base to build state organizations. It's only a couple more jumps until you're in the national spotlight. The whole thing hinges, however, on getting youth to vote, because they would probably identify more strongly from the start with a Pirate Party candidate.

      As an aside, the name is fine; after all there used to be "Whigs" and "Tories"; how lame are those?

      --
      GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
    5. Re:Too bad it's futile by badboy_tw2002 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I could give a shit if the rights for Ashlee Simpson's latest hot single never expires. I don't really care. Make it a million years or something. The more it cost to use it, the less I'll have to hear it. The real problem here is when the copyright holders have a war against technology, try to shut down communications between people, and basically tell me what I can and can't do because there's a slight chance I might try to steal their shitty music.

    6. Re:Too bad it's futile by Panaflex · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hey, if the "youth" voted,
      * The drinking age would be 18 again.
      * Publicly owned Colleges and Universities would be Free
      * Insurance rates would be equitable
      * etc.. etc..

      Fact is that they DON'T get involved in politics in large numbers because Public Schools, by and large, arn't preparing kids to be adults - they're makeing "human resources."

      Ohh, and Mom and Dad are too busy working or playing with their riches to notice that big bright place outside the front door.

      --
      I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
    7. Re:Too bad it's futile by thebdj · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually not quite true. While we have not seen it happen on a national scale yet, it is not unknown for independents or third parties to win seats in the House or Senate. Also, look at past presidential elections and you will see 3rd parties stealing electoral votes in certain states. Another person gave you a few examples of independents, there is also a former governor from Minnesota that no one would've predicted.

      This is especially true during times of "fierce social change." See the election just before the US Civil War (1860) and the elections during the Civil Rights Movement. You will see other parties winning states beyond just the normal two. While the two party system seems dominant, it would not be unheard of for a new third party to move in and take a few seats in congress, or maybe even win a few states in a Presidential election.

      --
      "Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
    8. Re:Too bad it's futile by Ossifer · · Score: 4, Interesting
      With the election system of the US, it's always 2 parties with nobody having thet slightest chance to muscle in, at best in local elections (which, frankly, have no impact on copyright laws).
      It's even worse for single-issue parties. The design of the American democratic system essentially precludes these parties from gaining power--the lack of a proportional party-based legislature, and the lack of an excutive branch formed out of the legislature. The former situation requires a newcomer to win a substantial number of districts outright to have any real power, and the latter precludes a small number of legislators from such a single-issue party from wielding lynchpin power in forming governments.

      Compare this to say, Sweden, where you vote for parties, and any party garnering over 4% of the vote (country-wide) gets legislative representation, without having to have majority support in any region. Then, such a party can make demands upon the larger parties seeking their support in forming a government.

      I'm not advocating either form of democracy (I've seen the downside of both systems, having lived in both above-named countries), I personally dislike political parties and their influence. In fact the US constitution was intentionally crafted to prevent the influence of "factions" (source: The Federalist Papers), however futile this effort was...
    9. Re:Too bad it's futile by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What sort of IP Reform is needed in a New Jersey town? This platform is inheritly national.

      --
      Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
    10. Re:Too bad it's futile by Software · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Since none of the issues important to the PP are decided at the local level, can you explain how a PP mayor would govern differently from a non-PP mayor? You'd need to broaden the PP's platform to include issues that have some local effect, such as free municpal Wi-Fi.

      I think that starting a 527 committee and/or hiring a lobbyist is a better idea. Put together some well placed bribes^H^H^H^H^H^H campaign contributions to existing Congressional representatives (since your chances of getting one elected are, to a first approximation, zero) to get them on your side.

    11. Re:Too bad it's futile by rmgrotkierii · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hey, if the "youth" voted,
      * The drinking age would be 18 again.


      Got that wrong buckwheat. Unfortunately the federal govt. links all sorts of monies including the all important highway money to the drinking age/BAC levels. Which is legal according to the Supreme Court, which ruled in http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?n avby=CASE&court=US&vol=483&page=203 South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987) that Congress had engaged in a valid exercise of its power under the Taxing and Spending Clause, and did not violate the Twenty-first Amendment.

      --
      Reality is for those who can't face Science Fiction.
    12. Re:Too bad it's futile by FleaPlus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      With the election system of the US, it's always 2 parties with nobody having thet slightest chance to muscle in, at best in local elections

      This problem of always having to go with the lesser of two evils constantly frustrates me. I rather like this proposal by Rand Simberg over at Transterrestrial Musings:

      I'd love to see ballots printed with "None of the above" as an option. If that option wins the election, we start over, with no incumbents, and new primaries. Call it the American form of lack-of-confidence vote.

      It turns out that there's a "Voters for None of the Above" organization dedicated to this, but they seem to be mostly inactive:

      http://www.nota.org/

      From their page:

      How would a binding "None of the Above" on the ballot work?

      In any state with a permanent, binding "None of the Above" on the ballot, the list of candidates for each office would be followed by the votable line "NOTA - For a new election", or something similar. If NOTA gets more votes than any candidate for the office, then no one is elected to that office; instead, a follow-up by-election with new candidates must be held to fill that office, until a candidate wins a plurality of votes among all other candidates including "None of the Above." "None of the Above" on the ballot has many thoughtful advocates, including The Wall Street Journal and Ralph Nader. Nevada has had a non-binding NOTA on the ballot since 1976. (See NOTA bills and laws for a list of all NOTA bills and laws. See NOTA options for the full range of binding and non-binding NOTA Voter Consent ballot options.)

      Why are Voter Consent Ballot Options, such as a permanent, binding "None of the Above" on the ballot, a good idea?

      * All legitimate consent requires the ability to withhold consent; "None of the Above" gives the voter the ballot option to withhold consent from an election to office, just as voters can cast a "No" vote on a ballot question.
      * Would end the "must hire" elections where voters are often forced to vote for the least unacceptable candidate, the all too familiar "lesser evil."
      * A candidate must obtain voter consent to be elected, even if running unopposed.
      * Voters would decide the fate of the political parties' choices, instead of the parties deciding the voters' choices.
      * It should reduce negative campaigning by encouraging candidates to campaign for their own candidacy rather than against their opponent's candidacy.
      * Many voters and non voters, who now register their disapproval of all candidates for an office by not voting, could cast a meaningful vote.
      * The meaning of elections should become more clear, since voters would no longer be tempted to vote for a presumed losing candidate, with whom they really do not agree, as a protest vote.
      * Establishes flexible, voter controlled term limits of one term for every office, as the framers of the U.S. Constitution intended.
      * Campaign contributors who give to all candidates to insure "access" would no longer be sure they backed the winner; in general, buying elections should become a more uncertain enterprise.
      * Improves checks and balances between voters and political parties, especially needed in jurisdictions with one dominant political party or nearly identical alternatives.
      * Political parties would nominate candidates knowing those candidates must be a better choice for voters than "None of the Above."
      * Follow-up by-elections are far less costly than electing unacceptable candidates to office.

    13. Re:Too bad it's futile by Hatta · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The Pirate Party doesn't have to get elected to get their point across. Political parties whose platforms are based on a single concept (e.g. intellectual rights reform) merely have to prove they have popular support, and then one or more major parties will pick up (or pirate, lol) their idea to add to their votes.

      Does this happen in practice? What other issues have been picked up by major parties due to a third party getting public attention? It's a nice theory, but are you sure it actually works this way?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  6. Could be worse by CPUgrind · · Score: 5, Funny

    At least they didn't spell it this way: P1r8 P4rty

    1. Re:Could be worse by AcidLacedPenguiN · · Score: 2, Funny

      atleast they don't have the word communist in their name, in that case instead of crusing to the pirate bay next week they'd be cruising to the Guantanamo Bay. . .

      I accept the fact that I will be modded down. . .

      --
      disclaimer: I've been known to store numbers in my ass for which to dig out when quantities are required.
  7. Avast! by Cleon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Yarrrr!

    It be about time that someone be takin' up the mantle of IP reform and greater privacy! Fer sure, the twin armadas of the Republicrats and Democans have failed to take it on, and e'en the Libertarians and Greens don't talk too much about it.

    Avast, mateys! Perchance finally there be a Party worth votin' for.

    --
    Gifts for Geeks - Stuff that really matters!
  8. The sad this is, they appear to be serious! by Ilsundal · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm not very confident in a group that's set to reform our copyright/patent system when they cannot even have enough common sense to realize that a name such as "The Pirate Party" is NOT going to be taken seriously here in the U.S. This time is investment is better spent on something that has somewhat of a chance in hell.

    --
    "True refinement seeks simplicity."
    1. Re:The sad this is, they appear to be serious! by iswm · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No third party in the US has a chance in hell. So what else should they put time into? Even if their party doesn't have any real chance of getting elected into office somewhere, at least their getting the word out. Who cares what their name is? They're trying to do what needs to be done, and that's all that matters. Plus with a name like "The Pirate Party," they're bound to pick up media attention. All the better.

      --
      Buckethead
    2. Re:The sad this is, they appear to be serious! by Ash-Fox · · Score: 2, Funny
      I'm not very confident in a group that's set to reform our copyright/patent system when they cannot even have enough common sense to realize that a name such as "The Pirate Party" is NOT going to be taken seriously here in the U.S. This time is investment is better spent on something that has somewhat of a chance in hell.
      Yes, they need a name like, the patriot copyright act. Any name like that works great in the US government. They should also use the root password "Think of the children!" more.
      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    3. Re:The sad this is, they appear to be serious! by stinerman · · Score: 2, Insightful
      they cannot even have enough common sense to realize that a name such as "The Pirate Party" is NOT going to be taken seriously here in the U.S.
      Sir, no minor party is taken seriously here in the U.S.
  9. Newsletter? by tulmad · · Score: 4, Funny

    I like what you have to say and would like to subscribe to your newsletter. :D

    --
    "In case of emergency, break glass. Scream. Bleed to death."
  10. Slogan: by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 4, Funny

    Join our Party and fight Global Warming!

    --
    If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
  11. Good start but needs more by vldragon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A politacal party that fights for all the things mentioned on the pirate parties website is great. I'm all for a politcal body finnaly standing up and fighting angainst corporations that take away from what makes this country great. However a party devoted just to those things will never stand. While the geeks of america may band together for this party it just isn't enough. A political party must be ready to face all the challanges of a society not just a select few. The Pirate party would have to take a stand on things like war, poverty, crime, drugs and so many others. And thats not to mention a party needs support from a majority of people with all sorts of backgrounds and cultures.
    Just something to think about.

    --
    Eating the brains of your enemies does not make you smarter. But it's still fun.
    1. Re:Good start but needs more by VoxCombo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually, as logn as we've had the current two party system, single issue parties have really been the only ones that have succeeded..sort of. Works like this:

      1. People found a party around an issue they feel is important but neither major party agrees.
      2. Small single-issue party grows bigger
      3. One major party takes notice, and absorbs the issue, effectively disbanding the party

      I'm not saing it's great, but I suppose it's a kind of victory

  12. They should hire Al Gore! by DG · · Score: 4, Funny

    Holy convergance of idealologies Batman!



    We all know Al Gore is all about Global Warming (See Here), and we also know there is a direct link between the number of pirates and the average temperature of the earth! (See Here)



    This cannot be an accident - it's fate!



    DG

    --
    Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
  13. overkill...? by AxemRed · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm not necessarily a fan of what the Pirate Party represents. But, sometimes, overkill on the other side of the problem may work to balance the mess out. I just hope that we can eventually find a happy medium.

  14. Re:truly not an american way by WindBourne · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And yet, it was terrorism (and a form of communism; after all, they had to work and share together) that set America on the path to independence from England.

    Likewise, OSS was labeled as terrorism/communism by some, and now it is pretty much understood that it is one of the truer forms of capitalism (and charity).

    Somewhere down the road, as ip laws are changed, this group may be changed from being consider terrorists to heros.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  15. Yes.. by insanarchist · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...why's the rum gone?! (Look away kiddies, this post be rated ARRRR!!!)

  16. Actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Honestly, at this point, I *do* support piracy.

    After seeing how the Republicans are selling my ass out to the telecoms in the house*, I--someone who has been registered as a republican for as long as he could vote--am dumping that party until it comes to its senses.

    Keel haul the blaggards!

    * There are plenty of reasons to dump them, not just Net Neutrality. It's just that that's the absolute last straw. At this point, I feel like I'm throwing my vote away voting for either of the two main parties, anyhow so I might as well vote with someone I agree with...

  17. Very well written statement on their webpage! by Bromskloss · · Score: 2, Funny

    So spot on, judging from this text only, it seems that I agree with all they say! (hmm, which is the definition of "good", right?) If I were American, I'd vote for them. But wait, I'm Swedish!

    --
    Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities
  18. It's in there. by Mateo_LeFou · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It says "securing for limited Times". What needs to made clear(er) in the Constitution is that Copyright laws that demonstrably do *not "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" are not valid.

    --
    My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
    1. Re:It's in there. by geobeck · · Score: 3, Funny

      What needs to made clear(er) in the Constitution is that Copyright laws that demonstrably do *not "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" are not valid.

      So every movie Rob Schneider has ever made should be public domain the moment it's released. But that would mean Rob Schneider movies would never show a profit... and no more of them would never be made...

      Let's get this amendment approved ASAP!

      --
      Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
    2. Re:It's in there. by cptgrudge · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Perhaps new copyright legislation should define the "limited time" as one half of the total average lifespan of an American citizen, according to an unbiased source (where do we get this statistic now?). Have it be measured and applied every 10 years. That way, copyright holders and their agents will have a real interest in the extension of the human lifespan as well, not just copyright!

      --
      Qualitas edurus commercium, nullus penitus net rimor, nullus deus beneficium
    3. Re:It's in there. by ArsonSmith · · Score: 5, Interesting

      How about have it so copyright extention is paid for. You get your first 10 to 20 years as it is now, then you have to pay a renewal fee every say 3 to 5 years that doubles each time. Eventually it would become unprofitable to continue to pay the renewal and you'd have to release to the PD.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
  19. waste of time by spongman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    why don't all these groups that want to repeal such and such bad law, or change this law, or whatnot, just get together and lobby for campaign finance reform. once that's done they can actually have a snowball's chance in hell of actually getting done what they originally set out to do.

  20. Please spare me by bryankwalton · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I agree that we need to seriously reform the patent system in the United States. But the Pirate Party isn't going to do this. In fact, one might argue that all it will successfully accomplish is marginalizing the issue and its supporters. There are dozens (if not more) third parties in the US. It is very hard (and in this day and age almost impossible) for a third party to have any electoral success (it does happen on a community level in certain places around the country). There are key differences between the electoral systems of most European countries and the US. In the US, we have a single-member district system that is winner take all. It makes our system functionally a two-party system. Most of Europe has a proporational representation system. Voters in Europe vote for the party, not the candidate. All that is needed for a small party to gain seats in a parliamentary body is to get over the threshold (whatever that threshold may be). Sometimes, that threshold is as low as 5%. Here in the US, you need a plurality of the vote at least (in some parts of the country, you need an outright majority). The pirate party getting 50.1% of the vote? I don't think so. Even 40-45%, not likely. To insist on something like this, just because it works in Sweden is to deny the reality of the electoral constraints place upon the US system.

    1. Re:Please spare me by HikingStick · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think the real power in the pirate party will be as a gauge to the primary parties as to how important this issue is to consumers. If the party posts large numbers of members, Donkeys and Elephants may consider addressing some IP issues, just as a way to grab those potential votes. Of course, RIAA may simply try to hack/buy the pirate party roster as a list of possible new defendants in their next round of lawsuits...

      --
      I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
  21. Public backlast against *IAA by Mad+Dog+Manley · · Score: 4, Insightful

    From the interview:

    Sigal: I think the raid is what brought this whole thing to my attention, and to the attention of people around the world. The raid in Sweden could turn out to be the best thing that happened to the internet community. I think it backfired on the MPAA. They wanted to take down a site they thought was illegal, but everyone noticed that the MPAA is terrorizing the people.

    No kidding. Whether or not the party manages to elect any members, its time to bring these issues to the public on every front possible, including the political front. A strong grassroots effort behind the Pirate Party would throw these tactics right back in the face of the *IAA organizations.

  22. i see alot of comments by DigDuality · · Score: 4, Insightful

    bashing the name. Most of the time i agree. I, myself, support things like the Green AND Libertarian parties over the Republocrats. I love Defective by Design, much like how i have much respect for the Green and Libertarian parties in the US, the Pirate Party in Sweden, and quite a many groups that may or may not be political parties. There's lots of great advocate groups out there fighting for noble causes.. for smaller government, tech rights, privacy rights, IP law, workers rights, environmental rights, you name it. But most of all of these groups suffer a similar fault and that's one of presentation. Very rarely do they show us that they're professional, they're websites look like crap, they're protests are childish, their statements to the public.. while i might agree with, can get a bit ridiculous at times. Groups like these people who can do something about it.. simply will never take seriously. I'm suprised Defective by Design has done what it has. But frankly if Richard Stallman wants to be taken seriously his needs to quit being a sappy bitch, cut his hair, trim his facial hair and learn how to dress and address professionals, government leaders, and the public. None of these groups that i adore so very much stands a chance in hell, until they can present themselves in a manner the rest of the world will take serious. Generation after generation, people simply don't seem to grasp this concept... and it's a trivial fact of life that makes a huge fucking difference that none of us are going to change. And until people wake up and quit prancing around in obnoxious outfits outside of corporate and government offices, they will be written off as nutbags, hippies, drug addicts, radicals, etc.. Now all of this being said.. The language has already been firmly planted about pirates and piracy. It's engrained into the entertainment and technological culture as it stands. This word isn't going away. I sit and i watch as the word "liberal" has become a dirty dirty word.. and watch the Democrats and Greens try to re-identify themselves as "progressive".. and it's not really working. This country is leaning towards Dems, not b/c this nation is liberal..but b/c they're tired of Republicans. It's really hard to escape a word and play semantics and hope you're new identification for what you do will take a stronger hold. As we've seen with the word "nigga" (though this has nothing to do with professionalism or politics), it's much easier to make an insulting word.. empowering. It has a very "stick it the man" attitude about it and gives way for great marketing. While i don't find it to be the height of professionalism and the ability to be taken seriously.. what are they going to call themselves? The Sharing Party? You think tree huggers get picked on.. that'd be nothing compared to this. I mean seriously.. there's not many names i could think of that would fit. The "lets not always maximize profits party". I mean.. maybe i'm not creative, but you tell me what would be a better idea.

  23. Not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Politicians will totally pander to some groups because they know that if they don't, they'll be punished bad enough to lose elections. In Canada, we have the NDP. They stand no chance of winning an election but they have a huge effect. The Liberals have to steal the NDP's policies in order to win. It is why Canada is very progressive on some issues. Even the Conservatives find themselves constrained because they know that they can lose votes to the NDP. Yes, I know that last one sounds strange; it helps to have been raised in Saskatchewan (it gave us both Tommy Douglas and John Diefenbaker) to understand it.

    There are enough people who don't vote that you wouldn't have to turn too many Republicans or Democrats to make a big difference. This is one of those issues where you could get support from both sides. You could also bundle it with America's fading status in the world and the erosion of civil rights. Heck, you could probably even conscript Ralph Nader's followers.
    http://elections.gmu.edu/voter_turnout.htm

    It would make some people's lives a lot easier if most people became too apathetic to vote. If you let that happen then you deserve what you get.

  24. What's in a name? by matt328 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It won't be their name that keeps them down and anyone who thinks it will is being very naive. It will be the **AA's endless flow of money that keeps them down.

    --
    Check out the cave on the east side of lake Hylia. Strange and wonderful things live in it.
    1. Re:What's in a name? by stratjakt · · Score: 5, Funny

      If the EFF would add Union to their name, then they'd be the "EFF U" which is catchy and marketable.

      Just saying.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
  25. Re:Guantanamo beckons... by Ossifer · · Score: 2, Informative

    The US already holds a Swedish citizen at Guantanamo, in violation of US and international law...

  26. Let me know... by Senzei · · Score: 3, Funny

    Let me know when the Ninja Party makes its way to the US. Ninjas beat pirates any day. I'm sure they would totally flip out and pass an act abolishing copyright, the *AA, and panhandling all at once. The first two for obvious reasons, the second and third because ninjas don't like whiners.

    --
    Slashdot: Where anecdotes and generalizations can be freely substituted for facts, logic, or intelligence
  27. Privateers by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Funny

    If a party designed to "reform real property laws" called itself the "Robber Party", I would never vote for it, send it money or let its rhetoric/policies influence my politics.

    I'd call the cops.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  28. It's only futile because of you by stratjakt · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You, and people like you, saying it's "futile" and third party votes are "wasted" are the cause of the two party problem. You've helped brainwash the american voter into thinking it's a coin toss, and he should pick the "lesser of two evils".

    Then on election day, we see some bullshit like "49% people favor John Kerry and 51% people favor George Bush". Which we all know is wrong. Nearly everybody, in the last election, thought both candidates sucked.

    Vote for who you want to vote for. They may not win, but we won't be sending some assclown to the whitehouse with some bullshit "51% american support" argument. The next time the republicrats win, I want to see the number say "7%", followed by maybe Greens or Libertarians with 4% and 5% type numbers. I want the numbers to clearly demonstrate what the people want.

    If that were to happen, and the two parties will realize just how tenuous their connection to the voters are, and things will start to change.

    But instead, all of the apathetic slugs out there contribute the the problem by saying "I really like blah-blahs positions but I dont want to waste my vote so I dunno, Hillary Clinton I guess".

    Vote for the Pirate Party if you like them. They don't have to win to send a message.

    --
    I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    1. Re:It's only futile because of you by esper · · Score: 2, Insightful
      No, I'd say the Twelfth Amendment is the cause of the two-party problem:

      The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President.
      If no Presidential candidate gets a majority of the (electoral college) votes, then the House picks from the three highest (electoral) vote-getters. It does not go to whoever got the most votes (either popular or electoral). Having a third party prominent enough to compete against the Republicans and Democrats would just split the vote such that nobody ever gets a majority and we get a string of Presidents chosen by Congress - ultimately selected by the people, sure, but even more indirectly than in the current electoral college system.
    2. Re:It's only futile because of you by koreth · · Score: 2, Insightful
      You, and people like you, saying it's "futile" and third party votes are "wasted" are the cause of the two party problem.

      I see. So the lack of proportional party representation in the legislature, a century of gerrymandering, winner-take-all electoral college voting, and a bevy of exclusionary state election laws have nothing to do with it.

  29. Libertarians have been saying this for decades by Bob_Robertson · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://www.fff.org/comment/com0603e.asp The New Mercantilism

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/mcelroy/mcelroy17.html Patently Absurd

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/sapienza/sapienza36.htm l The Fraud of Intellectual Property

    http://www.mises.org/blog/archives/002935.asp Mises Economics Blog: Bill Gates: Anti-IP Movement Is Communist

    I wish the Pirate party far better success than the Libertarians have had. It is surprising that the message of Liberty does not resonate in the United States.

    Bob-

    --
    The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
  30. Unelectable by east+coast · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The problem with parties with a limited scope on issues is that there is far too much room for the elected officle to slide in his own agenda. What would a party with such a small target issue do when it comes to other issues is anyones guess and it makes them a political loose cannon that serious political party supporters are going to have a problem funding even if their target issue is a good one.

    Granted, no established party is going to really take this issue on in such a way either so I guess it leaves the public that wants this type of reform SOL.

    --
    Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    1. Re:Unelectable by Sparr0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      To some of us this doesnt matter. I actually do not care whether abortion is legal, what the drinking age is, how the latest airline strike is handled, or which way any of a dozen other "hot" issues go. The things I care about are the things no current spotlight politicians talk about, such as privacy, freedom, and Freedom.

  31. And this is why they will never succeed... by maillemaker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    >Everytime Mickey gets close to falling into PD congress will suddenly find it in their interest to extend copyright.

    Disney and all the rest of the those with vested interestes in intellectual property have more money than anyone could possibly counter with enough votes to make a difference.

    It's all about the cash. Votes are just something to make you feel like you have a representative government.

    Steve

    --
    A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
    1. Re:And this is why they will never succeed... by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's all about the cash. Votes are just something to make you feel like you have a representative government.

      Just a quick reality check to counter this sort of complete cyncism -- Crappy popular culture is pretty much the only thing of value that the US exports nowdays. The entertainment business is a critical national industry. So, of course politicians naturally support it.

      Not to mention Hollywood being the largest industry in California, the most populous state. I can tell you that here in CA politicans aren't pro-*AA because of the money, but simply because that's what the jobs and economy is based on.

      Entertainment is pretty much the perfect political storm -- you've got unions, you've got social liberals, you've got big business, you've got finance, you've got cultural imperalists, and a host of other groups supporting them. It's perfectly natural they have a ton of political power -- they don't *need* to bribe people.

      There needs to be opposition to educate people and prevent the draconian types of proposals that always seem to be floating around in congressional committees. But ultimately is the US political establishment going to do anything to undermine entertainment? Never. What's good for Hollywood is good for America.

      --
      Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
    2. Re:And this is why they will never succeed... by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 2, Informative
      The entire entertainment industry is only a very small component of the US economy. In all, it's in the same order of magnitude as the sale of sporting goods. Somehow I don't think our economy would collapse if people stopped buying soccer balls and golf clubs, and it's the same for "entertainment content".

      http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue6_2/odlyzko /

      --
      -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
    3. Re:And this is why they will never succeed... by LoveGoblin · · Score: 2, Informative

      Offtopic trivia: Hollywood isn't the biggest industry in California. By far, agriculture is. :)

  32. Re:This is not what we need. by eth1 · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Bring in a leader with teeth and some money and we'll talk."

    They should just talk people into sending them a percentage of the purchase price every time someone pirates something! Even Bush couldn't raise that much money... :)

  33. thanks by MBraynard · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Someone doesn't understand how politics work in this country. The role that parliamentarians have in other governments is actually devolved to the individual voters in this country. We, individually, determine who the actual leaders are rather than voting for a party who may or may not win a majority and then negotiates without consulting the voters on what will constitute a government.

    As such, the Pirate party will, if it gets anywhere (and it won't) would just suck off energy from the Democrat party.

    If they were wise, which they are not, they would recognize the way to have their voice heard and actually get stuff done is to act as a caucus within one of the two established parties.

    Years and years ago the presidential campaign of Pat Robertson did the same thing. After LOSING, they formed an organization known as the Christian Coalition. They decided not to form their own political party but to ingrain themselves and take over the Republican party from the ground up. They were largely successful. The Christian Coalition on the national level is just a shel but their mission has largely been accomplished and they, in many cases, _are_ the Republican Party.

    The Democrat party can be taken over (or at least heavily influenced) in the same way by an organized group - but it seems the Pirate Party is not it.

  34. As do I. by mrchaotica · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Copyright is supposed to be a compromise whereby both the creator of the content and society (most importantly, society) benefit. Since the content "owners" are no longer holding up their part of the bargain, I see no reason why we should continue to hold up ours!

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    1. Re:As do I. by raddan · · Score: 3, Informative

      You know... that has to be the most insightful, concise thing I've heard said about what's wrong with copyright for a long time.

  35. What's in a name? by mattis_f · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Actually, that's what I thought at first when they showed up in Sweden too - but I've come to the conclusion that "Pirate Party" is pretty darn clever. It's provocative and attention grabbing ... with the "Copyright Reform Party" or your other suggestions, all we're getting is another EFF. Who are doing an amazing job, of course, but they're not exactly well known (beyond slashdot circles).

    These guys are trying to throw a wrench into the machinery; calling themselves "The Pirate Party" helps.

    If they can get themselves sued over the name, all the better. They need all the mainstream attention they can get.

  36. Approval Voting by samtihen · · Score: 3, Informative

    And this is where Approval Voting comes into play.

    Basically, the idea is that you may vote for as many of the candidates as you approve of.

    For instance, a good chunk of people enjoy many of the ideas that the Libertarian party believes in. This same chunk of people often has to make a choice between voting for a democrat or a republican, because everyone knows third parties stand no chance here.

    Now, under the Approval voting system, you could vote for both the Libertarian candidate and the party you would have ended up voting for had you no choice.

    Now, I do not believe that the Libertarian party would win. What I do believe is that they would receive a much larger number of votes, and many of the idea would be much harder for the main two parties to ignore.

    The same, of course, would happen to the Pirate Party. They are not going to win, let's face it. But, if they were to receive a vote from 15-30% of the population (a reasonable goal), the major parties could not ignore that.

    What makes this system so great, however, is the incredible ease of implementation. It isn't complicated for voters to understand, and ballots could already support multiple votes.

    1. Re:Approval Voting by spun · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think the Libertarian party would get less votes in a system such as you describe, as people would be scared that the Libertarians might actually win.

      If you read the party platform, Libertarians come across as scary nutcases. They deny the existence of natural monopolies and state that all monopolies come from government regulation, overlooking hundreds of years of economic theory. In a Libertarian country, the schools, police, fire, roads, water, power, and sewer systems would all be privatized. All regulations would be abolished. Tainted meat? Sue! Airplane crashes due to poor maintenance? Don't fly with them, the free market will sort it! Environmental disasters? Sue, after the damage has been done of course.

      There are two answers to any problem in Libertarian La-La Land: Vote with your wallet, or sue. Of course, if you don't have any money to begin with, you're pretty much screwed, but that's Social Darwinism for you. Obviously, the fact that you are poor proves you are inferior, Q.E.D.

      Now that I'm done bashing Libertarians (they make such an easy target, almost as much fun to taunt as hippies) let me just say I like Condorcet voting better than approval voting.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    2. Re:Approval Voting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      First of all, the Libertarians are a party of ideology. This makes them a bit crazy. However, a tiny bit of their idealogy would be a good influence for both of the main parties. The same goes for the Green Party, etc. Choice never hurts. Secondly, when suggesting a change in voting practices, you want to chose a path of easy migration. Condorcet voting is just to complicated to score properly (face it, election workers are 90% retired people with less than amazing eyesite, etc), and is too different from what we have already. Approval voting can be enacted on a regional level, and if it had some press it might actually have a chance once things get fucked up enough.

    3. Re:Approval Voting by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The Libertarian platform, taken and implemented as a whole, does seem a little nutty. On the other hand, I'd love to see a term with a Libertarian president and a Democrat congress, or a Libertarian swing minority in the senate.

      --
      -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
  37. But wait ... there's more by Mateo_LeFou · · Score: 4, Interesting
    You're right, and that's Moglen's reading, but I was encouraged to find this in the Eldred decision:

    "...when, as in this case, Congress has not altered the traditional contours of copyright protection, further First Amendment scrutiny is unnecessary."

    By implication, this means laws that do alter the "contours" can be challenged constitutionally. I'm thinking DMCA, esp. anticircumvention... which goes beyond the prohibition of copying and denies mere access to works, as pointed out in a good chapter of a very mediocre book: Protecting Ideas by David L. Hudson.

    --
    My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
  38. Re:This is not what we need. by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is nothing more than a couple of no-names who decided to set up a web page and call themselves a political party because they thought it was cool.

    I agree with you, the world's nuts. One of these days we'll have a Finnish kid and a beardy hacker saying "Hey, let's make an operating system!". And I bet they'll give it a cryptic name and a penguin for mascot. And then they'd say stupid things like "Software should be Free". How can a stupid idea like that prosper in today's capitalistic world? Sheesh.</sarcasm>

  39. Why bother with all this math? by Mateo_LeFou · · Score: 4, Insightful
    It seems to me that a limit is in there -- the term and scope have to serve the purpose of the clause. Any number you pick is going to seem arbitrary to someone; what's needed is a method, developed by an impartial party, for counting the costs and benefits of any proposed term. Hint: retroactive term extensions are B.S. You don't need to provide incentives to produce things that already exist. It'd be great to just start there and fine-tune as we learn more.

    Hint 2: it doesn't take 100+ years to realize a profit on your intellectual endeavor, if that's your taste. Especially nowadays. As a general rule, your book/record/film is going to profit in its first five years of life or never. If anything, terms should be getting shorter as distribution & marketing technologies continue to improve.

    --
    My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
    1. Re:Why bother with all this math? by twistedsymphony · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't know if I fully agree with IP lifespans getting shorter.. With production costs of things like movies and games getting higher and higher due to consumer demand of better looking special effects/graphics (interesting enough music production costs are getting lower due to equipment costs getting cheaper) it's in the best interests of those industries to continually piggy back off of the same franchises (see Mario version X, Fast and the Furious 3, etc.)

      I think the biggest problem is the fact that corporations can hold copyrights. If something like a copyright is there to protect "artists" then corporations should have no say in it. If you have it attributed to an individual then I think that individual should be able to transfer it to another individual when they retire/die if they would like someone to continue their legacy.

      If anything I think there should be more of a "use it or loose it" policy where if the content hasn't been published/manufactured/etc. for 10 years then it becomes public domain. So if "Music Group X" makes an album in 2010 and it only gets pressed for 2 years and production stops then in 2022 that music becomes public domain. If in 2019 one of the songs pops up on a sound track then that song get's it's clock reset until production of the sound track stops. Public performances by the copyright owner (movie in a theater/TV, band playing live, painting on display, etc) would also reset the clock. If a copyright is worth having then these things will still occur ANYWAY.

    2. Re:Why bother with all this math? by mrchaotica · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It would also be good to go back to having to explicitly register copyrights with the Library of Congress, and to require that the LOC gets a free, non-DRM-encumbered copy in the preferred format for making modifications to it. Considering that the Public Domain is designed to foster modification, it only makes sense that a "compiled work" such as a software binary or lossy-compressed digital video wouldn't be useful, and therefore shouldn't be sufficient to use as collateral to earn copyright protection.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  40. Geyarr by Drakin020 · · Score: 2, Funny

    You know, I think the media really screwd up when they called it "software piracy" Everyone WANTS to be a pirate. If they'd called it "software faggotry" everyone would still buy all their shit

    --
    The greatest revenge in life is massive success.
  41. Dastar v. 20 Cent Fox by tepples · · Score: 5, Informative

    The original Mickey Mouse film trilogy was Plane Crazy, Gallopin' Gaucho, and Steamboat Willie. Any traits of the character that appeared in the original trilogy would pass into PD along with the films.

    As a registered trademark, the mouse would still not be free game

    O rly? The Supreme Court ruled the other way in Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. , where Justice Scalia wrote that a trademark can't be hacked to extend copyright.

  42. Census Bureau anyone? by tepples · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Perhaps new copyright legislation should define the "limited time" as one half of the total average lifespan of an American citizen, according to an unbiased source (where do we get this statistic now?).

    The US Census Bureau exists to implement the constitutional requirement for an enumeration. A hard limit of half a life expectancy would be easy to implement based on data that the Census Bureau and similar government agencies already publish. But then pegging the copyright term to the progress of medical arts it might make the copyright industry support the drug industry.

  43. well.... by shnot · · Score: 2, Funny

    i've tried bribes, extortion, blackmail, physical violence, attempted hypnosis, clandestine activites, begging and pleading...maybe now i'll be able to get my friends to vote if i tell them that they're gonna vote for a dude who wears an eyepatch.

  44. Re:Guantanamo beckons... by brouski · · Score: 2, Informative
    You might want to check with your sources on that, dude.

    He was released in July 2004: http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/4166/nocache/true/a/ 27298/dictionary/true

    --
    Proud member of the American Non Sequitur Society. We might not make much sense, but boy do we love pizza!
  45. moment of silence please by sco_is_for_babies · · Score: 3, Funny



    Our Pasta, who "Arghh" in heaven, Swallowed be thy shame.
    Thy Midgit come. Thy Sauce be yum, On top some grated Parmesan.
    Give us this day our garlic bread. And give us our cutlasses,
    As we swashbuckle, splice the main-brace and cuss.
    And lead us into temptation, But deliver us some Pizza.
    For thine are Meatballs, and the beer, and the strippers, for ever and ever. RAmen.

    http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Mons ter#The_Noodles_Prayer

  46. That's nice... and? by HarbingerKtS · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Copyright, patent reform, and privacy reform will only take a political party so far. If this party is going to succeed in any major way it also has to develop a clear stance on issues that white-bread america will be interested in. What are the party's stance on things like preventing the FEMA fiasco in the wake on Hurricane Katrina? What's their policy on the minimum wage laws? Where's their stance on drug policy and education and taxes?

    These are what most people will want to know before signing up for a party.

  47. Constitutional Amendment by EzInKy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Perhaps the best thing the Pirate Party could do is try to fuel a grassroots compaign for a Constitutional Amendment that sets in stone the fourteen year terms and registration requirements of the original US copyright laws so that Congress can't use the "harmonizing" excuse anymore. This of course would have to be done by the states themselves since the **AAs and gerrymandering have pretty much ensured that Congress itself would not introduce the necessary legislation.

    --
    Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
  48. What have you done with Anonymous Coward? by spun · · Score: 2, Interesting

    An AC post, replying to what could easily be considered flamebait at best (I should know, I wrote it that way ;-), that is rational and insightful? Wha?!? Where's the real AC, what have you done with him?

    You hit the nail on the head about Libertarians. They are idealogues, and a bit crazy, but they have some good ideas. And I hadn't even thought about migration difficulties in voting systems, you are right, Condorcet may be more fair, but it is really complicated. You basically have to take every possible pairing of candidates and say who you would prefer given those two choices. Approval voting is not as fair in some ways, but much simpler to implement.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  49. What? A typo? by NoScreenNamesLeft · · Score: 2, Informative

    It's not piratepartiet. It's piratebyran...

    --
    It is the owner that crashes the system. If you are enough of an idiot to put 50 background processes in Windows you sho
  50. All in the name by Moflamby-2042 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How about the 'Free Information' party instead? Many of the comments around here defending the Pirate party name come from that other doesn't sound as good or grab the attention that is needed. That's fair but before running to call your party the Murderer's party or Rapist party, when your party has absolutely nothing to do with either of those seems counterproductive. It tips the scales against you before you've said anything. There are many more decent sounding names than ones with criminal denotations that people can rally behind. They surely would be more popular at first sight with average citizens of America than something already subverted by its incorrect literal interpretation.