Pirate Party Banned From Social Networking Site

An anonymous reader writes to tell us that as the European Parliament elections loom, StudiVZ, Germany's largest social networking site, has opened up to political parties for election campaigning. That is, if you aren't the Pirate Party. "The other political parties were allowed to have a special account to show they are an organization and not an individual. The Pirate Party, however, was not allowed to have one and instead operated on a standard user account registered by an individual. StudiVZ noticed that the Pirate Party account was not a "real person" and despite it having a thriving network with hundreds of followers, it was summarily deleted. This means that it is impossible for the Pirate Party to have a presence at all on the largest social networking site in Germany." Update: 05/02 19:17 GMT by T : Reader riot notes: "FYI: I just translated the press release to English."

Comments

Zeitgeist

[doas777]

they say those that fail to heed the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. Germany seems well down that path now I'd say.

Re:Zeitgeist

[iamhigh]

But it's a private website. It is the website's call if they want to ban pirates or ninjas. I do some coding for a social networking site and we will delete accounts if they don't meet our guidelines (the site targets a specific audience, and we want it that way). The 'net is a big place... big enough to allow site owners the right to keep out unwanted parties. Don't like the site's way of doing things, go elsewhere. It isn't like there aren't a dozen social networking sites trying to fill the big boy's shoes.

But I'm an asshole I guess, as I have also never seen the problem with an apartment not renting to people with kids, or restaurants not seating kids, but that is illegal.

Re:Zeitgeist

[doas777]

See, where i live, you could sue over that to achieve redress.

Re:Zeitgeist

[lucas_picador]

Sorry, maybe I misunderstand your comment, so let me make sure: are you seriously comparing the account deletion policy on a social networking site to the Nazis? Please tell me I've misunderstood. Please.

Re:Zeitgeist

[Anonymous Coward]

Where I live, political discrimination is not protected.

" 3. (1) For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for which a pardon has been granted. "

Re:Zeitgeist

[doas777]

if your in the us, political media must recieve equal time and access (with in limits)

Re:Zeitgeist

[MarkvW]

Oh yeah, its a really short step from the denial of internet access to wholesale slaughter and genocide.

Re:Zeitgeist

[jockeys]

Godwinned.

Re:Zeitgeist

[Anonymous Coward]

Who fucking cares if there are 1000 social networking sites if the social groups (or majority of) you intend to communicate with are only on the 1 you are banned from?

Re:Zeitgeist

[lucas_picador]

Also, just to clarify: yeah, I think this is a dick move (although I'm too lazy to read the details, so I could be wrong). But then, I remember Facebook having a whole passel of election-related gizmos last fall that only included the Republican and Democratic parties. As a supporter of neither of those parties, I naturally took this as further validation of my belief that Facebook is a stupid toy run by and for trivial people. You know what I didn't think, though? That FACEBOOK = NAZIS!!1!

Re:Zeitgeist

[vertinox]

Sorry, maybe I misunderstand your comment, so let me make sure: are you seriously comparing the account deletion policy on a social networking site to the Nazis?

Well the first thing the National Socialists did when they came to power was shutdown all the Christian Democrat and Socialist newspapers and arrest their party leaders.

Re:Zeitgeist

[vertinox]

Sorry, maybe I misunderstand your comment, so let me make sure: are you seriously comparing the account deletion policy on a social networking site to the Nazis? Please tell me I've misunderstood. Please.

Also (and I almost forgot), by not mentioning Nazi's by name he also includes the DDR (East Germany) who basically did the same thing to non-communist political parties.

There are plenty of people alive the lived under them and remember a time when openly joining a political party other than the Communists meant jail time.

Re:Zeitgeist

[guyminuslife]

That's not the end of it. Those goddamn Nazis running the German government have also banned the National Socialist Party.

Re:Zeitgeist

[MrMista_B]

Will you delete a site that /does/ meet the guidelines, but you have a /personal/ grudge against?

That's whats going on here.

Re:Zeitgeist

[nightfire-unique]

Sorry, maybe I misunderstand your comment, so let me make sure: are you seriously comparing the account deletion policy on a social networking site to the Nazis? Please tell me I've misunderstood. Please.

One can compare and contrast many things, regardless of their relative value.

I can compare a penny to a dollar coin. A dollar coin is worth one hundred times more than a penny.

But they are both money.

Re:Zeitgeist

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

But it's a private website. It is the website's call if they want to ban pirates or ninjas.

And it is our call if we want to take them to task for it. This freedom of speech thing works both ways.

Re:Zeitgeist

[guyminuslife]

The rule is that if a media outlet is offering time to a particular candidate for a particular office, then other candidates for the same office should be able to get the same deal.

This is only relevant to media subject to FCC regulation. Which, in general, does not include the Internet.

But in any case, it's quite easy to get around the Equal Time Rule by doing everything as a newscast.

Re:Zeitgeist

[lucas_picador]

There are plenty of people alive the lived under them and remember a time when openly joining a political party other than the Communists meant jail time.

Dude, totally! And like, someday Germans will get to tell their kid about how joining a party other than the officially sanctioned ones could, like, totally result in not being able to get your Facebook feed updated with official party event invitations! You could only get invitations to events from some other person setting up a non-official facebook group for the party, which meant you wouldn't get the little blue background bar invites in your facebook feed! And sometimes the javascript didn't work right to update your Twitters, so you'd totally have to get it sent to email instead! Dark times, dude, dark times.

I'm sorry, but: do you really not feel that these comparisons are maybe just a little bit silly?

Re:Zeitgeist

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if anybody made a joke like that in 1920s Germany

Re:Zeitgeist

[Anonymous Coward]

But I'm an asshole I guess, as I have also never seen the problem with an apartment not renting to people with kids, or restaurants not seating kids, but that is illegal.

You might be an asshole or you might just hate kids. Probably just antisocial and emotionally crippled, like the rest of us.

Re:Zeitgeist

[Anonymous Coward]

Still book burners.

Re:Zeitgeist

[slashdotmsiriv]

Congrats on a fast but subtle Godwining

Re:Zeitgeist

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably. Internet humor was all the rage back then.

In all seriousness, any successful tyrant must at some point silence voices of dissent

Re:Zeitgeist

[Hurricane78]

[...] it's really the first step from the denial of free speech to wholesale slaughter and genocide.

There. Fixed that for ya.

Re:Zeitgeist

[drinkypoo]

Oh yeah, it's a really short step from having the newspapers edited to wholesale slaughter and genocide. Er, wait... What were we talking about again? I can't seem to find any reference to it.

Re:Zeitgeist

[Anonymous Coward]

Boy Godwin's Law sure kicked in early.

Re:Zeitgeist

[KDR_11k]

Free speech has never applied to private forums, the only thing it covers is government action. Facebook is not a part of the government and as such not required to offer freedom of expression to anyone.

Re:Zeitgeist

[cliffski]

or maybe sick of antisocial kids screaming and shouting in restaurants?

Re:Zeitgeist

[murdocj]

Well the first thing the National Socialists did when they came to power was shutdown all the Christian Democrat and Socialist newspapers and arrest their party leaders.

So when this private social networking site takes over Germany and shuts down the Pirate Party, you'll have a valid comparison.

Re:Zeitgeist

[prefec2]

This is bullshit. Just because a commerical website is banning this fine party does not mean anything beside that StudiVZ is bad. However, StudiVZ is the worst possible choice you can make if you are looking for a social network. Their security model is more or less fake security.

If you haven't left StudiVZ and their other VZ services, then leave now.

Re:Zeitgeist

[AlgorithMan]

As a german I can tell you - the political situation here is BAD! censorship is back, surveillance is back, corruption... never left

the lockout of the pirate party is just a small puzzlepiece of opposition-oppression, but all in all - yes - we are headding for the fourth reich...

Re:Zeitgeist

[ShieldW0lf]

The next thing they did was make all the corporations democratically run by the workers. Which really pissed off the foreign owners who were milking the country dry. That's what the war was about, maintaining the enslavement of the people.

They recognized that the capitalists and the money changers were guilty of crimes against humanity, and they tried to liberate humanity. That's why the blitz worked, because the people in the various countries they invaded actually greeted them as liberators.

The reason you think what you think about the Nazi's is because you were raised on a diet of propaganda designed to hide the shame of your forefathers. That's not to say the things you think you know are defensible, because they're not. The point is, nothing you think you know about the subject is actually real.

Re:Zeitgeist

[bennomatic]

I can compare a penny to a dollar coin. A dollar coin is worth one hundred times more than a penny. But they are both money.

Yes, but to say that a private social network not allowing a fringe group to use the same functions as mainstream political parties means that the country where that private network operates is going the way of the Nazis or the DDR is a lot like a bum who gets a dollar claiming to be like Bill Gates.

Either way, I call Godwin's on this thread. It's ridiculous, and truly, invoking that type of history on this type of issue minimizes what actually happened. I don't think anyone in the Pirate Party has been arrested, put into forced labor camps, or gassed, incinerated and sent up the chimney.

Re:Zeitgeist

[Atlantis-Rising]

Tell me: Why should it?

Political affiliation is not an analogous ground under S.15 of the Charter; it is hardly an immutable characteristic, or one that can only be changed at great personal cost.

Given that, why should that translate through to the Human Rights Code?

Re:Zeitgeist

[sortius_nod]

I think there's a difference between a member doing something against the TOS and a member that you don't like, or have been told to not like. This, to me, is a political deletion, has nothing to do with getting rid of bad members.

I'd hazard a guess that your site isn't thriving if you can't tell the difference between a personal dislike and someone breaking the rules of your site. Where I live, if this happened, the site owners would find themselves infront of the ACMA quicker than you can say "politically unjust act".

Yes, you are an "asshole" as you said, but you're also an idiot too... but they usually go hand in hand.

Re:Zeitgeist

[Alorelith]

Amen. The many myths that surround the Nazis and the 'you know what' are pretty impressive if one even remotely tries to understand why they are so viciously defended.

Re:Zeitgeist

[painandgreed]

But it's a private website. It is the website's call if they want to ban pirates or ninjas.

It depends on what the political contribution laws are in the said country. Once a company starts allowing some political parties their services for free while banning them to others (like the Pirate Party which is a registered political party in Germany IIRC), that might be seen as an endorsement or contribution and could be in violation of some laws dealing with political contributions.

Re:Zeitgeist

[Austerity Empowers]

I'm pretty sure being a member of the communist party is still acceptable discrimination if you are a resident alien seeking citizenship, applying to government related jobs, etc. in the US. My wife, formerly a Chinese citizen, was asked this several times by officials and in official documents.

I'm not really sure what we have is necessarily that altruistic.

Re:Zeitgeist

[mysidia]

What's illegal about a restaurant refusing to seat kids (and as a result, refusing business to someone who comes there with kids)?

Re:Zeitgeist

[mysidia]

So if you're a bar, you can't refuse admittance to a 9-year-old, and refuse to sell them an alcoholic drink that they're too young to safely imbibe? On the basis of age discrimination being illegal?

Oh, by the way... political beliefs and political party associations aren't in that list!

Re:Zeitgeist

[Hurricane78]

Yeah, way to go showing a good character. ^^

Do you only obey some important rules, when law (eg the possibility of a cop dragging you to jail) forces you to do so?

A wise man once said: "Good people don't need laws. They already know what is right and wrong themselves. And bad people don't obey them anyway."

If you do the right thing when nobody asks you to... or when nobody is looking... that is were real goodness in character shows.

Re:Zeitgeist

[doas777]

do you think that everyone woke up late may 1941, and said, "Hey, Lets have a Holocaust!". the answer of course is No. small changes like this culminated in atrocity. seriously, search slashdot for "yro germany", and tell me you don't see a disturbing picture appearing over the last 2 years. probably not a sign of impending genocide, but that was only one aspect of the regime. everyone focuses on it (and rightly so), but it's not the only bad thing they did.

Re:Zeitgeist

[edible_seaweed]

But it's a private website. It is the website's call if they want to ban pirates or ninjas. I do some coding for a social networking site and we will delete accounts if they don't meet our guidelines (the site targets a specific audience, and we want it that way). The 'net is a big place... big enough to allow site owners the right to keep out unwanted parties. Don't like the site's way of doing things, go elsewhere. It isn't like there aren't a dozen social networking sites trying to fill the big boy's shoes.

This whole "it's a private website" argument has fundamental problems. Perhaps the website is acting legally and perhaps no law *should* be passed against it, but people and websites have social responsibilities beyond legality. Additionally, network effects (especially on a social *networking* site) make it hard for people to go elsewhere, destroying the normal methods of accountability for socially irresponsible decisions. Your post sounds like an attempt to discredit the discussion and say everything's perfectly OK. Yet, in your post, you point out that if a site does something you don't like, don't use it, and that's what competition is for. But that is exactly what this discussion could very likely accomplish: coordinating a boycott and publicizing the fact that many of us don't like the site. It's outside the realm of government. If you think the discussion is pointless, argue that, but don't argue that it's trying to intrude on the private rights of private websites, and don't smugly recommend that we do what we are already doing: coordinating not using the site and supporting the competitors.

Re:Zeitgeist

[Mr2001]

How is that any different from being "sick of antisocial blacks screaming and shouting in movie theaters"? Do you think your personal prejudices justify legal/commercial discrimination?

Re:Zeitgeist

[eltaco]

+1 OHHHSNAP!

Re:Zeitgeist

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

I call Godwin's on this thread.

*facepalm*

Part of Godwin's Law is that it only works when you don't explicitly invoke it.

Re:Zeitgeist

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but do we still trust the nazi's?

Re:Zeitgeist

[Imrik]

Better to start complaining at the first signs of corruption than wait until it's too late to do anything about it.

Re:Zeitgeist

[tmosley]

It's more like giving all the Republicans free air time on your network, while not allowing Democrats to even buy airtime. It's in blatant violation of God knows how many campaign laws. Well, I say that, but I have no idea what the law is like in Germany. I would think that they would be pretty strict with such things though.

Re:Zeitgeist

[tmosley]

Which party do the owners belong to now?

Re:Zeitgeist

[tmosley]

By the time they get to that point, it will already be too late. Just because the first step in fascism isn't into an oven doesn't mean that we should just except it.

And the Pirate Party is a major party in Germany.

Re:Zeitgeist

[G3ckoG33k]

guyminuslife wrote: "That's not the end of it. Those goddamn Nazis running the German government have also banned the National Socialist Party."

Would this be funny: "That's not the end of it. Those goddamn Zionists running the Israel government have not yet banned the Renewed Religious National Zionist Party."?

In fact, the similiarity with the Nazis are striking: "Ideologically, the party subscribes to Greater Israel, supports the Israeli settlement drive in Gaza and the West Bank. It vehemently opposes disengagement from West Bank, but opposes violence and civil disobedience against the IDF, and calls to respect the rule of law. The party platform also emphasizes the fight against government corruption, and more recently, also promoting social justice. The movement is supported by Rabbi Shlomo Aviner, who could be seen as its spiritual leader, whilst Nobel Prize winner Robert Aumann is the party's scientific advisor. All from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewed_Religious_National_Zionist_Party

I am fed up with jokes and links between modern Germans and what happened sixty years ago. And, no, I have no connection whatsoever with Germany, or, Robert Aumann, or, far-right, or, far-left wing ideologies.

Re:Zeitgeist

[trewornan]

In the UK it's the British National Party (quazi Nazis), membership of this party precludes you from employment in the government, police, etc. Vile as they may be, they are a legitimate political party and legalising discrimination against them is even more vile, as well as the most dangerous precedent imaginable. Unfortunately this policy is actually quite popular in the UK - the sheeple will get what they deserve in the end I guess.

Re:Zeitgeist

[Lachlan Hunt]

So if you're a bar, you can't refuse admittance to a 9-year-old, and refuse to sell them an alcoholic drink that they're too young to safely imbibe? On the basis of age discrimination being illegal?

No, in that case, the denial of service is not merely based on age alone, but rather on the law that prohibits the sale of alcohol to underage people.

Oh, by the way... political beliefs and political party associations aren't in that list!

Yes, that's what the GP was pointing out when he said "political discrimination is not protected" in his country.

Re:Zeitgeist

[bobbocanfly]

Technically, it is illegal to discriminate against members of the BNP (or any other political party) in the UK. Not employing someone for the sole reason that they are a BNP member is grounds for a discrimination claim. Though, due to the policies of the BNP, it probably wouldn't be difficult to say the person wasn't employed due to a companies anti-discrimination code (or something similar, most companies have something along those lines).

While I agree mostly with your post (they are a legitimate political party and most legitimate parties should not be discriminated against), I think in entities like the police, it makes sense to discriminate against members of the BNP (and other such parties). I mean, how fair can you expect someone with a background of discrimination against immigrants to be when arresting/investigating an immigrant as part of the police force?

Re:Zeitgeist

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Then why bother singling out the BNP or any other political party? Why not just leave the criteria at having a history of racism? After all, just because someone is a member of a party doesn't mean they believe in everything or even a majority of what that party promotes. Maybe they are a single issue voter and that's the only party that agrees with their point of view with respect to their single issue? And on the flip side you sure don't have to be a member of any political party to be racist. One rule/law that covers all cases rather than a whole bunch of laws, one for each special case.

Re:Zeitgeist

[KDR_11k]

Just don't blame the government or the population for the acts of a private corporation. It'd be worse if the govt made laws to force everyone to offer free speech on their websites.

Re:Zeitgeist

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is ironic, because that's exactly how the Pirate Party operate. "Lots of people support our views, therefore the laws must be changed, and until we get our way it's ok to break them!" seems to be the common problem here.

Re:Zeitgeist

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe it's different because children are a different group than blacks? That whole set of traits -- not being alive very long, lack of impulse control, lack of socialization -- that aren't good descriptors of black adults as a group.

Let's try another substitution: how is it any different from "sick of hyenas screaming and shouting in the movie theater"? Oh! They're different -- that's why.

P.S. I enjoyed seeing someone comparing blacks to children in the name of PC piousness.

Re:Zeitgeist

[guyminuslife]

I think your argument is with GGP, not me.

Re:Zeitgeist

[Anonymous Coward]

What a bunch of fucking lies.

The next thing they did was make all the corporations democratically run by the workers. Which really pissed off the foreign owners who were milking the country dry. That's what the war was about, maintaining the enslavement of the people.

You know that Hitler started WWII? You know that he even let people be killed to make it look like the Poles attacked first, not the Germans? Yeah, that's totally about evil bourgeois wanting their business to go on as usual. It's not even tangentially related to the original National Socialist ideology of more living space in the east.

They recognized that the capitalists and the money changers were guilty of crimes against humanity, and they tried to liberate humanity. That's why the blitz worked, because the people in the various countries they invaded actually greeted them as liberators.

They got huge sums from capitalists and their great second enemy, who's a bastard of the first according to them, was Communism. Surely they would embrace that stupid theory by that fucking jew Marx! (Buzzword: Sozialismus der Tat)

The reason you think what you think about the Nazi's is because you were raised on a diet of propaganda designed to hide the shame of your forefathers. That's not to say the things you think you know are defensible, because they're not. The point is, nothing you think you know about the subject is actually real.

Yeah, of course. Most German kids learn in grade 9 or 10, depending on federal land, all the nice horrors from 1933 to 1945. The nice thing: The books actually _cite_ their texts; contemporary witnesses, credible historians, and even original sources, like a recording of one of Hitler's speeches. That's about as unreal as anything can get, eh?

If you don't have any clue what you're talking about, shut the fuck up. (Disclaimer: I'm actually a secondary jew-hater (i.e. anti-Semite). These people think that the jews now take advantage of their position as victims to be in a better political/economical/foocal position.)

Re:Zeitgeist

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you should revisit your history books. To associate the Nazis and democracy is erroneous.

Re:Zeitgeist

[Mr2001]

Maybe it's different because children are a different group than blacks?

So are women. I guess it's OK to discriminate against women, then?

That whole set of traits -- not being alive very long, lack of impulse control, lack of socialization -- that aren't good descriptors of black adults as a group.

The first has nothing to do with being allowed into a restaurant or apartment, and the second two are stereotypes. Some individual kids might be unable to behave in a restaurant or apartment, but that's not true of kids in general.

But as long as we're allowing stereotypes, I've heard that black adults are noisy in movie theaters, and they also play loud rap music and get into gunfights. Are you saying I should have to put up with shouting and gunfights in the next row while I'm trying to watch a movie?

See how easy it is to argue for discrimination when you can just fabricate evidence that $GROUP can't behave appropriately in $SITUATION?

Re:Zeitgeist

[Anonymous Coward]

*facepalm*

Feels good to say that, doesn't it?

I know it feels so good that sometimes it's tempting to assert something you don't know for sure because you just want to use it so badly. Like your in your post where you said something that just isn't right, and in such a way as to make you look like a complete fool.

In other words: no u

Re:Zeitgeist

[yndrd1984]

>> or maybe sick of antisocial kids screaming and shouting in restaurants?
How is that any different from being "sick of antisocial blacks screaming and shouting in movie theaters"?
That's probably one of the most racist things I've ever read.

Do you think your personal prejudices justify legal/commercial discrimination?
No, but unless you're advocating drivers licenses for 8 year olds and holding adults to the terms of contracts they signed when they were 12, you're just as guilty of "ageism" as the post you replied to.

Re:Zeitgeist

[Mr2001]

That's probably one of the most racist things I've ever read.

Then you must've lived a sheltered life. I've seen far more racist things... and far more ageist things than the quote I was responding to. I think I did a fairly good job of matching the level of racism in my comment with the level of ageism in cliffski's comment.

The difference is that I'm not actually a racist; I was making a point. But I believe cliffski actually is an ageist.

I wonder, where's your outrage over the ageism in cliffski's comment?

No, but unless you're advocating drivers licenses for 8 year olds and holding adults to the terms of contracts they signed when they were 12, you're just as guilty of "ageism" as the post you replied to.

Yes, I would be guilty of ageism if I thought an 8 year old who proved his ability to drive safely shouldn't be given a license, or a 12 year old shouldn't be allowed to sign contracts simply because of his age.

But I don't. I do, however, find it interesting that you assume I must share your ageist beliefs.

Re:Zeitgeist

[Meski]

Or planes. And I can't get away from them on a plane. But it isn't just antisocial kids on planes, they might have colds (kids always seem to) and it's absolute bloody hell flying with blocked sinuses.

Re:Zeitgeist

[Meski]

And if the network was owned by either the democrats or republicans (and so, therefore, funded by them) - would you still insist that they allow their opposition airtime?

Re:Zeitgeist

[Meski]

More likely he's trying to get someone to mention the Nazis, so he can invoke Godwin's law on them.

CynicalBastards are me.

Re:Zeitgeist

[tmosley]

I wouldn't insist anything. I think that such election laws are bad, because they interfere with free speech, which is a top level right. I'm just pointing out that the actions taken by the German company are likely illegal, and giving a parallel in terms of US law.

Re:Zeitgeist

[dpastern]

With a fuck you attitude like that to your potential users, yes, you're an asshole. It's about time discrimination and freedom of speech were legally enforced against these so called "private websites". If you want a private website, get it off the fucking net, the net is a public place. End of story. Set up your own fucking WWW and keep it private. Otherwise, you're nothing but a leech, depriving others of their freedoms. I hate bastards like you.

As to the social website in question - typical, they're already *owned* by big business and political parties. That's an even more reason for knocking these bastards down.

Dave

Re:Zeitgeist

[Zombywuf]

You have it backwards. They are barred from certain jobs because being a member of the party deemed to extreme by Oswald Mosley's Nazi party is good evidence of racism. Even if the BNP are the only party that agree with your policy on chewing gum disposal and so you join them, you are still saying you don't have a problem with their bashing immigrants policy.

This is not done due to a distaste for their opinions, but due to the fact that they are genuinely dangerous. I think you'd find the police would turn down job applications from anyone writing Al Queada under "Political Affiliation" on the form.

Re:Zeitgeist

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Even if the BNP are the only party that agree with your policy on chewing gum disposal and so you join them, you are still saying you don't have a problem with their bashing immigrants policy.

That's bad logic. Few people agree 100% with the policies of their political parties.

I think you'd find the police would turn down job applications from anyone writing Al Queada under "Political Affiliation" on the form.

Since when is Al Qaeda a registered political party in the UK?

Re:Zeitgeist

[Zombywuf]

That's bad logic. Few people agree 100% with the policies of their political parties.

The logic is not that you have to agree with every issue. In order to support the BNP you have to believe whatever policy you share with them outweighs the "end to non white immigration" policy. Unless the policy you share is that one. Either way it doesn't look good for you.

Since when is Al Qaeda a registered political party in the UK?

Who said anything about registered? If you declare your affiliation with a (quite possibly non existent) terrorist organisation, or with a bunch of racist thugs, you are going to find it hard to get into the police force. By making the official policy "No BNP members" the police cut down on paperwork. There would be much more paperwork involved in turning down individual applications to the police based on perceived racism that there would be turning down the application of a teacher for perceived pedophilia if they belong to a pedophile ring.

Re:Zeitgeist

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

The logic is not that you have to agree with every issue. In order to support the BNP you have to believe whatever policy you share with them outweighs the "end to non white immigration" policy. Unless the policy you share is that one. Either way it doesn't look good for you.

No, that's a lot of assumptions. For example, one might feel that since every other party's policy is pro equality in immigration, then it doesn't matter that the BNP has that as a policy - they have no chance of being successful with it because all the other parties have it covered. But since none of the other parties cover the other non-racial issues you really care about, like say greenpeace and dog cruelty, you support the BNP.

Who said anything about registered?

You did when you made the analogy between Al Qaeda and the BNP.

By making the official policy "No BNP members" the police cut down on paperwork.

Yeah, and Mussolini made the trains run on time.

Re:Zeitgeist

[cliffski]

Oh for fucks sake.

kids are NOISY. If you want it rephrased that only well behaved and quiet kids are allowed then fine. But far easier to just to set an age limit.
Typical slashdot poster, always arguing that anyone who runs a business is being evil...

if you want to run a combined restaurant /creche, go ahead, don't expect everyone to fucking agree with you.

If YOU had kids, thats YOUR decision. don't inflict your brats on the rest of us

Re:Zeitgeist

[cliffski]

I guess we should let kids buy hardcore porn and drink neat vodka too, whilst playing with machine-guns, because OH NOESSSSS! its teh discrimination!!!!111oneone.

laughable.

Re:Zeitgeist

[Mr2001]

I guess we should let adults buy hardcore porn and drink neat vodka too, whilst playing with machine-guns, because the minute you complete your 18th orbit of the sun you become A PARAGON OF RATIONALITY no matter who you are or how much you've been drinking.

equally laughable.

Re:Zeitgeist

[Mr2001]

kids are NOISY. If you want it rephrased that only well behaved and quiet kids are allowed then fine.

You're close, but not quite there yet. Try this: "only well behaved and quiet people are allowed". It doesn't matter how old they are. If they're making a scene, then kick them out; if not, then let them stay.

But far easier to just to set an age limit.

Yup, just like it's far easier to ban all black people from the movie theater -- after all, some of them are noisy too, at least according to stand-up comics.

Just like it's easier to lock up anyone accused of a crime -- after all, most of them end up being convicted, so why not save the hassle and expense of a trial for the few who are innocent?

Because it would be barbaric, that's why. People deserve to be treated as individuals, not faceless members of a group. Even if 99 out of 100 kids couldn't control themselves in a restaurant, it would still be unjust to ban the last one because of his age... but in real life, the odds aren't nearly that slanted.

Typical slashdot poster, always arguing that anyone who runs a business is being evil...

I said nothing of the sort, and you know it.

Anyone who practices unfair discrimination is being evil, but most people who run a business manage to avoid doing that.

Re:Zeitgeist

[yndrd1984]

The difference is that I'm not actually a racist; I was making a point. But I believe cliffski actually is an ageist.
Another difference is that racism is based on incorrect beliefs about different races, and 'ageism' (the way you're using the word) is based on factual information - children really are different than adults in relevant ways.

Yes, I would be guilty of ageism if I thought an 8 year old who proved his ability to drive safely shouldn't be given a license, or a 12 year old shouldn't be allowed to sign contracts simply because of his age.
I do strongly support the idea that there should be legal ways of getting around age limits (emancipation, etc). I also understand that the specific ages our system uses are somewhat arbitrary and should be open to debate. But that doesn't mean that laws (or rules) that treat people differently based on actual differences is morally equivalent to those that treat people differently based on non-existent differences.

I do, however, find it interesting that you assume I must share your ageist beliefs.
Unless you treat newborn infants and full-grown adults in exactly identical ways you're 'ageist' as well.

Re:Zeitgeist

[Mr2001]

Another difference is that racism is based on incorrect beliefs about different races, and 'ageism' (the way you're using the word) is based on factual information - children really are different than adults in relevant ways.

There is no factual information saying that all 18 year olds are capable of activity X and all 17 year olds are incapable; biology doesn't work that way. Ageism takes statistical generalizations ("more 18 year olds than 17 year olds are capable of activity X") and incorrectly applies them to individuals.

I also understand that the specific ages our system uses are somewhat arbitrary and should be open to debate. But that doesn't mean that laws (or rules) that treat people differently based on actual differences is morally equivalent to those that treat people differently based on non-existent differences.

The problem is, these laws and rules don't "treat people differently based on actual differences". They treat people differently based on age, which may or may not correlate with actual differences.

As an analogy, consider a fire department that refuses to hire women. They might say that it's a valid form of discrimination, because firefighters need to carry heavy loads, and women tend to be weaker than men: there's an "actual difference" between the sexes. But any particular woman may or may not be weaker than any particular man. It would be unjust for the department to discriminate based on sex, when what really matters is physical strength, which varies from one individual to another.

Likewise, it's unjust to discriminate based on age when what really matters is some other trait that's loosely correlated with age. The DMV can directly observe driving ability, and restaurant owners can directly observe a person's ability to avoid making a scene; they don't need to ask anyone's age.

Unless you treat newborn infants and full-grown adults in exactly identical ways you're 'ageist' as well.

No, that's ridiculous. I don't have to treat newborns as adults in order to be anti-ageist, any more than the fire department has to hire 90 lb women who can't lift an axe in order to be anti-sexist.

I just have to base my differential treatment on individual traits rather than age-based generalizations. There are enough actual, obvious differences between a newborn and an adult that we don't need to ask either of them their age.

Re:Zeitgeist

[yndrd1984]

There is no factual information saying that all 18 year olds are capable of activity X and all 17 year olds are incapable; biology doesn't work that way.
You seem to be using the continuum fallacy.

I don't have to treat newborns as adults in order to be anti-ageist, any more than the fire department has to hire 90 lb women who can't lift an axe in order to be anti-sexist.
According to your reasoning: in order to be non-sexist people would have to allow women the same chances that men have, and only after getting individual data can they be treated differently, right? Simply swapping prejudices and following the same line of reasoning suggests that: in order to be non-ageist people would have to allow newborns the same chances that adults have, and only after getting individual data can they be treated differently.

There are enough actual, obvious differences between a newborn and an adult that we don't need to ask either of them their age.
That's exactly my point.

Re:Zeitgeist

[Mr2001]

You seem to be using the continuum fallacy [wikipedia.org].

No, you've either misunderstood the continuum fallacy or misread my comments. I'm not saying "no one can be incapable of doing activity X because there are varying degrees of capability". That would be the continuum fallacy.

What I'm saying is that even if many (or most) members of a group are incapable, that doesn't justify discrimination against the remaining members. Even if most women can't lift the loads expected of a firefighter, that's no reason to reject the ones who can. And even if most 12 year olds couldn't pass a driving test, that's no reason to reject the ones who could.

According to your reasoning: in order to be non-sexist people would have to allow women the same chances that men have, and only after getting individual data can they be treated differently, right? Simply swapping prejudices and following the same line of reasoning suggests that: in order to be non-ageist people would have to allow newborns the same chances that adults have, and only after getting individual data can they be treated differently.

Yes, that's correct, unless we can come up with medical proof that all members of an age group are incapable (which I suspect would be pretty easy if we're talking about newborns).

But obtaining that individual data is hardly a burden. It doesn't take much effort to look at a newborn and realize that this individual is not going to be able to drive a car or fill out a ballot, when he can't read, speak, stand up, or focus on distant objects.

["There are enough actual, obvious differences between a newborn and an adult that we don't need to ask either of them their age."]
That's exactly my point.

So then, you agree that all age restrictions should be abolished, and we should judge people based on their capacity as individuals instead? Glad to hear it.

Oh well

[timeOday]

Once you hoist the Jolly Roger, you excuse yourself from polite society. Isn't that sort of the point of being an outlaw?

Re:Oh well

[Cassini2]

Who isn't an outlaw on a social networking site? Isn't the whole point of them to show super cool or super something? Aren't social networking sites the everyman's new way of finding fame?

Yes, I am about to get flamed by every woman on slashdot for using the term "everyman". Except this is slashdot, so ...

Re:Oh well

[Tikkun]

They're not outlaws. They're for amateur librarians and are anti-monopolist. Just because they believe that laws today are unjust and want to reform them doesn't make it right to exclude them from political debate.

Would you really want social networking sites to prevent the ALA from having their say because Barnes and Nobel decided that libraries are killing the publishing industry?

Re:Oh well

[Anonymous Coward]

Revolutionaries are *always* outlaws at first. Take the American revolution against England for example.

Re:Oh well

[Microlith]

Then maybe they shouldn't call themselves the Pirate Party? After all, it's the political philosophy and not the name that is important, right?

Re:Oh well

[Ukab the Great]

Considering polite society's one experiment with socially acceptable piracy was a dismal failure, I'd say yes.

Re:Oh well

[kjllmn]

And these pirates, they really ARE outlaws.

(Translation is not too wonderful, but you may still glean the main point.)

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=sv&u=http://www.dn.se/opinion/signerat/sjo-och-natrovare-kanalen-mellan-somalia-bay-och-pirate-bay-1.854752&ei=SWv7Sd6OOo-SsAbp26nFBA&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=1&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dsite:dn.se%2Bhanne%2Bpirater%2Bsomalia%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DG%26num%3D100

Re:Oh well

[Hurricane78]

Right. And *that* is why the name requires something which you apparently do not have: Humor.
While the philosophy has nothing at all to do with pirates. So ships, so stealing, no killing.
In fact we're quite the opposite of pirates. Landlubbers with computers.

Can you imagine a real pirate sitting in front of a *computer*?
In front of a pink subnotebook?

I can't.

Re:Oh well

[IamTheRealMike]

The Pirate Party aren't revolutionaries because they aren't fighting for anything in particular, just against something (which is almost as vague). In the case of the American revolution they had quite specific ideas about how things should work, not just "down with England". And actually revolutionaries also excuse themselves from polite society, so I'm not sure what your point is anyway.

Re:Oh well

[dbrutus]

So if your kid wears a pirate costume with a jolly rodger eyepatch or hat, it's ok to beat him up as he's already excused himself from polite society?

The point of the Pirate Party is to work within polite society to change it via political action. I think you suffer from pirate confusion.

Re:Oh well

[dbrutus]

Ok, and who gave you the rights to name somebody else's party? The right to self-label is fundamental.

Re:Oh well

[timeOday]

Right. And *that* is why the name requires something which you apparently do not have: Humor.

I can almost see your point. But at the same time, if I were starting a movement to reform drug and prostitution laws, I wouldn't call it The Pimp and Crack Whore Party. It seems like the name isn't just supposed to be funny, it's supposed to incite a reaction. So, congratulations, it's working. Maybe this "persecution" will draw more attention to your cause.

Re:Oh well

[DigitalPasture]

Maybe you need a refresher on history. While Georgie Washington was fighting the good fight, Ben Franklin was off in France for much of the revolutionary war soliciting monies from the French. Hardly sounds like excusing themselves from polite society. Also getting back to the issue at hand, it's a political movement. Not just a bunch of 14 year old leeches on PB. From what I've gathered, their opposing unjust copyright laws.

Re:Oh well

[aliquis]

But chosing the name "the pirate party" is so fucking retarded, don't ask me why they didn't focused on freedom or personal integrity or something such, they would had been more respected with a different name.

Even using some words focusing on modern culture usage or something such would had worked.

Re:Oh well

[Jeff DeMaagd]

WTF? Good one. I didn't realize that providing suggestions or commentary on their choice of name is denying them the right to self label.

Re:Oh well

[Anonymous Coward]

and what about us transsexuals!?!

Re:Oh well

[Daimanta]

"The Pirate Party aren't revolutionaries because they aren't fighting for anything in particular, just against something (which is almost as vague)"

People who fought against prohibition weren't revolutionaries because they weren't fighting for anything in particular, just against something.

Your comparison does not hold up.

Re:Oh well

[Anonymous Coward]

And actually revolutionaries also excuse themselves from polite society, so I'm not sure what your point is anyway.

Che Guevara in a drawing room, shoving old ladies?

If they didn't want to take part in polite society, would they really excuse themselves? I think you're confusing being a revolutionary with being a dick.

Re:Oh well

[Djupblue]

"The Pirate Party aren't revolutionaries because they aren't fighting for anything in particular" That is just plain wrong, the Pirate party is fighting _for_: - A reform of copyright law - Personal privacy - Abolishion of patents In each case the Pirate Party has very specific ideas how things should work. // An actual active member of the Pirate Party, so shut up or we'll throw you over board! AAAARH!

Re:Oh well

[Anonymous Coward]

They are fighting FOR copyright reform. They are fighting FOR fair use rights. They are fighting FOR a real public domain.

Just because you are ignorant of their policy positions does not mean that they have none.

Re:Oh well

[Jesus_666]

Actually, as far as I know there's more to the name than just "it's funny".

Firtsly, let's look at Sweden, where the whole thing began. In Sweden, there's an MPAA front called Antipiratbyrån (The Antipiracy Bureau). In response, an organization called Piratbyrån (The Piracy Bureau) was formed; as "antipiracy" apparently involved making copyright law ever harsher, lobbying against such harsher laws would have to be "antiantipiracy" - or piracy. Thus, pro-consumer IP lobbyists would logically be pirates. (It must also be stated, however, that Piratbyrån used to be tightly connected with The Pirate Bay.)

The Swedish Piratpartiet (Pirate Party) is not affiliated with Piratbyrån or TPB but as far as I know, their name is based on similar principles: If things they believe people should be allowed to do are classified as "piracy" then they effectively do represent "pirates". It also creates attention - by officially naming themselves after a derogative name for copyright infringers, they show that there are enough people who don't agree with modern copyright law to form a political party (and after the TPB verdict that party is larger than half of the parties currently in the Riksdag).


The name is supposed to be placative like that.

Re:Oh well

[Requiem18th]

Better yet, The Pirate Party aren't revolutionaries because they are working *within* the system.

  Saying that they can't present their opinion despite being an actual established political party is like saying you can't democratically elect some candidate because The Man doesn't like'em.

  Actually that's almost exactly what's happening here.

Re:Oh well

[Draek]

I'll assume they call themselves the "Pirate Party" because they seek the same goals as the swedish Pirate Party, whose name in turn was inspired by The Pirate Bay, which in turn probably chose the name in mockery of the RIAA's misuse of the term.

You could criticize The Pirate Bay for choosing its name (though I think it's quite funny), but all the other links in the chain have since taken the word "pirate" to symbolize a core set of values they're willing to defend, much like Democratic Parties around the world which have done nothing to replace the republican systems of their countries of origin with direct democracy, as their name would otherwise imply.

Re:Oh well

[hvidstue]

The Pirate Party DOES have a political program. The Pirate Party IS figting for freedom, and the campaign for change in copyright laws is just ONE issue in their campaign.

Re:Oh well

[DAldredge]

No - they are a bunch of thieves.

Re:Oh well

[Anonymous Coward]

How about the people who fought against the nazis?

Re:Oh well

[perryizgr8]

yay! spoken like a TRUE pirate!!!

Re:Oh well

[Dan541]

And what would they call themselves?

The "anti-Nazi party", that would make them unqualified to run for an German office.

Re:Oh well

[tmosley]

Buncha damn Frenchies.

Re:Oh well

[Anonymous Coward]

"Once you hoist the Jolly Roger, you excuse yourself from polite society."

What evidence do you have to support your assertion ?

Re:Oh well

[xouumalperxe]

While I'm aware that the scale isn't even remotely close to the same, outlawing the pirate party over pirate bay's actions is, conceptually, much the same as what happened with Batasuna in Spain.

Seriously:

[Anonymous Coward]

Wen juckts?

Re:Seriously:

[Anonymous Coward]

Mich.

Streisand effect

[Anonymous Coward]

Streisand effect? We can only hope

goddard

[Anonymous Coward]

Goddard's Law right out of the gate. This has to be a record.

Re:goddard

[doas777]

Godwins law only applies if someone is arguing for the win. theoretically at first invocation, the other party wins the argument. I don't think i'll find too much argument in this venue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Re:goddard

[d'fim]

No, Goddard's law -- WHOOSH!

Re:goddard

[maxume]

Read your link. To me, Godwin's law is a cynical statement that people are disappointing and someone will always, eventually, resort to a Hitler or Nazi comparison.

It doesn't end the thread (but meme0tards will comment that the thread is finished) or anything like that.

Re:goddard

[NoobixCube]

Wrong God-. You're looking for Godwin, not Goddard. Unless you know something I don't know and there is some sort of Goddard's law and you're making a subtle pun I don't get... Oh no, my mind is crumbling, someone may or may not have made a pun I don't get!

Re:goddard

[Bloodoflethe]

But, I didn't see anyone saying anything about chains resting lightly on anyone. *tries to find it*

Re:goddard

[dbrutus]

The problem with Godwin's law is when somebody actually is emulating Hitler, Godwin's law hampers honest discussion of Middle East political phenomenon (Mein Kampf is still a best seller there), corporatist economics, and a number of other areas where Hitler and co had novel positions and should be analyzed. For instance, the total mess that was hitlerian economics forced a timetable of invasion and looting on the Third Reich that drove a lot of the events of the 30s.

Re:goddard

[maxume]

Godwin's law isn't the problem, crazy internet people who think "GODWIN" "GODWIN" "GODWIN" is something worth posting are the problem.

Re:goddard

[Daimanta]

may your chains rest lightly upon you

Re:goddard

[rts008]

I think that invoking 'Goddard's Law' he was saying 'Whoosh!' in a geek fashion.

Re:goddard

[Jesus_666]

I wouldn't go as far as calling the Goddard-Thorn theorem a law. Also, what do vector spaces have to do with German social networking sites?

Re:goddard

[doas777]

I still think the op meant godwin's (the context implies such anyway), there is in fact a "goddard's law" internet meme. http://wiki.freetalklive.com/Goddard's_Law

I hadn't heard of it before today either.

Re:goddard

[doas777]

http://xkcd.com/261/ lolz

Re:goddard

[Anonymous Coward]

On a related law, I declare the Car Law to be superior to Godwin's Law on Slashdot.

Re:goddard

[Anonymous Coward]

I think he may mean this metaphysicist

Re:goddard

[d'fim]

Darn, forgot about the chains reference; although the AC does seem to wear the chains of ignorance a bit lightly.

But there are other Goddards as well . . . and although Dr. Robert Goddard may not have a "law" attributed to him, he did cause many "whooshing" noises in the course of his work.

Re:goddard

[Max Littlemore]

Godwins law only applies if someone is arguing for the win.

And Goddards law applies if someone is arguing for the dard, which the GGP was.

You clearly don't know what a dard is.

I'm sure...

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

I'm sure they didn't let any other fake parties in.

Re:I'm sure...

[Red Flayer]

Well, the established parties have always tried to make sure they get to squeeze out minority parties, fake or not.

In the US, we have an institutionalized two-party system that has acted to make it nearly impossible for a third party to gain major influence; the party registration and ballot rules help ensure it. The same kind of thing happens elsewhere.

What I wonder, is if the Pirate Party in Germany has actually fulfilled the regulatory requirements for being recognized as an official political party. If so, then they could've registered the party on the site the same as any other. This is the root of the problem, I suspect.

Re:I'm sure...

[MozeeToby]

The Pirate Party is hardly a 'fake' political party. It has a well developed platform including protecting privacy (on and off the internet), copyright reform, and patent reform. In the 2006 elections in Sweden it recieved 34,918 less than 9 months after it was founded, making it the 10th largest (out of 40) political party in the election.

Re:I'm sure...

[ElectricTurtle]

Yeah, they're so fake that they're currently the largest party in Sweden that's not represented in Parliament, and that's likely to change in the next two years when all the tens of thousands of new members hit the polls.

Re:I'm sure...

[phantomfive]

From Wikipedia:

Officially registered pirate parties exist in Spain, Austria, Germany and Poland, while those in the USA, United Kingdom, Argentina, Finland, and Australia are currently unregistered, but active.

They have actually run for a state election in Germany, although only receiving .3% of the votes. It is possible the social networking site is unaware that the Pirate Party is an actual party: nothing I saw in the article indicates otherwise. It is also possible that the company is unaware of what's going on, and the entire situation got lost in bureaucracy. It was likely just some support person who deleted the account for violating the terms of service.

For the most part I agree with the platform of the Pirate Party, but it gives the impression that their primary purpose for existing is to support piracy of songs, software and movies, which I don't support. Their marketing department could probably use some work.

Re:I'm sure...

[Darkness404]

For the most part I agree with the platform of the Pirate Party, but it gives the impression that their primary purpose for existing is to support piracy of songs, software and movies, which I don't support. Their marketing department could probably use some work.

The Pirate Party is simply a reaction to unjust copyright laws. Considering the majority of lawmakers in all parties are pro-copyright and pro-copyright lobbies, the Pirate Bay wants to be as anti-copyright as possible to take down a lot of the copyright laws. A few years down the line, I can see copyright being restored but in a sane manner (until about 100 years from now when we will be in the same situation and another Pirate Party is needed to restore copyright to sanity)

Re:I'm sure...

[davek]

What is this strange >2-party-system that you seem to be explaining? How can one possibly know how to vote if the candidates don't have one of only two letters next to their name?

Re:I'm sure...

[phantomfive]

That's not helpful. It makes your party look like a bunch of nutcase radicals. Think of ELF: it is true that taking care of the environment is good, but setting fires and destroying property as a way to get your point across doesn't help at all.

A reactionary party that goes to the opposite extreme is as bad as the original evil. If you want to change copyright, you are going to need at least some of those pro-copyright lawmakers to help you (unless you can completely take over the legislature, which if that is your goal, looking like a nutcase radical won't help you much either). To get those lawmakers on your side, you're going to come up with something reasonable.

Obviously there is a problem here, copyright gives too much power to the owners of the work. But if you want to change things, you're going to have to come up with a reasonable solution, not 'be as anti-copyright as possible.'

Re:I'm sure...

[MrMista_B]

It's a real political party.

Re:I'm sure...

[Anonymous Coward]

It works if you have an at least semi-functional education system, media that aren't all entirely beholden to various MegaCorps, and people actually feel like their vote makes at least _some_ difference, by having a number of *different* choices, rather than just two, almost identical.

Re:I'm sure...

[Darkness404]

That's not helpful. It makes your party look like a bunch of nutcase radicals. Think of ELF: it is true that taking care of the environment is good, but setting fires and destroying property as a way to get your point across doesn't help at all.

Whenever laws are unjust, about the only way to change them is through "radical" ideas. Just look at blacks in America after the civil war, they sought to maintain the old order of things in the south and nothing really was done that improved the lives of black Americans, until the civil rights movement where a few "radicals" were needed to bring about change. Same thing with copyright. And no one is going to have any property burned or lives lost with the abolition of copyright, save for perhaps the publishers who were on the way out anyways and served no real purpose.

A reactionary party that goes to the opposite extreme is as bad as the original evil. If you want to change copyright, you are going to need at least some of those pro-copyright lawmakers to help you (unless you can completely take over the legislature, which if that is your goal, looking like a nutcase radical won't help you much either). To get those lawmakers on your side, you're going to come up with something reasonable.

But if the Pirate Party can get enough seats, it would prove that many people do care about copyright and the end result would be copyright is weakened or at least not strengthened. If you have a small to medium amount of people who are willing to shoot down any proposed legislation that strengthens or doesn't weaken copyright, you will have no choice but to try to work with them or face many, many, many angry letters/calls/e-mails.

Re:I'm sure...

[dbrutus]

Maybe a link to the US pirate party platform would be helpful for those who are incapable of googling.

Re:I'm sure...

[phantomfive]

Wherever laws are unjust, the solution is to come up with laws that are just. Coming up with laws that are unjust in the opposite direction is something that's been tried, and it's not good. Make your goal to have fair laws, and you will have support from people who want fairness. If your goal is to have unfair laws, you will have support only from people who will unfairly benefit from your laws. If that is your goal, I will not support you.

But if the Pirate Party can get enough seats, it would prove that many people do care about copyright and the end result would be copyright is weakened or at least not strengthened.

If the Pirate Party is seen as a party of nutcases, they won't get any seats, even if people do care about copyright (and a lot of people do: there are few people who don't believe the author should have at least some control over his work). They need to at least seem sane.

Re:I'm sure...

[Heddahenrik]

Strangely, the soon-to-be second largest party in Sweden, Piratpartiet, seems to disagree with you. Why are you against free culture?

Maybe you say that culture isn't free to produce. We know that; it's you who are stupid. Why are you against free culture?

Because filesharing is stealing? No, it isn't. Why are you against free culture?

Because the ones producing content have to be paid? No, they don't have to be paid. Why are you against free culture?

But then no content will be produced? No, that is a lie. Why are you against free culture?

Because you like putting annoying kids in jail. OK, I can't argue with you there, but it's a quite expensive solution.

Re:I'm sure...

[SwedishPenguin]

I can't speak for our German sister party, but as a member of the Swedish pirate party, I can assure you that the Pirate Party is not a fake party.

It's a party that has developed and gained support due to the increasingly anti-democratic attitude of our elected parliamentarians. Last year, parliament voted for a law giving a government institution the right to wiretap all international telecommunications traffic without warrant, suspicion and with minimal public insight. This year the IPRED directive was implemented with the added bonus (for record executives) that private corporations could go to court on their own (and not through the police as is common practice) to request information from ISPs on who was using a specific IP at a specific time. I'm sure you haven't missed ACTA if you've read /. with any regularity. The data retention directive will be implemented in Sweden this fall.

The Pirate Party is against all this. While the party is also of the opinion that non-commercial file-sharing of copyrighted works should be legalized, this is really sort of secondary. In order to enforce a ban on filesharing, you have to implement a totalitarian state that can monitor what every person does all the time. This is in our opinion NOT acceptable.

And many agree with us. In the first poll for the upcoming European Parliament elections, we got 5.1% of the vote, enough to grab one seat, with the Pirate Party not even being an alternative presented by the pollsters, and we are now the fourth, soon the third largest party in Sweden with over 42,000 members.

Re:I'm sure...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Wherever laws are unjust, the solution is to come up with laws that are just. Coming up with laws that are unjust in the opposite direction is something that's been tried, and it's not good.

And here you betray your bias. What if copyright itself is completely unjust?

You might as well argue that a little bit of slavery is OK because we have to be fair to the slave owners. After all they paid for the food, lodging, medical treatment, etc of their slave, it would be unfair to just arbitrarily release the slaves.

Re:I'm sure...

[Sir_Lewk]

You may not value their ideas as much as they do, but that is certainly no ground for asserting that they are not a "real" (whatever that's supposed to mean in this context...) political party.

I could assert that Socialist parties are not "real" parties because "It's just a bunch of people that want to live off the system for free, regardless of any other consequences", but I would be terribly unjustified in doing so.

Re:I'm sure...

[nog_lorp]

It is easy to belittle those with viewpoints different then yours. Are you from the US? Are you a member of either of the major parties? What jokes - the "we just want to tax and spend like crazy and limit personal freedoms" party VS the "we just want to have ZERO taxes and totally dismantle all forms of government" party. I would say they are as fake as they come.

Re:I'm sure...

[phantomfive]

And here you betray your bias.

No, I stated my bias clearly at the beginning of the thread when I said: "For the most part I agree with the platform of the Pirate Party, but it gives the impression that their primary purpose for existing is to support piracy of songs, software and movies, which I don't support. Their marketing department could probably use some work."

What if copyright itself is completely unjust?

It isn't. It is fair for authors to be compensated for their work. Having to pay $6 for a movie that cost millions to create is not completely unjust.

Re:I'm sure...

[aliquis]

The pirate party isn't a fake party in Sweden though.
http://www.piratpartiet.se/
http://www.piratpartiet.se/storlek

We'll see if they get enough votes for the EU parlament or not.

Re:I'm sure...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

primary purpose for existing is to support piracy of songs, software and movies, which I don't support.

You are right, your bias was clear at the start. Except you weren't applying at the start.

It isn't. It is fair for authors to be compensated for their work. Having to pay $6 for a movie that cost millions to create is not completely unjust.

Copyright is not the only way to pay for creation - your bias prevents you from distinguishing between the two. Copyright has just become the default because it has been an easy crutch to rely on. Until the internet became widespread that is.

Re:I'm sure...

[Anonymous Coward]

"While the party is also of the opinion that non-commercial file-sharing of copyrighted works should be legalized"

I dont think the party even stands for this comment.
well if a sutible way for the makers could get paid sure. The stance seems to be more like

non-commercial file-sharing of copyrighted works should not be something that would make you leave yor home and make you in debt for the rest of your life. most of the party still seems to think that yes it should be ilegal but no it should not be the kind of punishment that there is for murder rape and that sort of crime

Re:I'm sure...

[phantomfive]

Copyright has been around for many years as a way for artists to be compensated for their work. It is not unjust. Is there a better way? Possibly, but then it is up to the Pirate Party (or anyone who wants to change things) to come up with a better way. It's more effective to be in favor of a better way, than to be opposed to something that works moderately well. Destroying a system that is already in place without having something to replace it tends to lead to bad things.

For some reason you have come to the conclusion that because I have one viewpoint, I can't see others. I can.

Re:I'm sure...

[Jesus_666]

and we are now the fourth, soon the third largest party in Sweden with over 42,000 members.

...and one of the reasons why I'm currently learning Swedish, just in case. Seriously, the fact that the Pirate Party is doing well in Sweden (it never really took off in Germany) and that the various anti-harsh-IP-laws groups are actually getting somewhere (cf. members of other parties talking about decriminalizing filesharing) is a really big incentive to move over there.

Okay, the fact that they scored second on an internet speed survey a couple months ago might also be a factor... but the less-insane politics are the main one. I mean, a country where the people can actually influence politics! You don't see that every day.

Re:I'm sure...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Slavery has been around for many years as a way for farmers to better work their land. It is not unjust. Is there a better way? Possibly, but then it is up to the abolitionists (or anyone who wants to change things) to come up with a better way.

For some reason you have come to the conclusion that because I have one viewpoint, I can't see others. I can.

Seems to me being able to see another viewpoint is irrelevant if you are so willing to dismiss it out of hand.

Re:I'm sure...

[Kjella]

"While the party is also of the opinion that non-commercial file-sharing of copyrighted works should be legalized"

I dont think the party even stands for this comment.

It's unequivocally stated in the party principles. Commercial use five years, all non-commercial use to be made legal. I doubt that every member agrees with everything, but they don't in other parties either. What the GP said is the official party line.

Re:I'm sure...

[phantomfive]

Slavery has been around for many years as a way for farmers to better work their land. It is not unjust. Is there a better way? Possibly, but then it is up to the abolitionists (or anyone who wants to change things) to come up with a better way.

Compare things to slavery. Interesting. OK, for fun, lets make a list of things you have not done.

Things you have not done:

• You have not presented an alternative to copyright.
• You have not explained why you think copyright is unjust.
• You have not explained why your alternative (which you did not present) is better.

For the symmetry of it, we ought to make a list of things you have done.

Things you have done:

• Compared copyright to slavery.
• Accused me of dismissing alternate viewpoints without examining them (despite the fact that you presented no alternative).
• Compared copyright to slavery again.
• Accused me of being so biased that I cannot see the difference between copyright and compensation for work.

Seems you need to work on your communication skills here. If you have something to say, say it. Be brave in presenting your ideas. If you don't have anything interesting, then stop making weird comparisons to slavery and falling into the logical fallacy of attacking the person.

Re:I'm sure...

[ElectricTurtle]

Heh I didn't know there was a website for the US party. I'm on board.

Re:I'm sure...

[Daimanta]

"I can't speak for our German sister party, but as a member of the Swedish pirate party, I can assure you that the Pirate Party is not a fake party."

True, the problem is the lack of recognition by all the navies in the world.

Re:I'm sure...

[NoMaster]

"Copyright has been around for many years as a way for artists to be compensated for their work. It is not unjust. Is there a better way? Possibly, but then it is up to the Pirate Party (or anyone who wants to change things) to come up with a better way."

I suggest the Gilbert & Sullivan approach myself : release your next product yourself, right in the midst of the pirates.

Amusingly ironic, really...

Re:I'm sure...

[Wildclaw]

While the party is also of the opinion that non-commercial file-sharing of copyrighted works should be legalized, this is really sort of secondary

To be fair, that is also a primary point. The point being that giving everyone instant access to all knowledge ever produced is more valuable that rewarding creators via a system that restricts the spread of knowledge.

The party still feels that a compromise can be made on the commercial level, giving the creator exclusive rights to profit from his work. On the patent side, the party feels even that compromise is too big to make due to the big costs that patents bring to conducting business. (as it often isn't possible to avoid patents, unlike copyright)

Re:I'm sure...

[Anonymous Coward]

Last time I checked, Germany has a minimum 5% rule to receive any representation. Way back in the bad old days, they apparently had a problem with a mish-mash of tiny ridiculous parties that couldn't work together. So I hope 5+% of Germans wake up soon and realize that copyright law is the most important political issue in their lives...

Re:I'm sure...

[bit01]

copyright gives too much power to the owners of the work.

Tautology. Ownership, by definition, is the right to control. The more interesting question is "Who owns it?" In other words who owns the original and who owns the copies.

What you probably meant to say is "copyright gives too much power to the original creators of a work."

---

Copyrights and patents are privileges, not rights.

Re:I'm sure...

[taucross]

+1 Punny

Re:I'm sure...

[phantomfive]

That's an idiotic statement. If I own a gun, I still don't have the power under the law to kill you with it. Ownership doesn't mean you have all power, and can control all use of the owned work. Seems you have another point but it isn't very clear. If you want me to respond to it, restate it more clearly.

Re:I'm sure...

[DAldredge]

Why should anyone have a right to use what I create without my permission?

Re:I'm sure...

[skeeto]

It is fair for authors to be compensated for their work.

The purpose of copyright isn't to compensate authors. It exists to encourage more works to be written. If it's not doing this very well (it's not), it needs to go.

Re:I'm sure...

[phantomfive]

It is a naive to believe that a major purpose copyright isn't to compensate authors. You may not like that purpose, but it is nonetheless a very real purpose of copyright. Look at the history of copyright, and you will see the main impetus behind it was who was getting paid (or not paid) for what work.

It is fair for authors to be compensated for their work. Why would you not agree with this thought?

Re:I'm sure...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Funny.

You have not explain why you think copyright is just - all you've done is conflate copyright with compensation and then based your justifications for copyright on justifications for compensation.

As for comparisons to slavery? Not "weird" at all. Copyright is a state-enforced restriction on the freedom of expression - a human right as fundamental as the human right to self-determinism.

Re:I'm sure...

[skeeto]

It is a naive to believe that a major purpose copyright isn't to compensate authors.

Uh... no. Not in the US anyway. Here it is right from the US constitution,

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;

Notice there's nothing in there about authors needing to be compensated. If compensation is the current function of copyright, it's unconstitutional and invalid.

It is fair for authors to be compensated for their work. Why would you not agree with this thought?

You're putting words in my mouth.

Re:I'm sure...

[phantomfive]

Indeed, promoting the progress of science and useful arts is the base justification for copyright. And there is nothing that specifies that an author must be compensated (which is good since a lot of what is created is worthless). However, it specifically states that no one besides the original creator may be compensated, unless they give up this right. This is a important part of copyright.

You're putting words in my mouth.

Fair enough, sorry about that.

Then, in response to your original comment, how will authors get compensation from publishers if the publisher is free to copy and distribute his work without paying him? A lot of people write books because they are getting paid. If you hear about someone getting a million dollar book deal, you can bet that person is only writing their book because they are getting paid.

Re:I'm sure...

[phantomfive]

Good question. How could copyright be considered just? Lets consider it in terms of music.

Suppose Mr Doe writes and records some music. It's really good music, and he has two desires: he wants to make money off his music, and he wants to control his artistic vision.

On the other side, there are several groups of people. There are people who want to listen to his music, there are people who want to perform his song, there are people who want to sell his recording, and there are people who want to use his music in various ways in their own work. Often these people want to use this music without paying for it.

This is the essential conflict. The people on one side have desires that conflict with Mr Doe's desires. How can this be resolved fairly? Should anyone be able to use Mr Doe's work without compensating him? This would make Mr Doe upset. Should people be able to use Mr Doe's work in their own works? This would also make Mr Doe upset. A compromise must be found. A fair compromise will leave both sides satisfied as much as possible.

Our current copyright law solves this compromise by giving the creator complete control over the work for a certain number of years, after which it falls into the public domain. This is a compromise mainly developed between authors and publishers, since for most of history it's been impossible for an average person to copy books in any way that would affect the income of the author. Currently, in my opinion, copyright lasts too long: a term of 20 years is much more reasonable, however the basic compromise is still fair. Is there a better compromise? Maybe, I'll let you present yours if you have one.

Now a question for you. Would you rather be a slave, or live under the current regime of copyright? Would you rather live as a slave, or live in a world where copyrights lasted a thousand years? Would you rather be a slave, or line in a world where copyright violations were highly criminalized? Comparing the two makes you sound sensationalist.

Re:I'm sure...

[init100]

Should anyone be able to use Mr Doe's work without compensating him?

Yes, after a limited time of exclusive monopoly on the distribution of that content. Just as with copyright, but before the numerous term extensions.

This would make Mr Doe upset.

So? Are you suggesting that we should do everything Mr Doe says or else he will be upset?

Re:I'm sure...

[phantomfive]

So? Are you suggesting that we should do everything Mr Doe says or else he will be upset?

Is there some part of the word compromise that implies we should do everything Mr Doe says? Where is your confusion coming from?

Yes, after a limited time of exclusive monopoly on the distribution of that content. Just as with copyright, but before the numerous term extensions.

Yes, that is correct. Copyright terms are too long, in my opinion. Yours too.

Re:I'm sure...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Should anyone be able to use Mr Doe's work without compensating him?

There you go again conflating copyright with compensation. They are not the same. All you do is keep arguing that it isn't fair to a creator to take the result of his work without compensation. That is not the same thing as copyright.

Now a question for you. Would you rather be a slave, or live under the current regime of copyright? Would you rather live as a slave, or live in a world where copyrights lasted a thousand years? Would you rather be a slave, or line in a world where copyright violations were highly criminalized? Comparing the two makes you sound sensationalist.

Human rights are not relative. A lot of slaves had great lives, living far more comfortably than they could have managed on their own. But that didn't make their enslavement any less wrong than a slave who was beaten every day and fed offal.

Re:I'm sure...

[Poorcku]

But then no content will be produced? No, that is a lie. [citation needed]

Re:I'm sure...

[phantomfive]

If you get rid of copyright, the only people who will care are the ones who are hurt from getting rid of it. The main ones who we should worry about are the authors: they use copyright law to control their artistic vision and to get money from those who use their creations. This is what copyright is used for, it's what it does. This is the practical reality of the situation. Is there anyone who uses copyright for any other purpose? I am not aware of them. The FSF uses the GPL to control what is essentially their artistic vision.

It is, in my opinion, unfair to take an artist's work without compensation. Society has developed a solution to this, which is copyright. We've come to the conclusion that it is helpful for artists and inventors to have control over their works. It makes them happy. If you think copyright is not about control and compensation, what exactly do you think it's about? The US constitution says specifically authors can have "the exclusive Right to their respective Writings" (according to the mandate of congress, of course). If that's not control, what is?

Do you ever actually add anything to a conversation, or are all your conversations like this? It seems instead of engaging in dialog you try to point out mistakes wherever you can. It's kind of annoying. Instead of saying "They are not the same" you explain how it really is if I'm so wrong?

Re:I'm sure...

[Anonymous Coward]

You are aware that human culture predates copyright law, right? Or do I need to also get a citation for that?

Re:I'm sure...

[Anonymous Coward]

Nooooooo, not the angry letters!!!

Re:I'm sure...

[zwei2stein]

Maybe they should stop themselves "Pirate party" and remove that "it should be okay to pirate stuff" from list of their goals, they will not have that many problems. Everything else is great list of civil liberties that are worth fighting for ... but including piracy in there? What for? To piss of big companies and get more votes?

Re:I'm sure...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

It is, in my opinion, unfair to take an artist's work without compensation.

Why can't you just admit it? You have absolutely no way to defend copyright on its own, every single argument you make is just derivative of compensation. The two are so intertwined in your perception of the world that you can't even avoid using the word compensation, it keeps coming out every time you try to reword your statement. You even make the classic error of presuming that the FSF needs copyright when the GPL is clearly just a subversion, a hack, of modern copyright law.

Do you ever actually add anything to a conversation, or are all your conversations like this? It seems instead of engaging in dialog you try to point out mistakes wherever you can.

I've had one simple point from the begining - you are biased for copyright but yet you have no independent defense for it. You've been indoctrinated but don't realize it.

All your justifications for copyright are just justifications for compensating creators and not for the denial of basic human rights that copyright entails. Its unfortunate that you can't recognize the gigantic hole in your perception, instead you keep going around and around making the same error using the same words. It really should be no surprise that I keep pointing out the same fallacy over and over again - you keep using it over and over again.

Re:I'm sure...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I think the idea is that fighting software piracy is impossible without taking away all the civil liberties. Therefore striking a balance between "fighting piracy" and "having civil liberties" is necessary. In this case the pirate party is all for not taking away civil liberties for something that still can't be achived.

Re:I'm sure...

[Anonymous Coward]

ITYM the "we just want to tax and spend like crazy and limit personal freedoms" party VS the "we just want to have ZERO taxes and spend like crazy and limit personal freedoms and totally dismantle all forms of government" party. I would say they are as fake as they come.

Re:I'm sure...

[Poorcku]

well that is true. but it also true that this human culture you speak of was initially created by people not doing it as a profession. millenia later, michelangelo and co. would have not produced their work if not for some rich capitalist bastard to sponsor their work. you know, the guy who paid big bucks for a painting so nice that no one could have... a few centuries later, some slashdot poster suggest everything comes from thin air...even davinci, goya, velasques and such. thin air. no money involved, no one should be payed. great.

Re:I'm sure...

[Darkness404]

And there is nothing that specifies that an author must be compensated (which is good since a lot of what is created is worthless). However, it specifically states that no one besides the original creator may be compensated, unless they give up this right. This is a important part of copyright.

Then copyright infringement on the internet should be legal. No one gets compensated in any way, no one gets anything stolen in any way.

Then, in response to your original comment, how will authors get compensation from publishers if the publisher is free to copy and distribute his work without paying him?

Simple, non disclosure agreements. Whenever an author sends a copy of his work to a prospective publisher, they can add in an agreement that they agree not to publish this information in any form for 10 years unless another contract invalidates it. If the publishers like the work, they can agree for a contract that sets the pricing of the book, how much money goes to the author on the sale of the book, how much up front they want to pay for the book, etc. Thus allowing the author to be compensated for 10 years (which, is a good amount of protection due to the NDA) and no one loses rights and we don't have eternal copyright.

Re:I'm sure...

[Millenniumman]

The difference being that the Socialist parties, at least in parts of Europe, have real positions on issues that actually matter and have drawn honest support outside of a bizarre, fleeting subculture.

While many may just want to live off the system for free, it's not entirely a platform of "gimme gimme" like this stupid Pirate Party.

I don't agree with them, but there are real Socialist parties. The Pirate Party is a fake party.

Re:I'm sure...

[Millenniumman]

What is this nonsense about being against free culture? What do you mean by free culture? Being able to hear a song or watch a movie for free, regardless of the desires of the moviemaker, is not free culture, it's free stuff. Especially since the prices are quite reasonable.

Also, what is with the mantra crap?

There's plenty of free media, and you can make more. You and your Pirate buddies can go enjoy free culture all you want.

But that's not it. You just want free stuff.

Re:I'm sure...

[Anonymous Coward]

It is fair for authors to be compensated for their work.

The purpose of copyright isn't to compensate authors. It exists to encourage more works to be written. If it's not doing this very well (it's not), it needs to go.

Correction: It doesn't exist to encourage more works to be created, it exists to encourage more works to be created and released into the public domain . The italicized part is the one that justifies the rest of it. Limited copyright was originally given NOT to enrich the creators, but to enrich everyone else.

Re:I'm sure...

[Millenniumman]

The party is not "also of the opinion that non-commercial file-sharing of copyrighted works should be legalized" in a way that is "secondary". That is the point. It is called the Pirate Party, not the free speech party. No one cares about wiretaps, etc. They care about free stuff.

And no, it doesn't take a totalitarian state to enforce a ban on piracy. I mean, yes, it takes a totalitarian state to actually 100% enforce any law (and even that won't work), but that's not really point. You don't even need to go after the downloaders. Just take down pirate bay, and a few other big torrent sites and it will go down a lot.

Or even better, don't really do anything about it, but don't pretend it's important or form some imbecilic party to defend it.

Re:I'm sure...

[Millenniumman]

Copyright doesn't restrict the spread of knowledge. Knowledge can't be copyrighted, and isn't present in most of works pirated anyway. But any information in a copyrighted work can be shared, just not the verbatim content.

Patents also can't prevent the spread of knowledge, but only temporarily prevent it's commercialization by third parties. They actually help to open it up and limit trade secrets.

Re:I'm sure...

[Millenniumman]

What party in Sweden wants to "tax and spend" less than the Democrats?

I'm also pretty sure the Republicans don't want to have ZERO taxes and totally dismantle all forms of government.

They might be disagreeable, but they aren't fake like the Pirate Party.

Not that our party system doesn't have problems, but that doesn't change the fact that the Pirate Party is idiotic. If it actually became popular outside of its little subculture it would indicate severe problems in Swedish politics, but that seems unlikely.

Re:I'm sure...

[phantomfive]

I've had one simple point from the begining - you are biased for copyright but yet you have no independent defense for it. You've been indoctrinated but don't realize it.

I'm biased towards truth. If you have a way to show me it is not true, then I will listen. If you continually do nothing but tell me I am wrong, I will consider that you are uninformed and argumentative. Is copyright the only way for artists to get compensation? No. Is it a reasonable way? It's seemed to work so far.

All your justifications for copyright are just justifications for compensating creators and not for the denial of basic human rights that copyright entails

So you are making an argument based on natural law. IE, we all have a right to download music for free. We all have a right to freedom of expression. Fair enough, realistically we can do whatever we want. As a society, we have decided that suspending that right for a period of time is a good way for artists to get compensation for their work, a good way to help them out and reward them for what they've done. It doesn't hurt us much, and sometimes helps us.

Re:I'm sure...

[Anonymous Coward]

Strangely, the soon-to-be second largest party in Sweden, Piratpartiet, seems to disagree with you. Why are you against free culture?

Maybe you say that culture isn't free to produce. We know that; it's you who are stupid. Why are you against free culture?

Because filesharing is stealing? No, it isn't. Why are you against free culture?

Because the ones producing content have to be paid? No, they don't have to be paid. Why are you against free culture?

But then no content will be produced? No, that is a lie. Why are you against free culture?

Because you like putting annoying kids in jail. OK, I can't argue with you there, but it's a quite expensive solution.

I guess any content creator starving, would be against free culture, apparently only sociopaths treat other people as tools at their disposal. Are you a sociopath ? Asking a question 5 times doesn't make it right you know ? You assume that everyone is participating in this free culture of yours and that would be fair but you see there's problem : people like you just want things for free and give nothing back, and NO seeding that thing you stole is not giving something back, is just helping other joker like you steal some more ! Why don't you leave that ''righteousness'' and contribute to the real free culture.

Re:I'm sure...

[phantomfive]

Then copyright infringement on the internet should be legal. No one gets compensated in any way, no one gets anything stolen in any way.

In other words, you want to be able to download music for free. Wow, way to promote sympathy for your cause.

Simple, non disclosure agreements. Whenever an author sends a copy of his work to a prospective publisher, they can add in an agreement that they agree not to publish this information in any form for 10 years unless another contract invalidates it. If the publishers like the work, they can agree for a contract that sets the pricing of the book, how much money goes to the author on the sale of the book, how much up front they want to pay for the book, etc. Thus allowing the author to be compensated for 10 years (which, is a good amount of protection due to the NDA) and no one loses rights and we don't have eternal copyright.

This may work, if you make some modifications (for example, what is to prevent other publishers from publishing it without compensating the author), but that is beside the point. If it looks like the entire existence of your party is so people can download music, software and movies without paying for them, you're going to look like a bunch of greedy kids. Maybe you will get enough support, but only if the rest of the country acts like greedy little kids as well. And it's not good when that happens.

Re:I'm sure...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I'm biased towards truth. If you have a way to show me it is not true

I've shown you its not true, you just dismissed the proof as "weird" and "sensationalist." What's worse is that for something which is "true" you've been completely unable to defend it other than say the equivalent of "its true because its true." If you really cared about truth that should bother the hell out of you.

suspending that right for a period of time is a good way for artists to get compensation for their work ... It doesn't hurt us much, and sometimes helps us.

And yet again with the compensation equivalency. I'll spare you the didactic of swapping the key words to make the same sentences apply equally to slavery as seen through pre-abolitionist eyes.

Re:I'm sure...

[Sir_Lewk]

You seem to be an incredibly dense individual so I'll try to explain this as bluntly as possible.

"real positions on issues that actually matter" This is your opinion. They do not share it. You are not the supreme dictator of who is, and is not a political party.

Re:I'm sure...

[phantomfive]

When you are swapping words around, you are trying to show how copyright is like slavery. The problem is, showing that people might look at slavery and another thing the same way does not imply they are equally unjust. I can do the same thing as you, here is a sentence you came up with:

Slavery has been around for many years as a way for farmers to better work their land. It is not unjust. Is there a better way? Possibly, but then it is up to the abolitionists (or anyone who wants to change things) to come up with a better way.

Now I can change it too:
Piracy (as in, buccaneers raiding ships) has been around for many years as a way for sailors to better increase their wealth. It is not unjust. Is there a better way? Possibly, but then it is up to the people whose ships get raided (or anyone who wants to change things) to come up with a better way.

Or we can do it with murder:
Murder has been around for many years as a way for people to get gain and revenge. It is not unjust. Is there a better way? Possibly, but then it is up to the people who die (or anyone who wants to change things) to come up with a better way.

Or how about candy?
Sweets have been around for many years as a way for people to have a good taste in their mouth. It is not unjust. Is there a better way? Possibly, but then it is up to the people who hate candy (or anyone who wants to change things) to come up with a better way.

Do you see? Swapping words does not an argument make. You have to also show why you are justified in swapping words.

Re:I'm sure...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Do you see? Swapping words does not an argument make. You have to also show why you are justified in swapping words.

Other than the specious candy example, you've made my point for me.

The right of self-determinism is a basic human right, just as the right to freedom of expression. Both piracy and murder are violations of the right to self-determinism. Its good that see you piracy and murder on the same level as copyright, you are making progress.

Re:I'm sure...

[phantomfive]

Ah, I see. Your idea is based on the idea that you should be able to do anything you want, as long as it doesn't hurt other people, so you should be able to download music free, since it isn't hurting anyone. You should have said so earlier.

In that case, I would ask you, why should I pay taxes? If I don't pay them, roads will still get paved, bridges will still get built. If it doesn't hurt people, I shouldn't have to pay, right?

While you are thinking about that, I will talk about copyright. You are right of course, artists have no 'right' to get paid for their work. So imagine what would happen if we as a society got rid of copyright laws. You can imagine that artists and writers wouldn't be happy, they like copyright. They might even start a union, and agree to not write or do art anymore unless we implement something like copyright. It wouldn't be the first time writers have gone on strike. Of course, they might be willing to settle for some other alternative. Then we as a society would decide, yeah, we like art and music, and we are willing to give up some of our self-determinism so that we can have good art and music. Besides, it seems kind of nice that they get something in return for all the cool stuff they've given us.

See? It's not about an artist's 'right' or anyone else's 'right.' It's about a societal agreement that seems to work fairly well.

Re:I'm sure...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Your idea is based on the idea that you should be able to do anything you want, as long as it doesn't hurt other people, so you should be able to download music free, since it isn't hurting anyone. You should have said so earlier.

No, It isn't about hurting someone per se, it is about the basic human right of freedom of expression. The right to freedom of expression must, by definition, include the right to express anything, even if it is an exact duplicate of something someone else has expressed. If that weren't the case then no one would be able to communicate an idea to a third person.

Then we as a society would decide, yeah, we like art and music, and we are willing to give up some of our self-determinism

Again you are back to equating compensation for creators with copyright, you've just taken one step up the chain and said it is sacrifice of some amount of a human right, although I believe you meant freedom of expression, unless you are proposing some sort of slavery or death in exchange for compensating creators.

Here's something to think about, can you conceive of a way to compensate creators without violating a basic human right? You might start with looking at the way everybody else who works for a living is compensated without violating anyone's human rights.

Re:I'm sure...

[phantomfive]

No, It isn't about hurting someone per se, it is about the basic human right of freedom of expression. The right to freedom of expression must, by definition, include the right to express anything, even if it is an exact duplicate of something someone else has expressed.

You don't have this right. You are not allowed to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater, for example. Some speech does hurt people and it is prohibited. First amendment rights are not unlimited. Copyright is also a method of limiting speech, and it is also authorized by the constitution.

Re:I'm sure...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

You don't have this right. You are not allowed to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater, for example. Some speech does hurt people and it is prohibited. First amendment rights are not unlimited. Copyright is also a method of limiting speech, and it is also authorized by the constitution.

In cases like that it isn't the speech that harms anyone it is the criminal mischief that the speech is used to convey. Similarly, libel laws, false advertising laws, etc do not limit speech, they limit the harm done with speech. However any harm done by a copyright violation is purely an artifact of copyright law to begin with. Constitutional or not, copyright remains a serious infringement on the right of freedom of expression.

It is unfortunate you chose to focus on trying to justify copyright as a necessary restriction on freedom of expression rather than ponder why a certain class of labor is so privileged as to deserve broad infringement of a basic human right instead of being treated as equal to that of all other forms of labor.

Re:I'm sure...

[phantomfive]

ponder why a certain class of labor is so privileged as to deserve broad infringement of a basic human right instead of being treated as equal to that of all other forms of labor.

Interesting point. Not all forms of labor have equal value. Cherry pickers don't get paid as much as programmers because, well, anyone can pick cherries (ha! I make it sound so easy!). The ability to write something that is actually interesting is a rare skill, as is the ability to create music worth listening to. Is it worth all the money they get? Maybe, maybe not. But it is definitely worth the dollar I pay for it.

If you want equality in society, you need to accomplish it by making the weak stronger. If anybody can write excellent music, it will be a skill that is no longer valuable. If you try to equalize society by cutting down the rich, you end up with things like the French Revolution or communist Russia. Equalize by building up, not cutting down.

Re:I'm sure...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Interesting point. Not all forms of labor have equal value.

This is not about value - it is not about compensation, rather it is that they are given a privilege no other group of people are given.

If anybody can write excellent music, it will be a skill that is no longer valuable.

The exact same thing can be said for just about any profession. Again, its not about how much they are compensated - in fact most creators do not even make a living wage under the current system - it is that a certain class of labor is seen as so exceptional as to justify the violation of everyone's basic human right to freedom of self expression.

Re:I'm sure...

[nog_lorp]

The "little subculture" you speak of turns out to be a massive demographic. You can hurl pejoratives at it all you want, but it all amounts to "the Pirate Party are doo-doo heads" or any other partisan bullshit.

For particulars, I was talking about US parties when I mentioned Democratics, and merely using the commonly spouted anti-Democratic theme. As for Republicans, they have been saying for a LONG, LONG time now that "lower taxes is a core part of their platform". Not some certain tax rate, but "lower taxes". This has survived a drop from above 90% average tax rate in the 60s to below 30% tax rate in the 80s. HOW LOW DO TAXES HAVE TO GO before Republicans rescind this "core part of their platform"? The answer is obvious; so long as there are taxes they will rail against them, until there are no taxes and therefore no government.

So, is the Green Party a "fake party"? Because the Pirate Party's "tiny subculture" has more membership / votes than the Green Party in Sweden.

Re:I'm sure...

[nog_lorp]

Heh. I was talking more classical Replublicanism, i.e. conservativism. The modern Republican party is just plain bizarre. You might say one party or the other doesn't make sense because you don't like the end result they are looking towards (nanny state vs anarchy), but the modern Republican party wants to have magical infinite resources and total freedom but no one doing anything bad.

Re:I'm sure...

[Anonymous Coward]

The party is not "also of the opinion that non-commercial file-sharing of copyrighted works should be legalized" in a way that is "secondary". That is the point. It is called the Pirate Party, not the free speech party. No one cares about wiretaps, etc. They care about free stuff.

Yes, it's secondary. No, it's not the main point. Yes, it's called The Pirate Party. Yes, an overwhelming majority of its members and those prepared to vote for it do in fact care about wiretaps, privacy and integrity. The main thing to care about is not free stuff.

And no, it doesn't take a totalitarian state to enforce a ban on piracy. I mean, yes, it takes a totalitarian state to actually 100% enforce any law (and even that won't work), but that's not really point. You don't even need to go after the downloaders. Just take down pirate bay, and a few other big torrent sites and it will go down a lot.

Yes, it does take a sufficiently totalitarian state to enforce such a ban, and that is indeed the point. Taking down the pirate bay and a few other big torrent sites is a) not going to happen in the long run (alternatives will always appear - have you read any history at all?) and b) it won't help, even if all of them were taken down (again, alternatives - do you think information sharing, regardless of type of information, is a new phenomenon? really?)

Or even better, don't really do anything about it, but don't pretend it's important or form some imbecilic party to defend it.

Ah, and there we have it. Your official withdrawal from any serious discussion regarding these issues.

Thanks for playing. Better luck next time, maybe. If you're better prepared, that is.

Re:I'm sure...

[phantomfive]

This is not about value - it is not about compensation, rather it is that they are given a privilege no other group of people are given.

Of course it has a lot to do with compensation.....what else are they supposed to do with the privilege granted to them other than try to be compensated? Nor is it a privilege no other group is given......copyright is available to all.

Again, its not about how much they are compensated - in fact most creators do not even make a living wage under the current system

I agree, most creators don't make a living wage under the current system, mostly because people don't value what they create. If they want people to value what they create, they need to either do better at creating stuff, or do better at helping people see that they've created something of value.

it is that a certain class of labor is seen as so exceptional as to justify the violation of everyone's basic human right to freedom of self expression.

Very very few people are ever hurt by this minimal limit on self-expression (a limit that should expire after a few years).

Re:I'm sure...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Of course it has a lot to do with compensation.....what else are they supposed to do with the privilege granted to them other than try to be compensated?

Around and around you go. You have specifically avoided addressing the point as to WHY creators of ideas should be allowed to violate all of society's right to freedom of expression.

Nor is it a privilege no other group is given......copyright is available to all.

Man that cognitive dissonance must be coming on strong for you to write something so completely out of phase with the question. A certain class of labor, LABOR not any one specific group of laborers.

Very very few people are ever hurt by this minimal limit on self-expression (a limit that should expire after a few years).

Even if it were true -- and I'm pretty sure it isn't given how society suffers hugely from all the money wasted on copyright enforcement and creative restrictions on derivative works -- it's not relevant. You might as well say that slavery is OK as long as its only for a short period, or that murder and piracy are OK as long its restricted to only a few people.

or do better at helping people see that they've created something of value.

You are kind of on to something there. What if the problem is copyright itself - the system that has naturally developed around the copyright monopoly has put a stranglehold on the market for ideas. People can't see that there is value to these creations because people generally only look where the bright spotlights of the content cartel shines.

Re:I'm sure...

[phantomfive]

Around and around you go. You have specifically avoided addressing the point as to WHY creators of ideas should be allowed to violate all of society's right to freedom of expression.

Because we, as a society, agree it's ok. Similarly to how we as a society agree that government is a good idea: there is no great mandate that says we must have a government, and there is no great mandate that says we must or must not have copyright. In general it seems to be working out ok.

Man that cognitive dissonance must be coming on strong for you to write something so completely out of phase with the question. A certain class of labor, LABOR not any one specific group of laborers.

lol ok, fair enough. I responded precisely to your words, not to the meaning behind them. Shame on me.

To answer the real question, they can have this method of compensation because it seems to work out fairly well in practice. There are some problems, as I've mentioned before, and I'm sure you agree with me, for example, it prevents people from conserving some works of art where the original creator is unreachable. This is why the term of copyright should be shortened, and fair use expanded.

You might as well say that slavery is OK as long as its only for a short period, or that murder and piracy are OK as long its restricted to only a few people.

The huge difference is that people are hurt quite seriously by murder and piracy. I am only aware of one case where copyright itself caused any real problem (as opposed to braindead implementations of copyright), and that was a case where George Harrison independently wrote a song that was very similar to a song someone else had already written. If my memory is correct, he was sued, and lost, and had to pay some of the royalties for that song. One case in two hundred years is not much pain, and George made enough money off the song to cover it, so he was no worse off than before. So technically, no pain.

I am open to alternatives to copyright, but any alternative must
A) fairly compensate the creators, and
B) work better than copyright.
An alternative that only works about as well as our current system isn't worth the effort it would take to change. It must be better. I know of no such alternative.

People can't see that there is value to these creations because people generally only look where the bright spotlights of the content cartel shines.

In theory that may be possible, but I don't think that is the case: and even less so in the age of the internet. Do you know of any cases where that happened? Usually if there is someone with real talent, record companies seek them out because they know they can make money with them.

On the other hand, there have been cases of one talent who is not so good being promoted where another talent who is equally not so good is left behind. These people usually end up being the pretty face in front of a group of song writers and producers, who often do have talent.

Re:I'm sure...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Because we, as a society, agree it's ok.

Because we, as a society, agree it's ok. ...
it seems to work out fairly well in practice.

That is a NON-ANSWER. You have said, "its OK because that's the way things are." See slavery. Not an acceptable reason when dealing with inalienable human rights.

The huge difference is that people are hurt quite seriously by murder and piracy. I am only aware of one case where copyright itself caused any real problem

Just because no one is directly physically harmed does not mean there is not a great deal of indirect harm done to society at large. Kill one person or poison 200 hundred such that they all lose half a year of lifespan - which is worse? The answer is both are bad, just one is more easily noticed.

that was a case where George Harrison independently wrote a song that was very similar to a song someone else had already written. If my memory is correct, he was sued, and lost, and had to pay some of the royalties for that song. One case in two hundred years is not much pain,

Just because you personally aren't aware of the hundreds of thousands of other cases of a similar nature doesn't make the violation of a basic human right any more tolerable. For example, you apparently aren't aware of the "bright-line rule" for determining maximum sample length before a song is considered a derived work - its less than 2 seconds as established by the sixth circuit court and affirmed by the ninth in a separate case. But lets ignore all the cases that actually made it to court - the real culture-killer is the chilling effect of that and so many other parts of copyright law, for every case that gets tried there are probably tens if not hundreds or thousands of creations that are never made at all for fear of violating copyrights. Make no mistake about it, the cost of copyright is very dear.

In theory that may be possible, but I don't think that is the case: and even less so in the age of the internet. Do you know of any cases where that happened? Usually if there is someone with real talent, record companies seek them out because they know they can make money with them.

That's just ridiculously naive. For one thing the content cartels would much rather have a stable of 10 pop singers who bring in half a billion in revenues each than they would have a stable of 10,000 singers who bring in revenue of $500,000 each. Their business models only scale up, they only care about stars. The industry is rife with stories of artists who sold plenty of albums to be more than self-supporting, but not anywhere enough to keep their record label interested. So the label killed their careers by requiring repayment of advances but not green-lighting any other albums, but not releasing them from their contracts for more albums. Leaving them in limbo. The record companies don't seek out talent they seek out marketability.

Re:I'm sure...

[Anonymous Coward]

Last year, [the Swedish] parliament voted for a law giving a government institution the right to wiretap all international telecommunications traffic without warrant, suspicion and with minimal public insight.

Interesting, since a lot of traffic from other countries is routed through Sweden with no alternate paths...

Re:I'm sure...

[phantomfive]

for every case that gets tried there are probably tens if not hundreds or thousands of creations that are never made at all for fear of violating copyrights. Make no mistake about it, the cost of copyright is very dear.

If this is true, then the case is grave indeed. What are these tens or hundreds of thousands of creations? I am not aware of them.

The industry is rife with stories of artists who sold plenty of albums to be more than self-supporting, but not anywhere enough to keep their record label interested. So the label killed their careers by requiring repayment of advances but not green-lighting any other albums, but not releasing them from their contracts for more albums

While I agree this is bad, it is not a matter of copyright, it is a matter of signing foolish contracts. Otherwise they could turn to other avenues to market their music. Something similar happened to the Bolivian group Azul Azul, with Sony music: they broke up for a while because the contract was unfair.

But you do have an interesting point: if the damage caused by copyright is greater than the benefits of copyright, then it ought to be re-examined and possibly dropped. This is a point that ought to be investigated.

Re:I'm sure...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

And yet again you turn your face away from the key point - that copyright is an unjustifiable violation of a basic human right - and instead focus on the trivial.

If this is true, then the case is grave indeed. What are these tens or hundreds of thousands of creations? I am not aware of them.

If they weren't ever created or published, then how could you be aware of them? But here's one example that was created and hunted down with extreme prejudice - The Grey Album. Before that the band Negativeland. Want more? One place to get them is www.ChillingEffects.com .

While I agree this is bad, it is not a matter of copyright, it is a matter of signing foolish contracts

It seems like just about everything you've written in this thread has been exceptionally naive. Its kind of like you can only remember one step at a time and really can't connect all the dots. Instead you just reply to the literal words on the screen and ignore all the context that preceded it. I'll say it a second time with context from prior posts included -- The content cartel has leveraged the monopoly of copyright to gain a monopoly on distribution channels - and because of that monopoly good, high quality artists have two choices - either they are kept out of the spotlight or they sign abusive contracts.

Re:I'm sure...

[phantomfive]

And yet again you turn your face away from the key point - that copyright is an unjustifiable violation of a basic human right - and instead focus on the trivial.

You keep coming back to these rights as if it is all that matters. In the first place, rights are not unlimited. In the second place, we can give up our rights if we choose to. For example, you might say I have the right to keep this dollar I have in my pocket, and I can, but on the other hand I can give it away to someone as well. It is my choice. We have the same choice with rights of freedom of expression: you personally may not have wanted to give up your (minimal) rights of freedom of expression, but most of society is willing to do so. Welcome to life in society, where the things you may do for your personal benefit are limited by considerations to society.

In the third place, there is no such thing as a natural right. It is not something granted to us by the gods. A right is something we have because of social contract: we as a society agree that it is good to give each other certain rights. If on the other hand, society decides it might be a good idea to limit these rights, then that is what happens. Sometimes these are brain-dead limitations, sometimes they are good. If you want to change things, you have to get enough of society to agree with you that another way is better. Then change will come.

So far, you haven't done a very good job convincing.

If you want to see some of the advantages of copyright, here is one: there have been many books written because people want money. All those books you see in the checkout of a supermarket? They were all written because someone wanted money. Anytime you hear about someone getting a million dollar book deal, you can bet they are only writing the book for money (some of them have other motives as well, but a lot only write for money). Winston Churchill wrote many books primarily for money: one commentator said, whenever he runs out of money, he writes another book. If it weren't for the profit potential, we would know significantly less about Winston Churchill than we do now. Profit is a powerful motivator, even in the creative process.

Re:I'm sure...

[Wildclaw]

Copyright doesn't restrict the spread of knowledge

Ok, then. Copyright restricts the spread of the useful arts. Better?

temporarily prevent it's commercialization by third parties.

So, it reduces the spread.

They actually help to open it up and limit trade secrets.

No. The whole "trade secret" argument is fatally flawed if you only take a few seconds to think about it. Any research that would be able to kept trade secreted for longer would still remain a trade secret. Research only become patented when companies don't think they can manage to keep it a trade secret for one reason or another.

Re:I'm sure...

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you trying to say that people who produce things of value shouldn't be paid?

There is a problem with current copyright laws favouring copyright holders too much and they need to be changed to a reasonable duration. But they are, in principle, a reasonable way to recompense people who produce the sort of work copyright law covers.

I'm not against free culture. But copyright law doesn't stop people giving away works they produce for free. Allowing a reasonable limited copyright, actually allows the artists to make some money from their work and they can produce more, instead of having to do it in their spare time while working another job to pay the bills. Yes, some people would do it anyway, but isn't it fair to give them something in return for what they are giving you? It certainly has value or you wouldn't bother with it at all.

Aye

[Anonymous Coward]

One such member was quoted saying

"Aye. We just want to run for pARRRRRRlament!" No ninjas were found for comment.

What do they expect. They're the PIRATE party

[JO_DIE_THE_STAR_F***]

Except that they are more about civil liberties then they are about hijacking ships off the Somalian coast.
It does not matter what your party name is. If you have a sufficient sized following and your trying to get into power to improve your country why should you be treated any different than the rest of the political parties?

Re:What do they expect. They're the PIRATE party

[lucas_picador]

If you have a sufficient sized following and your trying to get into power to improve your country why should you be treated any different than the rest of the political parties?

Here's a hint: they probably don't let white supremacist or neo-Nazi parties sign up for accounts, either. Because expressing those kinds of opinions about how to "improve your country" is illegal in Germany. Which may offend American 1st-Amendment sensibilities, but given Germany's history, I can't say it's such a crazy policy.

So while I agree with you that the Pirate Party deserves to be included, the very broadly inclusive policy you've described would never -- and could never, legally -- fly in Germany.

Re:What do they expect. They're the PIRATE party

[LandDolphin]

Outlawing thought certainly sounds crazy to me. But I have those "American 1st-Amendment sensibilities"

Re:What do they expect. They're the PIRATE party

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of the names of the other European political parties make even less sense. With a name like "Pirate Party" you can at least make a guess about what they will do when you vote on them.

Re:What do they expect. They're the PIRATE party

[lucas_picador]

Outlawing thought certainly sounds crazy to me. But I have those "American 1st-Amendment sensibilities"

I won't argue with you, because I don't disagree. But if this is the issue with which people have a problem, then their beef is with German law and politics at a pretty deep level. Germany is much more restrictive about who gets to be a political party than, say, the US. Of course, they can point to this policy as one of the reasons their political discourse -- unlike that of the US -- isn't dominated by white supremacists (Glenn Beck, Strom Thurmond), religious fanatics (Scientologists, Christian Dominionists), and so on. Which, I have to admit, is a pretty appealing upside.

Re:What do they expect. They're the PIRATE party

[Darkness404]

but given Germany's history, I can't say it's such a crazy policy.

Um, looking at Germany's history I can say that it is not only crazy, but insane. Had Hitler not been imprisoned and seemingly "martyred" for his beliefs, he wouldn't have written Mein Kampf, and the Nazi party, unable to find a martyr to rally behind would slowly fade away (that is not to say that another dictator wouldn't have sized power, but it wouldn't have been Hitler). Same reasoning applies today (just look at the Stresint effect).

Re:What do they expect. They're the PIRATE party

[Hognoxious]

that is not to say that another dictator wouldn't have sized power, but it wouldn't have been Hitler

Great. Someone with a little more tactical sense. Someone who plans campaigns based on strategy rather than astrology. Someone who might have won.

Re:What do they expect. They're the PIRATE party

[lucas_picador]

Had Hitler not been imprisoned and seemingly "martyred" for his beliefs, he wouldn't have written Mein Kampf, and the Nazi party, unable to find a martyr to rally behind would slowly fade away ...

Agreed. Henceforth, we shall stop imprisoning people who do bad things, lest they become martyrs to the cause for which they were imprisoned, thus creating a fascist movement dedicated to (murder/rape/jaywalking). Indeed, we should instead imprison those who do GOOD things, creating martyrs who will inspire virtue in the populace! And all men shall walk on the water, and swim upon the land. Huzzah!

In other news, your historical counterfactual is ridiculously overstated, as is the argument it tries to support. Look, I'm not an advocate of censorship, but I understand its appeal to Germans, who understand fascism and the cultural forces giving rise to a bit better than, I daresay, you seem to. America today is much closer to fascism than Germany, despite the wonderful (I mean that sincerely) protections for speech afforded by the US constitution.

Note also that this story is not about government censorship, but about some guys running a website that shows you ads and sells your personal information in exchange for letting you talk to your friends and post pictures of your boobs. As The Dude would say: this isn't a First Amendment thing, Walter.

Re:What do they expect. They're the PIRATE party

[Hognoxious]

Not saying that I agree with that law (I don't), but if it's the law the website must obey it.

However when the website chooses, without compulsion and of its own free will, to favour one party over another that's wrong.

Re:What do they expect. They're the PIRATE party

[Anonymous Coward]

It is precisely because the crazies can speak their mind that we know to ignore them. Suppress them, and they only grow stronger.

Re:What do they expect. They're the PIRATE party

[Hognoxious]

Look, I'm not an advocate of censorship, but I understand its appeal to Germans, who understand fascism and the cultural forces giving rise to a bit better than, I daresay, you seem to.

Clearly they don't understand very much, because if they did they'd see that censorship is a tool that's very useful to totalitarian regimes, and a dual purpose one to boot: silencing opposing points of view and hiding their own crimes & vices.

Re:What do they expect. They're the PIRATE party

[lucas_picador]

However when the website chooses, without compulsion and of its own free will, to favour one party over another that's wrong.

You know what else is wrong? Selling people's personal information and bombarding them with penis enlargement pill ads in exchange for allowing them to send email to their friends.

Here's the bad news: private companies do things that aren't very nice, but not illegal, and actually pretty much inevitable in a capitalist system, all the time. To compare them to the Nazis every time they do things like this is, maybe, not so helpful. It might lead to a certain loss of perspective and make the speaker and listener both worse off for it. That's all I'm saying.

Re:What do they expect. They're the PIRATE party

[KDR_11k]

Not thought, speech intended to undermine the democracy or direct harm towards certain groups. When someone gives a big talk about exterminating group X they are potentially dangerous and likely to incite other people to act that violence out.

Re:What do they expect. They're the PIRATE party

[dbrutus]

Since, unlike white supremacist or Nazi parties, the Pirate party seems to be legally registered in the FRG, maybe you're not dealing with the real world here.

The FRG denies the registration or bans extremist groups. The Pirate party has passed legal muster, just not the private opinions of some power mad sysadmins on a social network. Who are you trying to defend?

Re:What do they expect. They're the PIRATE party

[lupis42]

As was stated earlier, however, the Pirate party *met* those standards. They *are* an officially recognized party in Germany. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_party

Re:What do they expect. They're the PIRATE party

[dbrutus]

The Pirate party in Germany apparently is not only legal (and thus not a problem for German law) but also has an elected official, a mayor, who switched to their banner.

Your US analysis is amusingly bad and entirely off topic, kudos.

Re:What do they expect. They're the PIRATE party

[lucas_picador]

Clearly they don't understand very much, because if they did they'd see that censorship is a tool that's very useful to totalitarian regimes, and a dual purpose one to boot: silencing opposing points of view and hiding their own crimes & vices.

Again, I don't disagree with you. But are you really going to stand up and defend the right of the Hutu Power guys running the radio station to broadcast the locations of Tutsi "cockraoches" to the roving machete-rape squads? And if not, then where is the line being drawn between reasonable and unreasonable censorship? Is Lou Dobbs calling for Mexican immigrant concentration camps on FOX News closer to the Hutu Power boys, or closer to Thomas Jefferson? I think it depends on context: if the US were to see an drastic upswing in hate crimes targeting immigrants, I can see how curbing that kind of incitement could be justified. Germany has a very specific context when it comes to white supremacists and neo-Nazis, obviously. I live in Canada, which has much more restrictive hate-speech laws than the US, and yet there seems to be more accountability, transparency, and free discourse up here than in the US (where I grew up), and people are much nicer to each other as well. My primary reason for opposing hate-speech laws in the US is because I know that they would be drafted and enforced to protect specific politically powerful interests, rather than marginalized groups. I really do think that this is an area where the right balance struck by the law depends a lot on context.

Re:What do they expect. They're the PIRATE party

[he-sk]

You can't be serious! What do you think is the appropriate punishment for attempting an armed coup d'état? A pat on the back?

If you knew your German history you'd know that during the Weimar Republic crimes by right extremists were less severely punished than crimes by left extremists and Hitler was no exception. He served his 5 years minimum sentence in relative comfort and was not deported to Austria contrary to what the law called for. The judges thought him honorable, but misguided. We know how that turned out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_Hall_Putsch

PS: Fuck Slashdot for still not supporting Unicode and having me write d'état.

Re:What do they expect. They're the PIRATE party

[Jesus_666]

Actually, it could. You only need to add "and you don't oppose the Basic Law" and all illegal parties are out. I mean, look at the problems they have with the NPD - they're not anticonstitutional enough to be banned, even though their ideas are scary.

As for private websites like StudiVZ: They can lock out whoever they want; the law can't really touch them (at least not without getting revised). The proper instrument to use would be bad PR, in this case.

Re:What do they expect. They're the PIRATE party

[meringuoid]

Had Hitler not been imprisoned and seemingly "martyred" for his beliefs

Er... as I recall, he was imprisoned not for his beliefs, but for acting on them. Specifically, for trying to take over the city of Munich by force of arms at the head of a gang of thugs. I don't know of any jurisdictions in which that kind of behaviour is considered acceptable.

Re:What do they expect. They're the PIRATE party

[he-sk]

Clearly you don't know what you're talking about. The censorship is specific to symbols that were used by the Nazis 60 years ago. They had their chance to world domination and we're not going to give them another.

Most anti-censorship types I hang out with have no problem with prohibiting the display and distribution of Nazi symbols.

Re:What do they expect. They're the PIRATE party

[Anonymous Coward]

you're.

Re:What do they expect. They're the PIRATE party

[dryeo]

America is quite capable of outlawing political parties, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Control_Act as an example and also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_USA#History.
As a democracy if enough people wanted to be communist to amend the constitution (over 2/3rds) then the will of the people should be respected.

Re:What do they expect. They're the PIRATE party

[dryeo]

Actually the Nazi party wasn't too bad before Hitler, just another run of the mill socialist party. When Hitler became leader he purged all the socialists and turned it into the fascist party.

Re:What do they expect. They're the PIRATE party

[Anonymous Coward]

How can you say those things as if they are facts. You're utterly disrespectful and conjecturing out of your ass. Let me try:

Hitler was imprisoned precisely *because* he was a threat and was rallying support to overthrow the government. If he *hadn't* been imprisoned Germany would have invaded Poland much sooner and this could have altered the whole outcome of WWII, the Americans for example would not have had the time to develop the nuclear bomb... not sure if that's bad though.

But anyway my point is you cannot prove this to be less true than your own predictions, because simply we could never know for sure. So stop pretending like you know everything.

Re:What do they expect. They're the PIRATE party

[Anonymous Coward]

<troll />
<redherring>
and if they dont agree about the thing that gets longer if you put some ema1ls in..
forget it.
<fish />

Re:What do they expect. They're the PIRATE party

[Hognoxious]

Seems you hang round with some dumb assholes. Maybe it's contagious? Perhaps they're the "free speech as long as we like what you're saying" crowd. They're the worst of the lot.

How does prohibiting symbols do any good at all?

That's not a rhetorical question. If I don't know what I'm talking then enlighten me, you pompous little twat.

Seriously, what happens with history books depicting WW2 Tiger tanks or Me 109s? Does someone have to put a splosh of paint on all the eeeevil swastikas? Or model kits - do they have to take all the decals out? It's useless.

In fact it's worse than useless, because it gives fools a false sense of security while sweeping the real problem under the rug.

Re:What do they expect. They're the PIRATE party

[Anonymous Coward]

uh fuck you and fuck communism. nuff said

Re:What do they expect. They're the PIRATE party

[he-sk]

You don't get it. When an American neonazi hangs a swastika flag in his room, he's simply displaying his ignorance.

When a German neonazi does the same, a map showing Germany's 1939 borders is not far away along with the underlying message that the current government should be discarded and Germany restored to its old borders. Which, of course, means a new war with Poland and a bunch of other countries.

Nazi symbols take on a special meaning in Germany, precisely because nazism is a part of German's history. Context matters.

As far as censoring history books: That's stupid and the law doesn't do that. The arts aren't covered as well. Spielberg can put as much swastikas in his Indiana Jones movies as he wants and it won't be censored. I think the law only covers political expression with these symbols and their distribution.

There's a saying, "Nazism is a crime, not an opinion", which describes how most Germans feel about this. Yeah, it's somewhat hypocritical, but the vast majority think it's justified given Germany's history. People have a knack to compartmentalize like that.

Re:What do they expect. They're the PIRATE party

[Hognoxious]

You don't get it. When an American neonazi hangs a swastika flag in his room, he's simply displaying his ignorance. When a German neonazi does the same, a map showing Germany's 1939 borders is not far away

I will actually concede that what you wrote is 100% factual. I know because I looked it up on www.outofmygaykrautass.com. Not trusting one source, www.thinair.org confirms it.

Way to not answer the question.

I'm not a Nazi sympathiser at all, but I find your type even more disgusting. At least they had the courage to believe in something. Sheep like you are part of the problem but you never think you are.

And you're a liar. I've bought model kits in Germany that had the insignia omitted, with a card in the box explaining why.

Re:What do they expect. They're the PIRATE party

[he-sk]

Whatever. I could point out that I mentioned books and the arts and not model planes, but why bother? You just like talking out of your ass. Didn't I mention distribution was illegal? Nobody is stopping you from painting your model planes however you want, though. Waiting for the story how the man busted you for painting swastikas on your model planes. *crickets*

Now kindly fuck off.

StasiVZ

[The Apocalyptic Lawn]

A German friend of mine called it Stasi-VZ, after the former East-German secret service.

After reading this, that comment makes even more sense.

Re:StasiVZ

[lucas_picador]

Sweet! So far this thread has produced comparisons between a social networking site's account deletion policy and both 1) the Nazis (see above) and 2) the Stasi. Can I get a Joseph Stalin up in here? Some Genghis Kahn metaphors? Or have those already popped up below my filter level?

Re:StasiVZ

[KDR_11k]

The Stasi comparisons are less about account deletion and more about their data mining processes and abuse by employers to dig up dirty secrets about people (and even if you don't upload them yourself it takes only one idiot in your circle of friends to upload something bad and potential employers will forever see how you got drunk and fucked a pig).

Re:StasiVZ

[Jesus_666]

Also, the Stasi was all about giving your private data to others and StudiVZ is really good at that. I don't know if they changed much recently but they have been known to be a convenient place to gather marketable mail addresses for ages. I think some people even had their spiders directly query the SQL server for a while.

Re:StasiVZ

[Anonymous Coward]

Sweet! So far this thread has produced comparisons between a social networking site's account deletion policy and both 1) the Nazis (see above) and 2) the Stasi. Can I get a Joseph Stalin up in here? Some Genghis Kahn metaphors? Or have those already popped up below my filter level?

How about, "Stalin wouldn't have allowed any kind of public speech
from any other party either, he would have just taken the offenders
and tried to breed them with monkeys" (and for fun, google Stalin's
ape-human breeding) and Genghis Kahn, um, hmmm, how about, "he would
just kill you after banging your wife regardless of what you said or
where"?

Oh boo hoo

[holophrastic]

First, private company can do what it wants -- I own three.

Second, this particular "victim" has perhaps the largest-trafficed site in the world. They don't need any help.

Third, democracy is perhaps one of the dumbest actual concepts in practice. Why the hell sholud my vote on 90% of topics count equal to someone expert in the particular field. I've got my expertiese, where my vote should count more than the average joe, and my ignorances where my vote should count way less.

The only thing democracy has going for it, when it comes to elections, is to help curb government corruption. That's hardly a plus for the actual system. And any "party" comparing itself to pirates isn't interested in curbing corruption.

Re:Oh boo hoo

[hyanakin]

are you confusing "Pirate Party" and "The Pirate Bay"?

Re:Oh boo hoo

[Anonymous Coward]

Second, this particular "victim" has perhaps the largest-trafficed site in the world. They don't need any help.

Pirate Party != The Pirate Bay

Re:Oh boo hoo

[Chabo]

Second, this particular "victim" has perhaps the largest-trafficed site in the world. They don't need any help.

Pirate Party != The Pirate Bay

Especially true when speaking of the German Pirate Party. The Swedish Pirate Party has a slightly closer association.

Re:Oh boo hoo

[Anonymous Coward]

No, he's confusing his own ignorant rantings for insightful contributions.

Re:Oh boo hoo

[the_arrow]

First, yes they can do whatever they want, as long as it is legal.

Second, you are mixing up the Pirate Bay with the Pirate Party. Two very different things. Also, the Pirate Party in TFA is the German Pirate Party, which is very different from all other Pirate Parties in other countries.

Re:Oh boo hoo

[Captain Splendid]

Such delusion.

Third, democracy is perhaps one of the dumbest actual concepts in practice. Why the hell sholud my vote on 90% of topics count equal to someone expert in the particular field. I've got my expertise, where my vote should count more than the average joe, and my ignorances where my vote should count way less.

And who gets to make the determination that your vote/say (whether or a particularly narrow topic or just in general) is any better than someone else's? It's a classic chicken/egg scenario we can't ever hope to solve to even a majority's satisfaction, so we don't even bother wasting the time in the first place.

Hence: Democracy. Yup, it's far from perfect, but it's relatively low maintenance (something you want in a toll that's supposed to last you long periods of time), and it's about as fair as we can currently figure out, which has the very obvious advantage that it keeps post-results bitching to a minimum and thus allows for longer periods of progress and peace.

That's hardly a plus for the actual system.

Actually, that's a great plus. History is littered with despotic regimes whose chief hallmarks were lack of transparency and accountability. For example, the current situation in the US is directly linked to two very important facets of its democratic makeup. Number one is America's system of "representative" democracy which is more elitist than "direct" democracy. Second, the current financial mess is directly traceable to a collapse of the regulatory organs of the state during the last few decades.

Re:Oh boo hoo

[gurps_npc]

You have made a rather innane error. You think the purpose of Democracy is to make the correct choice - to pick the best person or the best policyu. WRONG!

The purpose of Democracy is two fold.

1. To reduce civil wars.

2. To force the government to at least TRY an pay attention to the nees of people besides those directly in power.

First, if you have enough men to fairly win a civil, then you should have enough men to win an election - with much less casualties. In other forms of government, you might have 90% of the population hating the leader, but without democracy the only way to remove them is to fight and die.

Second, a democracy requires the government to consider what everyone else thinks. In most other forms of government, who )(*&@ cares what the peasants thinks.

P.S. There is a third benefit that happens often, but not all the times. Democracies usually have voting fairly often, so it speeds up the process of removing the incompetent, as compared to many other forms. But this is not always the case.

Re:Oh boo hoo

[vertinox]

First, private company can do what it wants -- I own three.

Right, but if you behave in such a way that other people find offensive they are allowed to bitch about it. Freedom of speech works both ways.

I mean if you posted offensive or intolerant views on your websites (like say you have proof that Windows is better than Linux), don't people have a right to write make their own websites, blogs, and petition Slashdot on the topic?

Either the German site can either put up with the criticism or let them on their site. It has the right to not let them join, but they can bitch all they like about not being allowed.

It is their right.

Re:Oh boo hoo

[holophrastic]

Really? I thought they were "well affiliated". Or at least mutually supported.

Re:Oh boo hoo

[Anonymous Coward]

First, private company can do what it wants -- I own three.

OK then, put up a sign on your business door stating "no niggers or queers", and see exactly how long you believe that.

Re:Oh boo hoo

[holophrastic]

Who gets to make the determination? How about a minimum level of determination? Like when I vote, in order for my vote to be counted, I need to know the name of the person for whom I'm voting, and their position on three key issues -- you know, the types of things that htey state forty times in every speech. Something, anything, to prove that I'm not just ticking off a random name. And maybe, just maybe, I should have to do it for at least one other candidate.

But to say that a system is good because it avoids being bad doesn't say anything for what it improves. Unless you're saying that government is there simply to keep chaos at bay. Which is certainly valid. But I like to see more from my society.

Re:Oh boo hoo

[WarwickRyan]

Democracy's a bit like Wikipedia: the most obsessive win.

Re:Oh boo hoo

[maxume]

The problem is that people treat democracy as if it is virtuous, rather than accepting it because it does the least to restrict liberty.

I mean, a 9/10 vote to do something stupid still ends in doing something stupid.

Re:Oh boo hoo

[holophrastic]

But that's precisely my point. I don't care what peasants think -- especially when I'm a peasant. Democracy doesn't force government to consider the needs o the people, it forces government to consider the vote of the people.

So if someone has an actually good idea, but it requires, oh, I don't know, a grade ten education to understand, then it can never happen because people won't vote for it because they don't understand it.

So then you start electing people who sound intelligent, not people who actually are intelligent. Those two tend to be inversely proportional.

Re:Oh boo hoo

[holophrastic]

"We reserve the right ot refuse service to anyone for any reason." It's in every restaurant.

"This job requires someone fluent in Chinese." See how many Indians apply.

Oh, and in conducting interviews for a position, I don't have to say why I chose to hire someone else.

"Must be available to work on. . ." list the set of holidays that conflicts with your religion of non-choice. See how many Catholics will work on Christmas.

Welcome to private business. I can refuse a client because "I find him rude, arrogant, or such unappreciative of my work." I can refuse a new employee, or fire an existing employee because "I'm cutting back." and then two weeks later I can change my mind. Or "He's not a team player." or "I just don't feel that he'd be a good match for my company."

Forcing me to put up a sign would be more work for me, not less.

There have been, over the years, plenty of persons with whom I have decided not to work simply because I disagree with elements of their personal life, and I choose not to support them financially. I'm allowed to decide who gets my money, and who gets my services, and who doesn't. That is indeed one of my rights -- or two of them, I suppose.

In fact, that's the primary reason that I chose to start my first business -- I didn't want to be forced to work with other people that I don't like.

Re:Oh boo hoo

[Hognoxious]

"We reserve the right ot refuse service to anyone for any reason." It's in every restaurant.

I've never seen one. But even if it's there, it doesn't alter the actual law one jot.

A related example: lots of shops put up signs when there's a sale on saying "No returns on sale goods". In many countries that's illegal, it carries zero weight; in some the shop can be fined merely for displaying it.

Newsflash: Laws are made & passed by the government, not some fucktard with a piece of card and a marker pen. Three businesses my arse.

Re:Oh boo hoo

[KDR_11k]

That's why almost no country implements a direct democracy and you usually see representative democracies where people elect those who they consider sufficiently knowledgeable about the issues and let them decide the details. If it's too complex for the masses to understand the hope is that at least the representative (or someone he picks) can understand it and get it done.

Re:Oh boo hoo

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong, democracy is is theatre that gives the prols the false feeling that even if they don't have control themselves they at least have a choice over the selection of the people that do and the decisions they make. Meanwhile behind the curtain its full steam regardless of the incumbent players. But remember to applaud, boo and shout "behind you" at the correct moments or you fellow prols will tear you down for being disruptive. Bread and circus all the way.

Re:Oh boo hoo

[holophrastic]

Three "incorporated" businesses. A few other sole proprietorships or partnerships kicking around new ideas. My first business is now 15 years old, about two years ago, I decided that it was mature enough that I could extend my time and effort and money to some new ideas.

As for atually altering the actual law, no one cares. It's what winds up happening that matters. Make all the laws you like, it's the enforceable ones that matter.

You know, like "spam is illegal", gee, thanks for that. I get well over 10'000 each and every day.

As for the "no returns on sale goods", I too work for multiple clients who write such things. It's a great deterrant to customers who would otherwise rent their products -- like my sister does with her shampoo and her purses.

But in this case, we have something much more fundamental here. If I have two clients, one who pays me $50'000.00 annually, and one who pays me $5'000.00 annually, and the larger one doesn't like the smaller one -- for whatever reason, racist or otherwise -- I'm left losing one client or losing the other.

Now, maybe you'd have me dump the racist client in favour of the ethical client -- but they you'd have me go bankrupt and not only losing my business, but also as a result that ethical client too. Of course, I'm going to dump the smaller, ethical client -- politely, and with some guidance -- in favour of the evil client who keeps me alive.

Welcome to business -- times three.

Re:Oh boo hoo

[SwedishPenguin]

As an active member of the Swedish pirate party, I'm interested to know what our German counterpart does to make it "very different?"

Re:Oh boo hoo

[painandgreed]

So then you start electing people who sound intelligent, not people who actually are intelligent. Those two tend to be inversely proportional.

The trouble is that the difference on whether somebody is 'intelligent' or just 'sounds intelligent' is directly proportional to whether they agree with the person making the judgement in most cases. The people you claim are intelligent probably are the ones somebody else will call psuedo-intellectuals and vice versa. So, how do you decide, you either have a democracy or you have some form of authoritative government that is not likely to change. If that latter system puts people into office who make a mistake, then everybody is hosed because even if everybody else sees the ship sinking, there's nothing that can be done because those in charge don't because according to them, they've already made the right choice and that other system probably doesn't allow for a change due to others feelings.

Re:Oh boo hoo

[holophrastic]

That's not true. I disagree with many people who are more intelligent than I -- simply not in my field. That's the thing. I can easily recognize that I'm an idiot it many areas, and then trust that the expert in said field is likely to be more correct than I am.

But when I do know something, and it is in my field, and I disagree with someone, it's likely that I'm the one who's more correct.

But hey, it's easy to see if someone's an idiot. You give them a chance, and you see if they actually produce. And then you look back and decide if you should have given them the chance in the first place.

With enough experience, you can learn to become moderately psychic and figure it out in advance.

Re:Oh boo hoo

[Anonymous Coward]

2. To force the government to at least TRY an pay attention to the nees of knights besides those directly in power.

There, fixed that for you.

Re:Oh boo hoo

[phantomfive]

You need a way to keep the experts from colluding and taking advantage of the peasants. Case in point: the banking crisis. Now, I'm no expert in banking, but I sure don't want to give those who are power over everything. It is very clear that they weren't thinking about peasants, they were thinking about their own wallets.

You make a good point that democracy sometimes can be inefficient, and come up with bad solutions, but I am willing to put up with inefficient government if it means I don't have to worry about having a king. After a while Kings stop worrying about the peasants, and if there's no way for the peasants to protect themselves, then it's bad. If you have a way to organize government that is both safe and efficient, I am definitely interested, but so far you don't seem to have a better idea.

Re:Oh boo hoo

[holophrastic]

Well, I think this is the game that we always wind up playing. In the case where the experts want to collude, the peasants can't stop them. Experts look at peasants statistically. Peasants aren't going to rally against the experts -- not only do they not know how, but tehy don't know that tehy even need to.

So here's my quick-and-dirty solution. The trick is to enable peasants to become experts when they feel that they need to.

So, in my world, a peasant gets one vote, an expert gets ten -- arbitrary numbers for now, obviously. Maybe three levels of expert at 5, 10, and 15.

So first off, peasants, should they actually rally, do get enough sway.

Moving forward, anyone can become an expert. You got one level for a certain threshhold of education, another level for experience (running a business in that field, teaching, contributing, whatever), and a third for passing a very direct questionnaire about the issue. Something like a three-hundred point factual multiple-choice exam on the broad topic (chosen randomly from 5'000 questions, just for fun) and an essay question just to see if you care enough to sit for an hour and write about it. It's not actually graded.

So if you feel that the experts are colluding, you're welcome to join their ranks as easily as taking an exam, or passing a few courses, or donating to the industry, or working in the industry.

So, how's that?

Really, I don't want to form a king-ship, or an elitest society. I just want to separate people who vote from people who know and vote. Not only because I want some of my votes to count more, and because I feel that some other people's votes should count less, but more than anything I want the decisions made by my civilization to make sense. Experts do that, not selfish individuals.

And I don't mean selfish like greedy. I mean that democratic voting is typically about "well, this law makes the most sense for my situation, so I'll vote this way. you should vote the other way".

That's what happens around here all the time. I vote for lower business taxes because I run businesses. My friends vote for lower personal taxes because they have income. I vote for fewer social services because I don't use them -- like public transit. My friends vote the other way.

And what never gets considered is what's better long-term, or for the city as a whole. And if I were someone who could earn that distinction, I'd consider that maybe I should vote for public transit because it lowers traffic for when I do drive. Or maybe my friends should be voting for lower business taxes because they'll wind up being paid more by their employer.

But that's the kind of question that only experts can assess. Peasants aren't going to pay more taxes so their employers can pay fewer taxes -- no matter how good that might be.

So that's my idea. I don't think it's perfect, I don't think it's thought-out. I'm not an expert in political or social systems of government. But I am an expert in decision-making systems (A.I. and neural networks, decision trees, business algorithms, data analysis) and I know how to have many many data-points and perspectives contribute to a whole. And it's not a one-node one-vote system. It's a weighted-vote system based on the connections present at each node.

Re:Oh boo hoo

[he-sk]

For one, a much better shot at getting elected, if the recent increase in registration can be translated into actual votes.

Re:Oh boo hoo

[Anonymous Coward]

"We reserve the right ot refuse service to anyone for any reason." It's in every restaurant.

And if one of those "any reasons" is because the client is black, then you'll get your ass handed to you in court. What exactly are you saying?

You're a fucking moron.

Re:Oh boo hoo

[dryeo]

First, private company can do what it wants -- I own three.

Only due to the benevolence of the government who can take away your property any time or just stop protecting it so someone with bigger weapons can take it.

Re:Oh boo hoo

[Captain Splendid]

The problem is that people treat democracy as if it is virtuous

Very well said. Nothing is a magic bullet. Now, if I can finally convince people that the US Constitution is *gasp* not 100% perfect...

Re:Oh boo hoo

[holophrastic]

The sign doesn't say that the reason has to be given. "Sir, you're going to have to leave; right now."

I'm saying that my restaurant, my home, my store, my place of business, it's trespassing if I want you to leave and you don't. Private property, the public has no right to it.

My business is mine. Just like my car, my table, and my apple. I'm not forced to serve or to hire anyone -- because my business is not a public resource. It's mine.

So that's exactly what I'm saying. It certainly doesn't make me a moron. As to why you'd get upset because I own something and ensure that my rights to my own property are maintained is unknown to me.

Do you not own anything?

Re:Oh boo hoo

[holophrastic]

Yes. However there are huge consequences when governments do that. And it's not easy for them to do. Increasingly difficult over here too.

But you're certainly correct in saying that I wouldn't be able to protect it with my own two hands.

Hence I choose a civilized community, where laws are generally obeyed, and society believes in the general basis of law-organized society.

Re:Oh boo hoo

[Anonymous Coward]

Democracy is an institutionalized form of the oppression of the minority(read 49,9%). Basically winner takes it all.

The constitution is crucial. If cleverly crafted, it appeals to the basic sense of the morality of the masses(incl elected representatives) . But by agreeing with it masses are unknowingly severely limiting the power of their democratic voting; which is a good thing IMHO.
 

Re:Oh boo hoo

[gurps_npc]

Your idea is true for a pure democracy.

But the USA is not a pure democracy. It is a Democratic REPUBLIC. That is, we don't vote directly, we do it indirectly. We elect representatives - congressman to vote on the real issues. We don't even vote directly on who is president - we elect Electors to vote on that.

This means your entire concept falls apart. We vote for people NOT the issues. Unlike issues, you don't need an education to understand people. Some very uneducated people are very good at telling the difference between scum and an honorable man.

We also don't vote for people who sound intelligent. No. Instead we vote for people that appear to follow our basic moral ideals.

The intelligence part comes from winning the election. It doesn't matter how perfectly your moral ideals follow the general population - you need to convine smart people to help you plan your election and rich people to pay for it. Then you have to make your own decisions. Usually this means that you NEED to be intelligent to WIN the election. Not genius level, but above average.

End result we get a bunch of people that roughly follow our moral principals and are above average intelligence. THEY then vote on the issues.

But most importantly, you have STILL MISSED THE POINT The point is NOT to get the best decision. NOT to get the best guy/right law. etc.

The point is to convince people not to start a civil war

because frankly, it is more imporant to avoid starting a civil war than it is to pass the right law

Re:Oh boo hoo

[holophrastic]

"Unlike issues, you don't need an education to understand people."

Wow, that just throws psychology, A.I., and psychiatry, and medicine right out the window doesn't it.

I'd say you don't need an education to understand people who aren't trying to fool you. But con-artists find it easy to conduce just about anyone into doing almost anything.

So yes, I'm saying that in politics, you aren't going to be able to tell the con from the honourable person. And I'd even go so far as to say that in politics, a big part of those speaking skills are precisely to con the public.

I'm not saying that you guys should vote on issues. I'm saying you keep the system you have, but you verify that voters know the actual stance of the person for whom they are voting. And based on that understanding, their vote counts more or less.

But I mentioned somewhere else, that if your entire system of government is there to avoid negatives (like civil wars), then you're missing out on all of the good that government is able to provide. Not only is that short-sighted, but it's archaic too.

Think of all of the wacky differences between 2009 and whenever your civil war occured? The biggest probably being access to information, personal communication, international affairs, global economies, and private business, not to mention national wealth, global positioning, and material sciences.

Forget the standard "how are person guns going to prevent a British missle launch" and look at how overwhelming societal organization makes all sorts of new options available.

100 years ago, you couldn't have everyone voting on everything. Tomorrow you could. 100 years ago, public opinion, didn't exist -- that covers marketing, broadcasting, polling. But now. . .

Stop treating 2009 as though it were 1909. You're running a system based on mistrust. You have presidents that cannot serve 9 years in a row -- no matter how many people vote for them. You have two parties, no matter how many others wish to exist. I know virtually nill about yoru political system -- I know almost as little about my own -- but I do know what your citizens and my citizens do with regard to those political systems, and it ain't enough.

What is the excuse

[G3ckoG33k]

That was Germany. They have banned the Scientologists too, which is good btw.

I am not sure it will pass in Sweden, which have a more liberal view on what may be a political party.

.

Re:What is the excuse

[Darkness404]

They have banned the Scientologists too, which is good btw.

What are you saying? That someone can't believe in Scientology? The arguments against Scientology are Not whether someone can believe in whatever L. Ron Hubbard came up with, but rather are they really a non-profit religion, and then criticising the censorship within Scientology. By banning them, you effectively become them in your censorship of belief.

Re:What is the excuse

[compro01]

They weren't banned. They just had their tax-exempt status revoked.

Re:What is the excuse

[jvkjvk]

No, he is saying that Scientology is actually a Mafia. Loosely.

Their policy is still that any action is sanctioned if committed against anyone on their enemies list. And they *do* have one. It's pretty long, and there is a long list of things you can legally do that will put you there. They have killed, kidnapped, drugged, continue to use the courts to harass.

What is quite unfortunate is that they really are on to something with their "training techniques". If you are in to reprogramming the human biocomputer, checking out their working procedures from that perspective is highly enlightening. For example, their technique of going back, over and over, through your past, using amphetamines to keep the subject going, switching out the processors, etc. It is all a very well done procedure.

It's ironic that techniques developed for freeing the mind became fused with fully formed an authoritarian framework to invade the newly free headspace.

Big mistake, StudiVZ!

[Locke2005]

Prepare to be boarded by the cutthroats and brigands of The Crimson Permanent Assurance!

Well Wikipedia states...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the way the misuse the personal data (a reason why I do not pariticipate there for some months) is controversed here. And by the german wikipedia article it might be even against the law.

Quite funny, that it just got deleted. That means they are playing favorites:
Quote wiki (my translation from german wikipedia):

"Control of Content:
The response on the report of questionable groups and profiles is most commonly not the way that was anticipated by the critics.
So there was Nov 23th 2006 a group only for men, determined to choose the most beautiful student.
In the internal board of the group, profiles, names, images and university of the girls were published. Two students have deleted themselves in response of being voted.
The group was not deleted by studiVZ, but instead the creator and case handler wanted to join the group.
Of course there are now other groups like those, for voting male students."

Wikipedia does proof through example :P bad choice.

Is it an officially-registered political party ?

[MadCow42]

Is the Pirate Party an officially-registered political party in GERMANY?

I know they've gotten press in Sweeden, but I didn't know they were active in Germany too.

Re:Is it an officially-registered political party

[hyanakin]

it is... they are running also for the upcoming EU parliament elections. Just to quote from the TF article: Andreas Popp, lead candidate for the upcoming European Parliament elections characterizes the censorship as undemocratic.

Duh?

[iPhr0stByt3]

You're a private site, welcoming users to view your ads so you can make a little money with the intellectual property of your work.
Well of course you're not going to like the pirate party. Although they may actually draw in more visitors/hits/money if you did allow them to establish themselves, it's still your right to dislike a group of people whose goal is to destroy the system you rely on.

Re:Duh?

[hyanakin]

I just wonder what this "intellectual property of your work" is that StudiVZ generates? I rather thing it's a site where lots of personal information is shared in a nice package and so targetted advertising is made simple. However I lack to see what IP those sites generate (that could be turned into profits).

Re:Duh?

[cdrguru]

How about the site itself? Some large part of the value of the site has to be how it works apart from the fact that they advertise about themselves. There has to be some nugget of goodness about the web site itself.

Which is the differentiation between Slashdot and, say, fark or CNN.

Re:Duh?

[Jesus_666]

There has to be some nugget of goodness about the web site itself.

That nugget is "Facebook isn't German". StudiVZ is pretty much a Facebook clone; IIRC they even used to look like Facebook in the beginning.

When your political party is

[Presto Vivace]

based on the ideology of theft, you shouldn't be surprised if you are excluded from polite society, online or off.

Re:When your political party is

[hyanakin]

ignorance is a bliss, right?

please point out where their ideology is based on theft? Furthermore, what is theft actually?

Re:When your political party is

[Anonymous Coward]

When your political party is based on the ideology of corruption and who knows who, you shouldn't be surprised if you get the boot eventually. And you certainly don't defend democracy by trying to silence the opposition.

They should go to Facebook

[bl968]

They should go to Facebook, they have even added a special language option just for them. English (Pirate)

Re:They should go to Facebook

[aceofspades1217]

Wow I just turned it on and I got quite a chuckle out of it.

Cat got your tongue? (something important seems to

[Anonymous Coward]

Arrrrrrghhhh

You have no idea how bad it is...

[yuri82]

The situation is really bad! Only yesterday 2826 people DIED in Brazil alone! Of all of them, 141 DIED from infectious or parasitic viruses... Do YOU know why your neighbor is coughing? DO YOU???

Re:You have no idea how bad it is...

[Vinegar Joe]

Do YOU know why your neighbor is coughing? DO YOU???

Pubic hair caught in her throat?

Letter to the cap'n

[CobaltBlueDW]

Dear Pirate Party,
          Stop illegally downloading David Hasselhoff's music and you might be taken you seriously.
Sincerely,
Everyone

In the immortal words of Indiana Jones

[Anonymous Coward]

"Nazis! I hate those guys."

Private business? No rights here!

[californication]

People have no rights in the private sector. Any attempt to force the private sector to recognize the rights of people is government intervention, and conflicts with my laissez-faire ideologies. People have rights like freedom of speech under the government. Oh and BTW, I think we should shrink the size of the government and let the private sector handle everything.

Please add the tag "streisandeffect'.

[Hurricane78]

Because there are already several other groups, I think more popped up, aand: Before this, was in none of them. Now I am in all of them. :D

You'll see...

[CHJacobsen]

In related news, the swedish pirate party looks as though they might hava a shot at the EU-parliament.

5.1% of the votes in a recent poll:

http://translate.google.se/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=sv&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dn.se%2Ffordjupning%2Feuropa2009%2Funga-valjare-kan-ge-piratpartiet-eu-mandat-1.855936&sl=sv&tl=en&history_state0=

Poor Captain Feathersword.

[Cazekiel]

Betcha the Pirate Party would be less corrupt than any other.

"fake parties"?! Oh, crap. Now you've done it.

[Cajun Hell]

Now one of them is going to quote Gandhi's "then they laugh at you" line, and I just want you to know, you're to blame.

WAIT A MINUTE!

[AlgorithMan]

Not ALL Parties are allowed on that social network (StudiVZ) - only the ones which are currently in the Parliament... which the Pirate Party isn't... I'm angry about the lockout, too, but this report is just plain exaggerating!

Re:WAIT A MINUTE!

[tenco]

So only parties that have been elected can advertise on StudiVZ? How convenient.

Doesn't he always?

[zooblethorpe]

God is dead! -- Nietzsche

Nietzsche is dead! -- God

Cheers,

Re:Doesn't he always?

[jockeys]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law

Re:Doesn't he always?

[tmosley]

God is dead! -- Nietzsche

Nietzsche is dead! -- God

Cheers,

When, EXACTLY, did God say that?

exactly like Nazism

[commodoresloat]

First, they came for the tweeters but I did not complain because I was not on twitter. Then they came for the facebookers but I didn't speak up because I didn't have a facebook account. Then they came for the myspace douchebags but I didn't speak out because I wasn't on myspace. When they came for the slashdotters, there was noone left to speak up for me.

Re:exactly like Nazism

[redz77]

so are you saying that the Pirate Party wouldn't take away your facebook or tweeter account?

Re:exactly like Nazism

[Anonymous Coward]

God bless Peter Noone.

In that case...

[Anonymous Coward]

...they should have picked a better name.

"The Pirate Party" makes it sound like they are specifically interested in something illegal, and deliberately flaunting the very illegality of that interest.

If they want to be taken seriously, then they need to pick a less childish name. Something like "The Information Party" or "The Data-User-Rights Party" or "The Electronic Freedom Party" or what-have-you.

I will concede that they shouldn't have to pick a name like this. However, I will also submit that they have to change their name anyway, if they want to be taken seriously as a political party, because humans are like that.

Going against the grain of basic human psychology will always leave you with the short end of the stick, whether it is just or not.

Re:In that case...

[ElectricTurtle]

I can't find the source of the quote at the moment, but I remember reading once something to the effect of "Software/media companies made a huge mistake by calling the violation of their copyrights 'piracy'. Everybody wants to be a pirate. They should have called it something like 'software faggotry'."

Kidding aside, piracy has been romanticized in the Western collective consciousness for more than a century. Society today has a positive perception of romantic piracy at all levels, from the movies of Errol Flynn influencing the elderly all the way to that Lazytown song 'You're a pirate' being made into a flash animation meme influencing the internet generations. Aside from 'real pirates' like in Somalia, pirates are (however wrongly from a historical perspective) almost universally held in favorable regard.

I think that if the Pirate Party changed its name, people would feel it was less genuine, like it was trying to hide its true nature and repackage itself in a pandering sort of way. I think that as it stands, the Pirate Party can capitalize a lot on the inherent human desire for unique and even rebellious expression/identity.

... whooooosh ...

[zooblethorpe]

Perhaps my humour's a little dry, I'll admit to that. But, once more for clarity:

Godwinned.

Doesn't he always?

Ba dum, tish!

Cheers,

"Polite society"?

[John Hasler]

I thought this was about social networking sites.

Re:Is it an officially-registered political party

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes they are. But Studivz only gives "party accounts" to parties with seats in the federal parliament, so parties with >=5% of votes or that won a direct seat for a constituency. That would be five parties. The Nazi party, NPD, is also excluded, though it's not clear if that is because they're nazis or because they're not in federal parliament yet. TFA is misleading in that it doesn't seem to be a case of discrimination against pirates, but against all small parties. They only give a platform to parties that have heaps of money to burn in campaigning anyway.

Change the name

[Snaller]

You can do it now, or you can do it in a year - but if you don't do it, it will never be taken seriously on the political scene.

Re:Change the name

[taucross]

I don't vote for a party that is "taken seriously on the political scene". I would only vote for a party that is "taken seriously on the humanity scene."

I suspect there are many more like me.

Re:Change the name

[Snaller]

While politics has a large part of bullshit in it, you just crossed over that line.

Ok, I'll rephrase it: Its not taken seriously by the vast majority of adults, and they should change the name if they wish to make a change at all, instead of wasting every bodies times. Its difficult enough as it is to get things changed in the so called democratic systems of europe.

single private company, huge amounts of power

[Jessta]

yeah...giving a single private company huge amounts of power over how a large number of people communicate is a bad idea....social networking sites still don't make sense to me, the web has been about social networking since it's inception. Why did people decided that the web wasn't good enough that they'd rather just have a handful of companies in charge?

Re:Theft should not be encouraged.

[Jessta]

oh, wonderful baiting there.

Re:Is it an officially-registered political party

[Jesus_666]

There is a German Pirate Party but it never took off like the Swedish one. Might actually be a geographic thing; Germany has small towns all over the place while I think the Swedes tend more towards fewer, bigger cities. As small parties like the Pirates usually only are up for election in the most densely populated areas due to resource constraints, they're less effective when many people are not in those areas.

You're biased.

[The Rizz]

You're a member of "The Ninja Party", aren't you?

Re:Private business? No rights here!

[he-sk]

Dude, I can list a few at the top of my head. Workplace safety regulation. Consumer protection laws. Working hours regulation. Sick pay. Paid vacation.

Harsh rules on German site?

[Lord Kano]

Fucking Nazis!

Banning pirates? LOL

[rogerdr]

Good luck trying to stop people who have already proven themselves masters of the internet. This is laughable. The German social site will no doubt suddenly start finding dozens, if not hundreds, of "members" devoted to the cause.

If you were German...

[itsphilip]

You'd be wary of new unusual political parties too.

Relax it's all about letter rationing

[AnalPerfume]

There is a limit on the number of "r"'s allowed and the pirates seem to go through them at quite a rate. Perhaps we could allow them in if they paid for each additional "r", but then we'd be seen as profiting from one party and not another so we can't win either way.

Hijack them

[Opportunist]

So the Pirate Party may not have its own site?

If any party of the ones currently around, the Pirate Party is a grassroots movement. Who should keep the "pirates" from taking over other parties' pages? Just ask all parties politely why they are allowed while another party is banned. Board flooding is hardly a new idea, and it usually isn't something I'd recommend or even approve or support, but hey, if you are not allowed your own gathering ground, gather somewhere else. Would be sweet if some conservative party with hardass positions on copyright was subverted into the "inofficial" pirate party hangout. :)

Political Affiliation on Facebook

[siriuskase]

It appears you can put anything as your political affialiation. Maybe we should change our to Pirate Party as a show of support.

Not Too Smart...

[Whammo_777]

Seems like a really good way to attract hackers to your website.

Re:Private business? No rights here!

[californication]

Oops, forgot my /sarcasm tag.