Slashdot Mirror
Pirate Party Wins At Least One European Parliament Seat
reeeh2000 writes "According to TorrentFreak, with half of polling stations now closed in Sweden, the Pirate Party has at least one guaranteed seat in the EU Parliament. Currently, the party is sitting with 7% of the vote. Depending on how the remaining districts voted, the Pirate Party could win another seat, for a total of two."
Reader lordholm adds a link to an article about exit polls in Sweden (link in Swedish) indicating that the Pirate Party will score two seats, writing "According to the polls, the pirate party is the largest party in the 18-30 year age category of voters. The final counting of votes (including around a million postal votes) will not be done until later next week."
Does the Pirate Party platform include issues besides copyright/privacy?
actually a lot of people voted on the pirate party to protect civil liberties and personal rights. (I did for an example)
i find your lack of faith in science disturbing!
18-30 year-olds? So in the next EP election, the PP will be the favoured party of 18-35 year-olds. That should give more than just one or two seats.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
There was no pirate party in my country so I didn't vote at all.
Great news! Unfortunately I couldn't vote for them, but just before the elections, I noticed that the number 4 candidate on the list of the Dutch party GroenLinks has practically the same ideas (and priorities) as the Pirate Party. I voted for him, but unfortunately GroenLinks only got 3 seats (which is still a pretty good result).
Of course these parties are still a tiny minority in the Europarliament, but if they can explain to their colleagues what's so wrong about current IP laws, they might end up having some very real impact.
At the very beginning I was till hoping the good boys of PP will get the second seat, but by now it's very unlikely.
Still, good initial showing. Congrats! Now time to open a Finnish chapter, as well (we Finns and Swedes always like to argue, but in truth we are very similar).
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
the pirate party reached in germany 0,9%. Concerning lack of attention from the media, nearly non-existent funds and that stupid name, this is a very strong result for them.
Wow - considering Germany gets 99 seats, just a bit over 1% would have gotten a German PP rep, too!!
When are the new Bundestag elections due, Martin?
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
Actually, the Europarl is big and there have been people who understand SW patents and copyrights very well, for instance in the Greens and even in the conservative bloc. It's just that for every such MEP there were also those with their hands deep in the RIAA/BSA lobbyists pockets. To have a new party running primarily on this theme will indeed make a difference.
You could see it on Swedish pre-election TV debates already. The PP wasn't even there (as a non-established party, this is normal) but the established ones (Greens and Left) would argue for essenitally the PP agenda, with the others grudgingly admitting to small pieces.
Remember kiddos, it's not just about the privacy issues that we have here in America. Look at what the other countries are having to deal with now, their privacy is being completely violated in one way or another. The implementation of cameras, people tracking, and other types of identification systems are being misused; in no time they'll be dealing with zealous institutions who are willing to undermine the average citizen to "make" the world a better place.
Why does this work in Sweden, or rather, why not in the rest of Europe?
You have the same privacy-eliminating laws all over the EU, mainly because they are largely EU mandated, yet in most other countries, right-wing parties that call for even tighter monitoring and regulation won across the board.
I'm kinda sickened by my (and most other) countries here. Or rather, the sheep here following whoever blows the loudest xenophobic horn.
Why is it that Swedes take governmental spying serious, while the rest of Europe seems to be too busy hating $minority_group_or_foreigner?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I think that in the next 5 years the PP will focus more on presenting these issues to older people, as well. Singing to the choir will only get you so far..
Very true. The issues that PP attacks don't just concern youngsters, more and more people here in Sweden are raising their voices against the stupid laws that have been introduced.
On another note, my old grandmother told me she had voted for the pirates today. I've never spoken to her about politics before, but apparently she found out about the party on her own and sympathised with their agenda (she's 77!).
The pirate movement has reached critical mass and is now entering the large political arenas. Let's see what rhetoric the MAFIAA and IPFI will use now. We can safely say that less people will be fooled by their lies from this day.
Quantum hacker.
Whining about your impending troll moderation is good way to ensure that it happens.
Not *every* content producer supports p2p, but then, I cannot think of a single social change that was unanimously accepted or rejected. Disagreeing about how the world should be run is one of the all-time most popular human activities.
I'm happy that the pirate party has a parliament seat because I feel that they provide a much needed counterpoint to the notion, widely advocated by large industry groups, that copyrights should last until the end of time, and that in fact they do not sell a product but rather a "license" to view content.
And you may not be a middleman, but may of the copyright based industries contain a large number of businesses whose business model came down to making and distributing copies. These people have aggressively attacked the internet, p2p, and many other technologies, because those technologies would make their services redundant. (A common theme, which can be seen around almost any major technological innovation). Because many of these industry groups (RIAA for example) used to charge both the artists and the consumers quite a bit for the business of making and distributing copies, both artists and consumers are often driven to prefer new technologies (direct internet sales, p2p) which allow them to get this same service for free. You sell content directly over the internet. You might even try distributing demos over p2p, which can save you a meaningful amount of bandwidth and hosting costs. Twenty years ago, you would have had to get a publisher, and give them a substantial fraction of your sale price, so that they could get discs into stores for you. So you *do* benefit from this new technology. You might not be benefiting as much as you could, and the downsides might still outweigh the upsides, but the mere fact that you are still in business and aren't signed to a label/publisher means that you benefit.
So they actually will be able to attract "real" experts to assist their parlementarian? That's nice to hear.
Sometimes there are parties who put their finger on the right problems, but are unable to give an alternative. Mainly because all their staff is working on propaganda for the next election instead of developing an alternative policy.
I know this isn't a popular thing to do, but to get results the PP will have to make compromises. It sounds like they have a really ambitious program. (weakening copyright etc.) If they want anything of it to be realised, they will have to support directives that are not ideal. That doesn't mean they will have to support directives that are incompatible with their views.
Only... a parliamentarian who only votes "no" on privacy and patent related issues and doesn't vote on the other issues is wasting a perfectly good seat. I just hope they work with the parliament to support the best possible alternative, instead of chasing an unreachable ideal legislation.
For people who supposedly pride themselves rational thought, have you ever taken a step back to look at your own views?
Absolutely. The position I'm putting forth here isn't something I slapped together in five minutes, it's something I've put a lot of thought into over several years -- unlike the objections of those people who think it can't work because it isn't exactly the same as the status quo.
And how do they get paid if anyone can replicate their content for free? Just hope for donations?
No. Creating content is a service, and they can get paid the same way as anyone else who performs a service: by charging for the work they do.
A professional barber doesn't cut hair unless someone is paying him for a haircut. Why should a professional musician write or record songs if no one is paying him to do it?
How about the freedom of matters of fact? For example, we should have the freedom to know how our tax dollars are spent.
OK, let's see how dedicated you really are to "freedom of matters of fact".
I have a book open right now, and it's a matter of fact that the first word in the first chapter is "Simply". It's also a fact that the second word is "stated". Here are some more facts about that book: the third word is "animation", the fourth word is "is", the fifth word is "a".
I could keep going, but I think you get the picture. These are all matters of fact about a book that I own, and there are hundreds of thousands more facts I could tell you about it, but thanks to copyright law, it'd be illegal for me to share all those facts with you. And even if I did share those facts with you, it'd probably be illegal for you to write them down.
So, if you're in favor of "freedom of matters of fact", would you support a change in the law that made it legal for anyone to share as many facts about their own property as they'd like with anyone else who cared to know them?
That doesn't mean Microsoft should have the freedom to steal the code for Firefox, slap an IE-logo on it, and call it their own.
No, of course not. That would be fraud.
I do, however, believe that Microsoft should have the freedom to take the code for Firefox, slap an IE logo on it, and call it the next version of Internet Explorer as long as they told the truth: that the code was written by the Firefox team, not Microsoft.
You've got to be kidding. You really think that the "freedom" to steal an author's or musician's work is the same as the freedom to criticize government policies?
No. But I do really think that "freedom of speech" means "the freedom to speak", not "the freedom to criticize government policies" -- it shouldn't matter whether I'm speaking an anti-government manifesto or the text of a copyrighted book.
I'm willing to make an exception in cases where speech poses a direct threat, such as fraudulent advertising, shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, or leaking nuclear launch codes to the Commies. But I believe freedom of speech is too important to be restricted when the only reason to do so is to create a market for that speech. And in general, I believe we should not forbid the majority from doing something (like selling copies of a book) just to let a minority command a higher price for doing the same thing.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
Copyright is a totally different issue to freedom and privacy.
But the overzealous enforcement of copyright issues will inevitable lead to erosions of freedom and privacy. Hyperbolic hypothetical example: In your country, the leadership criminalizes small-time copyright infriengement and delegates its enforcement to a government law-enforcement agency. They find that your 17-year old daughter has been downloading the latest pop hits from TPB and so they will have the authorization to hack into her box to see what else they can find. They find her nude pictures and maybe even a nude webcam video she made for her boyfriend. In addition to copyright infringement, she will also charged with child pornography and subject to excessive punishment.
In short, content providers(among other corporations) get greedy and fuck things up for everyone. They've been inflating prices and riding a gravy train for years. Now that technology's levelling the playing field, they just try to throw money at lobbyists and enact insane law instead of implementing realistic business models. Adapt or die.
I'm also from Europe. Sadly, not from Sweden.
When you look at the rest of Europe, right-leaning to right-wing parties won the elections. Meaning, in general, that you may assume privacy will be taking a back seat behind big corporation interests and "protection".
Why not in Sweden? Why are Swedes appearantly inoculated against the fearmongering and scare tactics? And how do we export this to the rest of Europe?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Because it's as stupid as saying you own a thought.
Native American's who "sold" Manhattan to Europeans had the same idea about land. How can one "own" land?
"Ownership" is the right to deny use. Everything else is semantics. And just we have a legal procedure of establishing ownership of land (through deeds), we have a legal procedure for establishing ownership of certain types of ideas (through copyrights and patents).
I think what you are trying to get at is that ideas can be shared without incurring physical cost (something that isn't true with tangible property). Which is precisely why intellectual property rights must exist for a short period of time.
That's why the rest of your arguments are wrong. They are based on this faulty base of **AA FUD.
Well, I once again, don't think you fully thought through what it meant to "own" something. As for calling it "fud"... They spread a lot of misinformation. It hardly rises to the level of Fear Uncertainty and Doubt.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Paying directly for production would end up working the same way in most cases. Instead of finding one customer to pay you $40,000 for a project, you'd more likely find a thousand customers who each pay $40.
A serious question, and not an attempt to troll: has anyone actually done it that way, successfully? I keep hearing about this approach, and it sounds like it might work... or it might not. At the same time, nothing in the existing laws forbid people from taking this approach, so surely someone had tried already? If they did, and it was a success, then why don't we hear about it more? If it wasn't a success, then, again, it would be interesting to hear what went wrong. If no-one tried, then why? and shouldn't one of the anti-copyright people do it if only to make a point that it's possible?
I do not agree with many of the Pirate Party proposals, but it's still good to see true, working democracy in action. It's how you change things if you want them changed.
Did you read the treaty? it's fucking awful. I was very proud that despite the masses of black propaganda from the EU corporatists that the Irish people had the guts to stand up for all europeans by rejecting it. I only hope that when it's inevitably revoted "no means no" will be at the forefront of irish people's minds, despite the scaremongering and deliberate damaging of the irish economy to try to force us to accept it.
Yes to a united europe, no to the EU.
A serious question, and not an attempt to troll: has anyone actually done it that way, successfully?
Sellaband implements a model that's similar, but not quite the same. On their store page, it looks like there have been 21 albums produced with their model so far.
What I like most about Sellaband is that it's a social, community-oriented site. It's not just a place to type in your credit card number (like Fundable), it's a place for fans to discover new music and artists to connect with their fans.
What I don't like is that they're only using fan funding to pay for album production costs (at a fixed price of $50k or $100k), rather than including profit. Artists are still expected to make their profit by selling copies (only one track per album is free). There's no room on Sellaband for an artist who has a guitar and a laptop, doesn't need to rent a studio, doesn't have 13 tracks in mind, but wants to make a couple hundred bucks by recording one or two songs.
My dream site would look a lot like Sellaband, except (1) the artist would choose his own price and project format, (2) the artist would have the option of doing his own production and keeping the money, (3) the finished tracks would all be released for free public download, and if the artist wants more money he can sell merchandise, request donations, or start a new project.
Still, even though the model is slightly different, I think the fact that they've gotten fans to fund album production to the tune of over a million dollars (plus whatever they've collected for artists that haven't yet met the goal) is strong evidence that an up-front funding model can work.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
What if the RIAA or other interests used fraud laws in distribution. "In reciting these words, I am {Corporation X}" or embedding a snippet of text "In distributing this file, I am {Corporation X}". This would work for Itunes (Apple) or Amazon or Corporation X, or Money Grubbing Individual Y.
Interesting thought, but it's been tried before.
The Sega Genesis would look for the word "SEGA" in cartridge ROM and, if found, show the message "PRODUCED BY OR UNDER LICENSE FROM SEGA ENTERPRISES LTD"; if the word "SEGA" was not present, the console refused to start the game. Accolade reverse-engineered this system and produced their own games that contained the word and printed the license message, even though Accolade had no license, which meant the statement was false. Their packaging, however, stated the truth: the game was not licensed by Sega.
Sega sued Accolade over this. The first court found in favor of Sega, but Accolade won on appeal. The appeals court found that this was a functional use of Sega's trademark, since there was no apparent way to make a functional game without using Sega's trademark and causing the message to appear. The court ruled that any customer confusion was Sega's fault for imposing this system, not Accolade's fault for doing what they had to for interoperability. (Sega even brought in one of their employees who managed to make a working cartridge that didn't show the message, as evidence that Accolade could've done the same thing. The court wasn't swayed, because there was no industry knowledge of this technique.)
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
How long do you feel copyright should be?
"shit for free"? Hardly. I buy quite regularly when it suits my interests. I love the trend of putting TV shows on DVD. I have lots of those series collections. If a movie is good enough, I will buy it and put it on the shelf as well. I don't think there is a single person here who wouldn't prefer to have legitimate copies of their favorite things.
In your Disney example, you suggest that it is reasonable for Disney to have their copyright extended because the MEDIUM has changed or it has been digitally enhanced or some such thing? By that argument, books could also qualify for this by changing the font. Disney made their money and once they have done so, the other side of the copyright agreement should kick in -- it should go to public domain. The first part of the agreement is that the copyright owner and licensed publishers should enjoy protection under law against unauthorized commercial distribution for a limited time. Once that time expires, it's public domain. I'm guessing you don't have a problem with the first part of the agreement. What is your problem with the second? It has been thwarted and prevented at every turn to the detriment of the public. And it's nice that you bring Disney up. The original Mickey Mouse cartoons should now be in public domain. And the politically incorrect "Song of the South" (you know the one with the ever famous Zippidy do dah song?) will NEVER be published again and will be gone forever simply to save Disney's face on the matter. I have unauthorized DVD copies of this famous work simply because it is too good to let it die even if Disney would prefer that it did.
This ability to effectively withdraw a published work from the public and preventing it from ever being available by the time the copyright expires is a feature of copyright that was never intended by the lawmakers since the equitable agreement should be that the works become owned by all. (There is nothing to own if the work has died and ceased circulation some 80+ years prior!) Our very human legacy of art is indeed at risk simply because someone wants to collect money from work that someone else did more than 50 years prior. It's all quite insane when you think about it.
Interesting aside: There was a political parody put out some time ago that used the song "This land is your land, this land is my land" and the political speech was attacked on the grounds that it infringed on copyright. That song had passed into the public domain and yet copyright law was being used to assault political speech -- our most precious first amendment. The government and copyright holders know too well that copyright law is a weapon and that they can, will and have in the past [ab]used it to harm the public.
Yes, the "pirate party" does deserve a place in government to balance out the out of control nonsense that has occurred so far.
Disney doesn't "work" to get copyright extended, by the way... they pay lobbyists who in turn do all sorts of questionable and corrupt things to influence government to do their bidding. But seriously, if you don't see the harm abuse of copyright law is doing, you haven't been paying attention. The Church of Scientology often uses copyright at a weapon against people who criticise what they do. And in my previous example of political speech being threatened using copyright law. There have been innocent people forced into settling with the RIAA because they couldn't afford to defend themselves in court. Teenagers have been forced to quit school due to their practices. (Please, let's not do the guilty until proven innocent crap -- are you American? You can't be stupid enough to believe that simply being innocent is enough of a defense. You have to be able to PAY to defend yourself and average people simply can't afford that kind of "pride.")
Copyright law and especially prosecution was designed to prevent unauthorized publishers and distributors from profiting. It was not designed to attack individual people.
Do I hear the pitter-patter of the Slashdot groupthink? And to think that some people think you have to be an authority figure or a corporation in order to brainwash people...
It all depends on the definition of property. As you pointed out, it makes little sense to define it as simply a person who had that thought at some time or another. Then, as soon as anyone has contact with that piece of property, then they will own it as well, which gives the property no power. It's like, if I loaned you my car, then it suddenly becomes your property as well, free to loan it out to whoever you want. It makes no sense to define it in that way. Thus, we must make intellectual (and physical) property less transferable than the items themselves, i.e. there must be a distinction between possession and property.
But, as you pointed out, we need to be able to tell our property to someone else, but again, make the distinction between them having the idea, and them owning the idea. There are (probably) a few ways we could do this, but essentially, we use the same metric we use for anything to which we start applying property: finders keepers. The first person to have the idea (with some caveats) gets ownership over it.
That, however, poses its own problems. How can we prove person A had an idea before person B? We can't. This, however, turns out not to be much of a problem, because the value of of IP is derived from public distribution. The obvious solution (but is it a correct solution?) to the problem then becomes to grant ownership to whoever publicly displays their idea first.
Again, this potentially causes problems. Person B may have gone through the same thought processes as person A, and some people believe that, as such, person B has just as much right as person A to the idea. Also, there's the problem of what to do when someone decides to take something obvious, something people have collectively discovered and used well before one person took ownership. As one person told me, "you can't own the number 5". It would be like one person in a village declaring that he owned the village well, despite the fact he put no more effort into it than the next man.
Now, from here, we can go in two viable directions. We could either say "tough cookies", and stick to the "finders keepers" policy, making an exception for things already in common use (the "public domain", as I will now call it), or we can do something a little more radical, and allow multiple, independent parties to own the same idea.
The first direction has some advantages, including the fact that it would encourage the publication of ideas, that it preserves extremely efficient and verifiable metric for determining ownership (aside from determining what is public domain), and also that it keeps in line with physical property (which makes it easier to understand and accept among ordinary people). It has the disadvantage of being seen as unfair by many (though, this is a common side effect of new applications of the concept of property), and the concept of public domain requires the courts to decide, which is inefficient and costly.
Before I go into the advantages/disadvantages of the second direction, I'd like to first elaborate on how it would work. Surely this direction doesn't distinguish between possession and property, right? Well, not necessarily. The concept of copying then becomes important. Under the first direction, copying owned ideas is automatically bad, since n
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
"Massive capital expenditure"? For creating visual works where customer expectations of resolution and quality is steadily increasing, OK.
For most of the music the RIAA peddles? Fat chance. The advent of the digital computer has placed reasonably good quality recording capabilities at ever lower price points. Many albums now have their audio contents deliberately distorted prior to reproduction because the younger clientele has gotten used to distortion and poor reproduction from low-fidelity MP3s and earbuds. The real "costs" in music production are in marketing and access to the limited and controlled mass media outlets.
The actual creative artists who compose the music an lyrics for songs also need to be compensated for their effort, but they generally get pretty short-changed by the current system in favour of middle men and gatekeepers. Even then, the artist's capital costs are the price of keeping a roof over their head and food in their stomach while they concentrate on being creative. Those costs are significant to the artists because they generally don't make much from performing until they become popular, but compared to any physical product, the costs are really quite low these days.
Classical music is probably the most significant exception. Keeping an orchestra fed, housed, and clothed is so expensive that receipts from concerts usually don't cover it and donations have to be solicited.
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
Who is going to pay, and how will they be encouraged to pay?
Anyone who benefits from the existence of new content has an incentive to pay for its creation. Mostly, that means the people who want to watch/play/listen to it: if I'm a gamer, I will derive enjoyment from having a new game to play, and that enjoyment is worth money.
In other words, the lion's share of the money would ultimately come from the same people who provide it today: consumers. And they'd be encouraged by the same thing that encourages them today: access to new content.
In this model, a consumer who doesn't care very much about new content would have the option of holding out to see if other people will fund it. From the creator's perspective, that doesn't matter; all that matters is whether they collect enough money to make it worth their time. But that consumer is taking the risk that other people won't provide the rest of the funding, and thus the new content won't be produced. Whether he actually decides to pay will depend on how much he values having new content.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
And you've thought about this for several years, right?
Yup. Clearly longer than you have, considering the obvious lack of thought put into your objections.
There's little incentive for paying in your model, and even less for taking a risk on unknown talent. Why pay, if the artist isn't capable of producing?
Why hire an electrician, barber, accountant, etc. if they're "unknown talent"?
If services in the real world actually worked the way you seem to think, no one would ever be able to break into any service industry. And yet they do: sometimes by putting together a portfolio to prove their ability, sometimes just by setting their prices lower than established names.
Why pay, if others paying might be enough?
As I said: "But [a consumer who waits for others to pay] is taking the risk that other people won't provide the rest of the funding, and thus the new content won't be produced. Whether he actually decides to pay will depend on how much he values having new content."
The answer to "why pay" is "because that's how you ensure the work will be produced". If you don't care whether or not it's produced, then go ahead and wait. Maybe someone else will care more than you do.
If it turns out that no one really cares whether or not the work is produced, then it won't be. And it shouldn't be, if there's really so little demand for it.
Why pay, if others already have paid enough to make the artist produce?
Yes, why indeed? You shouldn't!
When a mechanic is willing to fix your car for $300, you aren't obligated to give him $600 instead. He set the price, you met it, that's it. If he wanted $600, he could've asked for $600 in the first place -- just like an artist who wants more money can just ask for it. If he's willing to accept $300, then that's what he'll get, just like in any other industry.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.