Swedish Voters Keelhaul Pirate Party

Billosaur writes "Apparently the 'scurvy dawgs' are still in control. Results from Sunday's Swedish national election were not favorable for the Pirate Party, according to Wired News. According to the article, 'The Pirate Party not only failed to score the 4 percent required for a seat in Sweden's Parliament, but appears to have missed the 1 percent that would have afforded the party state assistance with printing ballots and funding staff in the next election.' However, the party sees this as a learning experience and morale is still good."

Comments

This was not good to start with

[Xamedes]

A political party for illegal actions? come on!

Re:This was not good to start with

[coolgeek]

Harrr laddy, looks like yer takin' a good long pull from a shot of reality.

Re:This was not good to start with

[TheWoozle]

Something is "illegal" if there is a law against it, by definition. No law, no problem. Hence, I see it as an entirely practical way to tackle the issue.

Re:This was not good to start with

[CRCulver]

Obviously the point of the party is to use the power of democracy to ensure that such actions are no longer illegal. Do you think Marxist parties should be shut down just because the state ownership of industry they advocate is not permitted under current laws? I thought America was supposed to be better than other countries since it allows any ideas to participate in the democratic process.

Re:This was not good to start with

[eldavojohn]

A political party for illegal actions? come on!

Might I remind you that the founding politicians of America were violating many English laws and guilty of leading revolts against the British Crown ... punishable by death if I'm not mistaken.

Just because a political party is advocating something currently illegal doesn't mean it's a bad idea to elect them and change that law. Especially if it's a stupid law or is detrimental to the populace.

Let the people vote.

Re:This was not good to start with

[Tweekster]

Well considering those actions are not against the law, they are not illegal (please try and remember, different countries have different laws...)

This wasnt all that suprising, they had a lot of interest, but they failed at getting it together into votes. This was their first attempt and a lot of the probs were related to learning how to do political party things.

Re:This was not good to start with

[Opportunist]

Huh? Looking at politics, you'd consider that a requirement.

Re:This was not good to start with

[Xamedes]

As valid as your point is regarding the marxist party, there are other parties, too. there is a northern country (forgot which) who has a party, which wants to legalize sex with children. so there is the question: is the "pirate party" nearer to marxism than to a fellony?

Re:This was not good to start with

[bentcd]

Copyright laws institute monopolies on cultural goods and as such represent the antithesis of capitalism. In a capitalist system, anyone would be entitled to manufacture and offer the goods for sale. Supply would then fluctuate with general interest in the goods and the profit that could be made from providing them, unlike the fixed pricing schemes we are seeing with today's monopolistic situation.
Of course, part of the point of a capitalist system would be that we'd get affordable items - it isn't difficult to understand why the entertainment industry would rather maintain the status quo.

Re:This was not good to start with

[TechnoBunny]

But thats what all political parties do - stand on a platform of measures which they propose should be put into statute. Just like that paedophile party that stood in Holland. They were campaigning ofr it to be legalised, as is their right - just as it was the right of the electorate not to vote for them.....Being allowed to only comapign for things that are already lawful/permitted is absurd.

Re:This was not good to start with

[portmapper]

I thought America was supposed to be better than other countries since it allows any ideas to participate in the democratic process.

I think you forgot to add [/ironic] ;-)

Charlie Chaplin was deported due to his anti-war opinions, while there was attempts to do the same for John Lennon. Now, imagine you are not famous, rich and happens to be a muslim.... (deportation)

The new documentary "The U.S. vs. John Lennon" tells the story of Lennon's transformation from loveable moptop to antiwar activist, and recounts the facts about Richard Nixon's campaign to deport him in 1972 in an effort to silence him as a voice of the peace movement. The filmmakers got lots of people to talk about Nixon and Lennon on camera, including Walter Cronkite, Gore Vidal, Mario Cuomo, George McGovern, Angela Davis and Bobby Seale, with G. Gordon Liddy representing the other side; the film also includes archival footage of Nixon and J. Edgar Hoover, and stars John Lennon and his biting wit and great music. It opens Sept. 15 in Los Angeles and New York City, and nationwide on Sept. 29. The story of Nixon's attempt to deport Lennon is relevant today because deportation, and the larger issue of immigrants' political rights, has become a central problem in American politics.

Re:This was not good to start with

[RingDev]

The actions are only illegal because the existing political party made them illegal.

At one point in time it was illegal to free slaves in the US. And you'd be hard pressed to find an elected official at this point that would still defend that stance.

-Rick

Re:This was not good to start with

[JanneM]

A political party for illegal actions? come on!

That's how you go about changing laws you dont agree with. This is nothing wrong - indeed this is exactly right. You work with the political system to have the law changed.

Re:This was not good to start with

[morgan_greywolf]

Agreed 100%. They seemed to advocate that anyone could copy anyone elses intellectrual property without permission. Best summed up as the abolition of conventional capitalism.

'[A]bolition of conventional capitalism?'

Tell me, exactly, what is 'capitalistic' about the current 'intellectual property' system? Do you know what capitalism is? How is the scenario promoted by the Pirate Party, i.e., the legalization of 'piracy', causing the means of production to be somehow not private? Under the legalization of 'piracy', do you think that capitalists in a free market system would not find a way to make money? Did the popularity of Napster and later peer-to-peer networks put the RIAA and its member compannies out of business? Did it even come close?

Perhaps you should do some reading and understand what is captialism and what is communism before posting such comments.

Re:This was not good to start with

[Anonymous Coward]

While almost nobody will agree with the idea and they won't win any election, as long as they are not actually DOING that they should be allowed to voice their opinion that they WANT it to be legal, right? The point is both groups are trying to go about changing the law in the right way. As people here always recommend, if you don't agree with the law try to change it. Vote or run for office

Re:This was not good to start with

[lawpoop]

As pointed out in the commentary to earlier slashdot articles, the scandinavian idea of piracy (the high seas kind) goes hand-in-hand with economic liberalism. While the British and Dutch were establishing monoplies on commodities, controlling ports, pursuing embargoes, and charging tariffs, there were captains who traded goods freely with little concern for the laws of foreign governments.

Of course, this free trade threatened the income of the empires, so they outlawed piracy and charged their own captains to capture ships, sink ships, absorb crews, and confiscate booty of free-traders who ignored tariffs and embargoes. Free-traders chose to arm themselves instead of giving up their livelihood, and the ensuing violent arms race gave us our modern popular perception of pirates today.

Re:This was not good to start with

[Billosaur]

At one point in time it was illegal to free slaves in the US. And you'd be hard pressed to find an elected official at this point that would still defend that stance.

Except for perhaps Jesse Helms...

Re:This was not good to start with

[nine-times]

Very insightful. In fact, there's hardly a point to having a political party that is advocating legal actions, unless those legal actions are under threat. An "anti-theft" party, which thinks it should be illegal to steal car stereos, for example, would be downright stupid. The only reason I can think to start a political party is when you're unhappy with the current laws, or to combat laws that you're afraid might be passed in the future...

Re:This was not good to start with

[CmdrGravy]

Surely you meant "an entirely piractical way to tackle the issue ?"

Re:This was not good to start with

[MindStalker]

Which I always found funny, because Lennon was one of the more sensible voices in the peace movement. "if you're gonna be carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you can count me out".

Re:This was not good to start with

[orcus]

A political party for illegal actions? come on!

It works in the US of A.

Re:This was not good to start with

[CastrTroy]

It probably falls under the same umbrella as the Marijuana parties that exist in certain countries.

Re:This was not good to start with

[AgentX24]

Let the people vote

They did...

Re:This was not good to start with

[CmdrGravy]

No, you wrote what basically equates to a lot of ill informed, nonsensical and illogical crap. Instant troll moderation.

Re:This was not good to start with

[fotoflojoe]

Surely you meant "an entirely piractical way to tackle the issue ?"

Somebody watched Wife-swap last night...
Off topic I know, but then danger's my middle name baby, yeah!

Re:This was not good to start with

[mad_minstrel]

No. A political party that wants to change law so that some things now illegal become legal.

Re:This was not good to start with

[WillyPete]

Read your history, hoss.

One of the central planks of the (then) new Republican party was to free slaves, an illegal act in southern states.

America walked THAT plank right into the Civil War.

I'd speculate that voters were told and recognized that putting the Pirate Party in power (even a tiny bit of power) would have been reacted to harshly by U.S. companies and government agencies who are still no doubt smarting from the failed Pirate Bay closure. I hope the environment changes for the better, and we can one day hoist the Jolly Roger over Sweden's White House (whatever they call it).

Re:This was not good to start with

[teh_chrizzle]

I thought America was supposed to be better than other countries since it allows any ideas to participate in the democratic process.

nah, america is better than other countries because we god loves us and hates everyone else. that's why is says "god bless america" in the bible.

Re:This was not good to start with

[brandor]

Bleh. I modded this flamebait on accident. The mod system needs to have an undo button. :/

Re:This was not good to start with

[MynockGuano]

Bleh. I modded this flamebait on accident. The mod system needs to have an undo button. :/

And it does, as you so have so aptly demonstrated. >8)

(posting in a thread that you've moderated causes all of your moderations in the thread to be wiped)

Re:This was not good to start with

[Kingrames]

You have some pretty lofty views of your politicians, sir.

Re:This was not good to start with

[nsayer]

If you listen closely to the record, right after "out," you'll hear the background vocalists sing "in."

Re:This was not good to start with

[MrZilla]

In a debate close to the election, both of the top candidates for the prime minister post got asked the question 'does the current laws making file sharing (of copyrighted materials) a felony need to be changed?', to which both responded 'yes'.

In fact, one of the candidates (I forget which one) said 'we cannot have a law on the books that makes our children criminals. This needs to be changed, and we will have to find a way to compensate artists.'

Re:This was not good to start with

[Improv]

It would certainly horrible to imagine that any of the anti-slavery politicians in American history were suggesting anything like breaking the law. Depriving slaveowners of their property would be theft.

Re:This was not good to start with

[Improv]

It would likewise BE horrible for me to use the preview button so I could spot an obvious left-out word. :)

Re:This was not good to start with

[MindStalker]

Actually that was in the verse "But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know you can count me out (in)". The Mao verse was "But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow". I wasn't thinking properly.

Re:This was not good to start with

[trewornan]

If you believe in free speech then you have to put up with people saying things you don't like.

Personally I regard it as a test of integrity, when I find someone claims to support free speech except when it's racist/sexist/whatever/else/they/don't/like I know they're a hypocrite and I needn't give much weight to their opinions.

Revolting as the idea of a polical party campaigning to legalise child abuse may be, I'd campaign to support it's right to exist.

Re:This was not good to start with

[hcob$]

Charlie Chaplin was deported due to his anti-war opinions, while there was attempts to do the same for John Lennon. Now, imagine you are not famous, rich and happens to be a muslim.... (deportation)

You're leaving out one major distinction about Chaplin and Lennon. Neither were American Citizens and it's perfectly legal to have them removed from US soil. (Notice that I didn't say wether it's right or wrong... Just LEGAL)

Re:This was not good to start with

[ehrichweiss]

Aye! IIRC, in Sweden there aren't any laws against those actions so "illegal" is simply a sick bird in this context.

Re:This was not good to start with

[MightyYar]

Actually, IP rights have little to do with capitalism. And anyway, most people agree on two points: 1. IP should exist (it is necessary to encourage new works), and 2. It should have limits (there should eventually be a public domain). There is nothing "communist" about promoting a moving of the limits in #2 one way or another. Personally, I advocate abolishing non-commercial copyright, compulsory licenses, shorter copyright terms, or some combination thereof. It is very hard to justify allowing a company to keep rights to a song after the creator is dead - how is that encouraging the creation of new works? In fact, it seems like it would do the opposite since a company can just milk it's back-catalog instead of making anything new. In any form, IP is a government "hand" in the market and interferes with the "natural" flow of capitalism. They are basically an artificial commodity with very little true value except as imposed by the government. In a truly free market, a DVD would probably go for $2 or less. Of course, no one could afford to make big-budget movies either... so we let them charge more with the idea that this will compel them to make another movie. It is a form of social welfare.

Re:This was not good to start with

[DenDude]

Copyright laws institute monopolies on cultural goods and as such represent the antithesis of capitalism.

I don't quite understand why you think that giving a creator of some service/invention/song/poem or anything else is the antithesis of Capitalism. If I can't be guarenteed that I would be the sole owner of something that I create, I would have little profit incentive to create it.
BTW: I think that you being modded troll for that comment is unfair; I wish the mods would understand that a differing opinion doesn't make a person a troll.

Re:This was not good to start with

[indifferent children]

when I find someone claims to support free speech except when it's racist/sexist/whatever/else/they/don't/like I know they're a hypocrite

If they call for the government to arrest someone for speech that is racist/sexist/whatever/else/they/don't/like, then they are a hypocrite, and they don't support free speech. If they merely call the 'offending' speaker a dickwad, then not only are they not hypocrites, they are demonstrating the power of free speech.

Re:This was not good to start with

[Oligonicella]

So, when some company rips off some minor artist, you're pissed at the evil corporation, but when some artist protects his copyright against said company, you're pissed at the evil artist?

Copyright laws are to allow the artist/creator to determine how to go about making a buck on their talent. They are not the antithesis of capitalism as they go about guaranteeing the venturer the ability to capitalize upon their venture. Not having them and allowing wholesale ripoff of said venturer is the antithesis if cap, as the venturer would not even try, yielding no venture to capitalize on.

Re:This was not good to start with

[indifferent children]

At one point in time it was illegal to free slaves in the US. And you'd be hard pressed to find an elected official at this point that would still defend that stance.

George 'Macaca' Allen

Re:This was not good to start with

[pedalman]

I thought America was supposed to be better than other countries since it allows any ideas to participate in the democratic process.

You must be new here.

Re:This was not good to start with

[bentcd]

If I can't be guarenteed that I would be the sole owner of something that I create, I would have little profit incentive to create it.
There are two immediate things to say about this. First: if, as you claim, there would be no incentive for you to create the good, then clearly you shouldn't. If people are not interested in spending money on it (thereby creating the incentive) then your good is useless and we're all better off if you spend your time doing something useful instead.
Second: Since there is in fact (or so I assume) a demand for entertainment products, you _will_ most likely find a market for your goods (if you're any good) and so there _will_ be incentive for creating them.
The fact that you won't be the only one earning money from marketing these products is neither here nor there. While I can understand that people have a pathological desire to "control" that which they "create", there is no need to legislate this urge.

Re:This was not good to start with

[Anonymous Coward]

If I can't be guarenteed that I would be the sole owner of something that I create, I would have little profit incentive to create it.

Only physical things exist. You may well have created YOUR COPY of some information pattern. You may well be the sole owner of it. You may or may not choose to reveal it by public release. That should not give you rights over all similar copies! I didn't ASK you to create your copy. Why should I bear the burden of maintaining your exclusivity post-release? And it is become a horrific burden, with would-be police-state builders using your copyright monopolies as an excuse for their surveillance. Given the choice between our freedom from surveillance and your copyright monopoly, I'll always choose the former. Tough. And screw you.

Re:This was not good to start with

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought America was supposed to be better than other countries

Better than other countries?!

Welcome to planet earth mr Green Man. You can find twinkies at the table over there and the beverages on the left, but first you're required to give us your fingerprints and allow us to anal probe you.

Now, is your trip business or pleasure and do you have anything to declare?

Re:This was not good to start with

[bentcd]

I am inclined to agree that the sledgehammer that is copyright may have been necessary in the past, for the reasons that you mention, but this is no longer the case.
Copyright is only necessary so long as distribution is expensive since you need a middle man to carry out a very expensive and tricky logistics operation for you. Copyright-granted monopoly is what ensures this middle man that his investment enjoys some form of protection.
With effortless distribution over electronic media, however, that middle man is no longer necessary. The author/artist/etc can reach out directly to his audience and collect payment from them. This leaves a system that requires much less profits than what used to be the case in order to encourage production of entertainment works.
The fact that large numbers of people will obtain the product for free in such a system is therefore of little interest, since no capital is needed to fund distribution anymore and so the $millions that used to be necessary to break even can now be counted in the $thousands.
Note that I realize that e.g. bands would still _prefer_ to be raking in the $millions. It is not, however, necessary for society to provide for this to happen since sufficient quantities of skilled artists will be quite happy to settle for $thousands and why should we pay more than we have to?

Re:This was not good to start with

[Fordiman]

Wow.

Dude, before you assume this or that, please at least read the US analogue site's issues page: Issues. </p>
<p>As you can clearly see, the US Pirate Party is not advocating abolition of copyright, they're advocating shortened copyright - 14 to 28 years - and repeal of the DMCA. Now, I can't read swedish, but I assume that their stance is similarly reasonable in context of Swede law.</p>

Re:This was not good to start with

[DenDude]

Tough. And screw you.

Um, I don't even know you. I mean, really, thanks for the offer, but I prefer someone of the female persuasion. If you like men, that's okay with me, I'm just not interested. But really thanks.

Re:This was not good to start with

[Fordiman]

(Oops... Forgot to set "HTML". I should probably use 'preview' once in a while.)

Wow.

Dude, before you assume this or that, please at least read the US analogue site's issues page: Issues.

As you can clearly see, the US Pirate Party is not advocating abolition of copyright, they're advocating shortened copyright - 14 to 28 years - and repeal of the DMCA. Now, I can't read swedish, but I assume that their stance is similarly reasonable in context of Swede law.

Re:This was not good to start with

[teh_chrizzle]

sarcasm:
-noun
1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.

Re:This was not good to start with

[DenDude]

First: if, as you claim, there would be no incentive for you to create the good, then clearly you shouldn't. If people are not interested in spending money on it (thereby creating the incentive) then your good is useless and we're all better off if you spend your time doing something useful instead.

That's the problem as I see it. If people are interested in spending money on something that I produce, I should be the one getting the money, not some no-talent dork who can only copy my cd's and sell them a little cheaper than me. That's just theft, and that's what copyrights are for.

Second: Since there is in fact (or so I assume) a demand for entertainment products, you _will_ most likely find a market for your goods (if you're any good) and so there _will_ be incentive for creating them.

But that's exactly why we need the protections offered by copyright. If the Foo Fighters have a great song that everyone wants, they should have the right to make the money from the song. Assuming that they are a great band, and make great music, lots of people will want the music. However, if anyone can copy and give away or sell the song on any media, then the band loses money, and will lose the incentive. By owning the copyright to their own work, they are guaranteed to be able to deal with the transmission, copying, or duplication of their own stuff.
That being said, the only incentive I mentioned was profit, but of course that's not the only reason people do things. I write code at work because I'm paid to do it, but I also write it at home, not to make money, but because it's what I love to do.

The fact that you won't be the only one earning money from marketing these products is neither here nor there. While I can understand that people have a pathological desire to "control" that which they "create", there is no need to legislate this urge.

Just a nit-pick here, but copyright is not just a "legislated" thing, it's a constitutional thing. Copyrights and patents are in the Constitution. Article I Section 8 Clause 8 reads

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

That's the basis. Now patent trolls suck, so I know there's work to be done, but IP has always been protected, and I think it needs to stay that way.

Re:This was not good to start with

[randyest]

The funny thing is your weak attempt at an insult and/or jab at the US is, to the cluefull, actually a compliment.

Thanks!

Re:This was not good to start with

[ultranova]

Might I remind you that the founding politicians of America were violating many English laws and guilty of leading revolts against the British Crown ... punishable by death if I'm not mistaken.

And every one of them is dead now. I guess that goes to show that crime does not pay.

If only they had listened to their mothers and stayed away from the life of crime, they might have accomplished something, become something. Take George Washington, for example: he could have become a military leader, maybe even a politician of some renown. Instead he'll go down in history as a rebel leader. Such waste...

Re:This was not good to start with

[Anonymous Coward]

I expect the poster meant "Screw you" in the pejorative sense, not meaning "I desire intercourse with you". Or do you say "no thanks" to everyone who says "fuck you" to you too? If so, then you're either borderline autistic or just a complete ass.

Re:This was not good to start with

[Anonymous Coward]

If people are interested in spending money on something that I produce, I should be the one getting the money

You DIDN'T PRODUCE other people's subsequent copies! And you CHOSE to release your first copy at some price. Why should we bear the cost of your "mistake"? If I charge $5 for a $200 lawn mower, that's my stupid.

You're producing your (first) copy. Maybe you're just charging too little for it! In a free market, you're free to set your asking price. Or charge for the service of creation, not a per-copy charge. If you're any good, you'll still get paid handsomely. You might need to release a few loss-leaders... but that's just a typical strategy for market entry.

You seem to think you own "the song". The song doesn't exist. Only copies exist. You will never show me "the song". Only a copy, whether imprinted on sound waves or photons, or daubed in cow shit on a wall, or (hypothetically at present) recovered from a high-res scan of your brain.

This is physically pretty much indisputable - you're not just fighting me, you're fighting reality. Reality usually wins in the end!

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts

Yeah, that's foo fighters right there. Riiight. And all the constitution says congress is _allowed_ to grant such rights to so if it so chooses, NOT that it MUST. If anything, in america the pirate party would have an easier time in some ways (in europe, there's an additional concept of artist's "moral rights" largely absent from american law).

Re:This was not good to start with

[DenDude]

I expect the poster meant "Screw you" in the pejorative sense, not meaning "I desire intercourse with you". Or do you say "no thanks" to everyone who says "fuck you" to you too? If so, then you're either borderline autistic or just a complete ass.

I expect that I understood what the OP meant, but was thinking that since he didn't know me, he could not possibly actually mean it that way. I mean he's posting anonymously on the internet where "manners matter", so I was certainly hoping he meant it as an invitation, rather than a rude obnoxious gesture to someone he doesn't know.
I also expect that you understood that I knew what he meant, but again, you are anonymous, so I'm sure you are just having a bad day, and would never talk like that normally. If that's incorrect, then you are the complete ass.
As far as someone saying "fuck you" to me, the only people that have said that to me (to my face at least) in probably at least 10 years have been my friends, and have said it in a joking manner. I really don't hang out with assholes that would be like that in person.
Also, I'm really not sure what being autistic has to do with it, but I can tell you without reservation that I am actually a complete ass. But I'm sure that the original AC appreciates that you have his back. clown-hat-curly-hair-smiley-face

Re:This was not good to start with

[bentcd]

If people are interested in spending money on something that I produce, I should be the one getting the money, not some no-talent dork who can only copy my cd's and sell them a little cheaper than me.
I can understand why people feel like this but, again, just because people feel they shold get lots of stuff is no reason to give it to them. It is not necessary to give you a monopoly on the artistic stuff you produce, so why should we? If a talentless dork does a better job of distributing your stuff, then it is beneficial for society that he be the one doing this rather than you.
If the Foo Fighters have a great song that everyone wants, they should have the right to make the money from the song.
They should have this right, of course, but then so should everyone else. Unless Foo Fighters are completely inept at distribution, chances are they will be among the people who make the most profit from it since they are the ones in the public eye. Most music fans would prefer to get their stuff from their idols rather than from some third party.
However, if anyone can copy and give away or sell the song on any media, then the band loses money . . .
They do not lose money. What happens is that they earn less money -- _perhaps_. It isn't necessary that Foo Fighters make $millions, it is only necessary that they make enough so they'll find it worthwhile to continue producing music.
. . . and will lose the incentive.
Only if they make too little money. This is unlikely to happen unless they are either crap artists or have an abysmal online presence.
Just a nit-pick here, but copyright is not just a "legislated" thing, it's a constitutional thing.
I don't live in the US so this isn't much of an issue to me personally. I do believe the US constitution says that copyright _can_ exist though, not that it _must_. The reason it says this is presumably that the founding fathers realised that Copyright is a direct threat to everyone's basic rights and so for congress to be allowed to instate it, the Constitution had to explicitly say that they could (or else they would have been barred from doing so by the wording of the 10th or 11th amendment, can't remember off hand).

Re:This was not good to start with

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, ok then, change it to "another political party for immoral and greedy actions."

Re:This was not good to start with

[DenDude]

If the Foo Fighters have a great song that everyone wants, they should have the right to make the money from the song.
They should have this right, of course, but then so should everyone else. Unless Foo Fighters are completely inept at distribution, chances are they will be among the people who make the most profit from it since they are the ones in the public eye. Most music fans would prefer to get their stuff from their idols rather than from some third party.

Okay, I have to ask this, because I really just don't understand. I don't mean this as a troll at all, I just don't understand the idea that someone else has the right to profit from my invention/idea/song/poem or whatever else. I really don't understand this philosophy. I gotta get back to work now, but please let me know what it is that I don't get. And seriously, I'm not trolling here.

BTW: I appreciate the conversation, very eloquent arguments, and I look forward to conversing with you in the future. Much better than the standard /. AC's and their ilk.

PS: And you are correct, it's the 10th amendment.

Re:This was not good to start with

[westlake]

In a capitalist system, anyone would be entitled to manufacture and offer the goods for sale. Supply would then fluctuate with general interest in the goods and the profit that could be made from providing them, unlike the fixed pricing schemes we are seeing with today's monopolistic situation.

You are confusing capitalism with an idealized free market in commomplace goods and services.

One bushel of wheat is pretty much like every other bushel of wheat. In theory. Your costs are pretty much the same as everyone elses. In theory. Entry and exit from the market is easy. In theory.

The reality is that 4 million farmers feed 300 million people domestically and support a rich export market The reality is that most farm families have been in the business for generations, my own since 1690.

The cultural enterprise is a very different world.

It is and will remain hand-craft. Live performance. The production of a movie. The writing of a book. It is trivially easy to make the copy, it is hard to produce the master work. The Geek never seems to grasp the distinction.

--or he papers it over when it becomes an inconvenience.

Re:This was not good to start with

[drsquare]

Might I remind you that the founding politicians of America were violating many English laws and guilty of leading revolts against the British Crown

What does that have to do with a Swedish politics exactly? Not everyone thinks that the American revolution was a noble cause, especially considering the result.

This whole issue is a farce, I can't think of any serious person who thinks that piracy should be legal. Their whole manifesto is completely unworkable and ridiculous, and just reeks of attention seeking.

Politics is enough of a circus already, we don't need clown parties.

Re:This was not good to start with

[palad1]

Interesting?

Wow. Guess I need to brush-up on my bible reading, I skipped the "god bless america" part.

Maybe the mod was looking for [funny] instead :/

Re:This was not good to start with

[stinerman]

Actually, you can post in threads you moderate in so long as you log out after the moderation and then post as AC.

Re:This was not good to start with

[stnf]

I don't really understand what your second sentance has to do with anything. America? Aren't we talking about Sweden here? Also, isn't your statement true for most western countries?

Re:This was not good to start with

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL, what a fucking idiotic comment.

That's a sign of democratic health, and you often try make major law reforms by political means.

Re:This was not good to start with

[bzipitidoo]

Hypocrites? There is one sort of free speech I hope never gets anywhere: saying people shouldn't have freedom of speech. Often defended with the very freedom they speak against. Very noble, putting freedom of speech ahead of your "think of the children" worst-case use scenario, but I think the argument is a straw man. People, including children, can be electrocuted, run over with SUVs, shot, stabbed, hanged, irradiated, drowned, and on and on. And while there's debate over banning guns and nuclear power plants, and some talk of restrictions for safety and other reasons on the others, I don't hear any serious calls to totally ban electricity, knives, ropes, swimming pools, and SUVs. I hope freedom of speech remains in the same league as electricity.

Re:This was not good to start with

[Kjella]

Tell me, exactly, what is 'capitalistic' about the current 'intellectual property' system? Do you know what capitalism is?

A lot of big corporations make big money off it. That seems to be the current definition of "capitalist".

Re:This was not good to start with

[morgan_greywolf]

A lot of big corporations make big money off it. That seems to be the current definition of "capitalist".

I hope you're not serious.

And I do hope, sincerely, that people understand that the reason they can buy the things that they buy and the reason they can work for any company they like and the reason that they can start any sort of legitimate business is that they live in a capitalist system.

Re:This was not good to start with

[drsmithy]

If I can't be guarenteed that I would be the sole owner of something that I create, I would have little profit incentive to create it.

Note that (legally) being considered the "sole owner" of something and also allowing other people to copy it are *not* mutually exclusive.

Ideas and information are not physical items. Any system which tries to treat them as such, and denies their fundamental properties, is broken by design.

Re:This was not good to start with

[drsmithy]

If people are interested in spending money on something that I produce, I should be the one getting the money, not some no-talent dork who can only copy my cd's and sell them a little cheaper than me.

But why should you be paid for the one bit of work more than once ? No-one else (except others riding the copyright gravy train) is.

But that's exactly why we need the protections offered by copyright. If the Foo Fighters have a great song that everyone wants, they should have the right to make the money from the song.

Abolishing copyright does not remove their "right" to make money from the song. All it does is remove the ease with which they can make money from the song by not allowing them to sell it over and over and over and over again without actually having to produce it more than once.

However, if anyone can copy and give away or sell the song on any media, then the band loses money, and will lose the incentive.

Not making money != losing money.

Just a nit-pick here, but copyright is not just a "legislated" thing, it's a constitutional thing.

Note that the "constitutional thing" doesn't say anything about the right to make money, or even control distribution. Simply ensuring that no one person could ever claim credit for another's work, would meet the constitutional "requirements".

Copyright - by every meaningful definition of the word - is most certainly a "legislative thing".

Re:This was not good to start with

[drsmithy]

It is and will remain hand-craft. Live performance. The production of a movie. The writing of a book. It is trivially easy to make the copy, it is hard to produce the master work.

Then why is there so much of it ? Why was there so much of it before copyright was even an idea, let alone a law ?

Re:This was not good to start with

[aussie_a]

But the most important part, they don't allow criminals to vote. So those who have been charged with unjust crimes aren't allowed to use their power that in a free society, every citizen needs, to vote for someone who will undo the unjust law.

Re:This was not good to start with

[magetoo]

Dude, before you assume this or that, please at least read the US analogue site's issues page: Issues.

Or better yet, go to Piratpartiet's own site. Then, navigate through the complex maze that is as follows: International -> English.

Yes, it's hard to believe, but they actually foresaw that there would be some international interest in this whole thing. :-)

By the way, thanks for posting the HTML as plaintext - made quoting easier.

Re:This was not good to start with

[kayditty]

Uhh, I'm sure he knew that... thus the reason he replied in the thread the way he did?? Unfortunately, he got "modded down" for it. Fortunately, most people probably don't give a shit about stupid Slashdot moderations.

Re:This was not good to start with

[bentcd]

I just don't understand the idea that someone else has the right to profit from my invention/idea/song/poem or whatever else.
One might see it as a necessary evil I suppose. It is imperative, if our society is to move forwards, that the barriers to furthering our culture are as small as possible. Copyright represents a substantial barrier to this progress, and when we are now moving into an age where _everyone_ can effectively contribute to our culture, it is important that they be given the opportunity to do so. This means that doing so has to be free of charge. The most effective way (and, really, the only way) to do this is to build upon what others have done before you. This means that the works of others must be freely available, not only to copy and distribute, but to build on as well.
If the works of others are protected by draconian copyright laws, however, this is never going to happen. So copyright has to go so that we may move forward.
I also see it as a bit strange that intellectual production should be so different from physical production. If you produce a hammer and sell it, no one would expect you to want to have a say in what happens to that hammer for the rest of its existence. There is no fundamental reason why ideas should be different. The only reason we have become used to that idea anyway is that we have had very ineffecient distribution systems that have meant that the author needed to maintain a monopoly at least until the product managed to reach the market.
Today, intellectual production should be held to much the same standards as physical production: you produce an idea, you sell it to the most immediately interested parties (your most avid fans, the early adopters, etc.) and you move on to the next idea. You cannot rely on one single good piece of entertainment to keep you and your heirs wealthy for decades to come - instead you must keep producing on a regular basis.
Some superstars excepted, I don't expect this model is too different from what is actually happening today anyway. Non-superstar artists tend to have to produce new stuff and/or keep doing live performances and the like to make ends meet already. Copyright is only there to provide for the middle man (distributor) and he is not needed anymore so copyright can go.

Re:This was not good to start with

[Mycroft_VIII]

It's not so much that they have the 'right' to profit from your expression, it's that bar congress excersizing it's right to limit that to you, you have no right to stop them.
    Also one must consider the inherent conflict between the right to free expression and the limited(in theory at least) limited monopoly granted in copyright laws. Fair use likely results in part from this conflict.
    The reason copyright is not on the same plane as property rights is because ideas and expressions are not naturally limited. If someone give you a car they no longer have that car, but they can give you an idea and yet still keep it for themselves. THIS is why so many are so vocal about copyright infringement NOT being theft.

Mycroft

Re:This was not good to start with

[bentcd]

The cultural enterprise is a very different world. It is and will remain hand-craft.
So is knitting, but when someone sells a hand-knitted sweater, they're not given life-long rights to decide the uses you may make of that sweater.
Live performance.
A live performance isn't an intellectual work - it's a physical performance. You cannot actually copy and sell a live performance because by the time this product reaches a consumer it is, by definition, no longer live.
People will continue to pay for live performances even if there is no copyright. In fact, especially if there is no copyright, but now we're veering a bit off course.

Re:This was not good to start with

[Mr2001]

But that's exactly why we need the protections offered by copyright. If the Foo Fighters have a great song that everyone wants, they should have the right to make the money from the song. Assuming that they are a great band, and make great music, lots of people will want the music.

You're thinking about it backwards.

If the Foo Fighters are known for writing great music, then lots of people will want them to write more music. Even without copyright, they can still say "Hey fans, we have some great ideas for our next album. We need $100,000 to write and record it. Click here to send us some money. We'll start work once we hit $50,000, and when we reach our goal, everyone will get to hear the album."

Copyright treats music (as well as software, movies, and other information) as a good to be mass-produced and sold in discrete little packages, but that's not really what it is. The value in a song comes from the talent and effort that went into making it, and you can sell that talent and effort just like any other service. Musicians can make a living by following the very same business model as barbers or mechanics: doing work in exchange for money.

Re:This was not good to start with

[init100]

I'd speculate that voters were told and recognized that putting the Pirate Party in power (even a tiny bit of power) would have been reacted to harshly by U.S. companies and government agencies who are still no doubt smarting from the failed Pirate Bay closure.

I don't think so. Most voters were simply more concerned with what they perceive as more important issues, such as the unemployment rate. The previous administration was hiding unemployment in various ways, e.g. by giving the unemployed useless work to do or putting them into useless "education" programmes, while removing them from the unemployment statistics. Thus, they could claim an unemployment rate of 4% instead of the actual 17%. Voters were sick of this, and of the previous prime minister, who claimed that jobs were now appearing, even if no unemployed ever saw them. Of the last 70 years, the Social Democrats have ruled for more than 60 years. I guess they were too confident that they would be re-elected.

Sweden's White House (whatever they call it).

We don't have an analogue to the american White House, which is a combined workplace and residence for the president. The prime minister of Sweden's office is in Rosenbad, and his official residence is Sagerska Palatset. The analogue to the US Congress is the Swedish Riksdag, which is situated at Riksdagshuset.

Re:This was not good to start with

[init100]

Now, I can't read swedish,

They have a page in english too. It would be strange if they didn't, giving the amount of attention the party have received abroad. :)

Re:This was not good to start with

[de Siem]

As valid as your point is regarding the marxist party, there are other parties, too. there is a northern country (forgot which) who has a party, which wants to legalize sex with children. That Northern cou ntry would be the Netherlands. Heck there even is an English wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naastenliefde,_Vrijhe id_&_Diversiteit

Re:This was not good to start with

[RhettLivingston]

As a country, I believe the US has forgotten this. Regrettably, the Congress has at least a dual role, enacting laws and determining the budget. The biggest factor in politics here is not changing the laws, its changing the way the budget is spent. Sadly, both of the major parties always want to spend more, just in different ways. I personally believe that separate bodies should have been created to perform these two very different jobs. Then, people would have candidates to elect based on nothing more than the direction they would like to see the law take and more thought would go into that direction. As it stands now though, its more about who is giving you the most money.

Re:This was not good to start with

[nine-times]

The biggest factor in politics here is not changing the laws, its changing the way the budget is spent.

Especially so since, in the US, the Federal Government is severely limited in what laws it can make. Granted, they've snuck a whole lot of things in under the name of "interstate commerce", but technically most law-making ability is supposed to be held by the individual states. Therefore, spending money is a way to exert control. The more money they spend, the more control they exert.

Re:This was not good to start with

[Ahruman]

Very insightful. In fact, there's hardly a point to having a political party that is advocating legal actions, unless those legal actions are under threat.

Exactly right - and this is what the Pirate Party is really about. Until last year, it was legal in Sweden to copy a CD for a friend; that right was removed as a result of corporate lobbying. At the moment, we have a constitutional right to private communication, regardless of medium (although it's commonly referred to as "letter secrecy"); the previous Swedish government was a driving force behind the EU's Data Retention Directive, which removes this right for e-mail and SMS communication. Unfortunately, the Swedish constitution is relatively easy to change and thus not a major obstacle, and the new government is likely to support the DRD. A number of recent laws have been passed and proposals made to allow such things as wire-tapping people who are acquainted with people who the police think might commit a crime (i.e., people and friends of people who are not actual suspects), the installation of cameras in their homes, and the installation of spyware on their computers with little or no oversight.

Naturally, this is motivated with the need to combat terrorism and child pornography. Equally unsurprisingly, none of the laws and proposals have actually limited the powers they grant to major crimes. It is the view of the Pirate Party that these Orwellian laws regarding government control of information and the laws being passed to allow corporations complete control of culture are so intertwined that they must be fought together. Our very right to privacy -ownlife, in newspeak - is under threat.

Re:This was not good to start with

[Ahruman]

It's nice to see a civil thread of discussion on this topic in this somewhat... acerbic... forum.

I'd just like to add that the Swedish Pirate Party (there are several others now) does not advocate the abolition of copyright, but limitation of its scope to only apply to for-profit copying, and limitation of the term to five years (which I personally consider a bit small for most types of works, but it's a tweak factor). In other words, the suggested reform would maintain the commercial monopoly on artistic works during the period when they are typically most profitable. It would also weaken the monopoly on derived works, in order to allow such things as collages and mechanime music videos, which are legitimate cultural productions (regardless of your estimation of their cultural value) which the current system actively suppresses.

Re:This was not good to start with

[bentcd]

Not being an active politician, I generally don't have to take realpolitik into account too much. What I describe is what I consider an ideal situation.
I believe we will start moving towards this ideal within a generation, and chances are we'll be mostly there in two to three generations. It really needs for current legislators and judges to be replaced with today's young people before it comes to full fruition: The current establishment simply doesn't understand the true capabilities of modern technology the way that the young generation does.
As for the short term, the barriers to abolishing copyright are too great to have much hope of it happening any time soon. We have a huge entertainment industry that will need some time to reorient itself, and we should give it this time. We also have numerous international treaties that will need to be renegotiated for this reform to be possible, and that will most likely take decades in itself.
In the mean time, I'll keep advocating my ideals :-)

Re:This was not good to start with

[Mateo_LeFou]

I think it was assumed that you were just trying to get a rise out of people by saying amazingly stupid things. If you were actually sincere, then geez I don't know what to say to you, man.

Re:This was not good to start with

[Mateo_LeFou]

I would also like to commend you on levelheaded sincerity. Bentcd said a lot of useful things, but I'll add some thoughts:

When you write code, music, or anything that we currently treat as "intellectual property", you are consciously or subconsciously using the ideas, expressions, etc. of hundreds of people who went before you and discovered -- for example -- that a triad built on the Dominant resolves to the Tonic in a way that pleases the ear, or that insertion-sort is more efficient than bubble sort. You do not compensate anyone for these pieces of "intellectual property", but you also do not harm anyone. Where there is no harm, talking about "protection" of intellectual property doesn't make much sense.

At this point people generally talk about "lost sales" (this is what underlies your foo fighters example). The foo fighters, indeed, make more money because the govt. prohibits their output from being copied and sold for a profit by others. They would make even more money if you had to pay them again each time you listened to their CD. They would make even more money if people had to pay a royalty in order to hum their tunes, or discuss their lyrics, or think about them at all.

The question of effective copyright is not "did they lose money" but "at what point do the costs associated with guaranteeing their income outweigh the benefits that are derived from their cultural output." If the state completely withdrew all enforecment of copyright, some people somewhere would still write/produce music, for kicks, and toss it out there into the public domain. You'd have X songs of quality Y. To justify copyright, you need to demonstrate the state's interest in having some other number or quality of songs produced, then demonstrate that the copyright scope & term recommended is the minimum required to "incentivize" this extra creative production.

The pirate party thinks a 5 year term is about right. The reasoning is that most songs/movies/etc. make their profit in that time or not at all. So the cultural landscape would be -- say -- 90% unchanged from what it is now. That "extra" 10% does not justify the "extra" 100-something years of copyright term that US law provides.

Nelson:

[Anonymous Coward]

Harr Harr!

logic explained

[thedrunkensailor]

I just ran for president of Sweden for the pirate party. Obviously the "DrunkenSailor" was a write-in and I lost. But it's for the better; who wants to lead a country that houses dirty war and drug money and is known only for neutrality (not of the net) and watches and knives. oh wait. there are hot chicks there, write me in damnit

Re:logic explained

[Anonymous Coward]

Sweden, Switzerland, it's all the same!

Re:logic explained

[wwiiol_toofless]

There's Switzerland and Sweden. All the same to a drunken sailor, I suppose.

Re:logic explained

[thedrunkensailor]

it is to a pirate! GARRR!

Re:logic explained

[LSD-OBS]

I think you mean Switzerland. As in, Swiss knives, Swiss chocolate, Swiss borders that are a whole lot less anal than most other European countries, etc.

Sweden is where the good pr0n and cheap furniture comes from.

Re:logic explained

[chrismcdirty]

Sweden has the bikini team. Switzerland has the watches, knives, chocolate, and cuckoo clocks. Two different countries.

Re:logic explained

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you've mistaken Switzerland for Sweden. Sweden is in Africa.

Re:logic explained

[AceCaseOR]

Arrr! Ye would think not, as Switzerland be land-locked. Naught but land-lubbers there, me hearty!

Re:logic explained

[thedrunkensailor]

they do have quite the navy though!

Re:logic explained

[LSD-OBS]

Argh. It's far too easy to confuse that with the Japanese island of Swaziland.

Re:logic explained

[Proud like a god]

Erm it's the Swiss with the banks, watches and knives...

Re:logic explained

[thedrunkensailor]

I was really pushing to combine the two - neither has enough good to be alone. they go together like honey and ham. [touche though]

Re:logic explained

[Ana10g]

who wants to lead a country that houses dirty war and drug money and is known only for neutrality (not of the net) and watches and knives.

Isn't that Switzerland, not Sweden? As in the SWISS army knife, SWISS watch, SWISS bank accounts, etc? Sweden is, however, mostly neutral militarily speaking. And the Swedish bikini team will totally beat the Swiss bikini team, because the Swiss don't have an ocean.
Gosh!

Re:logic explained

[thedrunkensailor]

so wait - other than women who are beautiful (which is enough), what does sweden have thats cool?

Re:logic explained

[Lex-Man82]

That's because they've got money falling out of every orifice. The average wage is something like $300K. They buy loads of great army type stuff insist that everyone has to spend a little while in there army defending there country, while refusing to go to war with anyone.

noobs.

Re:logic explained

[_Laban_]

The climate.

(well, it was 24C a week ago here in Gothenburg, but it sounded good :D)

Re:logic explained

[Per Wigren]

so wait - other than women who are beautiful (which is enough), what does sweden have thats cool?

IKEA, Volvo, Ericsson, MySQL, The Pirate Bay, ABBA and meatballs.

Re:logic explained

[Friggo]

Winters.

Re:logic explained

[CastrTroy]

However, it also costs $5.00 to sit down and have a cup of coffee. Everything is relative. My dad went on a business trip to switzerland, and was amazed at the price of even simple things. Thank diety his company paid for it all. You need to be making $300K in that country just to make ends meet.

Re:logic explained

[anandsr]

Not really. The swiss are a traditional bunch. They don't eat out that much. So the prices are high. If you are not always eating out, it is quite OK.

Re:logic explained

[Dunbal]

I think you've mistaken Switzerland for Sweden. Sweden is in Africa.


      And I think you've mistaken Africa for Scandinavia. Scandinavia is in the middle of the pacific, near Hawaii.

Re:logic explained

[Dunbal]

All the same to a drunken sailor, I suppose.

      Any sailor who ends up in Switzerland is in BIG trouble considering it's a land-locked country.

Re:logic explained

[Anonymous Coward]

Argh

Couldn't have said it better myself, matey!

Re:logic explained

[LSD-OBS]

Oh noes, poirates! RUM AWAY!

Re:logic explained

[Anonymous Coward]

And the Swedish bikini team will totally beat the Swiss bikini team, because the Swiss don't have an ocean. Gosh!

That explains why Switzerland won the America's Cup (a yachting race) in 2003. Oh wait a minute...

Re:logic explained

[DenDude]

so wait - other than women who are beautiful (which is enough), what does sweden have thats cool?

Sweden has IKEA!! http://www.jonathancoulton.com/lyrics/ikea... And that's enough for me.

Thanks Jonathan for a great song.

Re:logic explained

[Ana10g]

Wait... ABBA is cool? Didn't congress try to ban them for too many bad '70s references?

Re:logic explained

[owlnation]

Actually, IKEA is Dutch. It used to be Swedish though.

Volvo is actually owned by Ford, and although you didn't mention them, SAAB is owned by GM - or at least the car company is - I guess the aircraft are still Swedish.

The woman are however, as previously mentioned, indeed hot. And that is all one needs to know...sigh...

Re:logic explained

[lordmetroid]

IKEA can not be dutch! The guy who owns it(yes, it is one guy who privately owns whole of IKEA) is Swedish!

Re:logic explained

[Anonymous Coward]

Volvo Cars are owned by Ford
Volvo makes Trucks, Buses, Constructions Equipment, Marine Engines and Aerospace equipment

Re:logic explained

[MMC Monster]

And the Netherlands is where Peter Pan lives.

Re:logic explained

[drsmithy]

However, it also costs $5.00 to sit down and have a cup of coffee. Everything is relative. My dad went on a business trip to switzerland, and was amazed at the price of even simple things. Thank diety his company paid for it all. You need to be making $300K in that country just to make ends meet.

I've just spent a week in our Zurich office, since I'm considering a move there for a year or two and I found the price comparisons interesting...

(Bear in mind this is comparing to Australian prices. It was actually very easy, since a Swiss Franc and an Australian Dollar are worth almost the same).

I found the most noticably higher expenses were eating (and drinking) out. You're luck to get away with a relatively simple meal for two and a couple of beers, for less than $80 - $100. Considering $80-$100 in Australia will easily buy you a nice meal *and* a bottle of wine, even in a Sydney restaurant, that's damn expensive.

Food & drink from supermarkets, OTOH, was only marginally more expensive. Except for some types of meats, which were very expensive.

Luxury items - PSPs, iPods, etc - seemed to cost the same as they would in Australia.

Public transport (well, I only used the trams) was quite reasonably priced and worked well.

I couldn't really compare rents, but from what I understand they're relatively high and bargains are pretty much nonexistant (ie: no matter what you look at in a certain price bracket, they're all going to basically the same). Buying property - at least in Zurich - is practically unheard of for anyone who isn't extremely wealthy.

All in all, it was a very nice place. The most amazing thing, to me, was that the river and lake in Zurich is so clean you can see the bottom in shallower areas, and people happily swim in it. All I need to do now is learn to speak German :).

Re:logic explained

[Anonymous Coward]

I beleive that that guy actually owns a foundation that owns IKEA, that foundation itself is registered in the Netherlands. However, claiming that IKEA is Dutch is like claming that Volvo is American (owned by ford).

IKEA does have a clear Swedish profile, evident by the names on the furniture and the existance of the Swedish food store in virtually every IKEA outside of Scandinavia (ofcourse, having a Dutch food store wouldn't be a big hit (who ever invented bitterballen??? that guy should be shot)).

Re:logic explained

[init100]

Obviously, it can. Apparently (according to the Wikipedia article on IKEA), the holding companies, e.g. Stichting INGKA Foundation, that own the IKEA stores are registered in the Netherlands. INGKA means Ingvar Kamprad, the founder of IKEA, and he is also the chairman of the INGKA Foundation.

In my view it is still Swedish, just registered somewhere else, probably to evade Swedish taxes, which are the highest in the world.

Re:logic explained

[_Hellfire_]

And remember: Dutch people come from the Netherlands *not* the Netherregions

Re:logic explained

[Ahruman]

As a Swede who used to live in Swaziland, and has got both countries confused with each other and with Switzerland, I just have to say: I want to have your babies. Once someone's invented reversible, safe sex-change pills, that is.

First lesson...

[Anonymous Coward]

... rename the party.

Re:First lesson...

[Apocalypse111]

Of course they should rename the party! Pirates are so lame. To ensure success, they should have called themselves the Ninja Party. Clearly a superior title.

Avast, me hearties!

[geckosan]

Arrr, 'tis International Talk Like A Pirate Day! What a fell blow to pirates everywhere! Let's keel-haul the negative vibes by keepin' the parlance circa 1700's, me hearties!

Re:Avast, me hearties!

[Apocalypse111]

Encrypt the data holds, batton down tha security patches, argh thar be spyware abound!

Re:Avast, me hearties!

[Tackhead]

> Arrr, 'tis International Talk Like A Pirate Day! What a fell blow to pirates everywhere! Let's keel-haul the negative vibes by keepin' the parlance circa 1700's, me hearties!

Arrrr! And next time, we'll win, by gum, for we'll have Diebold votin' machines doin' the countin' for us! (Get away from my poop deck, CmdrTaco :)

Re:Avast, me hearties!

[chicagoan]

Killer website dedicated to this fine holiday: http://www.talklikeapirateday.com/wordpress/

Re:Avast, me hearties!

[Andrewkov]

You must have seen that show Wife Swap on TV last night! One whole family were living the pirate lifestyle (minus the raping and pilaging)

I am a pirate.

[Anonymous Coward]

I use bittorrent to get files for free. It's cheap, fun and easy.

A shame

[riffzifnab]

Tis grievous black news this most sacred of days to pirates round the globe: Talk Like a Pirate Day. Arrrr, it does bring a tear to my eye. Pas me grog and this one be fer ye, pirate party.

Re:A shame

[Anonymous Coward]

omg n00b, reel piratez spk lyk dis, often on IRC chnls called #w4rez

Re:A shame

[morgan_greywolf]

omg n00b, reel piratez spk lyk dis, often on IRC chnls called #w4rez

l4m3 p0z3r n00b. scr4m b4 i pwn ur b0x!

How about a transhumanist party?

[Cybert4]

Transhumanism promises things far greater than free copying. We promies lifespans in the trillions of years. The elimination of sleep. A brain the size of Jupiter. Beats rice subsidies, eh?

Re:How about a transhumanist party?

[FhnuZoag]

But how many votes does a hive mind get?

Re:How about a transhumanist party?

[SigILL]

But how many votes does a hive mind get?

As many as it wants.

Re:How about a transhumanist party?

[Anonymous Coward]

I joined the Transhumanist party because once I achieve singularity, I'll be able to copy much more free stuff.

Re:How about a transhumanist party?

[iced_773]

A brain the size of a Jupiter.

A brain the size of a planet and all people want it to do is copy files... :(

Re:How about a transhumanist party?

[Dunbal]

Ahhh but OUR heaven has a beer volcano!

Re:How about a transhumanist party?

[vertinox]

It would be easier to donate to the singularity institute.

Re:How about a transhumanist party?

[ocelotbob]

Who would want to wait hundreds, if not thousands of years for beer? Now, if you had, say, an ocean of beer, that would be different.

Re:How about a transhumanist party?

[pjt33]

Well, that makes your promises more realistic than those of most British politicians.

Re:How about a transhumanist party?

[magetoo]

Yeah, but you're in for a surprise when you discover that Sony/Microsoft/whoever has a patent that covers a part of the program that is your mind, and they start sending C&D letters. One thing at a time. :-)

(But what would a transhumanist party actually do? And could it even really be democratic, giving equal voting power to everyone? (And what if I fork() ?)

Re:How about a transhumanist party?

[Cybert4]

Well, if all goes well, you pretty much have a god who can overpower the entire collection of humanity. So, that's not very democratic. But I would imagine a transhumanist party supporting a lot of neuroscience research, and relaxing restrictions such as animal cruelty. You can go either the state route or private money. People will give if they know there won't be restrictions.

WHAT!

[_PimpDaddy7_]

THey did this on Talk Like A Pirate Day?!

ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!
Shiver me timbers!!!!!!!!!!

Re:WHAT!

[Anonymous Coward]

Shiver your own timbers, wise-guy.

Serious

[Enderandrew]

Perhaps if they have a serious name, and carried themselves in a more serious manner, people would have voted for them. I agree that someone needs to look into privacy and intellectual property laws who understands them. But I wouldn't seriously vote for a "Pirate" party.

Re:Serious

[Apocalypse111]

Perhaps a Ninja Party instead?

Re:Serious

[CastrTroy]

At least they're not trying to hide their intentions. Liberal parties who aren't liberal seem to come to mind. Democratic parties that fix elections. I would applaud them for letting people know their intentions, and stop trying to have a hidden agenda.

Re:Serious

[Anonymous Coward]

If you pick your candidates based on the name of their party, you deserve whatever policies you get stuck with.

Re:Serious

[Kjella]

Would you vote for a "Copyright reform party"? Chances are it'd be a 0.006% party instead. They only have one case, but they made the most of it. They got headlines, they got members, they've significantly influenced the other parties. Yes, it does come back to bite you but otherwise there wouldn't be anything to bite. Sure, they're 0.64% (at last check) but it's what, 2/3rds the size of the Liberitarian party (0.9% according to United States House elections, 2004). Starting off a party, getting people to listen is hard, really hard. It's in fact easier to start out as a nutjob and get attention then convincing them you have something real to say than to never reach out at all.

Re:Serious

[Enderandrew]

The Reform Party (which I voted for before they went wacko-nut-job) got something like 14% of the popular vote. They suggested looking at government like a business, looking to audit and cut costs, remove red tape, and place serious limits on money Congress could take to remove corruption. Congress responded by making it illegal for the Reform Party to appear in debates. So much for freedom of speech, and free elections.

If you look over Perot's platform it is both very promising and reasonable. The detractors said that because Perot was rich that he would be pro big-business, but in fact Perot pushed for higher taxes on the wealthy, and taxing capital gains more. You see, most rich people form a corporation, even if it exists solely as themselves to avoid paying taxes. Every purchase is in fact, a tax deductable purchase for their corporation, and at the end of the year, they've spent all their company's income, and don't pay any taxes. My parents used to do it.

If the wealthy in this country paid any real taxes, we wouldn't have budget issues.

If copyright < life + 50 then no WTO for you

[tepples]

Well considering those actions are not against the law, they are not illegal (please try and remember, different countries have different laws...)

But if you don't harmonize or harmonise your laws to those of the United States and European Union, you won't be able to join the treaty organizations that can get you favorable trading status with the developed world.

Dawgs??

[Any Web Loco]

Pirates be straight outta Compton!

About 1 issue Parties

[Azeron]

Regardless of how much merit the Pirate Pary may have about copyrights, I think that making a party just about abolisihing the copyright may have been a strategic mistake. as a voter, I would never vote for a party that basically just did away with copyrights, because of all the things the government does that affects my life, copyrights are only a small part of it. I am more concerned about taxes, jobs the crime rate. If I felt all this was being taken care of, then I might vote for a "pirate party", but as clearly demonstrated in the election, most sweeds have a bigger problem with the socialists than the copyright laws.

Re:About 1 issue Parties

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that making a party just about abolisihing the copyright may have been a strategic mistake.

That's not their position, please inform yourself first.

The "lost vote" argument

[Opportunist]

That's most likely what they tipped over: It's a "lost vote" 'cause they won't make it anyway and so on.

In fact, if you do the math, you'll see that in the long run, it does usually not matter. Coalitions are rarely formed with a single vote majority, usually the majorities are held with substancially more seats than the one or two that MIGHT have been to their favor if you just didn't vote for the "underdog" party instead.

In fact, though, they want that seat, if for no other reason than to sit on of their guys there and cash in more for their party from the governmental pot. So, if you vote for a party that furthers your agendas, even if they don't make it into parlament, the parties that are in there will try to get that odd 2 percent of voters by adding that agenda to their portfolio.

In short, your vote will move more with the underdog party than with the one that you could vote for instead. When you're already in, 2% is not a significant change when it comes to coalition talks. But it's usually one or two seats in parlament, and boy, they want that seats!

Re:The "lost vote" argument

[elsilver]

Coalitions are rarely formed with a single vote majority

In my experience, "coalitions" are rarely formed with a single anything - that's what makes them a coalition.

Further, and it may be different in Sweden, but majority parties seldom form coalitions: they already have enough seats (ie. a majority) to carry their agenda through.

Sorry, couldn't let it by.

E.

Re:The "lost vote" argument

[emilv]

There are no "majority parties" in Sweden anymore. We have two "blocks", the red ones (socialists) and the blue ones (capitalists). In each block there are three (the red) or four (the blue) parties. They have to work together or else they won't be in majority.

If the Pirate Party had got into the parliament, they would get enough seats to be in a position where both blocks would need them to form majority. The Pirate Party could choose the ones they liked the most, i.e. the ones that would be willing to reform the copyright and patent laws.

Single issue parties

[DeadPrez]

are at least as bad as single issue voters.

Now get on that position paper to describe why IP freedom will improve government services, shrink the cost of healthcare, decrease taxes all while creating both long and short term job growth and increasing global competitiveness.

Re:Single issue parties

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you implying that it's worse than the current situation, where your options are 2-5 combinations (the 'candidates') of non-opinions regarding tens or hundreds of issues? (that would be implying beyond your setting up a false argument of pirate party supporters claiming that IP changes will greatly affect the issues you stated)

Single-issue candidates and voting make at least -some- sense based on the fact that if I find a specific opinion on a specific issue to be very or most important for a specific reason, there are slightly better chances that a candidate who agrees with that opinion on that issue, its importance, and for the same reasons will think similar enough to me on a basic level that I would agree with their representation of me on other issues.

The secret is, that that's exactly how things are now: As it is, we get candidates who align behind a small set of issues..."I am for/against abortion", "I am for/against continuing this conflict". And many people have told me that they voted for Bush solely because he seemed more Christian but now they are upset because they don't perceive "Don't let the terr'rists and the people we strongly imply are terr'rists to see any weakness" to be a Christian response.

Until there's a candidate who supports stronger sex education and contraception instead of making abortion a huge issue, or who supports discussion, negotiation, and pacifism instead of attacking countries and cultures who tell us they don't like what our country is doing, I will be hoping, at the very least, for a single-issue candidate whose single-issue opinion lines up with my number one concern...just like everyone else, except I expect my number ones will be different than the things we're told to care about.

Re:Single issue parties

[magetoo]

The Swedish election system is different from that in the US. It is actually possible for a single-issue party to significantly influence government policies here - Miljöpartiet (The Environment Party; the Greens) did just that. So, without going into too much background about our political system, trust me when I say that there is no need for a party to have solutions for all problems.

From the standpoint of a small party, it's certainly not bad focussing on the core issues, if you think you have a shot of passing the 4% barrier for entry into parliament. Why alienate potential voters by taking sides in issues that aren't absolutely vital? Sure, you and I as voters may dislike single-issue parties - but why should they care, if they can get in?

It Is Necessary

[eldavojohn]

They seemed to advocate that anyone could copy anyone elses intellectrual property without permission. Best summed up as the abolition of conventional capitalism. If they had just been honest and renamed themselves the 'communist party' they might have done a bit better. Hopefully now people will see them for the freeloading jokes that they are.

I would like to first begin by saying that nowhere have I read the Pirate Party will abolish all rights to personal property (as Socialism aims to achieve). Secondly, conventional capitalism can function fine under the engine of providing a service or a good in exchange for money.

Yes, intellectual property is free for anyone to copy but these are just ideas. Capitalism can function just fine if everyone can use anyone's idea for free -- you just suffer less incentive to come up with innovative ideas since copying someone else's is easier.

Freeloading, maybe ... but not the whole way. And it's nowhere close to the extremes of socialism, only in one aspect of it. Most people on /. hate IP laws anyways, let the party run and see what happens. Stop calling them names and let Democracy take it's course!

Re:It Is Necessary

[shutdown -p now]

Whats the point of making new music / movies / agmes / software, all of which is copied trivially.

Inspiration? Artistic impression and desire to share it with others?

Our ancestors had well-developed culture long before copyright laws were first introduced.

oh well,

[joe 155]

It's important that they've learnt things from this and it's interesting to note that they did get quite a few votes. I know people will see less than the 1% limit for government help with adverts etc as a loss, but consider that this is a party which has been around for what... a year? It is so new, it is taking such a radical idea, and it got over 0.5% of the national vote?
That is fantastic!

Don't forget that this is people's vote in a general election. Any are a big deal and most people won't make a choice lightly. They might see votes as a waste because they might not even get anyone in parliament which puts people off voting for them as they want their vote "to count". Also a lot of people in the country will already have aligences to parties and even though they might really agree with the message they might be reluctant to turn against the party which represents what they want overall better. Its hard to have a successful "single issue" party, I'm not sure what their other policies are but they will be important and you need to tell people what these are to let them know that your not just a one trick horse.

Overall though, it's a good effort, don't get too down on them.

Re:oh well,

[joe 155]

replying to myself... I might be insane :S

In the Swedish elections there were issues of massive importance going on. The right of centre party actually won on a promise to cut down on what has been the jewel in the crown of the worlds welfare states, a social democratic state (to use the terms of Esping-Anderson) and one with a high degree of decomodification. This was a big deal to a lot of people. If you look at pretty much any of the literature on the subject of welfare states then you'll see that most people saw the Swedish one as institutionalised and one which would be fatal for anyone to cut back on. A lot of people will have been rallying desperately to increase or at least not move their cradle to grave welfare state. This, as far as I can see (being external to Sweden) would be the big issue, and would take precedence over the right to have a torrent site or not.

As a side note I would say that it is quite shocking that they have voted out the social democratic party, especially when their conventional wisdom says that the two track tax burden (high personal tax but low corporate tax) was working and the welfare state was doing them the world of good.

If anyone is interested in why it might be logical to think this, or just learn more about the politics of welfare states, way you might want to look at an excellent book called "The Real Worlds of Welfare Capitalism" and/or Esping-Anderson's "The Three Worlds of Welfare capitalism". Both are excellent... OK, I know that I've spent too long learning about Welfare states.

Re:oh well,

[Anonymous Coward]

It is so new, it is taking such a radical idea, and it got over 0.5% of the national vote?
That is fantastic!

No, it really is not.

In the US various write-ins get more then that. Mickey Mouse, Darth Vader, Laura Croft, etc... .5% is nothing.

Sure, they get an A for effort, then again in the real world, effort is not worth much.

Re:oh well,

[hpa]

As a side note I would say that it is quite shocking that they have voted out the social democratic party, especially when their conventional wisdom says that the two track tax burden (high personal tax but low corporate tax) was working and the welfare state was doing them the world of good.

It's worth noting that the Centre-Right coalition (for the first time ever campaigning together as a single ticket under the name Alliance for Sweden) did very much announce that they are not going to lower taxes or radically reform the tax system, which is nowadays fairly simple, although the rates are high. They have promised to radically lower or abolish real estate property taxes, however.

What they have announced is to try to get more people into work, using both stick and carrot. Sweden has a highly educated population (it's university system is world class), but due to a hyper-regulated employment market, it's virtually impossible for young people to get jobs, even with advanced university degrees. Thus, a liberalization of the employment market is expected. The trade unions, which are extremely strong in Sweden (and have extremely close ties with the Social Democratic Party), have predictably been overreacting against this, to the point that they have distributed cartoons portraying the Alliance as murders and necrophiles.

Re:oh well,

[Shihar]

The Swedish response this election was by far some of the most mature action I have seen any electorate perform in my life. You can break the arguments down between the two sides with one side saying that things are pleasant now and there is no reason to rock the boat, and the other side asking the electorate to look farther ahead into future then an election or two and see that with the way things are going they can't do this forever and should change now.

I personally am deeply impressed that a political party ran on a very long term goal and won despite the current times being very good in Sweden. To me, that is a sign of a very mature electorate who is taking their job seriously and voting on more then just their own pet short term issues.

I personally wish that my own American electorate could look past '4 more years' and cult of personalities and think in terms of decades. The US has its own different long term dilemmas rising up on the horizon, but I have absolutely no faith in our political establishment to try and deal with them before they are upon us. I don't blame the politicians for our failure to react before disaster though. We put those assholes in power. I blame the people.

So, my hat goes off the Swedish people for their long term outlook. I can only hope (perhaps in futility) that my own people one day acquire the same sort of foresight.

Re:oh well,

[TERdON]

You're wrong, they DID announce they'd lower taxes, just not the tax rates. They're adding a "jobbavdrag" - "work deduction" to the income declaration, lowering taxes by an more or less equal amount for everybody with an employment.

Re:oh well,

[init100]

Don't forget that this is people's vote in a general election. Any are a big deal and most people won't make a choice lightly. They might see votes as a waste because they might not even get anyone in parliament which puts people off voting for them as they want their vote "to count".

Exactly. I have read hundreds of posts on various message boards saying that they sympathize with the Pirate Party, but they wouldn't want to waste their vote on a party that won't make it into the parliament (because of the 4% minimum voting base required to take a seat).

Re:oh well,

[Ahruman]

Er, no. In the 2004 US election, the Mickey Mouse vote constituted less than 1/2000th of the total vote. In fact, the FEC report seems to indicate a total of six votes, all in Rhode Island. For comparison, with the final count nearly complete, variations of "The Donald Duck Party" have recieved 103 votes in the Swedish election, or 0.0019%. A more useful comparision is that the Pirate Party (currently at 34,573 votes, or 0.63%) is ahead of the Swedish Senior Citizen Interest Party and the June List, both of which have been around longer and been percieved as serious candidates for parliament by the media, and is not far behind the Feminist Initiative (0.68%), which has the advantage of being led by a quite popular previous leader of a party with parliamentary representation, having recieved at least some funding and having attracted several celebrites.

Re:oh well,

[freedom_india]

I personally wish that my own American electorate could look past '4 more years' and cult of personalities and think in terms of decades.

Are you out of your fu*kin' mind???

We elected Dubya a Second Time??? What more proof do you need that we have thought of decades ahead???

Oh if you say we need to think of progress decades ahead, then am sorry...

Come on !!! Do you realistically expect the average beer guzzler to tear his eyes away from LOST, Desperate Housewives and American Idol to think and vote???? That's what FOX TV is for !

Maybe in Northeast (MA, NH, etc) dubya may find it very hard, but Ohio, Oregon, Texas, NM, i think dubya will win hands down. These guys haven't yet been directly affected by anything happening around the world (including Global warming), and would prefer their dumb cowboy to represent them for his swashbuckling swagger.

For once i wish there was a time machine, go back in time, push Dubya's National Guard to Vietnam and watch fireworks....

The problem is not their cause

[Xiph]

But that it's scope is way too limit to warrent a political party.

I mean, i support a lot of what they lobby for, but I'd much rather vote for a party which also supports my ideas on a whole range of other issues.
This goes in particular in an election that's been running so close as the swedish one did this time.

Single issue parties, should really stop being parties, and start doing some serious lobbying instead. I do understand that they're doing it, since i realize it can be very hard for young people to be heard by politicians on new and controversial ideas on an old subject.

I hope noone ever gets voted into parliament anywhere based on such a narrow issue, I really feel it would be a double loss for democracy, the first because it should never be the only way to be taken serious, and the second, because once they get in, you'll have no clue on how they vote for issues that are very important to all of us.

Re:The problem is not their cause

[Daniel_Staal]

Single-issue parties can work quite well under some systems of government. In fact, from what I've seen, in a system that supports them they are as good or better than lobbying is in other systems.

But you have to have a coalition-style ruling government for them to have any useful effect. I don't know how Sweden's government is set up, and whether it can support single-issue parties as part of the government.

Re:The problem is not their cause

[Hortensia Patel]

It'll vary enormously from country to country, but here in the UK single-issue parties are doing lobbying. Sometimes serious, sometimes not, but lobbying. Thanks to first-past-the-post they never get elected at the national level, and don't expect to. The point is to get a noticeable share in a marginal seat, so that the big parties think "Hmm, if we just adopt that policy, it'd give us enough votes to tip the election."

The restriction to marginal seats does limit the effectiveness of this kind of thing, of course, but campaign finance in the UK isn't as b0rked as in the US - you can't just buy the legislation you want openly. (You can buy titles and the like, but it's generally considered sleazy by the few people who still care.)

Re:The problem is not their cause

[Reaper9889]

Not really. My brother tried to get into a local goverment, with only one issue. He didnt succed either (missed by a 0,1% or so (I cant remember the excat numbers)). He had excatly one wish and used/uses alot of his time at it now, not because he still tries but because he managed to get it through. They doesnt need to get in. They need to get egough focus at the subject and egough people behind it to make the goverment do it. Its not hard to make someone do something in a goverment if you are the only side represented (And I dont really think the swedish version of RIAA (I dont know if they even got any) is much of a player). If they can see that they could add even 0,5% additionel votes or how ever many that did vote for the pirate party without any real lose they would be stupid (from my pow atleast) not to go for it.

Re:The problem is not their cause

[asuffield]

But that it's scope is way too limit to warrent a political party.

The Pirate Party is really more of a pressure group. They'll never control the government, but they can and probably will make it very hard for any government to act against their interests (which should prove to be an effective counterbalance to bribes from the media cartels). They run for elections because Sweden's electoral system encourages this behaviour; it gets them into places where they can get their message across and forces the other parties to come up with answers.

I hope noone ever gets voted into parliament anywhere based on such a narrow issue

Sweden disagrees with you. Their electoral system has been specifically designed to get single-issue parties into parliament. They get a couple of seats, and trade votes with the major parties (so, the minor party will follow the major party's line in exchange for the major party taking on their cause; this can often result in a coalition of parties that would not otherwise have held a majority in parliament). This is primarily of significance with the environmentalism minority, but there's no reason why it should not apply to others.

It's about as sane as any other representational democracy, and helps keep minorities satisfied.

Re:The problem is not their cause

[magetoo]

But that it's scope is way too limit to warrent a political party.

I mean, i support a lot of what they lobby for, but I'd much rather vote for a party which also supports my ideas on a whole range of other issues.

I think everyone would agree with you here. Who would not want to vote for a party that "supports your ideas on a whole range of issues"?

But where exactly do you find such a party? We currently have seven major political parties in parliament, and none of them fit with the things I care about. Start my own?

I assure you, if I could pick and choose policies, I'd most likely come up with such "unnatural" combinations (I like the environment - and personal freedom! And state-sponsored healthcare too?! Gasp!) that the resulting party would hardly receive more than 0.5% in an election anyway.

Re:The problem is not their cause

[init100]

I don't know how Sweden's government is set up, and whether it can support single-issue parties as part of the government.

It already did. Miljöpartiet (The Environmental Party) was first voted into the parliament in 1988, and back then they were in practice a single-issue party. As time has passed, they have taken a mostly social democratic stance on most other issues, making them now an entrenched member of the socialist bloc. Several times they were the force that tip the scale, so they have had an improportional amount of power given their rather low voting base (since they threatened to side with the right bloc in certain issues if the Social Democrats didn't listen enough).

So single-issue parties can have a lot of power in Sweden, and the Environmental Party is the proof.

Pirates should go to Pittsburgh

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Well that city seems to love the losers named Pirates. Even the stadium threatened to leave the city if better team is not found. Still they keep the Pirates. So the city is sending a clear message to the world. Are you a loser? Are you named Pirates? Welcome. You are now a honorory Pittsburgher

Re:Pirates should go to Pittsburgh

[Anonymous Coward]

Mmm... Burger.

Re:If copyright life + 50 then no WTO for you

[Tweekster]

Yes but you still get to choose what is legit for copying under fair use...

... hmmm....

[hyfe]

Given the outright comedy*, cynicism, back-stabbing in the pre-elections, and the political parties going from scandal to scandal, I'd assume that the minors would be in a really good position to pick up a lot of stray votes.

* ie: the "hacking" scandal , involving a user with same username and password, which from no usefull information was found. A couple of corruption charges (all ridiciously minor compared to what's legal over in the US) and general aggresive debating.

No They're Not!

[eldavojohn]

Sweden, Switzerland, it's all the same!

it is to a pirate! GARRR!

Ah, I have to disagree with you here. Switzerland is landlocked while Sweden has many bountiful ports to be plundered. No way in hell you'll get me off my boat, even for watches and knives.

Besides, the only fighting tactic I know is "crossing the T." And, it just doesn't work as well on land ... with the horses and the stabbing and the need for more wooden appendages.

It be a Ninja Conspiracy

[everphilski]

thar ninjas, they be conspirin to bury the pirate party in ol' Davy's lockaaar.

It's time to accept it.

[InfinityWpi]

Between this and the whole 'Snakes on a Plane" fiasco, I think it's time for us to accept that the Internet is not the 'force to be reckoned with' that we all would like it to be, and that 'net geeks, as a whole, aren't cohesive enough to have that much pull when compared to the mundanes.

There's got to be a better way to enact the changes we want.

Re:It's time to accept it.

[publius1234]

I would start by not using the term "mundanes" to describe the people whose votes you will eventually need.

Re:It's time to accept it.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've had it with these muthafuckin' pirates in this muthafuckin' parliament!

Re:It's time to accept it.

[Dachannien]

The "Snakes on a Plane" hype stemmed from a fundamental misunderstanding of what was driving people to pay attention to the hype. The studios and critics thought that it all came from genuine excitement about the movie, while the Intarweb-using public actually was wondering how the hell anybody could name a movie something so dumb.

Maybe there's something similar going on concerning the Pirate Party, but one big difference between the two is that the Pirate Party will get another bite at the apple in future elections (such that any attention at all is good attention), whereas "Snakes on a Plane" will never see another theatrical release (thank god).

More likely

[BenSchuarmer]

It was those scurvy dogs from Diebold!

Larger change in Swedish politics

[MikeRT]

The Social Democrats just got ousted from power by a moderate coallition that is seeking to introduce some market reforms into Sweden. Gee, you think that might have something to do with a fledgling party whose property rights philosophy is probably left of the Social Democrats not getting any attention?

Nah, couldn't be that...

Re:Larger change in Swedish politics

[Alef]

The Social Democrats just got ousted from power by a moderate coallition that is seeking to introduce some market reforms into Sweden. Gee, you think that might have something to do with a fledgling party whose property rights philosophy is probably left of the Social Democrats not getting any attention?

I wouldn't categorize the Pirate Party as a left wing party. For instance, the founder Rickard Falkvinge is a former member of Moderate Youth League the youth organization of the Swedish Moderate Party (conservative).

Besides, the election results had more to do with people wanting new faces in politics (especially the prime minister), and an incredibly lacking campaign by the Social Democrats, basically just repeating how "things are great", neglecting every concern expressed by the people and saying nothing about what they want to do in the future. At the same time, the moderates described themselves as "the new working class party" (calling themselves "the New Moderate Party") and lauded the welfare state. So people switched.

Pirates and global warming

[TheeBlueRoom]

According to the Pastafarian belief system, pirates are "absolute divine beings" and the original Pastafarians. Their image as "thieves and outcasts" is all misinformation spread by Christian theologians of the Middle Ages. In reality, Pastafarianism says that they were "peace-loving explorers and spreaders of good will" who would distribute candy to children.

Re:Pirates and global warming

[Anonymous Coward]

Gyarrr, raise a pint to the Flying Spaghetti Monster! I lost both me arms, both me legs, and me 'ead to the Kraken; I'd a died that very day if the divine Tendrils of the Monster hadn't pulled me from the sea...

Calm Down

[eldavojohn]

Thankfully they got the electoral ass-kick they deserved.

Ok, first calm down. This is (supposed to be) a level headed discussion (no, I'm not new here).

Second, learn to use the <br> tags. They are your friends and do wonders for your readability.

Third, they ran and lost. That's how Democracy works. Maybe they'll do better next year, maybe they won't even be around, who knows? But one thing is for sure, when you outright say they shouldn't even exist, you're starting to hinder the goal of Democracy. Sounds like you have a pretty closed mind, my friend.

Also, thanks for writing me off as a hippie. I'm glad you took 2.5 seconds and one post to know me and I highly value your (fairly incorrect) stereotype. I was only trying to point out where they're coming from, not advocating it. You either need to do more reading or stop talking because you really don't understand the goals of this party.

Re:Calm Down

[Oligonicella]

Point to the sentence where he says outright they shouldn't exist. My take is he says they're pathetic and he's glad they got their asses kicked, nothing more. And, don't go interpretive.

Re:Serious?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who takes *any* politician seriously?

Nothing wrong with advocating for change.

[Kadin2048]

there is a northern country (forgot which) who has a party, which wants to legalize sex with children. so there is the question: is the "pirate party" nearer to marxism than to a fellony?

And to put it quite bluntly, this is perfectly fine. The point of a democracy is that it responds to the will and wishes of its citizens; if they want a law changed, then they have the right (and, I would argue, the responsibility) to attempt to change it within the structure of the system, if possible.

The only difference between the Pirate Party and NAMBLA (I think that's the 'sex with children' thing you're talking about) is how personally offensive you find the behavior they want to legalize. As long as they're not doing the behavior in question while it's still illegal, they're perfectly within their rights to campaign for a change in the laws. This is why political speech is protected by the First Amendment in the United States, and why we tolerate things like the Nazi Party and the Stalinists and any number of other kooks.

For a less extreme example, consider the people who advocated for the repeal of Prohibition in the 1930s; history has shown that they were probably doing the right thing, but at the time they could have easily been accused of "advocating illegal behavior."

If you didn't allow people this freedom, then democracy would be nothing but an irreversible march into an oblivion of illegality.

Re:Nothing wrong with advocating for change.

[LindseyJ]

The problem with that example is that most of the people who were 'advocating the repeal of Prohibition' also patronized an underground speakeasy or two on a regular basis, thus participating in the illegal behavior that seems to be the whole topic of this conversation.

I agree completely with your post though. It's the whole "I may not agree with what you are saying, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" cliche that Western civilization of today is built upon.

Re:Nothing wrong with advocating for change.

[nsayer]

For a less extreme example, consider the people who advocated for the repeal of Prohibition in the 1930s; history has shown that they were probably doing the right thing, but at the time they could have easily been accused of "advocating illegal behavior."

Or NORML today.

Re:Nothing wrong with advocating for change.

[Arrawa]

In the Netherlands, the political party Naastenliefde, Vrijheid en Diversiteit (NVD) has as the most important issue the lowering of the age of consent, and in the end, legalize sex with children. You can read more about it, at Wikipedia

Re:Nothing wrong with advocating for change.

[mrchaotica]

The problem with that example is that most of the people who were 'advocating the repeal of Prohibition' also patronized an underground speakeasy or two on a regular basis, thus participating in the illegal behavior that seems to be the whole topic of this conversation.

And in 1955 Rosa Parks refused to give up her bus seat, which was just as illegal. Yet we call it "civil disobedience" and praise it instead of condemn it. So really, aside from your own bias -- which isn't relevant -- what's the difference?

Re:Nothing wrong with advocating for change.

[aussie_a]

So you would advocate the molestation of willing children and the giving up of the criminals to the law in order to commit civil disobediance?

Oh, and the difference with the speakeasies, is Rosa Parks was willing to be jailed. I doubt the majority of those who entered the speakeasies were willing.

Re:Nothing wrong with advocating for change.

[mrchaotica]

So you would advocate the molestation of willing children

WTF are you talking about? Your irrational and offtopic "think of the children!" rhetoric has no place here!

...and the giving up of the criminals to the law in order to commit civil disobediance?

I can't even parse the rest of that sentence. What does "giving up of the criminals to the law" mean and why would you do that "in order to commit civil disobedience?"

Oh, and the difference with the speakeasies, is Rosa Parks was willing to be jailed. I doubt the majority of those who entered the speakeasies were willing.

Fair enough; however, it's still probably safe to say that those using speakeasies disagreed with the law, and they certainly proved that ignoring a bad law is a good way to get rid of it!

Re:Nothing wrong with advocating for change.

[aichpvee]

This is why political speech is protected by the First Amendment in the United States, and why we tolerate things like the Nazi Party and the Stalinists and any number of other kooks.

Unfortunately it also makes us tolerate even crazier idiots.

Encouraging people to change laws that they don't agree with often isn't even productive for society. There are a lot of stupid people out there and deciding what is best for anyone (never mind for everyone) is about the furthest thing from what most of them should be doing.

Re:Nothing wrong with advocating for change.

[aussie_a]

WTF are you talking about? Your irrational and offtopic "think of the children!" rhetoric has no place here!

I'll spell it out for you:
You said that Rosa Parks being civilly disobediant is something to be praised, and that anyone who views civil disobediance as a bad thing is merely biased against a certain unjust crime. Is this correct?

If you're with me so far, then read on. Otherwise you may wish to explain your point better.

Pedophile finds a young child and brainwashes (sorry, my bias is showing) them to like sexual contact with adults. They have sexual relations with the young child. Much like Rosa Parks refused to stand up from her chair. The pedophile then goes to the police and turns himself in, much like Rosa Parks allowed herself to be arrested. That's called civil disobediance.

Would you consider the pedophile in the above paragraph something to be praised? If not, then I ask aside from your own bias -- which isn't relevant -- what's the difference? After all, no-one is harmed (thanks to the brainwashing down beforehand).

Re:Nothing wrong with advocating for change.

[aussie_a]

it's still probably safe to say that those using speakeasies disagreed with the law, and they certainly proved that ignoring a bad law is a good way to get rid of it!

I ask this: Is breaking the law and hiding from the police a course of action you (would/do) encourage in your society? After all, whether or not you think it's a bad law is irrelevant, as that's just your personal bias.

Eh?

[Ricken]

What do you mean? The votes arent even counted yet. They'll be done tomorrow (wednesday).

Exact figures

[hweimer]

The Swedish election authority currently lists them at 0.64%, with about half of the districts being processed.

The Lo Down on the Pirates

[neonprimetime]

The Pirates aren't as bad as their record. They'll be half-way decent int he next year or two. They got some young studs like Jason Bay, Jose Bautista, Freddy Sanchez, Zach Duke, Ian Snell, Chris Duffy, Mike Gonzalez, and Ryan Doumit. They just need a few veterans in their pitching rotation, and they need to get rid of the following anchors: Jack Wilson and Jeromy Burnitz.

EU Parliament next

[perrin]

Despite needing a much higher % of votes to get an MP for the EU Parliament, it might be easier to get in there. Scandinavians consider the EU Parliament a joke anyway, so why not just vote for a "less-serious" party? Voter turnout is much lower, so any party that can mobilize its core constituency can do well. Once inside the EU Parliament, there is a lot that can be done, it will mean lots of publicity, and lots of money will pour into the party coffers.

Also, getting 1% in the first election so fast after being founded isn't bad, and if it can stay around until the next election, it will be an "established name", and gain more credibility that way.

Re:EU Parliament next

[magetoo]

Despite needing a much higher % of votes to get an MP for the EU Parliament, it might be easier to get in there. Scandinavians consider the EU Parliament a joke anyway, so why not just vote for a "less-serious" party?

Indeed. Considering that the latest big surprise came in the last EU elections, and that people generally had no idea what the party ("The June list") actually stood for, except some vague idea that "they're against the EU" (they really are more of eurosceptics who want to limit the EU's influence over member countries, afaik); for the pirates to get enough protest votes to get in doesn't seem all that improbable.

(Wow, that sentence really did run on, didn't it?)

And I think the limit for getting into the European Parliament is 4%, same as in our general elections, is it not?

Bodensee

[Kadin2048]

Well, they do have a pretty big lake; you could try plying the not-so-high seas there. Maybe they'd give you a letter of marque to pillage the French.

Bad names don't help

[Moflamby-2042]

So, do they still think using the name the 'pirate party' is a good idea? For people unfamiliar with the party stance, such a name sounds fringe at best and has very bad implications. I don't see how calling your party something like the 'plundering murderous raping bastards on the sea party' would do anything but make being voted in impossible.

Re:Bad names don't help

[808140]

In case you hadn't noticed, the RIAA/MPAA and their international affiliates have very successfully redefined the word "pirate" and its cognates to mean copyright infringement. They did this originally to associate rape and pillaging (violent, deplorable crimes) with one much less likely to evoke any sort of compassion for victims (copyright infringement). This was initially moderately successful, but the (unfortunate in my opinion) long term result has simply been that most people no longer associate the word "piracy" with actual on-the-seven-seas piracy. This isn't really surprising, as real piracy has become much less prevalent in the parts of the world where copyright infringement is considered a big issue.

What this means, of course, is that when the average Swede, Briton, Frenchman or American hears "the Pirate party", they are extremely unlikely to think of it in terms of the "plundering murderous raping bastards on the sea party".

It's also worth noting that most European democracies are parliamentary in nature, which means that a special interest party like the pirate party doesn't need (or even want) to get a majority of seats in parliament -- just one would probably be sufficient to make waves during debates. It is unlikely they'd ever get more, but that's not because of the name: it's because being that successful would communicate very effectively to larger parties that the special interest issue the Pirate party stands for is important to the electorate. It's just one issue; they'd adopt it (this is already happening, in fact.) This would marginalise the Pirate Party as a political entity, but would satisfy its raison-d'etre, namely to push for copyright reform on a national scale.

In the US, unfortunately, our system of government doesn't work this way; we don't have proportional representation and so there's no incentive for either the Republican or Democratic party to ever take the US Pirate Party seriously. In the US, the name is important, because in order to make waves, the Pirate Party would have to become one of the big two, which means they would have to have politically viable opinions on all issues, not just copyright reform.

The Pirate Party is very much a parliamentary political tool. Here in the US, we'd have to lobby (and it's doubtful that we the people could ever out-lobby the RIAA.)

Democracy, indeed.

Re:Bad names don't help

[init100]

What this means, of course, is that when the average Swede...hears "the Pirate party", they are extremely unlikely to think of it in terms of the "plundering murderous raping bastards on the sea party".

Especially since there is a separate term for "pirate on the high seas" in Sweden, namely sjörövare, which literally means sea robber. The word pirat (i think you can guess the translation) is more generic, but in contemporary common speak means someone doing copyright infringement.

Oh, purlease, don't be so naive.

[Rogerborg]

If it walks like a duck, don't believe it when it quacks that it's a sheep.

Piratbyran is a front for commercial copiers. Let's not mince words; these guys make their living from other peoples' creations. The "Pirate Party" is just a particularly clever wheeze to give a veneer of respectability to their actions. Yes, they believe that what they are doing is right, but so do paedophiles, and you wouldn't give much credence to the Kiddie Fiddling Party, would you?

Say... has anyone checked how they spent their campaign contribitions?

Re:Oh, purlease, don't be so naive.

[strider44]

Though the parent is quite obviously a troll (seriously mate, you're wasting your words if you think that post has any affect at all - it's way too obvious), I feel the need to correct him just for the sake of rigour.

The Pirate Party does not seek to abolish copyright or try to steal copyright but simply limit it. 70 years past the death of the author is stupid. Copyright was developed as incentive to the author to create work. I don't see why the author would see less incentive to create work when copyright is even 5 years than if it were 70 years past his death.

Lets face it, copyright now isn't about the content creators, it's simply a tool for corporations to make money.

Re:Oh, purlease, don't be so naive.

[NutscrapeSucks]

Hmmm. If I ever saw a "release group" or a BitTorrent site that limited itself to 30+ year old movies and music, I might take this moral positon seriously.

But, as a practical matter, the Disney-effects on copyright really have no relationship to "piracy".

Re:Oh, purlease, don't be so naive.

[Ahruman]

I'll ignore the unfounded and trollish allegations, but as for the contributions question, the Pirate Party recieved very little external money. The ballots were largely paid for by the party leader, and that was the greatest expense of the campaign.

good category for this arrrrticle, too...

[Quadraginta]

...yro ho ho!

So what's new?

[Anthony Boyd]

The Pirate Party not only failed to score the 4 percent required for a seat in Sweden's Parliament, but appears to have missed the 1 percent that would have afforded the party state assistance with printing ballots and funding staff in the next election.

Yet again showing that those of us who care about this stuff are in an extreme minority. We delude ourselves every time we believe that our concerns are going to be taken up by the general populace. It makes me wonder. Will the Wii actually be successful, or is that just a small group of vocal fanboys? Will HP actually get anything other than a slap on the wrist? What about Net Neutrality? Oops.

I guess the question is, is it better to be in the minority that sees it coming, or in the majority that is blissfully unaware?

Re:So what's new?

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess the question is, is it better to be in the minority that sees it coming, or in the majority that is blissfully unaware?

The latter, of course. None of them can do anything about it, so it's far better not to care, heartbreak spared.

Re:So what's new?

[meringuoid]

Yet again showing that those of us who care about this stuff are in an extreme minority. We delude ourselves every time we believe that our concerns are going to be taken up by the general populace. It makes me wonder. Will the Wii actually be successful, or is that just a small group of vocal fanboys? Will HP actually get anything other than a slap on the wrist? What about Net Neutrality? Oops.

Net crazes can be successful, though.

For instance, according to the 2001 UK census, there leading religions were:

1) Christianity

2) Islam

3) Hinduism

4) Buddhism

5) Jediism

6) Sikhism

Alas, the formal statistical analyses counted 'Jedi' as another variant of 'Other', but nonetheless the result was in many of the papers: an astonishing number of Britons follow the ways of the Force.

If you can get people to put a joke religion on a census form out of Star Wars fandom, contempt for religion in general or just a plain sense of fun, it seems quite possible that you could get people to vote for a joke party on the off-chance that they'd get unlimited free movies and music out of it.

Illegal actions

[purfledspruce]

"Pirating music" is only illegal because we humans say that it is illegal.

I can imagine a world where the state pays a recording artist for every download and provides music for its citizens for free. Something like state supported arts.

The point is that WE define what legal and illegal mean, and they don't have to continue meaning what they mean now. In fact, the meaning of "own" has changed already--we don't "own" software, despite the fact that we hold a shiny disc in our hands. We only own the "right to use" the software.

Re:Illegal actions

[nsayer]

I can imagine a world where the state pays a recording artist for every download and provides music for its citizens for free.

I can imagine a world where my taxes are lower because the money isn't spent on garbage like "Piss Christ".

Re:Illegal actions

[kz45]

"Pirating music" is only illegal because we humans say that it is illegal.

I can imagine a world where the state pays a recording artist for every download and provides music for its citizens for free. Something like state supported arts."

I think you mean art that is funded by the taxpayers of the people. I don't think sweden (which has very high taxes as it is due to public health care programs) or the U.S needs this now or ever.

"The point is that WE define what legal and illegal mean, and they don't have to continue meaning what they mean now. In fact, the meaning of "own" has changed already--we don't "own" software, despite the fact that we hold a shiny disc in our hands. We only own the "right to use" the software"

copyright and IP laws works in favor of the little guy as well as the big corporations. If you want to prevent anyone from making a living with their software, music, or art, that's fine. Just don't try to hide behind your own selfish needs.

Re:Illegal actions

[Catbeller]

How about a world where we aren't spied on every moment of our lives to monitor the possiblity that we are listening to music without paying -- what used to be normal until the twentieth century.How about no commercial police state?

How about, oh, artists being paid for performances rather than recordings? Almost no artists make money from deals with record companies, as the companies have their own private accounting theories. Artists get real money from live performances, hence the record companies buying up concert venues to rip off that cash stream.

Buy creating the commercial police state to monitor transfers of non-existent "property", what we really would be doing is giving the record companies an eternal revenue stream, making them immortal rather than letting them die as the useless parasites they really are. And they will rape the artists. Not a prediction: they already are cutting down the percentages on digital downloads payable to the artists themselves. They are stealing the money, and the commercial police state will simply lock artists into being their victims until the end of time.

Re:Illegal actions

[purfledspruce]

I think you misunderstand me. You will not find a single piece of pirated software on my computer or iPod. I was just trying to point out something that the parent poster (who was scoffing that a party that supported a different idea of legality was running in an election) might not have thought of.

And yes, I was saying that art would be funded by taxes. Other forms of art are already funded by taxes, so your argument that "Sweeden or the US don't need this now" is a bit beside the point, don't you think?

And, finally, if copyright and IP laws work in favor of the little guy as well as big corporations, then why is it only large artists and big corporations that are fighting downloads? The little artists seem, by and large, to be for free downloads. And some of the "medium guys" too--you can download Weird Al's single off of his website, for instance.

Re:Illegal actions

[CagedBear]

The little artists seem, by and large, to be for free downloads.

The practicing musicians I know (or have known) seem to be mostly impartial to free vs. copyrighted music. They mostly just want to make a decent living through their music. Aside from joining a successful cover band, there doesn't seem to be a way other than getting signed with a label. So I guess in the communist dictator sense, record companies are helping the little guy.

It would be so much nicer if people downloaded free music and spent their money going out to hear local, live, original music.

Japanese island of Swaziland?

[nephridium]

No, that's where the Ninja Party is located. You haven't heard about them yet? Why that's because everyone who knows about them is silently assassinated.

Nice Troll, Young Lad!

[wsanders]

Sincerely,

You most h'mble and o'bt s'vts,

- George Washington et. al.

Here's the deal

[Psionicist]

The Pirate Party are currently at 0.64% with around 60% of the votes counted. Given the party is less than a year old and the issues involved (how many non-geeks care about file sharing and privacy?) I would consider this a remarkable success. Especially considered this election was the first in 12 years where the previously ruling Social Democrats were challanged by a strong center-right coalition (note, btw, Swedish center-right is more leftist than the US left). When both the center-right bloc and the center-left bloc had around 47% of the votes, the closest in swedish modern history, this was not a good time to introduce a new party. Most voters probably realized the pirate partys issues weren't so important when other larger issues were at stake.

Even while the Pirate Party didn't make it, they HAVE something to cheer about. As the center-right coalition won, the current minister of justice Thomas Bodström is gone from power. This is a major success since Bodström is sort of a symbol of the big brother state in Sweden, like Bush and Blair in US and UK. The Pirate Party also managed to make file sharing an issue both blocs have taken stances on. Which is good.

Re:Here's the deal

[erikdalen]

But all four of the center-right parties now in power have promised to give the police more resources to deal with copyright infingements. So this might not be such a victory for the pirates.

Re:Here's the deal

[Oligonicella]

Um, one out of every two hundred voters being a recently turned voting age basement dweller who wants everything free is not far fetched and is quite unremarkable.

Please.

[Cybert4]

Singinst.org. I also direct people to brainmeta.com. Some great neuroscience going on there. Give both money!

Pirate party was wildly successful!

[abelsson]

The Pirate party may not reached the Riksdag, but they have already caused ALL parties to reconsider their position on file sharing.

• The Greens just published a policy document named "Free the files" which is basically a copy of the Pirate partys program.
• The leaders of the Moderates and the Social Democrates (the two largest parties) have stated that the the much critizied law from last year that outlawed file sharing should be reconsidered.
• ALL youth leagues of all parties are pro-filesharing.

In the school elections the party got 4.5% of the votes, even without preprinted ballots. In short, the pirate party has shown that a large portion of the youth are interested in these issues, and no party can afford to alienate entire generations. So while it didn't get into parliment, the pirates did already influency policy and debate- much more than any of the other small parties.

Re:Pirate party was wildly successful!

[vonhammer]

Youth never vote. At least in the US. This is a recurring and, somewhat comical, theme in US politics. The left always places an extreme amount of importance in the youth vote (always left-leaning, of course), but they are always left shaking their heads in amazement when the youth don't vote and all the old folks do.

You have to remember that...

[Anonymous Coward]

...they've founded themselves January this year. Considering that, they didn't do too bad.

Aye matey

[gravy.jones]

Politically and economically, I'd rather be an American than a Swede. I wouldn't want to be under the tax burden that Swedes bear. I wouldn't want to live in a society that has official state sanctioned monopolies. From this perspective, I am glad that the pirate party went to Davy Jones locker. Do they have a delicacy called "American Meatballs" in Sweden?

At least they have

[guruevi]

33,000 votes, so there are at least 33,000 Slashdotters/Pirates in Sweden. Let's round them up and sue them for copyright infrignment.

Re:If copyright life + 50 then no WTO for you

[tepples]

but you still get to choose what is legit for copying under fair use

O RLY? There isn't much precedent in the WTO concerning the Berne three-step test, which restricts what qualifies as a fair exemption to copyright law.

Repeal the prohibition of marijuana

[TamMan2000]

I have never smoked marijauna, but I can see that it's illigality is stupid, anti-freedom, and causes far more problems than it solves. Don't you think there were those like me in the 1930's advocating the repeal of alchohol prohibition?

Re:Repeal the prohibition of marijuana

[AcidLacedPenguiN]

but I can see that it's illigality is stupid, anti-freedom, and causes far more problems than it solves. Don't you think there were those like me in the 1930's advocating the repeal of alchohol prohibition?

Umm... you sure you've never smoked?
Okay, low blow, but I do tend to agree with you. There probably were people who didn't drink at the time but still advocated the repeal of alcohol.

Re:Repeal the prohibition of marijuana

[stinerman]

Umm... you sure you've never smoked?

Sir, I've never drank (and I'm nearly 23 years old).
To echo the GP's sentiment, I don't drink, but I think the drinking age should be lowered to 18 immediately and possibly 16 if things go well thereafter.

Re:Repeal the prohibition of marijuana

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats a lie if I ever heard one....

The Pirate Party is global!

[Per Wigren]

The Pirate Party is a global movement! It started in Sweden but is becoming the first global party ever! The goal is to have an official Pirate Party in each EU country when the EU election takes place in 2009. It's not limited to Europe though, parties are forming in Brazil, Australia, USA, Canada and many other countries outside of Europe.

This is a list of the current Pirate Parties that have their own homepage:

• Austria
• Belgium
• France
• Germany
• Italy
• Poland
• Russia
• Spain
• Sweden
• USA

Pirate Party International is a forming umbrella organisation where all official Pirate Parties are members. On the forums you can try to get in touch with other persons in your country and get support in starting up a Pirate Party in your country.

The history of The Pirate Party has just begun, we haven't even finished the first chapter yet...

Re:The Pirate Party is global!

[Anonymous Coward]

first global party...?

I really hope you're not European.

Re:The Pirate Party is global!

[Oligonicella]

A few points from their website:

"Creativity has come to a standstill in this country for those who wish to work within, and benefit from, the confines of the law."
So, Serenity was not creative? All current artists are not creative? The plethora of new technologies are not creative? This statement is obviously falsehood.

"Never before has a Citizen faced so many opportunities to have their identity stolen, data misused, or personal information collected without their knowledge."
Interesting. They want information freely available for infringement, unless, of course, it is the information belonging to an individual; like personal finance data, medical data, creative ideas -- oh, wait.

"We've chosen to adopt the Pirate name so as to pay homage to the creative artists of the past, or as they would now be known, Pirates, thieves, and copyright infringers. We do not support nor condone any unlawful distribution of copyrighted works."
Note the hypocritical nature of the last line. The party is composed of individuals who freely and proudly proclaim their copyright infringing.

Re:The Pirate Party is global!

[Anonymous Coward]

First ever global party? Let me introduce you to this little event known as the First International...

Re:The Pirate Party is global!

[init100]

They want information freely available for infringement, unless, of course, it is the information belonging to an individual; like personal finance data, medical data, creative ideas -- oh, wait.

I know that this is a traditional "Oh wait..." Slashdot joke, but anyway: Creative ideas are not personal data requiring privacy protection.

I Demand a Recount!

[Flwyd]

I was present at a Pirate Party this weekend. Ninjas were outnumbered about 20 to 1 with only three or four non-voters. Let's go plunder a Diebold voting machine and set the wreckage straight!

Yarr.

Suggestions for the next year

[mapkinase]

I propose to those honest folks to rename their party to NinjaParty. I would give it a shot. Who knows, may be Swedes prefer Ninjas... Who knows, who knows...

Media Coverage

[miffo.swe]

The Pirate Party didnt get one second of media coverage in any tv or radio channel. They drowned literaly in the media. Also the other parties lied and said they would work against the laws making filesharing illegal. Yea...riiiight.

He Claimed They Weren't Legitimate

[Anonymous Coward]

Point to the sentence where he says outright they shouldn't exist. My take is he says they're pathetic and he's glad they got their asses kicked, nothing more. And, don't go interpretive.

Well, from this comment:

This isnt a legitmiate political party.

If they're not a legitimate party, then they shouldn't exist. I don't think that's too interpretive. They're just as legitimate as the Republicans or Democrats in my book. If you have an opinion that their platform is a losing one, then state it. I have no problem with free speech. I have a problem with claiming the illegitimacy of any political party that wants to be one.

eldavojohn

"Pirate Party" vs "Free Press Party"

[GodWasAnAlien]

Rather than trying to redirect a marketed negative term, I think focusing on copyright reform and freedom of the press would be more appealing. Using a name like "Free Press Party" could help create a positive image.

False Advertising

[Hoi Polloi]

Sort of like conservatives who don't conserve anything (money or resources) once they are elected.

like abolitionists?

[GodWasAnAlien]

abolitionists advocating aboloshing ownership of humans.

proabably it's a bad comparison.

perhaps, the party name is what is bothering you.

Would you be less offended by a party by another name that advocated copyright reform?

The 120-infinity year plus copyright laws are bound to eventually cause revolt against such obvious press freedom supression.

Vikings are way cooler than Pirates

[billstewart]

Hey, it's Scandinavia, perhaps that was the problem?

Failure or success? I say success!

[twodot72]

I voted for Piratpartiet. The first reaction over the result was a bit of a disappointment, but with a little perspective, it's pretty ok. With such a close election it was bound to be difficult to win votes for a party with a limited number of questions. In addition to that, these are questions which a majority of people do not know much about, in large part because the established parties do not want to discuss it more than necessary.

It's easy do dumb-down the message to the PP just wanting free music and movies. That is not the main issue, and once you start discussing the questions of privacy, surveillance, drm, and patent with people they mostly agree that the current situation is horrible. PP has at least gotten this debate going among more people than ever before, and even if most people do not see the questions important enought to vote for PP (at least not yet) it has become harder for the established parties to give the silent treatment to these questions.

Now, it seems like about one in two hundred swedes have voted for PP. Most likely, a much larger part of these than for the traditional parties are passionate about the issues, and will continue the advocacy. Either this may lead to a much stronger result in future elections, or that the established parties start to take notice and change their ways to retain their voters. In the end, it does not matter. The PP is not about gaining power, but to change the political landscape in their three main themes: copyrights, patents, and privacy.

Serious question

[ElMiguel]

Have you found a "serious" party worth voting for?

in other news...

[not a cylon]

After the Pirate Party's stunning defeat at the polls, they have renamed themselves to the Hacker Party. They have promised much better results in the next election, one way...or the other.

Moo

[Chacham]

Well, i guess Pirate Day is all talk and no vote. Arrrrrrrrr.....

Silly party

[sgtrock]

Chapman: Well here at Luton it's a three-cornered contest between, from left to right, Alan Jones (Sensible Party), Tarquin Fin-tim-lim-bim-lim-bin- bim-bin-bim bus stop F'tang F'tang Olé Biscuitbarrel (Silly Party), and Kevin Phillips Bong, who is running on the Slightly Silly ticket. And here's the result.

Woman: Alan Jones...

Cleese: Sensible

Woman: ...9,112. Kevin Phillips Bong...

Cleese: Slightly Silly

Woman: Nought. Tarquin Fin-tim-lin-bin-whin-bim-lim bus stop F'tang F'tang Olé Biscuitbarrel...

Cleese: Silly

Woman: 12,441. (applause)

Cleese: Well there you have it, the first result of the election as the Silly Party take Luton. Norman.

Palin: Well this is a very significant result. Luton, normally a very sensible constituency with a high proportion of people who aren't a bit silly, has gone completely ga-ga.

Wow, they do things different in Sweden

[elsilver]

missed the 1 percent that would have afforded the party state assistance with printing ballots

You know, in most countries, the electoral/political system is set up specifically to avoid candidates printing their own ballots. Apparently in Sweden they actually encourage it.

I think Diebold is missing out on a significant market opportunity here.

E.

Re:Wow, they do things different in Sweden

[Anonymous Coward]

Not sure what you mean by that. In Sweden it works like this: To be counted as a real vote, you have to have a registered party, which in turn needs to have demonstrated at least a minimal demand for the party (collecting signatures). This party, until reaching 1% or more in an election has to pay for its own ballots, but only a few appointed printing companies are allowed to actually create them. Anything outside these rules are automatically considered invalid votes.

When your party does reach 1%, the state will print and distribute to all election places default ballots with your partys name. The party will still have to print its own ballots with names on it in order to have person elections (most want this), but at least every election place will have ballots to use, no matter how far away in nowhere.

Re:Wow, they do things different in Sweden

[elsilver]

Not sure what you mean by that.

What I mean is that the thought of each candidate printing up ballots makes me think of ballot stuffing in some banana republic.

When your party does reach 1%, the state will print and distribute to all election places default ballots with your partys name. The party will still have to print its own ballots with names on it in order to have person elections (most want this), but at least every election place will have ballots to use, no matter how far away in nowhere.

Hmmm, interesting system.

Here in Canada, only the election commision prints ballots. The ballots contain the names (and party affiliation) of all candidates running in the constituency (district), and voters indicate their preference by marking the ballot.

I assume the Swedish 1% rule is to maintain some control over the number of people running. We accomplish the same by charging a deposit to each candidate. The deposit is a significant, but not ridiculous amount of money (a few thousand dollars, IIRC), and should be easily met by anyone running a serious campaign. If you obtain a certain number of votes (along the lines of a single digit percent of the votes), you get the deposit back.

I forget the definition used for official political party or the minimum number of votes needed, but official political parties also get funding based on the percent of the popular vote in the previous election.

E.

Re:Wow, they do things different in Sweden

[magetoo]

It sounds pretty much like the system we have here, actually. Had the PP reached 1% (or rather, will it - it's still a day of counting left) it would have gotten / will get a "refund" for the money they had to collect in order to have the ballots printed, and it would also have ensured printing and distribution of ballots for the next election. No party can print its own ballots. Orders have to be placed in advance with the Election Authority.

Also, basically, voting is for parties, not individual candidates. Since fairly recently though, we are able to tick a certain candidate on a party's ballots, to increase his or hers chances of getting into parliament.

And if you get more than a certain percentage of the votes (I believe it's 2.5%), you're entitled to a sort of grant, which is given out based on your last general election results, in tenths of a percent increments. (Which means, of course, that the bigger parties get the most - surprise!)

Re:Wow, they do things different in Sweden

[Ahruman]

Not sure what you mean by that. In Sweden it works like this: To be counted as a real vote, you have to have a registered party, which in turn needs to have demonstrated at least a minimal demand for the party (collecting signatures). This party, until reaching 1% or more in an election has to pay for its own ballots, but only a few appointed printing companies are allowed to actually create them. Anything outside these rules are automatically considered invalid votes.

Wrong. Registration of a party is solely for protecting the party's official name. If the Donald Duck Party got sufficient write-in votes to be represented in parliament, in principle the first person to claim to represent it would be able to dish out the seats as he saw fit. Fortunately, at a little over 100 votes, this is unlikely to happen any time soon. (More info, in Swedish)

Re:Wow, they do things different in Sweden

[Anders Andersson]

Registration of a party is solely for protecting the party's official name.

Correct. It prevents others from nominating candidates and ordering ballots using your party name.

If the Donald Duck Party got sufficient write-in votes to be represented in parliament, in principle the first person to claim to represent it would be able to dish out the seats as he saw fit.

Wrong. Any seats won by the party will be assigned to the candidates for that party with the highest number of votes, according to a complicated (but reasonable) vote counting algorithm. The party can only nominate candidates before the election, but the ultimate choice is made by the voters alone, by either giving one candidate a preferential vote or using a ballot with a specific ordering of the candidates (a single party may have several different ballots printed). Once election day is over and the votes are being counted, the party has no say in the matter of who gets a particular seat.

Fortunately, at a little over 100 votes, this is unlikely to happen any time soon.

Indeed, at least in the election for parliament. However, the same voting system is used at the county council and municipal levels, and within a small municipality, 100-200 write-in votes may very well be enough to get a seat in your local assembly. If none of those ballots indicate a single eligible candidate, and the party (if it exists) hasn't nominated any candidates, nobody will be allowed to take that seat (it has happened).

Re:Wow, they do things different in Sweden

[Ahruman]

The point (regarding the Donald Duck Party) is that it is an unregistered party with no organization or membership. In the event that it was voted into parliament, and given that it is unregistered, there is no way of verifying the veracity of anyone's claim to represent the party's organization -but it is nevertheless possible for it to be elected.

Truism

[Fryth]

It doesn't matter what other people think.

Not a failure

[wootest]

The Pirate Party (henceforth TPP, since PP has some interesting connotations in English) did not get into the Riksdag, no. To get in, you need 4% of the votes. Last time around, in 2002, there was no TPP, and they got 0% of the votes. How is anything above 0% "being keelhauled"?

TPP said "this is going to be a close election, there are about a million people in Sweden sharing files, we can become a tiebreaker by gaining 4%". Making file sharing legal is the best-understood point of their political tenets (as few "intellectual property" institutions as possible, better privacy, reforming the copyright system). I don't fault them for picking exactly what they did to run on, or by the issue they made themselves known by (legalize file sharing). Which isn't the same as saying there weren't problems.

The other day I visited a page listing some Swedish political parties. The one line that described TPP was "They want to make downloading music and movies legal". Depending on how you look on it, it may be technically correct, however it's vastly oversimplified: The TPP reform of copyright includes perpetual and unlimited rights to *private* copies of anything, and shortens the exclusivity of selling the work to a five year duration instead of the author's-life + 70 + whatever-Disney-can-coax-international-law-into years of the current system, which effectively legalizes a lot of file sharing, which by necessity includes both uploading *and* downloading. These issues are hard and complicated. The Man on The Street won't be able to detail copyright law beyond perhaps author's-life + 70, and I don't think a tenth of the population have even heard of the continuous lengthening of the copyright period.

The "regular" parties run using a platter of promises - hundreds of them - where at least two are presented in a reasonable way. The Green Party (once a similar tiebreaker running using a similar philosophy) runs using more advanced stuff like TPP, but the few-words summary here, as expressed by The Man on The Street - "be nice to the environment and give us more family time" - is infinitely more agreeable to, well, most people, than "make downloading music and movies legal", which reeks of "omg plz make everything free kthx!1" rather than the well-thought out proposals behind TPP. This is one factor why TPP didn't make it all the way.

The other factor, then, is that more people found it more rewarding to vote for one of the two blocs (who mostly carry full political agendas on *all* issues, even the aforementioned Green Party) or on other small parties.

You could argue that the pie-in-the-sky chance that they would ever reach 4% was abysmal, but if they hadn't been so optimistic about it, I am positive that a lot of supporters would just have given up, saying "we're not going to make it anyway, why bother?". TPP didn't get its way, but I find it hard to deem them a failure. From 0 to sub-1% of above five million votes in less than 10 months is astounding work.

That's Perthetic...

[ayjay29]

The "Pirate Party" can't beat the Social Democrats in an election, look what happened in the UK...

Loonies embarrass Social Democrats

"At the Bootle by-election in May 1990, the Loony candidate (Sutch) received more votes than the candidate for the Social Democrats. This was the last straw for the rump Social Democrats - centred around former Labour Foreign Secretary Dr. David Owen - who had refused to join in the merger of the SDP with the Liberals to form the Liberal Democrats. Rubbing salt in their wounds, Sutch offered in jest to form a coalition with them, but they instead disbanded, or at least most of them did: a core around the defeated SDP candidate, Jack Holmes, vowed to carry on - ironically reforming an alliance with the continuing Liberal Party (run by Michael Meadowcroft and David Moorish, who had also opposed the merger). Almost a year after Bootle, the supposedly disbanded SDP finished fourth at Neath, and continue to this day winning council seats after their supposed "death"."

It's the name

[bzipitidoo]

I read somewhere that having geeks name products was like having marketing write software. The Pirate Party sounds like a joke, bad, and worst of all, one-dimensional, with a single issue. The people who don't understand what the Pirate Party is about aren't going to bother finding out after glancing at the name. Really bad sounding names for an analogous party might be The Drug Party or just The Marijuana Party.

What would be a good name? I don't know. The Freedom Party? Lots of parties claim that one. The Info Party? Freedom of Info Party? Free Info Party? Free Knowledge Party? Info Justice? Ought to find some more issues to make into planks (no pun intended), and whatever new name is picked ought to reflect that. And join forces with compatible parties.

Re:It's the name

[magetoo]

I read somewhere that having geeks name products was like having marketing write software.

Say hello to Kjella.

What would be a good name? I don't know. The Freedom Party? Lots of parties claim that one. The Info Party? Freedom of Info Party? Free Info Party? Free Knowledge Party? Info Justice?

The problem with those sort of names is that they are so bland. Nobody can really identify with them, it's like naming your party "The Justice, Apple Pie and Just Being Nice to Each Other Party". You need something that is simple, something that people will instantly know what it is about.

And here in Sweden, we already had The Pirate Bay and Piratbyrån ("The Pirate Bureau"). Having "pirate" in your party name doesn't look all that crazy in that context.

That said, perhaps something along the lines of "intellectual freedom" would have better represented the issues involved. (Or not..)

Re:It's the name

[bzipitidoo]

The 2 sides on the abortion issue call themselves Pro-Choice and Pro-Life, not Baby Killers and Rapists' Rights. They'd each love to call the other side something like that though. The RIAA wants to call people, including children and grandmothers, "pirates" who would rather let struggling artists starve than pay them a few measily pennies for their work. And The Pirate Party went along with that! While it'd be neat to turn the tables on them and have "piracy" become more than a label only the daring, hip, and rebellious appreciate, I don't see it. Does piracy have less negative connotations in Sweden? Maybe Swedes identify closely with the Viking legacy, tho that's more a Norwegian thing, isn't it?

Maybe the name ought to be The Sharing Party. That's much more positive sounding than "pirate". Who could possibly be against sharing without looking like a greedy toll collecting scumbag and RIAA stooge?

Re:It's the name

[magetoo]

Sharing Party? Good name, but it doesn't really translate well, unfortunately. And we're stuck with "pirate" now, for better or worse.

To answer the question, I suppose that "piracy" actually doesn't have that much of a negative connotation over here. I don't know about "less", does the word actually mean anything outside the Third World? What does the word mean to you?

As for vikings, interesting hypothesis ... but no. (And yes, our "eastern" vikings were mostly traders, and "western" vikings did most of the pillaging, afaik, but I'm not a historian.)

Perfect summary - mod up

[magetoo]

I think you summed the whole thing up perfectly. Just to clarify one little thing: The party really does want filesharing (for private use) to be completely legalized - uploading and downloading. Downloading was recently criminalized, uploading always was. (And all major parties now say that "of course downloading should be okay", dodging the issue.)

(Your third paragraph could be read to imply that they want to legalize file sharing only of older works, by shortening the copyright terms.)

Re:Perfect summary - mod up

[wootest]

"The party really does want filesharing (for private use) to be completely legalized - uploading and downloading."

Yep, but they are not pushing a law that says "legalize file sharing", they are pushing laws to make uploading and downloading for private use legal, and many other cases legal as well, such as expired copyrights. In effect, they do want to "legalize file sharing only of older works" on a commercial basis, because they don't have a law saying "legalize file sharing completely", just a bunch of other efforts intended to opening it up quite a bit.

The problem is discriminating betweem them.

[Kadin2048]

This is true.

Unfortunately, separating out the people who are smart enough and have enough foresight to use power wisely, from those who would just use it for short-term or personal gain, is a Hard Problem; if not in the mathematical sense than its equivalent in the political/social science one.

If you had a machine that could read a person's "true nature" and spit out whether they would be a responsible member of society or not, then certainly you could only allow those people to vote and we'd all be better for it. However, as no machine has yet been constructed, we cannot do this.

Failing that, the best system anyone has been able to come up with so far, relies on the other extreme: let everyone have a small say in government, and hope that there are more good and smart people than mean and stupid ones; that this works at all is a bit surprising, but yet it seems to do okay for itself, or at least better than any alternative system that has yet been tried. To quote an old cliche, 'democracy sucks, but the alternatives are worse.'

So certainly, there are a lot of idiots out there who sadly are allowed to both vote and reproduce, unfortunately this is the cost of doing business, as it were; there's no way to prevent them from doing those things, without destroying society in the process. Any system that we could practically create to weed out "idiots" would by definition be imperfect, and the result would probably be worse than where we are right now.

Re:The problem is discriminating betweem them.

[aichpvee]

Totally agree. Pretty depressing though.

Do they need a seat?

[IDontLinkMondays]

Really, I can assure you that the seat would in fact be wasted. It is important to understand that politics is about more than a single issue of interest. Personally, the Pirate Party agenda is sadly lacking, but that is not to say that it doesn't have a certain merit.

The Pirate Party (keep wanting to write bay), has made it to a public election. This is important to realize. In Sweden, you can form an "I like Cookies" party and bring it to election, however it would receive 0 votes unless all the remaining parties were so disgusting that the "I like Cookies" party seemed the most harmless. The Pirate Party on the other hand, whether they received the needed number of votes or not is irrelevant. What is important is that they did in fact receive votes.

This means that they in fact won votes away from (I use this term in the not to piss everyone here off terminology of it) legitimate parties with agendas that focus on improvement of roads, education, social welfare, health related and other key focal points. So it isn't important how many votes they won, it's important to notice that they did in fact win votes away from parties with issues that genuinely impact the survival of the Swedish people.

So why does that matter? Well, it means that other parties will have to look at the issue seriously enough and recognize that this single issue which has no impact on a persons ability to feed themselves or take care of their children was important enough to some people that they need to at the very least evaluate whether this is a stance their party should back.

Now, the alternate possibility is that the Pirate Party rebuilds itself as for example, "The Human Civil Liberties Party". They can build a proper agenda, adopting the focus points from other parties they agree with and win office to forward all these values they hold to ensure civil liberties that are regularly being revoked by corporations with strong political control. It could in fact be a party that focusses on issue like :
    - Reform of the police departments, have the police focus on real crimes like drug trafficing, rapes, murders, thefts, and less on protecting corporated IP rights
    - Reform schools to educate students instead of babysit them, require teachers to do a full year of schooling themselves for every 10 years they teach. This will make the students smarter and more capable of understanding their rights.
    - Reform medicine so that licensed doctors are required to further their education formally every few years to maintain their licenses. This will hopefully make it so that doctors spend less time on the golf course and more time actually excersizing their brains. This is important since they are major campaign funders.
    - Reform universities to require students to take general education as well as their specialized training. This in itself will make people more aware of civil liberties when they leave school..... we hope.
    - Reform business schools to require a certain amount of general science education so that the business people will form a greater understanding, and hopefully appreciation for what is actually involved in producing intellectual property.
    - Promote solutions from universities over solutions from corporations within government computers. For example, accounting schools should have software development classes where actual business systems are designed and developed for free use within the country. Make Linux a viable option for the government by funding research and development in the universities of genuine solutions that can be deployed for free.

I can go on for ages, but the fact is, in a country such as Sweden (I live next door in Norway and am American so I've seen a lot of both extremes), there is no room for a party like the Pirate Party because they don't address issues which directly impact a persons survival, they don't even address issues that impact a persons quality of living. But, they have an idea that could actually mean something, and if they are in fact serious about it, then they need to take the politics more seriously and find more to stand for that does in fact address real problems in the country they live in.

Re:Do they need a seat?

[Ahruman]

I would argue that the right not to have the police install hidden cameras in my flat on the off chance that a friend might confess to considering committing a crime does impact my quality of life, and attempts to revoke this right constitute a real problem.

Check the results for yourselves.

[skrolle2]

So slashdot reports that Wired reports that the leader of the Pirate Party said that the results were...

Uhm, people, you can check this for yourselves:

http://www.val.se/val/val2006/slutlig/R/rike/ovrig a.html

If you prefer the full election result in XML format, you can find it here:

http://www.val.se/val/val2006/slutlig/xml/slutresu ltat_00R.xml

Although please note that they're not finished counting yet, they've done 4626 out of 6177 districts, so check back regularly for updates and the final result.

Moderate = conservative?

[MikeRT]

You just equated a moderate party with conservatism. That's not possible in any country. That's like saying "Socialist Party" (capitalist).

Re:Moderate = conservative?

[Alef]

No, I said the "Swedish Moderate Party" is a conservative party, which it is. Look it up if you want to. I didn't pick their name, nor their agenda.