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."
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
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.
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.
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.