Pirate Party Coming To Canada

An anonymous reader writes "After scoring a surprise electoral win in Sweden and getting high-profile support in Germany, The Pirate Party is coming to Canada. The party's goals are fairly simple. People should have the right to share and copy music, movies and virtually any material, as long as it is for personal use, not for profit. It opposes government and corporate monitoring of Internet activities, unless as part of a criminal investigation. It also wants to phase out patents."

Comments

First Vote

[scream at the sky]

I'm a DAMN proud Canadian right now

Re:First Vote

[Hurricane78]

You mean, since they are the first on the north american continent? Oh wait...!

-- Proud voter of the Pirate Party in the EU election 2009!

Re:First Vote

[SausageOfDoom]

I know you're a troll and all, but I actually agree with your point (though not how you made it).

There's a fine line between fair and unfair use. If I like a film, money should go to the people involved in creating it and bringing it to my screen. If I like music, money should go to the people involved in creating it and bringing it to my speakers.

Sharing for non-commercial gain was fine back in the days of copying tapes for your friends at school. A group of you could club together, buy a tape each, and share them between you to get a good collection. Sure, the content creators might not get all the money they wanted, but they'd get all your pocket money. And all the pocket money from similar groups of kids all around the country.

But things have changed with the internet. Now only one person in one country has to buy it, and suddenly the group size changes from a handful of close friends into an anonymous P2P network millions strong. No industry could survive something like that - and I'm not just talking about the RIAA et all who would no longer be able to rape producers and consumers alike, I'm talking about there not being enough money around to invest in creating quality content for us in the first place.

It's all very well saying that if the content is good people will go out and buy it anyway - but once you make it legal, mainstream hardware manufacturers will come along with P2P-enabled set-top boxes which will bring convenience to the mass market, and there will be no reason for anyone to go out and buy any content. It would destroy the content creators overnight, and then we'd get no quality content.

Don't get me wrong - I agree that recent court cases and fines have gone too far, and totally disagree with things like the three-strike law. The industry is used to having it their own way for too long, and they have to realise that their days of bleeding the customer dry are numbered. Piracy and P2P are here, and no matter what they try, it's not going anywhere. They should be adopting their business models to take full use of technology, and provide affordable, legal and practical methods of content delivery. No DRM, no ridiculous fines for piracy; instead of us vs them, they should be working with us to say "if you like something, pay for it - it's only fair".

But behind all of this, there must be a legal framework to say what's right and what's wrong. Something that says "if you like something, pay for it - it's only fair".

Re:First Vote

[unity100]

and you probably love being a bigoted, brainwashed neocon dog. 'let businesses be' 'corporations corporations corporations'.

gtfo. your era ended when your church leader alan greenspan confessed to senate that 'he couldnt understand why corporations didnt regulate themselves'

Re:First Vote

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? The fact that your country even needs a pirate party should make you hang your head in shame. Either the majority of your population supports the way copyright and patents and so forth are handled by whoever is in charge at the moment, or the canadian government is telling the people what to do rather than the other way round. The former situation means your pride is misplaced because 'Canada' disagrees with you, and the second situation means the majority of your population should feel terrible shame.

Please explain why you feel 'pride' (or maybe one of the 3 moderators who modded you insightful can explain it to me).

Re:First Vote

[unity100]

so ?

Re:First Vote

[grub]

No industry could survive something like that

The movie industry continues to rack up massive (and record) profits year after year, they're doomed if movie trading ever hits the intertubes...

Re:First Vote

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you not seen the crap being produced lately? No offence (and i might be showing my age here)but its been a long time since much of (staying)value has come out. I still buy stuff if its good, even if i have a pirate, but out of the new music or movies being produced very few are worth the dime they expect you to pay for it.

I personally think the current system (with piracy)IS working. How many of you would drop, say 15$ on your fav Kubrick film? Now how many of you want to drop 25$ on a Uwe Boll movie (or much of anything made by micheal bay, lol). ...then figure out if you want to buy it AGAIN for your Ipod... and AGAIN if you have an ipod nano or you gf has an Ipod.

Imho, the systems in place are so broken that they are actually working in a sence because no one is willing to pay for crap. I think most the peeps i talk to about it get more excited by pillaging the walmart value bin or such things (when they find something old and good) then dishing out copious amount of coin on the new movies...simply because the are new.

Maybe the big wigs would start to put out quality stories/acting/artistry/stuff rather than seeing more value in explosions and CGI and the newest-fangled-thing.

Re:First Vote

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

The RIAA and MPAA are a big problem for copyright supporters, since they are admittedly the most outspoken spokespersons for copyright, yet they represent everything wrong with copyright. Don't get me wrong, they also represent a whole lot of what is right with copyright, but oh so much that's wrong with it. There is the greed, there is hard bargains with artists, there are the no court appearance lawsuits, and there is the DRM, but at the same time, there is a lot more to copyright. There's the culture, the inspiration, even the images of celebrity and stardom that encourage others to participate. There's the satisfaction in knowing that you have some input, via the free market, in the art you experience.

We need to stop looking to scuttle this for petty revenge against the **AA. If the pirate party supports a reasonable, reformed copyright, and they understand exactly how much we owe copyright to date for our culture, then they have my vote, despite their name (I would check, but the page is slashdotted). If they wish to undermine copyright, if they are foolish enough to believe that, as the summary suggested, that sharing is somehow less damaging just because money isn't changing hands, then I suggest they give their party points some long hard thought. If they want to simply take down the **AA, then I will fight them every step of the way, because that is, frankly, a simply idiotic approach to change.

How would I go about it? I would leave it to the market. Copyright doesn't grant you a free pass to money. You first have to earn it through creation or investment, and even then, it still has to go through us regular people in order for it to make money. If we don't want the **AA to make money, then it won't. Pure and simple. Sure, they'll kick and scream, but with enough support, even the government will be forced to turn a deaf ear, lest their political careers be over.

Re:First Vote

[phyjcowl]

Well said. The industry must adapt and provide a service that is useful and desired by people now. It's stuck on an outmoded business model, which is no longer relevant to our times.The industry by and large refuses to recognize that its medium has changed from a discrete physical one (CD media) to the Internet.

When the music industry recognized the medium changing from vinyl to eight-track to tape to CD, it always embraceed the new medium and sold on it. It's incredibly weird that it hasn't embraced the new medium, the Internet. The musci/movie/etc. industries should long ago have become ISPs, selling access to the content they produce via the modern medium, the Internet.

Re:First Vote

[Narpak]

If I like a film, money should go to the people involved in creating it and bringing it to my screen. If I like music, money should go to the people involved in creating it and bringing it to my speakers.

Giving into speculation I would perhaps say that if P2P distribution were legal if it wasn't for profit there probably would be a drop in sale of DvDs/bluerays and CDs; or those same products through various internet services. However I reckon people would still go to the cinema now and again, and people would most definitely purchase concert tickets to go see bands they like.

The ones I would be most worried about are writers and visual artists (books, comics, illustrated novellas and etc); while they aren't exactly in trouble (yet) one could assume that the quality of various readers will increase over the next years and decades. When it is possible to download a book or a comic book and read that in high quality on a device of some sort then it isn't hard to imagine that you could download such material for free if "non-profit" distribution of media is legal. So while I am pretty sure film makers and musicians can continue to earn a profit from their skills and talents it would be far harder for writers and artists who are dependant entirely upon selling copies of their work.

Re:First Vote

[doshell]

No industry could survive something like that - and I'm not just talking about the RIAA et all who would no longer be able to rape producers and consumers alike, I'm talking about there not being enough money around to invest in creating quality content for us in the first place.

I think the question is really whether you need a "content industry". Music and other forms of art exist since the dawn of mankind. No industry was ever in place to support the production of those works until the 20th century. Why do we need such an industry in order to create "content"? Why do we have to regard the production of art as an industry?

I say we should let people pay what they think is fair for content. If we get to the point where content quality actually drops because there's not enough money, certainly someone who appreciates good art will be willing to give some of their money to subsidize it. Only it won't be a million dollar industry --- but art is not about making money, right?

Re:First Vote

[Anonymous Coward]

To be honest, doesn't DRM violate the copyright act, something about a first use claus?

Patents are a good thing though, although I agree 20 years is way to long. As an inventor, I would be happy with 5 years protection.

There are many a type of downloader, those who download because they can not afford, or would not otherwise buy, there are those who only download what can not be found elsewhere, and there are those who download only legit stuff. The problem is those who download just because they can, and would otherwise buy software/entertainment. They represent a very small part of downloaders, and that was evident by the large drop in record sales, accompanied by only a 5% loss in profit.

Re:First Vote

[arthurpaliden]

"Music and other forms of art exist since the dawn of mankind. No industry was ever in place to support the production of those works until the 20th century."

That is because those artists had patrons or were employed by the 'State'. Now can you imagine one person being the patron for a movie. It cannot be done, not if you want A or B grade movies.

Re:First Vote

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess you don't enjoy watching movies. Good luck seeing anything that simultaneously has good acting, good visual/audio effects, and a good story when none of the people working on it are being paid to do so.

Re:First Vote

[l3ert]

I generally agree with you except for:

It's all very well saying that if the content is good people will go out and buy it anyway - but once you make it legal, mainstream hardware manufacturers will come along with P2P-enabled set-top boxes which will bring convenience to the mass market, and there will be no reason for anyone to go out and buy any content. It would destroy the content creators overnight, and then we'd get no quality content.

It would destroy the content industry not the content creators. Not that artists wouldn't be affected but it will not kill the arts. And, in any cases, if protecting IP rights involves any of DRM, communication monitoring, restrictions on technological development, taxes that go mainly to companies and a handful of top (already rich) artists then I'd rather see the whole entertainment industry die.

Re:First Vote

[A12m0v]

seconded!

Digital media shouldn't be freely distributed, unless the content creators wish so (allowed by license). It is theft pure and simple..

As for online privacy that should be an extension of our right to privacy, and I agree with them on this part.

Re:First Vote

[doshell]

That is because those artists had patrons or were employed by the 'State'.

Precisely. I was talking about patronage.

Now can you imagine one person being the patron for a movie. It cannot be done, not if you want A or B grade movies.

Who said it would be a single person?

I have seen lots of great movies that were made on a low budget. Don't assume that all "A or B grade movies" come from Hollywood and cost millions of dollars. That's what they want you to think: that their existence is crucial to the production of worthwhile forms of art.

Re:First Vote

[Anonymous Coward]

I partially agree, however I think saying the industry cannot survive modern day file sharing is untrue. There are alternative sources of revenue, the same sources that existed before being able to record the content was available and these would continue to make money. Live shows for music and theatrical releases for movies still turn a huge profit. There would be some change of course in that RIAA musicians who are created by the industry for the sole purpose of making money would probably die out, and actors that make twenty million a movie may make less money (which fits more reasonably with what they are doing for their job). File sharing takes the power that used to belong to the public (which was the initial intention of copyright) and gives it back to the public. The MPAA/RIAA are afraid because it is a loss of power for them, so they are doing the same thing they've done for every previous change which has been wrong every time as well. The are hailing it as the death of the industry. The original point of copyright was to protect authors from commercial infringement during the initial release period (five years or so) before joining the public domain. This model allows for the spread of information and is designed in the interest of the public. It was never to give meant to give organizations hundreds of years of control over information to exploit mass profit. So in short, yes certain revenue streams would get smaller or disappear. However, other streams will get stronger or new streams will develop and it is likely the industry will make less money, but since they're making absurdly inflated millions and millions of dollars now it will go back to a reasonable level. The profit now can only exist when the control every aspect and they can no longer do that.

Re:First Vote

[itlurksbeneath]

Something that says "if you like something, pay for it - it's only fair".

Honestly, I like that a lot more than "if you don't pay for something, you'll go to jail". I think you're missing the point of the Pirate Party, though. Its a push back against draconian DRM that says if I download a song on my computer, I can't move it to my media box, or burn a CD to use in my car. This, folks, is where the RIAA and the big media companies jumped the shark. I can't even been to tell you how much stuff like that makes me seethe with anger.

Granted, personal use doesn't cover buying Peace Sells, but Who's Buying and putting it up on the web for everybody and their brother to download. The line is somewhere between there and where the RIAA wants it, though.

Consider this: you go to the store and buy a CD, listen to it on the way home and decide it's pretty good. You tell your {brother|sister|friend} about it and they ask to borrow the CD. Should you be able to loan them the CD? Most sane people say yes (not sure where the RIAA is on this question, but when sanity is involved, I can probably guess which side of sanity they choose), but if you take the same equivalent actions in the iTunes world and burn a CD for somebody to borrow, suddenly you're a pirate.

Don't get me started on DRM for books either. I, to this day, refuse to buy a book reader no matter how cool, convenient and connected to the internet they are if they restrict me to reading downloaded content ONLY on the device they were downloaded on. I have no less than 6 devices in my house and several more at work capable of reading books on - why would I focus all my reading on one deivce? That's insanity.

Re:First Vote

[Anonymous Coward]

Small problem with your statement. Recording Industry is currently making record profits. People who download music/movies typically are people who legally buy more than the average joe.

This is really just a money grab.

It's very similar to a drug dealer, they give you the first hit free, then they want you to pay for the rest.

Re:First Vote

[misexistentialist]

"if you like something, pay for it - it's only fair"

Corporate executives don't use the word "fair" unless they are trying to trick someone. The "fairness" of some course of action is irrelevant in the world of capitalism.

Re:First Vote

[NickFortune]

There's a fine line between fair and unfair use. If I like a film, money should go to the people involved in creating it and bringing it to my screen. If I like music, money should go to the people involved in creating it and bringing it to my speakers.

I think the key factor here isn't so much a question of morality. I think it's a question of viability.

When I think about the state of copyright, I keep comparing it to the spice trades around the 15th Century or so; there are a lot of similarities with the recording industry of, say, forty years ago. Both were extremely lucrative. Both required a significant up front capital investment. And (IIRC) spice trade routes tended to be the subject of state granted monopolies - just like copyright.

So why did the spice route monopolies go away? I'm sure the monopoly holders could make all the same arguments the media cartels do today. They spent a lot of money developing those routes, they could argue. Or that they were the ones that discovered the route, and that entitled them to exclusivity. Or even that if they were not rewarded for their development, who would make the investment to find new trade routes. I think the ethics of the matter were probably about the same then as they are now with the media cartels.

I think what changed was the technology of distribution. It's one thing to enforce a monopoly when to exploit it you need to spend a kings ransom outfitting a trade caravan and then a year or more braving bandits, wild beasts, disease and starvation. It's another entirely when anyone so minded can hop on a plane to Azerbaijan be back inside a week with a suitcase full of saffron.

Similarly, it's easy to enforce a monopoly on the distribution of music when that distribution requires a factory to press vinyl discs, as well as warehousing and transportation networks. But as in the case of the spice traders, technology has moved on.

The bottom line? In a time when media can be distributed for costs approaching zero, I question whether charging for distribution remains a viable way to compensate creators. And if, as I suspect it is not, then I have to question the utility of copyright itself.

Re:First Vote

[blahplusplus]

"But things have changed with the internet."

Yes things have changed but not in the way you think, piracy has always been rampant in 3rd world countries like china and whatnot with people selling bootleg copies on the street. The idea that piracy was not widespread amongst millions and anonymous P2P "changes everything" ingores the continuous growth of the games and movies industries year over year with record box office takings.

The problem is with out-dated business models in an age abundance, according to traditional economic theory - supply exceeds demand so games and movie costs should be pushed lower because of competition from the internet, this by and large has not yet happened because most people are still clueless and love over-paying for crappy products.

People implicitly understand that if they don't pay for something people won't continue making it.

The idea that piracy is going to shut down these industries is a load of hogwash, people understand that it costs money to make these things most adults have jobs in which they produce said things, so they know.

The real problem is the internet now allows socialist economics and that has traditional capitalist scared, you have to remember your point of view is a very western capitalistic point of view, there are others who have good arguments that free distribution is great and the advent of non scarcity, means businesses can no longer control the flow of infromation to the public as they used to.

Re:First Vote

[Livius]

If nothing else, it's mathematically impossible for them to be any worse than the other political parties.

Re:First Vote

[jvillain]

There was a time when an artist couldn't even play for more than a room full of people. Now they can distribute all around the world very easily making their potential market massive. There used to be a time when a 24 track tape machine was 1/4 of a million dollars more like 3/4 of a million in todays dollars. A 24 track Neve console another 1/4 million a purpose built studio yet more money, good condenser mikes used to cost thousand of dollars each etc, etc etc. The costs used to be massive and the studio time costs were prohibitive. There used to be big risk that needed to be backed by big reward for successes. But the costs of recording have absolutely collapsed due to all the technology the studios rally against. Hey your lucky if any one in the band even played on the album any more. Most albums are just mashups of loops bought off of disks these days. And I don't know any good musicians that started out doing it for the money. But more important copy right was created to promote creation, the record companies which is where the vast bulk of the money goes are not needed any more for creation. That is why they are pissed.

Re:First Vote

[slazzy]

Sometimes you have to push "too far" in the other direction to end up with a fair middle ground.

Re:First Vote

[Anonymous Coward]

So... the content is crap, but you want it for you want a DVD Blue-Ray copy AND a copy for your iPos AND a copy for your girlfriend ? If it's crap, shouldn't you... not watch it ?

Re:First Vote

[SausageOfDoom]

That's not what I'm saying. I said that they need to adopt and provide a service that meets consumer demand, at a reasonable price in the new internet-based world.

However, the piracy party seem to be saying that all content should be available to everyone for free, entirely legally. Who is going to go make a big-budget film when they can't make any money out of it?

And don't give me "all big budget films these days are crap, people should do it for the love of art" - how is hundreds of people spending years of their lives working on something going to pay their rent?

Re:First Vote

[rtb61]

Well to be fair, if you produced it, means if you created a new and unique variant of the original that does not detract from the original, substantive actual work ie. taking a slice of pie from a pie diminishes that pie but creating a new a unique copy of piece of that pie leaves the original pie completely intact. The value in copyright just like patents is the value of the result to society not the artificial profits generated by legislated protectionism.

If you choose to release your work, the you have released it, if you wish to keep it secret, then don't release it, keep it to yourself as your private possession. Why would anyone consider it appropriate for the government to protect this pseudo mechanism for keeping released to the public works private from that same public, especially as it can be readily demonstrated that a lot of these works are of no real value to society, as required under law in order to be protected by copyright. In point of fact many of those illegally protected works are detrimental to society and are illegal to be shown publicly not to protect copyrights but to protect the general populace from the perceived harm caused by those works to members of society.

Copyrights are parasitical in nature, they bleed resources off a society, they neither house, nourish, heal, clothe, transport nor provide energy or necessary infrastructure. If fact those resources as set aside to feed copyright only so long as the works produced do provide a real return of true value and merit and thus justify the opportunity provided for them to generate profit for a short time to justify the original investment.

However should those works be of no value to society based upon qualitative nature of the work than they should not be protected ie. is it appropriate for the Government and hence the taxpayer to protect the profits of pornography, sure freedom of speech needs to be observed but creating a free copy is free speech and also is required to be protected and, in point of fact should take precedence as pornography fails the basic test for copyright protection, that it must be of value to the sciences and useful arts.

Re:First Vote

[Curtman]

Good luck seeing anything that simultaneously has good acting, good visual/audio effects, and a good story when none of the people working on it are being paid to do so.

So you're saying nothing will change?

Re:First Vote

[SausageOfDoom]

If it's legal to share content with friends or strangers for free, on P2P networks or whatever, it will get mainstream hardware support, and everyone from grandchild to grandparent will have something hooked up to their TV that can download everything for free. They'll never pay a penny more, and they'd be stupid to do otherwise.

When there's no money coming in, people who make films and music will get no money to pay their bills, so they'll go do something that will.

There would never be another big-budget film with quality actors, soundtrack, story and effects. We'd be left watching old movies before the law was passed, and no-budget university students prancing around in abandoned campus car parks wielding make-pretend light sabers.

So no thanks, I'll continue to wait and hope the **AA figure out they can make more money out of working with their customers rather than against them. And until then, I'm sure a lot of other people will be happy with illegal P2P.

Re:First Vote

[westlake]

The industry is used to having it their own way for too long, and they have to realise that their days of bleeding the customer dry are numbered.

To talk of bleeding the customer dry is lunatic.

The federal minimum wage in 1939 was 30 cents an hour. That would buy you one adult ticket to the movies or a single 78 RPM phonograph record.

Two tracks.

The roadshow production of Gone With The Wind would have been priced at $2 to $5 bucks.

The 78 was disposable. The light-weight tonearm with a diamond stylus doesn't come into general use until the mid or late fifties.

The federal minimum wage will rise to $7.25 an hour on July 24. The average U.S. ticket price for a movie in 2008 was $7.18.

The Video-on-Demand rental is $5.
You can do much better than that with a subscription to Netflix.

Amazon's Best Sellers in Music CDs will only rarely set you back more than $9.99. The mp3 single 89 cents.

The customer isn't paying more for entertainment in real terms than his great-grandfather did.

         

Re:First Vote

[j_ham3]

The trailers for The Hunt for Gollum http://www.thehuntforgollum.com/ look good - a non-profit film where none of the cast or crew were paid.

Re:First Vote

[grub]

And don't give me "all big budget films these days are crap, people should do it for the love of art"

I never did, nice strawman. :)

Re:First Vote

[The_Noid]

Most movies make a profit from the theatre viewings alone. That profit won't change at all, since the movie maker can easily negotiate a contract with the theatres to forbid re-distribution.

Since most internet connections are not really capable of handling blueray-disk sized downloads, or even DVD-sized in some regions, even the DVD market won't be affected that much by downloads.

They will probably still make a profit on the disks themselves as well, since those need factories and a distribution network.

So no, the movie industry should have no problem adopting to a copyright free world.

Re:First Vote

[Curtman]

Who is going to go make a big-budget film when they can't make any money out of it?

I'm glad to see people have moved on to saying that about the movie industry instead of the software industry these days.

Re:First Vote

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll be a damn proud Canadian as soon as I can get a job and start paying taxes up there. Know anyone hiring?

Re:First Vote

[smaddox]

It would destroy the content creators overnight, and then we'd get no quality content.

Not exactly. It would destroy the content creating business. There would not be for-profit corporations spending millions of dollars to produce, market, and distribute content. However, artistic expression would survive just as it did before copyright was invented.

There is no doubt that the world would be drastically different without copyright. There would almost assuredly be less content. Probably even less 'quality' content. However, at times I think that the average American's life revolves around this content a bit too much. People are so busy entertaining themselves that we forget about the future. We live in fictional worlds. We seek immediate satisfaction. People work all day in their service jobs so that they can afford that new TV with the HD player, and a collection of HD movies. People may be content with their entertainment driven lives, but at what cost? How much of Earth's resources are being expended for our entertainment, while our understanding of the world around us increases at a snails pace?

For the 2006 Edge question, Geoffrey Miller wrote an essay titled "Runaway Consumerism Explains the Fermi Paradox" (about half-way down the page), in which he suggests that the reason we have not come across extraterrestrial intelligence is that all intelligent races reach a point where they become consumed in their own creations. They completely lose interest in the real world. "Having real friends is so much more of an effort than watching Friends on TV. Actually colonizing the galaxy would be so much harder than pretending to have done so by filming Star Wars."

There was a time when hearing a tale from a traveling bard was a rare treat. Those days have been replaced by ones full of fiction and fantasy. Is this a bad thing? No.. Well.. maybe... Yes? Who knows? The answer is completely subjective.

Re:First Vote

[arthurpaliden]

"a non-profit film where none of the cast or crew were paid."

So how did they pay their rent, buy clothes and food for their kids?

Re:First Vote

[jamstar7]

When the music industry recognized the medium changing from vinyl to eight-track to tape to CD, it always embraceed the new medium and sold on it. It's incredibly weird that it hasn't embraced the new medium, the Internet. The musci/movie/etc. industries should long ago have become ISPs, selling access to the content they produce via the modern medium, the Internet.

Until recently, the bandwidth just wasn't there for the end consumer at a price they were willing to pay. And in a lot of places here in the US, it still isn't. Want a straight download of a Blu-Ray disc at DSL speeds? Give it a couple days or so out here in the middle of nowhere. Hell, it took me 3 days to get the Kubuntu Jaunty DVD a couple weeks back. My ISP routinely throttles download speeds for the simple reason that they don't want to spend the money to upgrade the lines to something that would have a wider bandwidth, not until they get at least 5 times the customers out here first, so instead of letting the current users go full blast, they throttle hell out of everybody to keep service at a minimum contracted rate.

Re:First Vote

[zach_d]

it turns out that you can do more than one thing in a given day. not all of these things need to be money making activites.

Re:First Vote

[Curtman]

Big Buck Bunny looks pretty good too.

Re:First Vote

[Artifakt]

Quality v. Crap is simplistic, but if you put the whole model in more accurate, not oversimplified terms, what the AC is saying makes real sense.

Let's say I would give new series Dr. Who about a B- to C+ if I was rating it - not crap, but not great art either. I browse Amazon US and UK for prices and while I'm on UK, I notice some other items, i.e. Branaugh's 'Much Ado about Nothing', and 'Henry V'. Personally, I'd give both of those an A or even A+.

Now, I look at prices - the Shakespeare costs about 10 dollars US a DVD, and I can get about the same price if I order from the US supplier, or several alternates in the US, so I can easily get optimum shipping times and costs.

Now the Dr. Who. If I order the US version (NTSC), it's about 80 bucks a season. I could save money ordering from the UK for about 45$, but it's PAL format, so it will only play in my PC, and shipping times and costs will eat up part of my savings.

If I really mean my ratings, I'm going to snap up the Shakespeare, but when it comes to the 'Okay" stuff, I've now got to decide whether a season of Dr. Who is worth five times the cost I have just decided is a good deal for a great film, or even eight, and whether I want to endure the problems of region encoding and format incompatibilities and limits to the devices I can play them on.

      It's just the sort of content that isn't crap, but isn't really your personal 'must have work of staggering genius', that gets hurt by all the industry mechanisms. The more complex they make it, the less I have any options I actually like. They aren't for example, offering to give me a discount on a downloadable copy for my iPod if I buy the original DVD. They aren't putting the same pricing discount structure in effect for my region as they do for some others (Isn't it funny the distributors will sell US films cheaper overseas, but won't reduce prices on imports to the US proportionately? The US consumer's job is to bear markups no one else has to bear, and keep paying full price when the economy sucks while that results in price drops eleswhere.).

      Unless I'm an idiot who doesn't care about spending my entertainment budget at all wisely, and never bothers to think anything is really crap, I'm having to think rationally about many different choices, but doing that highlights the negatives of ALL the choices. The result is selectively turning off the non-stupid part of the consumer population.

      They are making it the most complicated for the very items that I personally kind of like but don't think are a big deal. When figuring out how to buy those, or use them in all my devices, becomes a big deal I have a strong incentive to just not buy.

        If you rate Japanese Animation highly enough, you may not mind jumping through a few hoops to get dubbed or subtitled copies. If Rocky Horror is one of your all time favorites, buying it on VHS, and again on DVD, and again on Blue Ray, may be tolerable. But if you are a potential customer for Anime, who's slightly interested but doesn't know that much about it or speak Japanese, region encoding issues may be what keeps the producers from ever making a sale to you. It's hard for the industry to alienate its dedicated fanbase - but they can sure alienate everyone else. Disney doesn't have to worry much about losing DVD sales to the people who come to the parks four times a year, nearly as much as losing the people who just buy an occasional Disney release. But guess which loss will break the company in the long term.

Re:First Vote

[Tuoqui]

It would destroy the content creators overnight, and then we'd get no quality content.

And you call Britany Spears and crap spewed out by American Idol type programs 'quality'?

Re:First Vote

[bitemykarma]

It's discouraging that you were modded insightful for the simple reason that you always said "I liked" instead of "I watched".

When someone produces a movie, they make it available for a fee that is charged when you watch it. If you didn't like it, tough shit.

Also, if you are not willing to pay the fee to watch it (or listen to it), you are not entitled to. Get fucked.

Re:First Vote

[Nursie]

Err, most internet connections in the US, maybe.

In other parts of the world, a few GB download is not that hard to achieve. Couple that with the far superior compression methods we have today and it doesn't take all that much.

Hell, my own connection maxed out (at the speed it runs at rather than the quoted speed) would take only about quarter of an hour per (roughly 1.4GB) movie. I'm only on a 24Mbit connection (12-15 actual), and it's not like connections are going to get slower or compression worse. A 720p movie usually only comes in at about 3 times that.

Now, I'm not saying this is a reason not to touch copyright law, I think it needs a lot of reform, but saying "they'll still make money because of connection speeds is silly.

Re:First Vote

[chuckwilson]

Here's the catch 22 of copyright -- How do you know if an artistic experience is worth your monetary support if you have not experienced it yet?

Don't get me wrong, I support paying for quality art. I do all I can to support small-time artists that I really like. But P2P has allowed me to make well-informed choices of where to spend my money. I would love it if there were a framework for "If you like something, pay for it," but how do I know I like it? This is where current copyright fails.

What I'm saying is kind of moot, though. The problem is a societal one, I'd say. I have a friend in the music business. He does not download music. Ever. He does, however, download tv shows and movies. When I confronted him on this hypocrisy, his reason boiled down to "I don't know anyone in the tv or movie business." People are self-centered. Humanity fail.

Re:First Vote

[Nursie]

(Isn't it funny the distributors will sell US films cheaper overseas, but won't reduce prices on imports to the US proportionately? The US consumer's job is to bear markups no one else has to bear, and keep paying full price when the economy sucks while that results in price drops eleswhere.).

As a European I'd like to say this - you think you've got it hard? Prices are usually translated from dollars to euros with no exchange rate factored in. As a Brit I'll take it one further and say that on computer hardware, music, movies and a whole load of other stuff tyhey do the same trick from dollars to pounds.

It's sickening, especially when you then have the likes of Sony utterly destroying in court any parallel importers of hardware from the far east.

So I agree with everything you say, but wanted add - You think you are being ripped off?

Re:First Vote

[SausageOfDoom]

Indeed you didn't; other people in this thread have said as much though, so it was partly in answer to those, and partly pre-empting a similar response.

Re:First Vote

[cliffski]

I couldn't agree more. Copyright law needs updating, but abolishing it is silly.
I hate the RIAA and MPAA, not becauase of their policies regarding court cases or anything they do to people who are filesharing, but because their stance devalues the true justifications for copyright, and because they make me watch unskippable warnings on DVDs.

Most people who benefit from copyright hate the MPAA and RIAA. I'm sick of being called an RIAA shill just because I don't believe in decriminalising file-sharing.

There is a whole spectrum of views on copyright. The RIAA are the Klu Klux Klan of copyright debate. Do not lump us all in with them, and we will not lump in all copyright reformers with Peter Sunde and his fellow recently-sold-out friends.

Re:First Vote

[chuckwilson]

When there's no money coming in, people who make films and music will get no money to pay their bills, so they'll go do something that will.

I must disagree with this point. I know many musicians that have day jobs. They would never in their lives think of giving up music.

Re:First Vote

[koolfy]

However, the piracy party seem to be saying that all content should be available to everyone for free, entirely legally.

"Legally" is the key. They don't want to legalize ways to infringe copyrights, they want movies to move from copyright to Creative Common or similar.

Who is going to go make a big-budget film when they can't make any money out of it?

The fact that you don't pay for each movie doesn't mean that those movies aren't paid for.

You don't pay for each movie you watch on TV, but they are paid by other, less agressive, means (commercials[even though this one IS agressive :p], paying for the channels you watch, etc).

I'm not saying this is the way to go, but this is an example that could actually be modified and adapted to the internet.
I don't know exactly how, it's their job to figure it out.

Re:First Vote

[Jaroslav.Tucek]

Well said. I too wish the media distributors would stop trying to lock down the content with DRM and haul file-sharers to court. Instead, their time would be better spent on working with those "pirates" who actually desire to be their customers and are willing to pay for quality content to offer them services they want.

Why is it that I can fire up any random P2P network and download Knuth's The Art of Computer Programming profesionally-looking pdf but can't buy a legal ebook? Why am I denied Amazon's music tracks download because I live in Central Europe? The P2P network does not make any such restrictions. Why does a legally purchased game bother me with all kind of protection crap and then the need to have the physical medium in the drive all the time? I can download a fully functional cracked game with no-cd patches applied.

If these measures are really taken to prevent piracy, someone should be congratulated on a job well done. It definitely makes me a pirate. The thing is, the P2P networks simply offer services that the legal channels do not.

That said, I do not agree with legalised file-sharing and the pirate party will never receive my vote (what exactly is shared other than previously purchased content. Apply Kant's categorical imperative and see that the very idea of legal P2P networks is self-contradictory) but maybe they can make the media distributors realise how broken their policies are and fix them. One can hope...

Re:First Vote

[Anonymous Coward]

Your assumptions are dangerous. It's not that connections can't handle bluray downloads, it's that connections can't download bluray disks -yet- what happens if some new innovation makes a 100inch HDTV/Bluray quality setup cost under $500 and everyone had one at home? With easy (which comes with legal) copying, just one good quality bootleg (as in, stolen film reel or disk, not camera-in-a-theater) and tons of people won't bother with a theater.

Re:First Vote

[Blublu]

Not only that, but did you know that a HUGE chunk of movie "costs" are to pay big-name actors? These celeb wages are just ridiculous, they could easily cut down a lot of costs by lowering their wages down to something reasonable, or using new actors that aren't as spoiled and greedy.

Re:First Vote

[sponga]

Theres nothing worse than a heckler, they are the most bitter type of people who contribute nothing creatively to life.

Serioulsy who cares if people like Britney Spears and American Idol, it gives them joy in their life and they like to listen to it. You start to sound like the Taliban.

I hate people who tell other people what and who they should listen to, you people are the worse and add to it you use it as a crutch excuse for pirating.
Reminds me of the song "It's my party and I can cry if I want to, cry if I want to"

Re:First Vote

[Flea of Pain]

Just out of curiosity, and to open the minds of readers a little, how much would you like to be paid for working away from you friends and family for years at a time, sometimes in an entirely different country?

Personally I have worked away from mine in a camp with internet and phone access, and only for four months, but it was still taxing not to see your loved ones.

Just something to consider.

Re:First Vote

[The_Noid]

I guess that question should be answered by any soldier that has been send to a conflict zone...

And I doubt all those soldiers get paid just as much as those big-name actors, even though they do put their lives on the line, unlike those actors.

Or ask any sailor... Nowadays they even run the risk of being hijacked by real pirates...

Re:First Vote

[registrar]

If they want to simply take down the **AA, then I will fight them every step of the way, because that is, frankly, a simply idiotic approach to change.

Come now. You know the **AA are a bunch of jerks, but you don't want to see them taken down? What the **AA needs is a serious challenge to their existence. Society needs to declare that their abuse of copyright law is so serious that those institutions deserve not to exist, regardless of the merits of the laws they purport to maintain.

A good solid kick in the balls will wake them up. Hopefully it will destroy their careers (they deserve it) and have them replaced with another institution that is forced to behave properly because of the public outcry.

Re:First Vote

[Mr. Slippery]

But things have changed with the internet.

Indeed they have. The net has lowered the cost of distributing a work to just about zero, and made collaboration with other artists orders of magnitude easier. At the same time, other improvements in technology have made the cost of producing a work much lower. The case for free non-commercial distribution is stronger because of the net.

But behind all of this, there must be a legal framework to say what's right and what's wrong. Something that says "if you like something, pay for it - it's only fair".

Do you pay for every book you read, or do you go to the library?

Do you pay for every joke you hear, or do you chuckle as someone re-tells a quip they heard from a friend of a friend around the water cooler?

Do you pay for every song, or do you sing in the shower without paying performance royalties?

It has never been the case that we've had the rule "if you like something, pay for it - it's only fair".

The net has made our library bigger, enlarged the circle of friends around the global water cooler, and made it possible for the world to hear us sing in the shower. That's all.

Re:First Vote

[Zerth]

Primer The acting might not be very good, or it might be really good not-having-to-act. One of the best stories I've seen that only cost $7k, anyway.

As the cost of special effects comes down and the rental of a digital camera replaces the cost of film stock, the only real cost is manpower.

And as anyone reading this site should know, you can make some really good stuff in your spare time.

Re:First Vote

[Zerth]

Primer The acting might not be very good, or it might be really good not-having-to-act. One of the best stories I've seen that only cost $7k, anyway.
As the cost of special effects comes down and the rental of a digital camera replaces the cost of film stock, the only real cost is manpower.

And as anyone reading this site should know, you can make some really good stuff in your spare time.

.
Correction, I should have said the only real cost is manpower and music and other IP licensing costs.

Sorry.

Re:First Vote

[shutdown -p now]

The RIAA and MPAA are a big problem for copyright supporters, since they are admittedly the most outspoken spokespersons for copyright

You have a point there. I support copyright (with reasonable terms, explicit fair use provisions for time and format shifting, and no DMCA-like laws to protect DRM). I also despise both RIAA and MPAA, since they make it so much harder for me to reasonably argue for my point of view, because all carefully constructed arguments can be easily dismissed by appealing to emotions simply by mentioning RIAA/MPAA - and they do evoke very strong negative emotions now in most people who know of them, there's no mistake about that. It's like Godwin's Law, except that this version is really annoying because it precludes reasonable discussion.

Re:First Vote

[shutdown -p now]

I, to this day, refuse to buy a book reader no matter how cool, convenient and connected to the internet they are if they restrict me to reading downloaded content ONLY on the device they were downloaded on. I have no less than 6 devices in my house and several more at work capable of reading books on - why would I focus all my reading on one deivce? That's insanity.

Why boycott the reader, if it actually lets you read non-DRM'd texts? Boycotting the online stores that make DRM'd books makes more sense from your perspective (just as many people used iPods but not iTMS for DRM reasons).

Re:First Vote

[brit74]

Here's the catch 22 of copyright -- How do you know if an artistic experience is worth your monetary support if you have not experienced it yet?

I guess I don't really see that as that large of a problem. Yes, it's true that you might be pretty disappointed by that movie, album, or software you bought. But, you aren't going-in completely blind. You can watch trailers, listen to music on the radio (or lookup songs on last.fm), download demos of software. Content creators go out of their way to help people see their product because we know it's helpful for buying decisions. Further, you can talk to people who've watched a movie, and lookup reviews on the internet. And, when you see "Michael Bay" attached to a movie - you should know that it isn't going to be worth your time. The flip-side of the problem is this: with piracy, it puts the content creators in the position of trying to get someone to pay for stuff after they've already got it. That's a tough position to be in. You can't give away 100% of your product, and then expect to be paid most of the time.

Re:First Vote

[brit74]

Copyrights are parasitical in nature, they bleed resources off a society, they neither house, nourish, heal, clothe, transport nor provide energy or necessary infrastructure. If fact those resources as set aside to feed copyright only so long as the works produced do provide a real return of true value and merit

Those two statements are contradictory. Further, what you're saying with the first statement is that entertainment and all software (including software that is used to design buildings, educate, calculate financial numbers, run websites, or support the internet in general) is parasitical in nature. Copyrights are not "parasitical" - they support the creation of works that people want - and people them want enough to pay money for them. Copyrights provide a way for society to financially support these works collectively. Based on your view that entertainment and copyright being parasitical, I think you might be happier leaving slashdot and moving to an Amish community.

Re:First Vote

[Trahloc]

Many who have and will join the Pirate Party don't do so out of a desire to screw content creators. We do it out of a desire to *stop* being screwed by those who have screwed the content creators.

Copyright law has been perverted and twisted into a mockery of itself, until that changes your side of the street is filthier than ours. While its true that there has been some advancement in copyright law in the last few years, things like fair use and parody receiving limited protections, it isn't enough to offset the horrors done to public domain. Once logical copyright laws are in place I might switch to the pro-copyright camp, until then though I'm firmly with the Pirates.

Re:First Vote

[Trahloc]

Most movies make a profit from the theatre viewings alone. That profit won't change at all, since the movie maker can easily negotiate a contract with the theatres to forbid re-distribution.

I'm pro PP but I disagree. Without *any* copyright laws they don't have a legal framework to protect the Right to Copy their movies. It would have to all rely on personal agreements between the theater and the producers/distributors with little to no recourse if an employee independently "frees" a copy to his personal laptop thereby avoiding the one sticking point of physical ownership. They have a hard enough time today when its obviously against the law much less if the laws say its perfectly legal.

Re:First Vote

[Kjella]

If they wish to undermine copyright, if they are foolish enough to believe that, as the summary suggested, that sharing is somehow less damaging just because money isn't changing hands, then I suggest they give their party points some long hard thought.

I don't know about the canadian pirate party, but the swedish pirate party yes. You can find a brief summary in english but their swedish statement is better:

"All non-commercial acquirement, use, improvement and distribution of culture shall explicitly be encouraged. The law shall be changed so that it is perfectly clear that it only regulates use and copying of works in a commercial setting. To share copies, or in other ways spread or use someone else's work shall never be prohibited as long as it happens on an ideal basis without intention of commercial gain.

"Allt icke-kommersiellt inhämtande, nyttjande, förädlande och spridning av kultur skall uttryckligen uppmuntras. Lagstiftningen skall ändras så att det görs helt klart att den endast reglerar användning och kopiering av verk i kommersiella sammanhang. Att dela med sig av kopior, eller på annat sätt sprida eller använda annans verk, skall aldrig vara förbjudet så länge det sker på ideell basis utan vinstmotiv."

Re:First Vote

[Trahloc]

Seconded, this movie is great. Anyone with a touch of science fiction interest should watch it. Personally I thought the acting was fine, but perhaps I'm not the best judge on that since the story sucked me in.

Re:First Vote

[bzipitidoo]

Nice of you to acknowledge the problems, but I think you and those who want only to reform copyright don't go far enough. Debates about whether copyright should be life plus 75 years or 28 years or 5 years miss the fundamental problem that like any natural right, the "right" to make copies simply isn't restrictable. Neither by technical or legal measures have vested interests been able to stop copying. Copy protection is a failure, because it too is a fundamentally flawed notion. They've wasted millions on DRM idiocy, for nothing. And they're still trying, still thinking it can be done, or at least can last long enough to have enough of an effect to be worth the investment. Nor have legal institutions the power to stop copying no matter how many laws they pass, or what enforcement they try. They can't stop sex, and a copy is a whole lot easier thing to score. The only thing that slows down the copying is the public's sense of fair play, and the industry has greatly damaged that by repeatedly reaching ever new heights of excessive zeal, stupidity, and brutality. $1.9 million is a new record in damages, is it not?

I wish they could see that it isn't even in their interests to try enforcing extreme copyright. They act as if everyone is a fan, desperate to acquire entertainment, but that is very fragile. When pressed, many people discover they don't absolutely have to have such entertainment after all, and it really isn't hard to transition from fan to ex-fan, and their lives might even be richer therefore and they'll end up thanking the industry for pushing them away!

And consider that copyright is only a means, it's not some kind of holy necessity without which we cannot fund art and science. It's not the only way to encourage what we really want, which is good art and science, and in fact it too often gets in the way and discourages and suppresses the very things it is supposed to enable. It has some very negative monopolistic features that can be and are often abused. Who can say how many budding bands were destroyed? Without copyright, publishers could not exert the kind of extreme control they seem to think they both need and deserve, could not pull off such things as Payola, to the detriment of the rest of us. Copyright's day is done. I think we must look at more radical solutions than reform.

Re:First Vote

[Trahloc]

Ok so overall we probably spend about the same maybe a little less per song/movie than our grandfathers did. I don't really see how that a good or commendable thing though. In 1939 they had worse tech, worse automation, and worse distribution. All those have become *much* better and we still pay the same relative costs per your own example. Taking that into account that same movie your grandfather, or great grandfather for some, saw as a young man *is still in copyright* 80 years later. How can you defend a system like that?

Re:First Vote

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Come now. You know the **AA are a bunch of jerks, but you don't want to see them taken down?

I know that they're jerks, and I would like to see some punishment handed down to them. However, as a higher priority, I'd like to see them reform, and I'd like to see that innocent people are not affected. Revenge is simply not a good enough reason to do something rash like abolish copyright. Such issues must be dealt with a clear mind, rational debate, and of course, quality evidence.

Re:First Vote

[Anonymous Coward]

Bah fatfingered it, I meant 70 years. You proof read proof read and proof read and then miss obvious errors. And the 30k really should be 3k, be nice if the census.gov site told you it was adjusted for inflation on the chart.

Re:First Vote

[Trahloc]

Agreed, doesn't change the fact that she still sucks. Although I remember a time when she was worth watching on mute.

Re:First Vote

[bh_doc]

It's incredibly weird that it hasn't embraced the new medium, the Internet.

The industry by and large refuses to recognize that its medium has changed from a discrete physical one (CD media) to the Internet.

IMO, you have the answer right there. All media changes in the past have been from one physical medium to another, allowing the industry to charge for what is basically the same content multiple times, and keep a relative handle on where the content can go. What we're entering into now is a situation where the industry can no longer control the physicality of the content - it becomes ethereal - and I reckon this scares the hell out of them.

Re:First Vote

[mindstrm]

You realize those big celebs can demand those big dollars because having them act in your movie SELLS your movie, and makes you even more money? It's basic economics... gimme a break.

Ever negotiated any kind of work for hire? You negotiate for what you can get - you don't at some point say "Gee, I should stop charging so much to my clients.. I'm awfully greedy. Why don't I just suggest they go out and get someone less recognized and less reliable?"

Re:First Vote

[mindstrm]

I guess it could be.
One could also ask any of those people if they feel responsible for their own choices in life.

We aren't communists. The mob doesn't decide what everyone should get paid on some "Fairness" scale.

Travolta gets paid a lot because he's marketable. A soldier doens't get paid a lot because he's replaceable.

Re:First Vote

[The_Noid]

What, you think contract law isn't valid any more when copyright ceases to exist? Contract law was made for cases like this, and breach of contract can be brought to court for the damage resulting from that breach.

Re:First Vote

[Tolkien]

Woohoo! Me too!

Re:First Vote

[nagnamer]

Many who have and will join the Pirate Party don't do so out of a desire to screw content creators.

I'm sorry, but most people know little about what they are voting for, pirate or no-pirate. Some do, perhaps. But they are always minority. Most of the people probably like that they are called "Pirate", or love the idea someone actually identifying with what they do in their free time. It's like a little boy meeting an adult that's into Nintendo Wii. It's probably like getting their parent's approval to them: "Yay! I thought this day would never come!"

Re:First Vote

[nagnamer]

With easy (which comes with legal) copying, just one good quality bootleg (as in, stolen film reel or disk, not camera-in-a-theater) and tons of people won't bother with a theater.

Don't worry, that'll change soon enough. :)

Here, the man said it better than anyone:

"And that's the key to understanding [Digital Manners Policies by Microsoft]. Don't be fooled by the scare stories of wireless devices on airplanes and in hospitals, or visions of a world where no one is yammering loudly on their cellphones in posh restaurants. This is really about media companies wanting to exert their control further over your electronics. They not only want to prevent you from surreptitiously recording movies and concerts, they want your new television to enforce good "manners" on your computer, and not allow it to record any programs. They want your iPod to politely refuse to copy music to a computer other than your own. They want to enforce their legislated definition of manners: to control what you do and when you do it, and to charge you repeatedly for the privilege whenever possible." (-- Bruce Schneier http://www.schneier.com/essay-224.html)

Re:First Vote

[nagnamer]

they could easily cut down a lot of costs by lowering their wages down to something reasonable, or using new actors that aren't as spoiled and greedy.

Which brings us to another good question. Why won't people settle for those new ungreedy actors?

I've never paid much attention to actors. I usually remember the title of the movie, the director's name, and maybe the screenwriter if it's a really good story. But people around me seem to think a lot more about actors and stars...

Re:First Vote

[SausageOfDoom]

Yes, you can be an amateur musician playing music for the fun of it while you keep a day job. But to create anything of quality while you're doing a full-time job and would be incredibly difficult, especially if you had a family and wanted to play music with others.

I know a musician who had to leave his band because it got to the point where he didn't have enough time to practice with the others, get his work done and spend any time with his wife. Of course he didn't give it up altogether, but he had to give up any chance of doing it really well. Equally, his bandmates had to give up their full-time jobs to put the time into their practice. There just aren't enough hours in the day to do everything properly.

Just look at orchestras; the good ones are made up of full-time professionals. The ones made up of amateurs meeting once a week may get most of the notes in the right order, but they will lack the polish and precision of people who have the hours to practice to pull a performance up from amateur to professional.

And that's just the performance. You then have to find a composer with the skill, experience and time to create something worth listening to. A conductor or producer to make sure everything goes in the right place. You have to find someone with the time, expertise and equipment to record it.

I'm sorry, but I don't think that all of the effort that goes into creating an excellent recording should have to be done for free. If you spend all of that time building skills and creating something beautiful, you should be able to protect it legally for a reasonable amount of time.

If you remove money from creating music, books and films, you can only be left with amateurs who create amateur content with amateur production values. I'd prefer to continue to pay for quality.

Re:First Vote

[SausageOfDoom]

I get the impression that they are bleeding the customer dry whenever I see people getting fines running into the tens of thousands for sharing a handful of tracks. A $2 million dollar fine for sharing 24 tracks.

When I see the industry saying that paying for a track on a CD doesn't entitle you to copy that onto your PC or portable MP3 player, and that you have to buy another copy.

When I hear about how the people want to extend copyright past any reasonable length to reasonably ensure income for the author.

When you look at a CD on an online shop and see it's half the price of electronic delivery from the same place.

When a CD of an album that came out in 1984 is 3 times the price of a 2008 straight-to-DVD film.

When "Gone with the Wind" - which came out in 1939, has made hundreds of millions of dollars since then, still holds the record for domestic box office, and whose main actors have been dead for at least 30-40 years - is still more expensive on DVD than films that came out in 2008.

The customer may may be paying a relatively fair price when compared to 1939, but that doesn't make it fair.

Re:First Vote

[SausageOfDoom]

You and I may not like Britney Spears, but then we don't have to buy her music. A lot of people must like her though, because she keeps doing very well in the charts and on tour.

I don't like a lot of new music, but equally, there's a lot that I do. Some of it reached me via last.fm, but most of it reached me through the mainstream radio. If the people making the music weren't getting money for their efforts, that music wouldn't have reached me. Not to mention the books and films I've enjoyed reading and watching lately.

The current system is far from perfect, but the system that the pirate party are proposing would not only harm the content industries, but the content creators themselves - not just the manufactured pop mega-stars that you and I dislike, but the skilled and talented musicians, actors, authors, designers, and programmers who are merely making a fair living creating things.

Re:First Vote

[SausageOfDoom]

I buy books I own; if I did go to the library, I'd pay library fees and they'd buy the books in. If I borrow my girlfriend's books and read those, she paid for them - and I give them back. This is legal, and in no way the same as it being legal for millions of people to go onto a P2P network and permanently download an exact copy of the book without giving the author any money.

Pay-per-joke is comparing apples to oranges - but I'd certainly expect to pay for a joke book, and don't think it would be fair to expect a recording of a comedian's performance which I didn't pay for.

I do pay for every song I own. I pay for songs I hear on the radio by listening to their adverts. If I sing to myself in the shower then I'm not performing it to anyone; if anything I'm practicing. If I sang it to 500 people in a field, and charged them access the performance, then yes, I should pay performance royalties.

If we were talking about making it legal for me to upload a video to YouTube of me singing in the shower, then yes, you may have a case for arguing that copyright law is unfair.

However, we're not talking about that. We're talking about the Pirate Party wanting to make it legal to copy a track or film off a CD or DVD, put it on a P2P network, and let millions of people get an identical copy of the original without any money going to the people involved in creating the content. I can't see how anyone thinks that is fair.

Re:First Vote

[mdwh2]

If you didn't like it, tough shit. ... Get fucked.

Got out the wrong side of bed, did we?

Also, if you are not willing to pay the fee to watch it (or listen to it), you are not entitled to.

Well, he would be entitled to if the law is changed through democratic means, as this article is about.

Re:First Vote

[eiapoce]

I'm talking about there not being enough money around to invest in creating quality content for us in the first place.

Really? For instance there it is free music with Creative Commons licenses http://www.jamendo.com/

Re:First Vote

[Anonymous Coward]

people who make films and music will get no money to pay their bills, so they'll go do something that will.

We'd be left watching no-budget university students prancing around in abandoned campus car parks wielding make-pretend light sabers.

Contradicting yourself within your own post kinda defeats your argument. You might not like what's being produced, but you do admit things will still be produced? If I told you I preferred to drive around in horse and cart but the car industry made it too expensive for me - would you feel any pity for me?

There would never be another big-budget film

Very doom and gloom that word - never. We don't know that somebody (rich bastard or corp) won't decide to bankroll a particularly good script. What there wouldn't is film after film, that is nothing more than a made-for-tv movie with a couple of big names and the latest pop sensation doing some backing vocals. There might never be another Vin Diesel film, or another American Pie, maybe even no more teen/softcore porn/roadtrip movies (though they never did improve in Animal House IMO. Arnie might actually have to stick to politics... eh... actually, the RIAA might be preferable.... lemme think about this for a while.

Not that its my choice anyway - what will happen, will happen, no matter how many laws are made or broken. There's every chance blockbuster bags of shite will never again be seen our lifetime - but I dont think we're that lucky to be honest. Overall though, I don't see how the reduction of soulless, talentless crap from our pool of culture can be considered a bad thing. Movies WILL still be made - they will be just be different, by different folk. Life changes, so does everything involved in it, even if they don't want to.

Re:First Vote

[Trahloc]

It will prevent XYZ corp from distributing it, true, but if it gets out however it happens whats their recourse? Once you neuter copyright law to the point where everything is defacto public domain you can't go after the guy who leaks it. It's like taking pictures of an 18th century novel in a private collection, yeah you'll piss people off but they can't stop the photos from being distributed.

Re:First Vote

[Trahloc]

Perhaps, but thats true for virtually every movement. Why someone supports the PP I wont question so long as they support it until we can get some reasonable laws in place. If we go too far it just means culture and business will suffer while right now we have culture and private rights suffering, the greater evil in my world by far.

Re:First Vote

[simplexion]

There were musicians and actors long before their efforts could be held as data on media. Guess what they did? Performed live. This doesn't really apply for movies though but you get the idea.

Re:First Vote

[Mr. Slippery]

I buy books I own;

Congratulations, you've discovered the tautology. :-)

if I did go to the library, I'd pay library fees and they'd buy the books in.

"Library fees"? Do you mean "taxes", or do you live in some uncivilized part of the world without public libraries?

If I borrow my girlfriend's books and read those, she paid for them - and I give them back. This is legal, and in no way the same as it being legal for millions of people to go onto a P2P network and permanently download an exact copy of the book without giving the author any money.

It is, in fact, just the same in the way that matters: people enjoy a work without paying for it.

If I sing to myself in the shower then I'm not performing it to anyone; if anything I'm practicing. If I sang it to 500 people in a field, and charged them access the performance, then yes, I should pay performance royalties.

You don't have to give a public performance of a song in order to enjoy it. If you regard singing outside of performance solely as practicing for work, that's sad and pathetic.

And of course performance royalties apply only to for-profit performances. When I take my guitar on a camping trip and play "Louie, Louie" around the campfire, we're enjoying the some and not obligated to pay anyone royalties for it.

However, we're not talking about that. We're talking about the Pirate Party wanting to make it legal to copy a track or film off a CD or DVD, put it on a P2P network, and let millions of people get an identical copy of the original without any money going to the people involved in creating the content.

If you will kindly look up-thread, you will see that what we are talking about is the falsity of the premise, "if you like something, pay for it - it's only fair".

It has never been the case that everyone who liked a work paid for it. Just about everyone thinks -- or at least behaves as if they think -- that it is on many occasions fair to enjoy creative works without paying for them.

Re:First Vote

[SausageOfDoom]

It has never been the case that everyone who liked a work paid for it. Just about everyone thinks -- or at least behaves as if they think -- that it is on many occasions fair to enjoy creative works without paying for them.

No, but it has always been the case that everyone who owned a work (or at least a license to use it) was legally obliged to pay for it. This reduces widespread adoption, and in particular blocks mainstream hardware implementations for fear of legal action.

Make content sharing legal like the pirate party want, and sooner or later you'll get netgear/linksys/belkin/apple/ms et al releasing affordable set-top boxes which browse torrent-esque sites, pull down music and videos, and play them straight into your tv for free. A bit like apple/ms already do, only with P2P.

The kind of thing that a minority of tech-savvy people are doing today without regard for the consequences will be available to the masses, and nobody sane would ever pay for content again.

With convenience of watching the latest releases at home while the costs are reduced to near zero, cinema attendance would suffer, and most films wouldn't stand a chance of making all their money back.

The only people who would stand a chance making money out of content in the short term would be those who can create a compelling way to package and deliver the content with a subscription or ad-supported revenue model. But even they would struggle in the long-term as hardware manufacturers try to undercut each other. The only real cost would be ISP bandwidth.

Making content free to share would ultimately kill all modern sources of professional-quality content. We would be reduced to theatres, concerts and youtube shorts of students prancing around in abandoned campus car parks wielding make-pretend light sabers.

So instead of bleating that content wants to be free and that we should all live in some hippy copyrightless utopia, I'd prefer to be a bit more realistic and wait for the content industry to figure out they can make more money by embracing the internet than trying to fight it. It'll happen eventually.

Re:First Vote

[The_Noid]

Sure you can go after the guy who leaked it. He either works for the theatre, in which case I'm pretty sure this case will be covered in his contract, or he stole the tapes from the theatre, which is also a clear-cut case.

It's true that after it's out they can't stop further distribution, but they sure can sue the one who leaked it for all he's worth...

Re:First Vote

[Trahloc]

Perhaps we're not on the same page. They can fire the person for leaking the tape that is true. They can even go after him in civil court, but that doesn't really mean anything. You can take someone to court today for almost any reason you want. Without any copyright law of any sort, at all, they really can't do squat. No tapes would have to be stolen to accomplish this after all. No physical media need be even touched except maybe plugging in some cables which the guy can provide himself. In short, to me, no copyright law at all would be illogical, a severely limited one though would be best. A few years, lets say 5, would be adequate to handle most needs, heck even a 1 year protection would make this scenario moot.

Re:First Vote

[The_Noid]

What part of "breach of contract" are you missing?
I don't know US law, but in most countries that is plenty of reason. If the theatre allowed someone to copy the tape, the theatre is responsible and will have to pay for the resulting damage.
That's a very clear-cut case. Is USA law so broken that that is not sufficient protection?

Re:First Vote

[Trahloc]

I'm not arguing that the theater will initiate or even know about the copy until its released into the wild, where it would then enjoy the protection of public domain. Although your point did make me refamiliarize myself with contract theory. The only way a breach of contract could result from a situation in which the theater had no knowledge of the copy would be if they guaranteed the security of the physical master. Which would then result in theaters being required to take the same sort of hiring practices as armored car companies as the goods in the employees hands are worth potentially hundreds of millions in damages. So now every theater becomes a mini high security facility so they can make sure they hold up their contract. Say good bye to $1.50 movie theaters.

If you disagree please let me know on what point. Please remember I'm talking about a copy of the movie made without permission or knowledge, not someone stealing the physical master. To my understanding non-material goods enjoy no special protection under contract law except via copyright, its why they were created, to give a framework for creators to protect their goods which are infinite in their reproducibility.

Re:First Vote

[Anonymous Coward]

You're also forgetting that tapes have an (unintentional) built-in degradation system - a copy that is nine copies removed (i.e., copy of a copy of a copy of a... etc) from the original sounds significantly worse than one that is one two copies removed so at some point, it's not worth it to make a copy. No such degradation when it's all bits and tubes.

Re:First Vote

[The_Noid]

So some theatres will have to do something about their security. I don't see that as a problem...

If the theatre has no knowledge of the copy, the copy was not made by their personnel, meaning they had a brake in, and the person running the projector didn't properly check the equipment for tampering.

Smaller theatres probably have much less personnel, making it much easier to find the culprit. $1.50 theatres run older movies, thus damages will be accordingly less.

Besides, any theatre running a non-official copy will have problems, because no studio will supply them with official ones any more. They will also be under investigation because they obviously have connections to the criminals that broke into the theatre that had their tapes copied.

There are plenty of ways things can be solved in absence of copyright.

Re:First Vote

[psxndc]

The salary equation is simple: YourSalary = HowMuchMoneyDoYouGenerateFor(SomeoneElse).

Doctors and Lawyers make a lot because they make hospitals and firms a lot more (and btw, I'm an attorney). However, district attorneys don't make much because they don't make the government money putting criminals away. General family practitioners are also usually lowest on the doctor pay scale because they don't tend to make a lot for their offices (they aren't performing expensive operations). Teachers don't make anyone money, so usually they get paid crap, unless they are prestigious professors that can presumably generate a lot of money for a college through increased tuition, enrollment, or other factors. Even then, their salary is rarely astronomical compared to doctors and lawyers in private practice.

Financiers on Wall Street make tons because they make investors tons more - I knew a guy that had a salary of $250k, but his bonus was $500k (in like 2005) because it was a drop in the bucket compared to what he was generating for the firm he worked for. While some may argue it is the skillset that reflects the salary, my equation is more real-world. Look at a Wall Street investor with three years experience versus a teacher of say 15 years. The investor has some experience, but is still learning the ropes in some respects while the teacher is quite experienced. Yet the investor is going to make more money because he can make other people more money. Experience or specialization doesn't have that much do with it.

Same thoughts for stars and athletes. People go to theaters/stadiums presumably to see the actors/athletes, which in turn make movie studios/sports teams lots of money. Then the stars/athletes can in turn demand more. It's a two-way street though. Actors could demand all they want, but if the studios didn't agree to it, they wouldn't be paid so much. Studios agree because they see it as a way to increase their revenue.

Soldiers don't make anyone money, so they aren't paid much, despite the clear risks they take and how they put their life on the line

Re:First Vote

[Trahloc]

Well while I was sleeping the other night I did think of a scenario where the studios could secure the movies without having to become mini fortresses. Keep the content purely digital and encrypted with some sort of pgp scheme individualized for each camera. Make the camera secure and tamper resistant and the probability decreases greatly.

I still don't believe in the destruction of copyright law. This still doesn't stop cams, if the person gets caught they get kicked out nothing more. Unless specific laws get made to stop it... but one blanket reasonable law vs hundreds/thousands of small ones still sounds superior to me. Then you've got novels and photographs and pretty much all other media. None of which would enjoy the security of that movie as the end user would have the equivalent of a master copy in their private home. How would contract law protect a novelist? A EULA wrapper on the book? Physical books die replaced by stringent DRM ebooks only?

Re:First Vote

[The_Noid]

I don't think cams are a real problem. You can't use cam feeds as source to show in a cinema.

Even books don't really need copyright. Physical books have a huge first-mover advantage as making a large-scale copy of a book is not something you can quickly do. Even something simple as stating "buying this version supports the author" will swing most people to buy the "official" version, and there already are laws against false advertisement and lying, so copycats can't say the same. The official 9-11 report did not have any copyright on it, yet a big publisher singed a deal to be able to be the first one to publish it in print.

Photographers also hardly have a problem. Most photographers get paid for an assignment. News papers can't get any headlines with a photo copied from yesterdays edition of the competition, so they will still pay photographers to get the original at day 1.

I don't know of any real problems caused by the removal of copyright, and you don't need any additional laws.

Re:First Vote

[Tuoqui]

No but we're effectively forced to 'buy' her music every single time we buy blank media in Canada...

Good thing the RIAA/MPAA wings in Canada shot themselves in the foot by bringing in the Levy system. Sure we pay a few pennies more but non-commercial file sharing cant goto court because the Supreme Court told them to go fuck themselves and that the levy was already in place to pay for this sort of 'infringement'.

Proportional Representation

[Anonymous Coward]

If we had proportional representation then the pirate party(and other minority parties) would have a chance at being represented in the house.

Instead we have rep-by-pop, which will be the status quo as long as the Conservative Party and Liberal Party continue to rule.

Re:Proportional Representation

[hedwards]

Um, no we don't. We have a centrist party and a fascist party. With the centrist party representing liberals by default. Believe me a conservative party and liberal party would be a serious step in the right direction.

Re:Proportional Representation

[Dragonslicer]

Um, no we don't. We have a centrist party and a fascist party. With the centrist party representing liberals by default. Believe me a conservative party and liberal party would be a serious step in the right direction.

And a lot of Democrats are only somewhat close to the center. We have an authoritarian conservative party and an ultra-authoritarian ultra-conservative party. It really sucks for us left-leaning social libertarians, because we have almost nobody representing us.

Re:Proportional Representation

[Phrogman]

This. I don't honestly understand how anyone can vote for Harper. I wouldn't buy a used car from the man.

Re:Proportional Representation

[Anonymous Coward]

Not because he's a nice guy. Because the opposition appeared worse.

Re:Proportional Representation

[chuckwilson]

Not to mention that local representation is essentially non-existent. In my experiences, especially in the last election, people voted for head of state, and got a local rep instead.

The Canadian political system is broken, broken, broken. It breaks my heart a little that B.C. shrugged off proportional representation.

Re:Proportional Representation

[registrar]

It really sucks for us left-leaning social libertarians

That's because libertarians suck.

--proud left-leaning socialist. Oh wait, we have no-one to represent us either.

Re:Proportional Representation

[Anonymous Coward]

Rhetoric like this is why many of us Canadians vote for the Conservative party. It's not that we like the Conservatives, but we love to piss people like hedwards off.

Re:Proportional Representation

[Anonymous Coward]

You're an idiot. The Conservative party is nowhere near fascist. No armbands, no "Canada Uber Alles" no racial identification.

Clearly, you lose your argument, by calling "nazi" first.

Obviously, the Liberal party is centrist, as they try to be all things to all people. Do they not teach the concept of 'brokerage politics' in middle school anymore? Or are you just so spoon fed socialism since diapers, that you think anything right of center is a jack booted police state?

Certainly, the conservatives in Canada have lied, lied and lied some more. And when it comes to media and telecom, they are morons, toeing the company lines, and even letting California Governor "Arnie" come up here and lie some more to arm twist some new laws. Bill C-61 is assinine. But Fascist? Sheesh. Look to your socialist roots, look to China, and you'll see Fascist... for crying out loud.

moron.

(and so are all the idiots that modded this "informative")

Re:Proportional Representation

[Anonymous Coward]

Because he did exactly what he said he would do. For better or worse.

Contrary to the libs that always make some empty promises that they scrap at the drop of a hat.

The NDP is a joke and will never stand a chance. And the Bloc, don't get me start on the Bloc.

At least with Harper I know what he'll do and I can prepare for it.

Re:Proportional Representation

[Anonymous Coward]

facist!=nazi

Re:Proportional Representation

[Abcd1234]

Because he did exactly what he said he would do. For better or worse.

No he didn't.

Did he increase transparency? Nope. In fact, he did the opposite, muzzling his cabinet.

Did he increase accountability? Nope. In fact, the conservatives have been rocked by scandals reminiscent of the old Liberal days (can we say "Chuck Cadman"?)

Has he done anything to excise Canada from Afghanistan (something I oppose, but something he promised)? Nope.

And I'm sure I could go on. The simple fact is the conservatives certainly do *not* live up to their promises or their lofty ideals.

Everyone

[Threni]

If everyone can get a copy of a movie as soon as it's released in Russia and share it for other people to download, won't that negatively affect attendance in cinemas and DVD sales in other regions?

Re:Everyone

[hansraj]

Most of the time when I go to the cinema it is not because I can't wait to get to watch the movie for free but because I enjoy watching it on a big screen.

Re:Everyone

[Opportunist]

Probably not.

I can already get a movie as soon as it's out in cinemas. You may rest assured as soon as it's released somewhere on this planet, a torrent is created shortly afterwards. That's already how it's done. Do you think "allowing" this to exist in a country would change it one little bit? How can you spread it earlier than at the same time you get to see it at all?

Yet, people still go to the movies and they still buy DVDs. Why? Simple. I don't have a THX system at home and neither do I have a huge screen. And certainly no 3D machine. If the movie is good enough, I wanna see it like that! But is it worth the 10 bucks or more? I'm not gonna waste 10 bucks and 2-3 hours of my life on a movie when I don't know if it's worth it. 9 out of 10 times it's not. And, being a statistician, at that odds I'm on average better off if I don't go.

Re:Everyone

[Korin43]

Conversely, I'm entirely willing to pay to watch a movie, but I hate movie theaters.

Re:Everyone

[damnfuct]

Definitely; you can't just expect people to shell out for an experience they can get repeatedly from a wal-mart home theatre. The one benefit I have seen from piracy is that the movie theatre has stepped up the picture, sound, and presentation of movies. As far as I am concerned, it's about time; these sellers were stagnating progress because people had no other choice. It's now becoming easier to justify going to a theatre, and I'm glad for this.

Re:Everyone

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

If everyone can get a copy of a movie as soon as it's released in Russia and share it for other people to download, won't that negatively affect attendance in cinemas and DVD sales in other regions?

I remember Episode I being downloadable like a week after the movie came out, so it's not like what you're describing is a new thing. So far they have not actually proven a loss as a direct result of it.

Re:Everyone

[shutdown -p now]

If everyone can get a copy of a movie as soon as it's released in Russia and share it for other people to download, won't that negatively affect attendance in cinemas and DVD sales in other regions?

It won't, because original English movies are not shown in Russia; they're always dubbed, because so few people understand spoken English well enough.

As for the general point; well, the obvious "fix" on behalf of movie makers would be to release movies at the same time in all markets, no?

Re:Everyone

[Hurricane78]

So? It will not be forbidden to pay someone money for the service of offering a huge screen, THX sound ready-made popcorn, and all that. (Ok, I hope the popcorn prices will be more reasonable.)

Me, of course, I watch many movies on my home cinema system (beamer + 5.1 sound) that I bought before I basically became broke, because I can't afford cinema anymore nowadays.
But I do absolutely love the big bass and full sound of THX cinemas, and think the money is well worth it, if I got it. (Although nothing beats 300 in an 3D IMAX cinema with THX! [look out for the analog film ones. They have a much higher resolution for non-CGI movies.])

Re:Everyone

[Runaway1956]

No. Going to a theater, or "going out" for anything, is a social event. Private entertainment, in your home, has little to do with social events.

Besides - people who really like theaters will go back and watch the same movie repeatedly. My wife does that.

Myself - if I've seen a movie once, I very rarely want to see it again. Unlike reading, where I might read the same boot two, three, or rarely even more times.

Re:Everyone

[cbhacking]

Actually, while this may astound you, the vast majority of people are fundamentally honest, and relatively unlikely to break the law. This doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of people who still do, especially when it comes to file-copying (it's not sharing; when you share you give up something). However, once the law says that it's fine to go out and upload or download to your heart's content, people will. And there's very, very little chance that they will then choose to buy a CD or DVD. They might go to a live show or catch a theatre viewing, but with hard disks as big as they've gotten these days and every computer having a DVD burner anyhow, there's just no reason for the average person to do anything other than download it free.

Also, if 9/10 movies that you see aren't worth it, you're either an idiot (do a little research first) or have serious pattern recognition issues. If you meant that 9/10 of all movies are crap and that's why you don't see movies in the theatre, then you're just an idiot *and* a crappy statistician; by that "logic" you would have be fine having unprotected sex with anybody you want and would never get tested for HIV, since the vast majority (far in excess of 90%) of the world's population don't have it, so why bother? It's a waste of your time right? Judging everything based on the total population, without considering conditional probability, seems like a really bad idea to me, but then, I'm not a statistician; so what do I know? In my experience, most movies that I watch a 2-minute preview of and spend 5 minutes reading reviews or talking to friends, think "this looks good", and go to... well, they're worth it. Max 10 minutes of my time to decide, all completely without downloading some Chinese guy's subtitled movie theatre showing videoed using a smuggled camcorder.

Re:Everyone

[rohan972]

If everyone can get a copy of a movie as soon as it's released in Russia and share it for other people to download, won't that negatively affect attendance in cinemas and DVD sales in other regions?

Yes, or rather, probably. Potentially, the portions of the entertainment industry that rely on sales of infinitely copyable information may wither and die. However that pales into insignificance when you consider the issues of how copyright is affecting education, for example. Compulsory schools using copyrighted texts for material that is already in the public domain, such as school level mathematics, amounts to an education tax.

Screw the movie industry, give me an educated population without draining the economy. I've recently begun buying out of copyright textbooks. Composition & Rhetoric, Arithmetic, Algebra and a few other topics so far. Basic mathematics doesn't change, so will be online soon, along with anything else I find that is still educationally relevant.

Re:Everyone

[Opportunist]

They sure are honest. The problem with copyright here is that it's a "don't know, don't care, don't understand" law. Most don't know it's illegal to engage in filesharing, despite all the propagan... I mean information. They've been copying since 8track was in style, why is it suddenly no longer ok? They don't care because they see it as a victimless crime. There's nothing "stolen". Nobody lost anything. I've had people ask me for a copy of programs or for unlocks for their consoles who would never break the law intentionally (I work for a company that houses also the local version of the RIAA/MPAA and people working there asked for copies... go figure), and likewise they were kinda pissed and thought I was just lazy or trying to find excuses when I refused. For most, copying is a bit like speeding on the freeway, everyone does it and nobody gets hurt. And the "don't understand" part is easy to see when you look at the confusing way most copyright laws are written. Hell, I practically exist on copyright, a good deal of my job hangs on it, and I don't understand half of it without a lenghty chat with our legal department. If whatever you want to do with the content you paid for is most likely not legal anyway (unless you do this, but not if you do that, though if you do this before...), why bother trying?

And yes, 9 out of 10 movies that make it to the cinema ain't what I'd call good entertainment. Fortunately I'm blessed with people who do go to the movies and tell me whether it's worth it or not. 9 out of 10 times, I didn't miss much.

As for your HIV comparison: I hope you can see the difference between missing a good movie and getting infected. If you can't, please inform me beforehand in case we ever end up in the same bed.

Re:Everyone

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, it is the big screen, that is why I prefer movies. I used to BUY DVD's, until the cheap labor nuts had my job outsourced to a
third world country, I think it was Canada or some obscure place like that. Silly how corporations want to cut everyone's salary
and then whine that people are pirating. You think there might be a connection between having no job and NOT BUYING STUFF!!! I DO NOT PIRATE! I am too busy learning to develop nefarious viruses to unleash my jobless
vengeance upon the world BWHAHHAHAHA! Then my demands will be known! Chief among them $1 popcorn at the MOVIES!!!

BWHAHAHAHA!

More seriously though, I do not believe that corporations (specifically Microsoft) should be allowed to hold patents, only small inventors, and only for a limited amount of time.

Re:Everyone

[Greyfox]

Ugh don't get me started. Last time I was in a movie theater (It's been a couple of years now) it was ten bucks for a ticket and half an hour of trailers and goddamn television commercials before the movie started. These days the only thing that could even remotely tempt me back to the big screen would be a new David Lynch flick.

Re:Everyone

[Martin Blank]

That depends very much on where you have your social life. I frequently see movies at first or second showings on weekend mornings, which can be as early as 10am. I do this to avoid the crowds for certain movies, but because most of my friends sleep in until nearly 10, I often see movies alone. However, I also watch movies at a friend's house, with two or three others coming over as well, and thus that becomes the social event.

Re:Everyone

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

You may rest assured as soon as it's released somewhere on this planet, a torrent is created shortly afterwards. That's already how it's done. Do you think "allowing" this to exist in a country would change it one little bit?

Yep. Making it legit would eventually encourage people to get over their moral objections to acquiring free entertainment. So, perhaps there would always be the misguided, the stupid, and the unscrupulous to provide us with torrents without hesitation, but hopefully we can actually help people realise the harm they do by participating and encouraging such a system.

If the movie is good enough, I wanna see it like that! But is it worth the 10 bucks or more? I'm not gonna waste 10 bucks and 2-3 hours of my life on a movie when I don't know if it's worth it.

Well, why don't you try trailers or reviews? It typically works for me. Just find a reviewer or two who you can trust, and if it looks dodgy, then don't see it. God knows, with a 10% success rate, it's a wonder that you even bother any more. You don't want to see them, the creators don't want you to see them (if you're not going to spend the money), seriously, what's the point?

Re:Everyone

[KarlIsNotMyName]

Seriously, the vast majority of people honest? You at least have a better view of humanity than I have.

Me, I consider myself a good person (which probably is more common to do than how many good people we have). But laws don't matter to me, if they don't make sense. Actually laws don't matter to me at all, only what's right and wrong. The only laws that matter to me beyond that, are the ones that actually get enforced. Someone tore off all the wind shield wipers on my car a while ago. I reported the vandalism to the police, but as I was expecting, they didn't have the ability to do anything about it, and I got a letter saying the case was closed not long after. We've got worse crimes than that running unchecked, because the police have yet worse things to deal with, and limited resources. It's not like we have a crime spree here, but still. The law enforcement has to choose which laws to enforce.

Filesharing is harmless, a very minor economic crime at best. I've never seen a trustworthy study showing harmful effects on a large scale. I've seen just as much proof of it being positive as being negative, with extra advertisement and what not. And it's called filesharing, beucase it's sharing of files. Simple as that. No one needs to give up anything, because of the wonders of bits and bytes. They're made for nothing but being copied, multiplied and spread. All it takes is electricity.

The economy certainly doesn't lose out on money from filesharing. The people still have whatever money they didn't spend. Now bootleggers, those I hate. They give filesharing a bad name. Like piracy. Pirates. I don't call myself a pirate, I don't hijack ships or stab people in the eye all that often. I duplicate bits, that's all I do. I would probably spend more money on movies and stuff if I had more money. I've got more important things to spend them on, though. When I get a pay raise and aren't still settling in in this house I've just moved to, with the woman I'm about to marry, maybe I'll be able to spend more money on media.

But I won't give any money unless I actually know that it will go to the people that made the stuff I'm paying for. I'm not interested in supporting middlemen, when ALL media can be shared on the Internet, cheaply or free through filesharing, eliminating the cost of distribution almost entirely. Of course there still needs to be people to manage this, more than just actors, artists and system developers. But the people who just sit on top thinking they're gods, with the right to make profit off of any movie or musical album, just because they are who they are, no matter how crappy or unoriginal the product, they can find themselves another job.

Anyone who complains about the effects of filesharing, better be right out there on the case of the majority of people on Wall Street, who almost killed our economy entirely. People like Madoff. The banker and car company exectuives. People who trade stocks for nothing but making profit, not actually considering what the stocks are for. Not investing in something considering how it will benefit society, just themselves. And for some reason the US government wanted to keep those people running the economy for us, throwing more money at them.

I realize that there are people like you and me in the media and entertainment industry, but they're not suffering because whatever I decide to instruct my computer to do. I have no power over their finances. I have a hard enough time managing my own. Now if you ask me to give a small amount of my money to someone more in need, who will actually benefit much more from that small amount of money than I will myself, I'll probably give it (provided it's that one or few more times. Multiply that small amount and it gets too much eventually). But whatever amount of money I spend on media and entertainment, it will rarely be well spent by those who receive it.

Re:Everyone

[Opportunist]

Trailers? Oh, you mean the 2-3 minute snippets where they tack the 2-3 minutes worth of good, interesting and intense scenes of the movie together? Yeah, that sure tells me about the quality of the movie. Kinda like, say, an ad tells me about the quality of a product.

As for reviews, I've been writing for a computer magazine. If the reviews of movies are of the same quality (and mostly dependent on ad money generated by the company pushing the movie), I refuse, thanks.

And yes, they do want me to see it. Or, at least, they want me to pay for it. Since I stopped going to the movies and buying movies (more because I noticed that yes, indeed, it's worth neither my time nor my money anymore, maybe I grew out of it or the quality really declined) I am part of the "pirate" share in their statistics. After all, I used to buy movies and now I don't anymore, only reason can be that I copy them. That I simply refuse to buy them because I don't like the product is utterly unthinkable.

Re:Everyone

[Inconnux]

back a few years ago I used to 'pirate' movies. Usually crappy cam jobs with someone who couldn't hold the camera still and people walking in front of the camera. Every week I would go to the theater and watch the movies that I enjoyed. I stopped after getting a 'warning' and my interest in movies has completely dropped off. I can't even remember the last movie that I went to see. If anything pirating these films increased the sales of the movie theaters/companies. I must admit pirating also helped me avoid some major lemons though (battlefield earth!). I also have a pretty decent DVD collection but haven't kept up in the last couple years as well.

As for the 'pirate party'... I'm sure I will see their name right beside the rhino party on the ballot...

Re:Everyone

[Anonymous Coward]

There is at least one theater chain that understands.

http://www.drafthouse.com/

Re:Everyone

[Threni]

I'm in the UK and on the rare occasions I watch a film in a cinema I'm amused at how low quality it is. Is it really hard to not have the picture wobble around all the time? The image is constantly showing little scratches and marks. The audio is too loud, too bassy and sometimes out of sync with the video. Are these hard problems to solve? Perhaps I'm watching the 3000th showing and whatever media the move is on is fucked. Can I have a digital cinema, please, so I'm watching the first showing, everything is in sync and the image isn't moving randomly around?

Re:Everyone

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Trailers? Oh, you mean the 2-3 minute snippets where they tack the 2-3 minutes worth of good, interesting and intense scenes of the movie together? Yeah, that sure tells me about the quality of the movie. Kinda like, say, an ad tells me about the quality of a product.

They're not an indicator of the quality of the product; they tell you what the movie is about (most of the time) and give you a rough idea of whether or not you'd be interested.

As for reviews, I've been writing for a computer magazine. If the reviews of movies are of the same quality (and mostly dependent on ad money generated by the company pushing the movie), I refuse, thanks.

Whatever. If you don't want to look for decent reviews, then don't bitch to everyone about how you're 'forced' to pirate these movies.

And yes, they do want me to see it. Or, at least, they want me to pay for it.

Forget it. I was trying to make a subtle, pre-emptive counter to a point, but obviously it doesn't apply to you.

Since I stopped going to the movies and buying movies (more because I noticed that yes, indeed, it's worth neither my time nor my money anymore, maybe I grew out of it or the quality really declined) I am part of the "pirate" share in their statistics.

The pirate statistics, I would think, would be a highly variable estimation based on monitoring of activities on P2P networks and bittorrent over a short time, possibly coupled with sale drops. I don't know; I'm just speculating.

However, let me say that the best way to avoid becoming a piracy statistic is to not participate in piracy.

Sick

[iamdrscience]

I for one am sick of these neo-pirates perverting the time-tested ideals of classical piratism. Copyright and patent reform? What happened to grog, wenches and plunder? For shame on these people, ruining the good name of pirates.

Re:Sick

[Opportunist]

Shhhh, you have to start with the popular stuff, then you can slowly slip in your other agendas.

Re:Sick

[PolygamousRanchKid]

What happened to grog, wenches and plunder?

It's been replaced with "Rum, Sodomy and the Lash."

"Arrrgg, matie, thirty days at sea, and not a wench to be seen."

"Grease up the monkey."

Re:Sick

[iamdrscience]

Since when does "the popular stuff" not include booze, women and free stuff? If those are unpopular, then I guess I'm doomed to a life of being utterly uncool. Don't feel sorry for me though, I'm sure I'll survive somehow...

Re:Sick

[Anonymous Cowled]

Arrr.... it's not gay if it happens on a boat.

Re:Sick

[rolfwind]

I for one am sick of these neo-pirates perverting the time-tested ideals of classical piratism. Copyright and patent reform?

I don't know if phasing out patents is actually "reform". If I have my history correct, patents were actually to open information up and get rid of secretive guilds. In exchange for opening info up, the government grants a limited-time monopoly on it's application to the inventor/discoverer.

I think nontrivial inventions (like Apple's implementation of multitouch, which itself was made by 2 University of Delaware Professors who started the Fingerworks company which was bought by Apple) deserve protection and the people behind it deserve compensation. It wouldn't do to allow vultures to sit by the sidelines and just copy the invention after all the hard work is done.

But yeah, the copyright and patent systems has been extended, abused, and gone beyond all its original perimeters, as bureacracies are prone to do. But is the other extreme much better here? Patents should be reformed, but how?

Re:Sick

[damnfuct]

yarr

Re:Sick

[shutdown -p now]

What happened to grog, wenches and plunder?

In fact, forget the plunder!

Re:Sick

[Hurricane78]

What? Grog, wenches and plunder are the most popular things ever amongst pirates!

Yarrrrr! *raises the saber and runs for the enemies*

Re:Sick

[Antique Geekmeister]

Such pirates have a serious tendency to get shot.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/world/africa/13pirates.html

Re:Sick

[fast turtle]

Thanks Matey: now I've got to clean my damn screen.

Re:Sick

[Phrogman]

I am all for slipping into wenches, but grog can actually hinder that if you don't water it properly

Re:Sick

[Opportunist]

Indeed. If it's too thick it's a fairly poor lubricant.

It should appeal to the US too

[Kupfernigk]

US legislators appear to have forgotten that during the early phases of US growth, the US refused to acknowledge any foreign intellectual property - European books were copied and published in the US with no royalties whatsoever, and it was no less a person than Rudyard Kipling, all of whose works were stolen in this way, who described the US as a country of pirates. The US was one of the last developed countries to sign the Berne Convention, which it did not do till 1st March 1989. So you could say that the US only formally ceased to be a pirate itself 20 years ago.

Re:It should appeal to the US too

[shutdown -p now]

US legislators appear to have forgotten that during the early phases of US growth, the US refused to acknowledge any foreign intellectual property

Why do you think that they have forgotten? Quite the contrary, I believe that they're fully aware that present-day American economy has changed a lot since then, and large parts of it now depend on strong protection of "intellectual property".

Re:It should appeal to the US too

[physicsphairy]

It doesn't make sense to value foreign IP unless you plan on pulling a big take from selling your domestic IP abroad. The U.S.'s position has coincided with its economic interests, not its moral opinion.

Right now China doesn't care much about copyright and patents, but you can bet in 20 years from when they have ceased trying to catch up to the superpower and effectively *are* the superpower, that they will be among those rallying for stronger enforcement.

Re:It should appeal to the US too

[kamapuaa]

This is the best logic EVAR! The US allowed books to be freely copied in the late 18th century, and therefore piracy should be legal in Sweden and Canada too I guess. Hey what, did late 18th century US laws have to say about keeping slaves, or divorcing your wife?

Re:It should appeal to the US too

[IamTheRealMike]

It's not uncommon actually. Switzerland developed in the same way. Eventually these countries start to produce their own IP and protecting it makes sense.

Re:It should appeal to the US too

[servognome]

US legislators appear to have forgotten that during the early phases of US growth, the US refused to acknowledge any foreign intellectual property

And most people have forgotten that hunter-gatherers didn't recognize the ownership of land since it was unnecessary for their migratory societies. Yet today we recognize individuals can maintain control over a section of the earth merely with a piece of paper that says so.
Technology has changed what is considered valuable. The domestication of plants and animals required investment to develop land and therefore provided incentive for protecting pieces of land. The printing press diminished the significance of the physical act of writing, and placed more importance on the ideas conveyed. Automated mass production has elevated design above the skill of manual craftsmanship. Now, the internet once again has changed the structure of the economy, further intellectualizing and virtualizing the resources we desire.
Generally, people "pirate" the creations of giant marketing machines. They pay for virtual clothes for virtual people in virtual worlds. We are transitioning into an ethereal realm, where identities, economies, and communities can't be covered by the laws designed for the physical world. The legal concepts under development aren't just there to stop the downloading of the latest pop music, intellectual property protects our DNA code, purchases, travel habits, and other information individuals consider private.

Re:It should appeal to the US too

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not uncommon actually. Switzerland developed in the same way. Eventually these countries start to produce their own IP and protecting it makes sense.

So the argument goes: We had to crap on everybody else's IP right to get where we are but now that we are here we will bully anybody else into submission who dares to take the same route...

Say what you will, that attitude is still 100% pure, unrefined hypocrisy.

Re:It should appeal to the US too

[rayk_sland]

The US has a real problem recognizing anything outside its borders while demanding that everyone else in the world recognize them. But slowly, slowly, humility will come. It has to. The cure for pride is already here. It's name is trillions in DEBT!

Re:It should appeal to the US too

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

50% Troll
50% Underrated

So appropriate.

Re:It should appeal to the US too

[thygate]

Arrr! Math be hard! Let us go pillaging and plundering instead!

Burn down every island in the Caribbean if you have to, but bring me my bride!... and more slaw! Curse the villains, they never give you enough slaw with these value meals.
-- Zombie Pirate LeChuck

Re:It should appeal to the US too

[shutdown -p now]

Say what you will, that attitude is still 100% pure, unrefined hypocrisy.

It's called "geopolitics", but your definition is mostly correct.

Most welcome, Canadian brethren

[CrystalFalcon]

As an official in the Swedish Pirate Party, I can only wish our Canadian brothers and sisters a heartily welcome up onto the barricades, and the best of winds.

We are changing the world together.

Re:Most welcome, Canadian brethren

[adamlazz]

Two Canadian stories in a row on yro.slashdot.org on July 4! We are changing the world together.

Re:Most welcome, Canadian brethren

[asylumx]

It's posted on July 5th...

Re:Most welcome, Canadian brethren

[scamper_22]

As an official in the swedish pirate party, could you enlighten us as to what your other views are.
I've browsed your English website, and couldn't find much else.

While I agree with the general views of the pirate party, it's certainly not a big enough issue in my life to bring in a party that is not in agreement in my other views on healthcare, education, individual liberties...

Re:Most welcome, Canadian brethren

[Wildclaw]

I am not a pirate party offical, but...

it's certainly not a big enough issue in my life to bring in a party that is not in agreement in my other views on healthcare, education, individual liberties...

Ask yourself. How big is the difference for you between the existing parties in issues that the pirate party doesn't focus on? How big is the difference for you between existing parties and the pirate party in issues it does focus on?

Right now the pirate party is rising in populartity exactly because the difference between exising parties is small and the gap between existing parties and the pirate party is big. And people are starting to care. Especially in issues concerning privacy, as most goverments seems to like the idea of a "1984 society".

I would hazard to guess that a common opinion among people who vote on the pirate party is that the economy will go on working much the same independent of which party is in power, so better to vote on a party that focus on some important issues that aren't on the left-right scale.

Finally, the pirate party actually does have some opinions in the areas of healthcare (patent reform), education (ensuring the access to information) and individual liberties (privacy).

Re:Most welcome, Canadian brethren

[Anonymous Coward]

well with digital work, it seems they believe that everyone is entitled to what they want, and that creators of works are not entitled to be paid for it.
I imagine the same philosophy must extend to all work, making them communists.

Re:Most welcome, Canadian brethren

[nightfire-unique]

As a Canadian, I can only say: thanks! We may yet emerge from this dark 10 year period of government. It does seem like the winds are finally changing. :)

The neoconservatives are laughing

[unlametheweak]

The Pirate Party is coming to Canada.

It's likely to split the non-neoconservative vote even further into obscurity.

Re:The neoconservatives are laughing

[Anonymous Coward]

It's likely to split the non-neoconservative vote even further into obscurity.

It's your own fault.

Re:The neoconservatives are laughing

[unlametheweak]

To elaborate, we have at least 4 (serious) political contenders who are in (or near) the center of the political spectrum here in Canada:
- The Marijuana Party
- The New Democratic Party
- The Green Party
- The Pirate Party (the new kid on the block)

These parties compete primarily with the Liberal Party (Canada's unofficial right-wing party); and the Liberal party is the only party that can offer any serious opposition to the Conservative party (Canada's unofficial neoconservative party), who tends to remain strong unless there is consistent and persistent and extreme scandals and incompetency during their terms in office (sorta like how the Republicans remain quite strong in the US despite their scandals and in-competencies).

Re:The neoconservatives are laughing

[Anonymous Coward]

You are aware that American neoconservativism is not at all like American Conservatism, right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

Re:The neoconservatives are laughing

[IamTheRealMike]

I'm not sure I would describe the Pirate Party of Canada as "serious". Their website appears to contain no manifesto. It does link to the "International Pirate Party" website though, so I looked there ... but the section of that website to do with policies simply points you to a web forum where a bunch of people are arguing about what that should be.

That leaves the original Pirate Party of Sweden. What are their policies? At least they do have some. Unfortunately they are self-contradictory and poorly thought out. For instance they believe that copyright should not apply for "non commercial use", ie, file sharing should be free. But what counts as commercial use then? They appear to think that, for example, a musician who writes music for a video game should get paid (and the law would enforce that) but the creators of the video game themselves probably won't get paid, depending on the whims of their customers. That makes absolutely no sense, because then the musician just wouldn't get hired at all. They also want to abolish pharma patents, and their proposed replacement is "government does all research". Somebody needs to study some basic economics, starting with Adam Smith.

Re:The neoconservatives are laughing

[selven]

So our voting system is at fault. Perhaps we should take (dare I say steal) a few ideas from the Swedish system that got the pirates a seat in parliament.

Re:The neoconservatives are laughing

[selven]

Nineteenth century capitalism collapses when everything you make can be copied and shared at will. Government funding all research isn't such a bad idea, comparing to the pharma monopolies we have now.

Re:The neoconservatives are laughing

[abigor]

The NDP are nowhere near centrist - give your head a shake. They share little in common with the Greens, for example, who until recently under Jim Harris were what is known as "eco-capitalist". This is the very opposite of the NDP, which is almost wholly beholden to the unions.

And the Liberals, not the Conservatives, are what is known as "Canada's natural governing party", having spent the most time in power since the second world war. They are not considered a right-wing party on any political spectrum.

Re:The neoconservatives are laughing

[Ronald Dumsfeld]

Nineteenth century capitalism collapses when everything you make can be copied and shared at will. Government funding all research isn't such a bad idea, comparing to the pharma monopolies we have now.

In a lot of cases it isn't pharma monopolies doing the research. Taxpayers fund a lot then a patent gets applied for and the pharma company monetises all that government research.

Yes, that patent will be the use of drug foo in the treatment of condition bar.

Re:The neoconservatives are laughing

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't confuse the world. The Liberal Party is most certainly *not* a right-wing party. They are mildly centrist, leaning to the left. NDP, Green, et al. are left-wing parties and the Conservatives are right-wing.

Re:The neoconservatives are laughing

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it makes perfect sense and furthermore it's the only was to avoid a full-blown police state.

If sharing digital content (without profit) isn't made free these stupid laws are going to get more and more invasive of your personal freedom until a brain-chip is mandatory.

Re:The neoconservatives are laughing

[MicktheMech]

To elaborate, we have at least 4 (serious) political contenders who are in (or near) the center of the political spectrum here in Canada: - The Marijuana Party - The New Democratic Party - The Green Party - The Pirate Party (the new kid on the block) These parties compete primarily with the Liberal Party (Canada's unofficial right-wing party); and the Liberal party is the only party that can offer any serious opposition to the Conservative party (Canada's unofficial neoconservative party), who tends to remain strong unless there is consistent and persistent and extreme scandals and incompetency during their terms in office (sorta like how the Republicans remain quite strong in the US despite their scandals and in-competencies).

This is so wrong I don't know where to start. First, I'm guessing you're pretty young if you think the Tories have been traditionally strong. Secondly, the Liberals are not, not have ever been right wing. They're a pragmatic centrist party. Before Chretien's election Canadian politics were dominated by the Tories and the Liberals. They were both centrists and back in the day the most common complaint heard was that there was no difference between the two. Then the Tories were decimated and the reform party which is definitely right-wing took over as the major opposition. Eventually they merged with the more moderate eastern tories to form what we know as the CPC today, though Reform appears to dominate the leadership. Though as an easterner I have no love for them, I would never say the party as a whole is neo-conservative.

The NDP has always been left wing, they've always been tied to the Unions (not withstanding the split with Buzz recently). To call them (or the Marijuana party) centrist is just plain crazy. Your characterization of Canadian politics betrays a fairly extreme leftist bent.

Re:The neoconservatives are laughing

[funkatron]

Somebody needs to study some basic economics, starting with Adam Smith.

Doesn't basic economics get discredited every 10 years? What would be the point in studying it?

Re:The neoconservatives are laughing

[ceoyoyo]

As a rural Albertan (at the moment living in Montreal - yeah, I get around), my take on the Reform dominated PCs is that the whole thing was a reaction of the west to the east constantly throwing their weight around. Unfortunately it was a little more successful than we'd hoped.

Re:The neoconservatives are laughing

[jamstar7]

If sharing digital content (without profit) isn't made free these stupid laws are going to get more and more invasive of your personal freedom until a brain-chip is mandatory.>/blockquote>

Start worrying when that brain chip is hooked up to the credit card computers and micropay **AA every time you hear a song on the radio.

Re:The neoconservatives are laughing

[unlametheweak]

This is so wrong I don't know where to start. First, I'm guessing you're pretty young if you think the Tories have been traditionally strong.

I'll be turning 41 this year; I don't know if you consider this to be "young". I'm not talking about traditions. Though my experiences and time frame reference the period of when Mulroney got into office (the Reagan years for you Americans).

Secondly, the Liberals are not, not have ever been right wing. Secondly, the Liberals are not, not have ever been right wing. They're a pragmatic centrist party.

WRONG! You obviously don't follow politics in Canada. The liberals are the ones who have always supported warrentless wiretaps, American DMCA type legislation, they supported the war on drugs (to be noted, the senate and some people in the legislature are more liberal about marijuana laws). "Traditionally" the Conservatives (and their original name, the Progressive Conservatives) have been more liberal than the Liberal party of Canada in their politics.

Though as an easterner I have no love for them, I would never say the party as a whole is neo-conservative.

They have supported the abolition of universal health care, an expanded War on Drugs, more rampant and fanatical censorship, etc and so on. They have always been Bush and Reagen supporters and have been followers of the American neocon leadership "scene". In my own province of Ontario the neocons raised taxes on the poor and lowered taxes on the rich, and increased the debt substantially while officially claiming that they were reducing it. The Minister of Welfare told poor people to haggle with grocery stores if they can't get enough to eat. The natianal Conservative party wanted our disgraced leader of this disgraced party to follow them into national politics. This is neoconservatism, not centrism.

Though as an easterner I have no love for them, I would never say the party as a whole is neo-conservative.

Your analysis portrays a fairly right wing bent. The NDP has always been left of center, but they have never (not recently, to my knowledge) supported price controls, the government take over of private businesses, etc. Saying the NDP is not near the centre is pretty extremist.

From Political Compass

The Conservative Party's move further towards the Bush-Reagan mix of free market economics with social conservatism makes the somewhat mercurial Liberals look more moderate, despite their own rightward drift.

- Ref., http://www.politicalcompass.org/canada2008 There is an overall historical movement to the neocon Right (as is taking place worldwide). The fascism of democracy is on a constant creep into reality.

Re:The neoconservatives are laughing

[aynoknman]

It's very difficult for any single-issue party to be "serious" in a 'first past the pole', non-proportional representation system. When you have to have 51% of the vote in a geographical area, you can't earn that on something as ethereal as intellectual property issues. Most people want jobs, paved roads and decent health care.

I think the best we can hope for is to try to get the large parties to replace the toadies/dupes of the CRIA like Jim "C-61" Prentice. The Conservatives seem to be doing better with Tony Clement and James Moore but it remains to be seen if they'll "walk the walk" as much as they "talk the talk".

<typical Canadian smugness>At least we seem to be doing better in Canada than our less fortunate neighbours to the south whose political parties are both evidently in the thrall of the MAFIAA.</typical Canadian smugness>

Relativity: A grook with no reference whatever to the two-party system

To wear a shirt that's relatively clean,
You needn't ever launder off the dirt
If you possess two shirts to choose between
and always change into the cleaner shirt.
-- Piet Hein

Re:The neoconservatives are laughing

[unlametheweak]

Wrong. Give your head a shake and read the news.

Re:The neoconservatives are laughing

[unlametheweak]

It's very difficult for any single-issue party to be "serious"

By "serious" I meant a few things, and was deliberately vague so as not to get too much into the complexities of things. Basically, by "serious", I meant that they weren't a joke party like the Rhinoceros Party, and that they are big enough to have at least some influence (however subtle). It's hard to list the NDP (with a lot of political capital) with the Marijuana Party (which is very much on the fringes) and the Greens which are an emerging party that threatens the NDPs dominance in the centre-left. It's very hard to pigeonhole things.

Re:The neoconservatives are laughing

[MicktheMech]

Your assymmetric criteria reinforce my prior assertion. You argue that to be a left-winger you need to espouse something close to communism, but to be a right-winger someone only need to espouse policies that you don't particularly like. If a left winger is a communist in your view, shouldn't a right-winger be a fascist? Again, I'm no Tory, but Harper defnitely isn't a black-shirt.

You just list off pet issues and accuse the supporters of being neo-cons. The Canadian-DMCA is dead in the water. How does drug enforcement make one a neo-con? Has the Canadian government deployed troops to Central America like the Americans have? Do you think trying to keep heroin off the streets is just some fascist plot? Do you think the Bikers in the east and the asian gangs in the west are just benign groups tragically driven to violence by government intervention?

I'm not going to defend the Harper government, but to call them neo-conservative is going too far. They have not undertaken a policy of regime change, they have not gone on millitary adventures like the U.S. The mission in Afghanistan is sanctioned by the U.N. and was a legitimate repsonse to an act of war against the U.S. under NATO. Is NATO some fascist conspiracy too? Harper has done some bone-headed things like sending Rona Ambrose to the climate change conference, trying to undermine the funding of the other political parties and re-introducing a structural deficit, but until he embarks on a policy to project "Canadian Values" onto other countries he's not a neo-conservative.

Re:The neoconservatives are laughing

[cliffski]

yes it does.
unfortanately, *everything* cant be copied and shared at will, just digital content
If people who make digital content still need real world food and rent, then they need to be paid in a conventional sense so they can afford that food and rent.
Wake me up when star trek replicators exist. Until then, the argument that 'everything can be copied and shared' is not true and irrlevant.

Re:The neoconservatives are laughing

[unlametheweak]

Your assymmetric criteria reinforce my prior assertion.

That sentence has does not make sense.

You argue that to be a left-winger you need to espouse something close to communism, but to be a right-winger someone only need to espouse policies that you don't particularly like.

I'm not making arguments on what it is to be a left-winger. I am merely making observations and I substantiated them with examples and evidence.

but to be a right-winger someone only need to espouse policies that you don't particularly like.

I haven't told you what policies I either like or dislike. You are projecting your political biases onto me.

You just list off pet issues and accuse the supporters of being neo-cons.

Once again, I just listed a very, very, very few examples to support my position.

The Canadian-DMCA is dead in the water.

Through historical accident it has been dormant for years. The Conservatives will role with the punches to stay in power. As soon as they started regaining substantial political support, their rhetoric started to become toned down because they didn't want to scare off the more moderate voter, but their underlying agendas are clear.

How does drug enforcement make one a neocon?

You sound like a Troll here. This is one of their major pinnacles.

Has the Canadian government deployed troops to Central America like the Americans have?

I don't know. Irrelevant anyways since they can't afford to be everywhere. As a former military person I do know that Canadians are and have been deployed to many places that the public has never heard about on prime time news.

Do you think trying to keep heroin off the streets is just some fascist plot?

Again you sound like a Troll. The conservatives have certainly been in favour of putting heroine users in jail and even in shutting down needle exchange clinics.

Do you think the Bikers in the east and the asian gangs in the west are just benign groups tragically driven to violence by government intervention?

Again something is amiss here. I never mentioned "bikers".

I'm not going to defend the Harper government, but to call them neo-conservative is going too far.

It is an unbiased assessment. I do not believe for one minute that you are being honest in anything you say. You claim to dislike the Tories and yet your arguments demonstrate a pro-Tory bias. Denying that the Harper government is not neoconservative is like stating that the pope is not Catholic. There is something obvious here that can't be missed; and that is the obviousness of reality.

The mission in Afghanistan

Trying to change the subject here. I never mentioned Afghanistan.

Is NATO some fascist conspiracy too?

Again I never mentioned any conspiracies. To observe the obvious is not to proclaim a conspiracy.

Re:The neoconservatives are laughing

[selven]

They do need to be paid. But the idea that they have to be paid "in a conventional [I'm assuming you mean artificially recreating the scarcity of physical goods] way" is a non-sequitur.

Re:The neoconservatives are laughing

[abigor]

I am not wrong. The Liberals have indeed been in power more than the Conservatives since the second world war. Jim Harris, a millionaire capitalist, was indeed the leader of the Greens. The NDP's origins are indeed founded in union activism. Etc.

But thanks for the awesome response. Lots of facts to support your argument there, kid.

Re:The neoconservatives are laughing

[Anonymous Coward]

So pay for what is scarce. Pay for the labor, not for the work itself. As another post here said, the plumber doesn't get royalties every time you use your toilet; why should IP be any different?

Re:The neoconservatives are laughing

[shutdown -p now]

The NDP has always been left of center, but they have never (not recently, to my knowledge) supported price controls, the government take over of private businesses, etc. Saying the NDP is not near the centre is pretty extremist.

Eh? So, on your scale, in order to be counted anywhere left of center, a party must support price controls and large-scale nationalization of private businesses?

GP is absolutely right, your scale is very much skewed from a left extremist POV (and I say that as a leftie myself).

Re:The neoconservatives are laughing

[Asic Eng]

Well as far as I understand it their position is this:

We now have the technical means to give anyone on earth with an Internet connection access to the entire wealth of human culture. It's not an acceptable option to pretend that wasn't the case, and continue as if nothing had happened. To create new content, new ways of getting payment to the content creators have to be found. It is not necessarily the task of the legislature to solve this problem - rather it should be private industry coming up with their own ideas for this.

This seems essentially reasonable to me. Imagine we had done the same thing with the printing press which we are now trying to do with file copying. Scribe's guilds would have lobbied against the usage of the printing press - after all they had done much to make books available to the public, and unlimited use of the printing press would put them out of business. They would demand that politicians find a way to ensure their livelihood in the future. But really - isn't it up to them to find a way to make a living?

Sure, culture in the future will change. Maybe some things we got used to may disappear (like boy bands - I said "used to" not "like"), something else will replace it.

Re:The neoconservatives are laughing

[unlametheweak]

Eh? So, on your scale, in order to be counted anywhere left of center, a party must support price controls and large-scale nationalization of private businesses?

I don't have a personal scale. As I stated before and as I'll state again, my evidence is empirical and I left you (the audience) with at least one good quality, objective reference.

GP is absolutely right, your scale is very much skewed from a left extremist POV (and I say that as a leftie myself).

I will tell you outright that I am not left wing, in fact I dislike extremist attitudes on either side. The evidence speaks for itself; you or the other commentator can't change politics because it doesn't exactly suite your own political mantra of how you would like labels to be defined.

Re:The neoconservatives are laughing

[shutdown -p now]

I don't have a personal scale. As I stated before and as I'll state again, my evidence is empirical and I left you (the audience) with at least one good quality, objective reference.

I don't see how your reference is good quality. It grossly mischaracterizes NDP and Greens, for example, and this should be obvious to anyone with even a passing familiarity with Canadian politics. For all we know, your reference may have the same political (or other) agenda as you do, or simply be similarly misguided.

And apart from that single reference, you refuse to explain and justify your position any further. So...

Re:The neoconservatives are laughing

[unlametheweak]

For all we know, your reference may have the same political (or other) agenda as you do,

That statement says a lot about your own agenda. The only agenda I have is truth and honesty.

Re:The neoconservatives are laughing

[shutdown -p now]

Your sig sums it up very nicely.

Re:The neoconservatives are laughing

[Anonymous Coward]

The government currently does finance some 90% of all medical research (at least in Sweden, and it's most likely a very significant part in other countries as well), yet the resulting medicines are patented by private companies and medicine becomes very expensive due to this (no competition) and it makes it harder to avoid patents in the development of new pharmaceuticals, it's essentially corporate welfare. They propose that 20% of the cost of medicine go towards research by law and to use the savings the government gets from cheaper medicine with no patents (prescription medicine is heavily subsidized in Sweden) to further medical research.

Re:The neoconservatives are laughing

[Anonymous Coward]

warning; I write this from a right-wing Canadian perspective with an awareness of American perspective on social spending issues.

Terms like "right" and "left" are kind of plastic, and might confuse American readers when used in a Canadian context. For clarification, the "right"-wing Conservative party supports socialized health care, welfare, double taxation on corporate income, and government-run old-age pensions. The "center" or "left"-wing Liberal party supports cradle-to-grave social support, nationalization of oil company profits, and punitive taxes on the rich. The "left"-wing NDP supports nationalized enterprise in just about every area; energy, food, and industrial production at least.

From a Canadian perspective, Conservatives are right-wing, Liberals are left-wing. From an American perspective, Conservatives are left-wing, Liberals are openly communist. Americans complain about leftist policies coming from their Democrat politicians that Canadian right-wingers would consider an improvement (like two-tier health care).

Re:The neoconservatives are laughing

[DarthVain]

Um no. The Liberal Party is certainly NOT a "right-wing" party.

Both the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party are centrist parties, however the Conservative party is considerably more right of center than the Liberal Party is left of center. So to review the Liberal party is a centrist slightly leftist party.

The NDP of New Democratic Party is defiantly a left of center party, but is close enough to the center that they erode the Liberal vote.

The Bloc Quebecois Party is a slightly right of center political party that pretty much has the mandate of looking after Quebec's interests. Its a provincial party that runs federally. They will never have power, but are able to get seats. I doubt they have any representation outside of Quebec.

The Conservatives had this problem, but they amalgamated the Progressive Conservatives (slightly right of center) and the Alliance/Reform Parties (Far right of center). Strangely enough they are in power right now. This was pretty much the work of Peter McKay who is now a Minister in the Conservative Government. The phrase "Better to rule in hell than serve in Heaven" comes to mind. He isn't PM, but he at least has some power.

The Green party despite its name is a bit of a dichotomy of sorts. From its policies and principles it is also a centrist party with slight right leanings, with however a "green" environmental slant. However because they try and run a representative in every riding, and they types that seem drawn to this type of party, many of the leaders seem to be your stereotypical tree hugging hippy types, which generally speaking typically have far left views. So while they say one thing, I am not sure this is the actual consensus of their leaders more of a party line.

The Marijuana Party is a leftist party, and pretty much a joke. They get votes from 3 types of people, stoners, College Kids, and a few people serious about the issue. While being leftist they are essentially a party with only one real goal, which is the legalization of Marijuana. So pretty much one dimensional.

The new Pirate Party is pretty much like the Marijuana Party. One dimensional with a small voting base and not hope of actually making any difference. Sorry. Heck I might even vote for them, but they pose little threat in our political system. Of the three big parties, only the NDP have made any statements about copyright that is about the same as the Pirate Party so likely would only be taking voters from this segment.

There are also a host of other parties out there:

Family Coalition Party - Wacko religious Far Right.
Communist Party - Wacko Far Left.

and a bunch others I am sure.

However our system is a bit messed up. It is pretty much a two party system, and has been dominated by two parties forever. Only The Conservatives, Liberal, NDP, and Green parties run a representatives in every riding, and I suspect the Green's only do it in a attempt for legitimacy and full party status (which comes money any privileges). The problem is none of the little guys is ever going to win a seat without proportional representation. The problem with getting proportional representation is that most people vote either for the Conservatives (or whatever they call themselves that year) or the Liberals, and both they parties would lose some power to proportional representation, so why would anyone who votes for either party vote for that? Unless the political landscape becomes more fragmented (the opposite seems true, you need to amalgamate to win) I can't ever see Proportional Representation coming to Canada. It seems to be a sort of self reinforcing cycle if you think about it. Because we don't have this, this happens, and because that happens, the first will never happen, repeat.

Re:The neoconservatives are laughing

[fulldecent]

Awesome... do you guys have instant runoff voting so that the voters can vote freely?

Re:The neoconservatives are laughing

[DarthVain]

Ooops, I added the Bloc into the wrong place. I forgot about them and added them later, which makes what I said about the Conservatives confusing. Basically they had the same problem as the Liberals have now. There USED to be two right, and two left parties who were also pretty centric, but each one having one party that is a little more extreme than the other. In both cases, one of the parties was considerably bigger than the other. Alliance and Liberals were the big contenders with the Progressive Conservatives on the decline and roughly the same size as ndp, thus:

                ndp --- LIBERALS --- CENTER --- Progressive Conservatives --- ALLIANCE(Formally Reform Party)

The two on the right merged forming the "Conservatives", thus:

              ndp --- LIBERALS --- CENTER --- CONSERVATIVES

So it is no real wonder than the Conservatives won the election, as anyone with any Right leanings has no where to vote but them, where as anyone with Left feelings are basically split. In fact one of the tactics of the Liberals last election was to basically say "Please don't vote for NDP, you need to vote for use otherwise the Conservatives will win, and they are pure evil!". Which is more less true really.

However the NDP and Liberals have some fundamental differences in doctrine, and many of the Liberal representatives are old school political jerks.

The Conservatives and PC parties also had some pretty fundamental differences as well, however were pretty much tricked into merging. During the Progressive Conservative leaders convention, it was down to two leaders, Peter McKay and Scott Brison. Brison capitulated to McKay with the one condition that the PC party never merge with the Alliance, and even got McKay to sign documents to that effect. However the first thing that McKay did when he got power was to agree to merge the PC party with the Alliance Party. Brison shortly after quit the Conservative Party, and joined the Liberal Party. Him being gay and the Alliance being pretty much anti-gay I am sure had something to do with that. (Yes that is how Centric that PC party was in that they almost had a gay leader).

Anyway so many people consider McKay a party traitor, and I am sure he just considered it good politics.

If the Liberals wish to win a majority government they are going to have to consider doing two things: One is, Removing many of the old guard from their ranks. I am looking right at those who take money from lobby groups to whore out the power given to them by their constituents. Two is adopting some of ideals that the NDP adheres to and think about merging with the NDP Party.

Giving votes less choice rather than more choice seems to be the way to go these days. Should be the opposite of that, but I am not sure how that is going to happen without proportional representation which doesn't look like it is going to happen anytime soon.

Re:The neoconservatives are laughing

[unlametheweak]

Both the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party are centrist parties

You obviously don't know ANY of their policy decisions.

So to review the Liberal party is a centrist slightly leftist party.

It is obvious that everybody who is replying to me either has no education in politics or has an extreme right-wing perspective and agenda.

You and the other people who claim that the Liberals and the Conservatives are not right wing reminds me of the Religious Fundamentalists in the USA who claim that people who dismiss Intelligent Design are merely too biased to accept science that doesn't match their atheistic beliefs.

On the other hand, I do agree on your last statement (although so far most people here have claim that the NDP is extremist left wing, which means they are lying or are completely ignorant to the actual policy changes and non-changes that went into effect when they were elected into positions of power in provincial and municipal elections).

The Bloc Quebecois Party is a slightly right of center

They are in a class of themselves with a very regional agenda, so I didn't say too much about them.

Your next statement comes closer to reality (about the Conservatives):

The Conservatives had this problem, but they amalgamated the Progressive Conservatives (slightly right of center) and the Alliance/Reform Parties (Far right of center).

Unfortunately many of the moderates left after the amalgamation. I don't think the average Canadian realizes that the Conservatives haven't been as extremist as they could have been because they only had a small majority the last election, and are in a minority at present. Unlike in my own province of Ontario where they didn't give a shit about anything or anybody but their own agenda and basically paralleled the arrogance and incompetence of the Bush administration in the US.

To put things in overall context I will comment on the line from your other posted comment,

Him being gay and the Alliance being pretty much anti-gay I am sure had something to do with that. (Yes that is how Centric that PC party was in that they almost had a gay leader).

A lot of things like sexual preference don't make a big deal; if people are good at getting votes, etc then the party will use them. A lot of leaders of Hitler's SA were homosexual, and so too many Republicans in the US are gay, black, woman, etc. (I will explicitly note that Hitler purged the SA mainly because of outside pressure; i.e. the military who was his biggest threat at the time).

Re:The neoconservatives are laughing

[DarthVain]

I am somewhat confused by your position on the Liberal Party.

It is generally considered that they are a slightly left party. By generally, I mean every media source, every political pundit, in fact every source I know. I seriously thought you got had a typo or just mixed up your sentence... I guess this isn't the case. I don't think they are right of center. I think it is more likely the case that some right of center choices were made because they have some corruption in their ranks. If you look at the party line, some of their decisions don't exactly line up very well with their positions, likely due to a payoff someplace.

You are correct about the Conservatives though, many did leave after the amalgamation, and were replaced with more hardliners if you can call them that. The Conservatives are probably more right wing now than they have been in decades, or as far back as I know anyway. You are also correct in that the only reason they are somewhat moderate right now is that they have yet to win a majority, so the other parties have reigned them in, or lack there of.

This may be why you think the Liberals are more right because they are voting with the Conservatives with most things lately. This has more to do with the Liberals being in shambles and not wanting an election where they would lose seats to the Conservatives. They are pretty much just voting to stay an election, which is purely politically motivated and has nothing to do with their actual policies.

Should the Conservatives ever win a majority, I fear bad things would occur shortly thereafter.

Re:The neoconservatives are laughing

[unlametheweak]

It is generally considered that they are a slightly left party. By generally, I mean every media source, every political pundit, in fact every source I know.

I am certainly not basing my observations on the interpretations of the media or political pundits. I am making my observations based on policy decisions and on how they vote on legislation. The last term they voted for just about every piece of PM Harpers bills into reality. The Liberals are certainly more left of the Right, but not being extremists does not make them left wing. What the "media" says is useless. They are either beholden to advertisers and ratings or in terms of shows like the 700 Club, by special interest groups. There's an interesting write-up on the so-called "Liberal" magazine Time that says a lot here (ref, http://www.reason.com/news/show/134038.html.

The Liberals certainly have been more "socialist" than the new re-vamped Conservatives and under the reign of Mike Harris in Ontario (I'll mention again that he decimated the economy, the school system, increased taxes while claiming to have decreased taxes [through the process of "downloading" expenses onto the poorer populations of major cities, etc and so on]). The Liberals are just more subtle about these things because they don't want to alienate and potential voters. The Conservatives are more into burning bridges and claiming that people who disagree with their policies are "left wing". Does this sound American to you?

In my own province of Ontario the contemporary "Liberal" government has raised taxes on the poor (largely by increasing cigarette taxes substantially), but in their own words it is for the poor's own good (to suffer); "think of the children...". They have also banned Face Book from being used on government computers. These are just examples of Right Wing behavior, individually they don't add up to much, but all of their practices together add up to patterns of behavior that set them apart from more neutral or truly "Liberal" practices as is known by History and Political Science.

One must also realize that Right and Left are not just distinguished by economic issues, but by social issues as well. I did a journal on this not to long ago (it never ended up getting "published", but it remains as a link that I can reference; http://slashdot.org/~unlametheweak/journal/229887).

It has been disputed by at least one person here, but Political Compass is an excellent and rather neutral Web site that goes more deeply into the Left and Right interpretations. Many people of the Right, Left, and etc that I have talked to here on Slashdot seem to value that Web site as a good resource. You may want to take some time and read the details of it instead of just listing it as biased because I happened to use it as an example (http://www.politicalcompass.org/index). The original like that I gave out pertaining to the Liberals; http://www.politicalcompass.org/canada2008.

Re:The neoconservatives are laughing

[unlametheweak]

Awesome... do you guys have instant runoff voting so that the voters can vote freely?

No. We don't have voting machines either. We have tended to keep things simple, and so there is usually not a lot of controversy with the electoral system, just with the candidates.

Australia Too

[QuantumG]

Pirate Party Australia, join as a preliminary member today!

Re:Australia Too

[Starayo]

Argh! Sex Party? Pirate Party? DON'T MAKE ME CHOOSE, MAN!

Re:Australia Too

[Anonymous Coward]

And the UK.

Re:Australia Too

[4v4l0n42]

The pirates are coming. At this point, there's no stopping them.
Therir weapons have evolved over time. I can see them riding their bloodthirsty kangaroos, screaming in excitement.

Run. RUN!

Re:Australia Too

[hh4m]

the hard part is choosing between marijuana party, green party n pirate party... quite frankly, i dnt thing we need these separate parties either... we need one party with a sensible constitution which pushes these agendas, united. These aren't the only agendas, as the world grown n changes, there are many "sensible" agendas that need a voice. we cant make a new party for every one of them...

Re:Australia Too

[sxeraverx]

That's not so bad... Here in Japan, I see fliers for the Happiness Party everywhere I go.

Re:Australia Too

[quacking duck]

No, we need to get rid of the notion of political parties entirely. Canada hasn't gotten as bad as the US yet, where there are effectively only two parties, but we're headed there.

What I'd like to see (but will never, ever happen :-( ) is a system with more focused representatives, e.g. in your example one that decriminalizes marijuana, another that promotes environment, another on IP issues... in addition to more "mainstream" interests, e.g. economy, international affairs, etc.

In an election, you'd get to vote for up to five candidates, according to what's most important to you. If I don't support the marijuana agenda, I don't vote for their candidate. Here's a twist: you can vote *against* an issue, but it costs you one of your votes.

The five "issues" candidates with the greatest votes would collectively form the representatives for your local riding. In this fashion, local interests are not only better represented, but they'd actually have time and resources to pursue their stated agendas.

When voting to pass bills, the collective votes for your riding count as a single vote (rather than each representative's vote weighted equally).

I could get into this more; I haven't addressed issues with an even more bloated government, or hypothetical checks and balances to limit damage by lobbyists and special interests, etc... but it's a nice day out, and since this will never happen it's all academic anyway. The idea, though, is to de-centralize power away from political parties, to ensure people's interests are better represented.

Re:Australia Too

[Yvanhoe]

Get your priorities right : sex is not forbidden...

Re:Australia Too

[mrsurb]

If only they'd form a coalition - think of all the free porn!

Re:Australia Too

[Joe Jay Bee]

At least there's no option to vote for the Lemon Party.

Re:Australia Too

[kamatsu]

I'd love to see them get anywhere against the new Komeito party - Strict buddhist discipline all the way! Meh, the LDPãwill win again anyway.

Re:Australia Too

[shutdown -p now]

Green Party of Canada is explicitly and actively anti-nuclear. Here are a few choice quotes:

The best energy choices to respond to the climate crisis should be those that deliver the greatest reduction of GHG per dollar invested. By this criterion, nuclear energy is among the very worst options. Reactors cost billions of dollars, take more than a decade to build, operate unreliably after about the first dozen years of operation, and only produce one type of energy: electricity. Even if the industry were âoegreen and cleanâ as claimed by the pro-nuclear propaganda efforts, it fails on the economics. Nevertheless, it is neither clean nor green.

Nuclear energy has an inevitable link to nuclear weapons proliferation. India made its first bomb from spent fuel from a CANDU reactor. As well, depleted uranium waste is increasingly and routinely used to coat bullets and missiles in âoeconventionalâ warfare, leaving a legacy of radioactive contamination as an on-going health and environmental threat to civilians post-conflict.

And from their program:

Develop renewable energy sources so that by 2040, wind energy production reaches 50 GW, solar PV 25 GW, ocean energy 12 GW, geothermal 25 GW. Various policies, including carbon conditionality clauses requiring provincial adoption of Advanced Renewables Tariffs (a.k.a. Standard Offer Contract, or Feed Laws). All coal, oil, gas and nuclear power to be phased out.

... we need to replace all of the coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear power generation capacity ...

Work with the provinces to phase out all power generation from coal, gas and nuclear energy ...

All subsidies and supports to the nuclear industry will be withdrawn.

As usual for your typical green extremists, it's lies, FUD, and more lies.

Any sensible green party should be actively promoting nuclear as the only immediately viable green option. Any green party that is actively anti-nuclear is not a sensible party.

Re:Australia Too

[hh4m]

Its a very refreshing idea... smart and dynamic government...

Bad idea

[techmuse]

While it is certainly true that many patents have been granted of late for things that should not pass the obviousness test, patents do provide a strong incentive to develop new technologies. They provide a monopoly on new inventions for a limited period of time in exchange for disclosing the details of that technology to the world, so it can later be used like others. If technologies can not be patented, they can be easily duplicated, and researchers will lose their investment when competitors simply duplicate their work without going to the initial research expense. A better solution would be to properly fund the patent office so that they can hire a sufficient number of examiners with a sufficient depth of expertise to be able to eliminate obvious patents and rapidly process valid ones.

Re:Bad idea

[swilver]

My problems with patents is that as more and more people work in a certain field, the change of independent discovery of an idea increases drastically (especially the so-called "ideas" one sees patented these days). In the software world, any reasonable competent programmer comes up with any number of ideas during the course of their work (sometimes also referred to as "reinventing the wheel", although perhaps on a smaller scale).

Programming software therefore is rapidly becoming a huge patent minefield, one which is not easily avoided since reinventing the wheel is pretty common in software development. Taking time to study patents to see if none were violated would make the cost of writing even the simplest software prohibitive. It would be like writing a message (like this one), except I'd have to check with the patent office if certain ways of expressing my thoughts (like one does in programming) aren't someone's exclusive property.

In my opinion, the entire of idea of patenting something is assuming that you or your company are so smart that it could not possibly have been discovered by the other 6 billion people on the planet (whether they already did it before you which is often the case, or discover it independently later).

Re:Bad idea

[maxwell demon]

I'm not so sure. First, I think patents don't provide an incentive to invent. People don't invent in order to get patents, they invent in order to get solutions to problems. What patents are supposed top do is to make those inventions public knowledge, and enable other people to build upon them.

However, I'm doubtful that even this part works well. Say a company has made an invention, and now has to decide whether to patent it or keep it secret. Now if the invention is non-obvious enough that you don't expect anyone to re-invent it until the end of the patent protection, you certainly won't patent it. It would only give you disadvantages: Short term, because you'd pay patent fees for a protection which secrecy would give you for free, and long term because after the protection period ends, your idea is in the wild, while with secrecy there's a chance you can protect it much longer.

Therefore you will patent only inventions which are

• either obvious enough that someone else might re-invent it during the patent-protection period,
• or if it is very hard to keep secret.

In both cases, the knowledge would have become public knowledge anyway.

Re:Bad idea

[Runaway1956]

Like copyright law, patent law was never meant to prevent the duplication of a product, process, or idea. It was only meant to prevent the duplication FOR PROFIT.

I personally met one individual who patented a method to modify carburetors to increase fuel mileage. He sold his patent to GM. The man still worked on cars, and modified those big Chevy Impalas to get 30+ MPG. If he worked on your car, he could not accept payment. Doing so would have put him in violation of patent law. But, doing the very same work for his own amusement was perfectly legal.

It's a shame GM wasn't putting that patent to use 40 years ago, when they bought it. They might not be bankrupt today.......

Re:Bad idea

[hedwards]

That's not true. Copyright has limited exceptions that don't preclude profiting without paying. Patents are in a similar situation.

The main issue with IP is that it's not balanced with the needs of the populace for whom patents were created and we've got no laws against patent trolling. Patents really ought to be like trademarks use them or lose them, with possible a third option in cases where it's not being used for reasonable reasons. Not to mention a complete ban on blocking patents.

Re:Bad idea

[Mr680x0]

The man still worked on cars, and modified those big Chevy Impalas to get 30+ MPG.

Any way you could get the information on how to do it and post it up here? I'd love to know how to do that for myself.

Re:Bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Any way you could get the information on how to do it and post it up here? I'd love to know how to do that for myself.

If it was patented, it can be found by a patent search. Or, the GP can just post the patent number and save you the trouble. Patents used to require a complete reproducible implementation of the concept being patented, but that's hardly true anymore. Overall, I call bullshit on this one. Sounds too much like a FOAFS to me.

Re:Bad idea

[SHaFT7]

I don't believe that for a second. if GM had that patent a while back, they would have put it on their cars immediately and crushed the competition in mileage. period

Re:Bad idea

[Runaway1956]

I watched the man work on one car. Among other things, he threw away the jets, redrilled the ports, tapped them, and replaced the jets with his own. That particular vehicle was less than a total success - after he worked on it, the car only got about 26 mpg. But, that was a huge improvement over 13 or 14!!

The old guy is dead now. At the time, I understood little of what he was doing, and that was just the way he wanted it. He wasn't about to allow a machinist to go through his shop.

Two decades later, I wish that I HAD understood what he was doing. There aren't any cars that large getting the kind of mileage that he was able to get. While a lot of vehicles get 30+ today, most of them weigh little more than half what the Impalas weighed, and they are using entirely different methods. (Computerization and fuel injection, of course.)

Re:Bad idea

[Runaway1956]

There is no need for you to believe, or to disbelieve anything you read on slashdot. Since I don't come with any kind of credentials, you may believe that everything I've ever posted was bullshit. Feel free.

But, you miss a great deal, with your answer. I don't claim that the Impalas remained "high performance" vehicles. They lost in performance. In the late '70's and the early '80's people were only beginning to understand that they might need to conserve fuel, but they were very unwilling to sacrifice performance to do so. Witness the rise of the SUV over such machines as the Volkswagens. Oh - wait, did I say Volkswagen? Didn't we outlaw them, because they failed to meet some arbitrary emissions standard, while we continued to drive the wasteful Impalas, and cars like them?

The methods the old man used to get that kind of fuel mileage worked, I witnessed it. Detroit percieved it as a threat, so they paid him for the patent, to avoid being confronted with their own vehicles running twice as far (or more) on a tank of gasoline.

This sort of thing is widely accepted as one of those urban legends, but I happened to marry the man's grand-niece in time to have met him, and seen some of his work. Urban legend or not, there is truth to at least some of the stories.

Re:Bad idea

[lee1026]

You know, if he indeed sold the patent, then you can do the world a great service by simply publishing the patent number. Patents are required by law to detail everything about the invention, so we would all have a very good idea of how it is done. Just as importantly, we could all do it, as patents only last 17 years, so it is in the public domain now.

Re:Bad idea

[Runaway1956]

Well - I would. I would be more than happy to do so. But, one divorce, a remarriage, plus 20 years - I'm not sure who is alive that might be able to get that information. I'm not exactly on speaking terms with the ex-wife, if you know what I mean.

Re:Bad idea

[Kjella]

Now if the invention is non-obvious enough that you don't expect anyone to re-invent it until the end of the patent protection

Let's completely ignore that if you have a working example of something it's much, much easier to re-invent it. I guess it could be for a process patent, but for a product patent surely someone would pick it apart and figure out what you did in much less than 20 years.

Re:Bad idea

[AvitarX]

As there were still cars being produced with carbs into the 80's I don't see why we didn't get any of this later from anybody.

As this would have expired in 1984 there could have been a market for it, the inventor even could have started charging for services.

Patents

[GF678]

It also wants to phase out patents

A lofty goal, but it's not realistic. Patents are abused, but they're also so ingrained into our society that it's unthinkable to not have any patents whatsoever. Everyone's made the joke that if they invent something that could make them a lot of money, they'll patent it.

Perhaps the idea should be to take patents back to the original purpose of them - to protect the inventor from other people stealing their ideas, and NOT to be used as a legal weapon against other companies.

Re:Patents

[pudro]

Perhaps the idea should be to take patents back to the original purpose of them - to protect the inventor from other people stealing their ideas, and NOT to be used as a legal weapon against other companies.

Perhaps the idea should be to take patents back to the original purpose of them - to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, and NOT to protect the inventor from other people stealing their ideas.

Fixed that for you.

Re:Patents

[Asclepius99]

Well that's not entirely true. It helped the progress of science and useful arts by protecting the inventor from being copied for a reasonable period of time.

Re:Patents

[AvitarX]

In "More Sex is Safer Sex", it is proposed that all patents be put into an open auction. This would allow for the true market value of an idea to be determined by the market, and for the inventor to get paid.

After the price is determined the government steps in and buys some percentage of them at the determined price and makes it public domain. As the entire value of the patent is in the ability to exploit it for higher prices without competition, theoretically the public would break even on the purchase (more taxes, lower prices on goods though).

The benefit would be that for the government purchased patents, anybody could use them, and various patents could be combined without complex negotiations (see HIV medicinal cocktail). It would theoretically be zero sum on the purchases, with innovators able to build on each-other much quicker, allowing for more rapid advancement, especially in fast moving fields.

I doubt it is very palatable, but it sounded like an elegant solution.

Re:Patents

[pudro]

You are wrong, what I said IS entirely true.

Article One, Section 8 of the United States Constitution lists the "enumerated powers", one of those being "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;".

If a copyright or patent law is not designed for that purpose, then it is unconstitutional. (I.e. our intellectual property laws have been expanded unconstitutionally.)

Re:Patents

[Asclepius99]

You said:

and NOT to protect the inventor from other people stealing their ideas

Then quoted:

by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries

It was meant to protect inventors from having their ideas copied, that's the method used for helping scientific progress. Thus what you said was not entirely true.

Re:Patents

[pudro]

The point is that what you quoted is not the purpose of the law, it is the method by which the purpose is to be achieved. Once the method BECOMES the purpose, then the law is no longer constitutional (as the stated purpose is the only one that Congress has the authority to legislate this issue by).

I never said that the law didn't originally do that, I said that it wasn't the purpose of it. Thus, what I said WAS entirely correct.

And that is ignoring the ignorance behind calling it "stealing". :p

One Wallet

[castrox]

Your question is interesting and one which many people ask themselves. I think it's more like people have one wallet to use and instead of spending money on music they kind of like they spend it on other things - just because they can get it by downloading. The total economic output is however more or less constant. I can only refer to my own spending statistics so feel free to contradict me. I don't put that same money in my savings account! I use it to go to the movies (5 of them past 6 months), fuel my car, go on vacation.

So the recent legislations in e.g. Sweden and the rest of Europe has nothing to do with economics, but rather only distribution of money and "fairness" to the companies. Of course, to succeed they must squash many citizen rights and deploy surveillance to keep citizens in check. One could argue that the win from such legislation really is nothing in comparison of how trampled the citizens become. Of course, the new legislation opens up a can of worms to further reduction of rights sort of like Pandora's box. We end up moving in the wrong direction if what we want is democracy. //S

Re:One Wallet

[Opportunist]

Actually, the effects on your local, domestic industries and services will most likely be negative.

As you pointed out, people only have so much money. When you only have 100 bucks (and banks clinging to money like never before, so overspending isn't really an option anymore) you can only spend 100 bucks. People will not get "and", they get "or". CD or haircut. DVD or dinner.

Now, which of the two will keep more money in your country? A haircut from a local shop with local people working there or a CD from a US rapper? A dinner at a local restaurant eating local food or a bollywood DVD?

(not trying to be nationalist here, but it usually makes the right wing proponents of stricter copyright laws shut up when they can't really argue against it without pissing off their "$country first!" voters) :)

Re:One Wallet

[IamTheRealMike]

That argument only applies for countries which don't produce any copyrighted works of their own, or do so in trivial quantities relative to external markets. That isn't true for any of the countries where the pirate party is popping up.

Re:One Wallet

[Asclepius99]

But that doesn't take into account the local movie/music shop owner that could be selling you the CD/DVD.

Re:One Wallet

[Anonymous Coward]

It applies to any country with an "IP" trade deficit, that is, pretty well any country apart from the US. Ignoring IP might mean local IP pushers miss out on some money from exports, but it also means an even larger quantity of money doesn't go off-shore, delivering a net benefit to the nation.

Re:One Wallet

[Opportunist]

How much, relative to the amount spent, is going to stay domestic and how much goes abroad? When I get my hair cut, all of it stays here. The shop owner pays his taxes here, the employee pays his taxes here and both spend most of their income here. With CDs, at the very least a large portion of the revenue goes abroad to the license holder.

Re:One Wallet

[Opportunist]

Sweden has a large content industry? I know the rumors about Swedish porn, are they really true?

Aside of this, you're of course right, it does apply to countries that dominantly import instead of export content.

Re:One Wallet

[Razalhague]

Most of the money goes to multinational corporations, not the people making the copyrighted material.

Re:One Wallet

[KDR_11k]

But if you instead buy a toy for your kid that was made in China and branded by a company in Japan?

Re:One Wallet

[Anonymous Coward]

Why the hell are you on a computer? You should have bought a hundred haircuts instead!

Re:One Wallet

[ceoyoyo]

Thus why the US is so intent on "encouraging" stricter copyright laws in the rest of the world. IP is one of the only things they still export.

Re:One Wallet

[ceoyoyo]

It applies to countries that have a net trade surplus in copyrighted works. The US obviously does. Other countries? I wouldn't count on it.

Re:One Wallet

[azgard]

But even if the country like US has trade surplus in IP, the bilance the GP talks about is zero, because Americans are probably not getting their haircut in Sweden. So the US doesn't have any real motivation to enforce IP protection laws more either.

Re:One Wallet

[ceoyoyo]

You're going to have to explain that logic a little better.

Suppose the US exports $10 billion (totally made up number) more IP to Sweden than it imports, and that the OP point about money being spent either on IP or on other things, mainly locally, is true. Then:

Swedes buying music and movies: $10B to the US.

Swedes not buying music and movies: $0 to the US.

From the Swedish point of view it breaks down like this:

Swedes buying music and movies: $0 to the Swedish economy.

Swedes not buying music and movies: $10B to the Swedish economy.

So the Swedes (in this example a non-IP exporting nation) benefit from weak IP laws. However, the US, an IP exporting nation, definitely benefit from the strongest IP laws they can get Sweden to pass.

Re:One Wallet

[xilmaril]

That argument only applies for countries which don't produce any copyrighted works of their own, or do so in trivial quantities relative to external markets. That isn't true for any of the countries where the pirate party is popping up.

actually, canadians mostly consume american pop culture over their own. Since non-local canadian music is a fringe market, that is unelss I'm listening to a band play in a bar in town, they're probably not from this country), copyright protection laws really don't do much for canadian artists. It's not like the average small-gig playing band I've heard of minds if you pirate them, since they desperately need all the publicity they can get to drum up ticket sales.

This is CRAP!!!!

[SerpentMage]

The fault of having rep-by-pop is not the fault of the parties. After all look at what happened in BC. You can blame the complexities or what have you, but the populace has clearly said, "NO!" As such it is what it is and will stay and what it is. Remember that, this is the second time they tried that vote in BC.

Personally I am completely disappointed in this result since I would prefer something closer to proportional representation since I happen to be part of a smaller party (Libertarian). But democracy is what it is...

Re:This is CRAP!!!!

[V50]

Yup. I used to be a big supporter of electoral reform, even as a Tory, (I favored MMP). While I still wish to see the system change, I don't want to ram it down anyone's throat, I feel the referendums, while disappointing, pretty much settled the matter for quite some time.

Re:This is CRAP!!!!

[Insanity Defense]

With proportional representation the party leaders choose who represent you and you have no way to say no to a scummy person. Also independents effectively cannot be elected.

I would prefer larger electoral districts where anyone with at least 10% of the vote becomes a representative of the district and gets 1 vote per 1 full percent of the vote he received. As to pay the representative would get a percentage of the pay for that districts representatives that equals the % of the vote received. This allows the minority to be represented without handing more power to party leaderships and their cronies.

Re:This is CRAP!!!!

[maxwell demon]

With proportional representation the party leaders choose who represent you and you have no way to say no to a scummy person.

Not necessarily. For example, the Bavarian communal elections have a representational system where you can vote for single people as well as a list. That way you can explicitly vote for people even at the very end of the list, who wouldn't have had a chance to get in otherwise.

Also independents effectively cannot be elected.

Independents can make up their own list.

Re:This is CRAP!!!!

[kvezach]

With proportional representation the party leaders choose who represent you and you have no way to say no to a scummy person. Also independents effectively cannot be elected.

For STV (like BC-STV, the BC method that was unfortunately defeated), that's absolutely not true. A voter can rank the candidates in his desired order. If a party fields a scummy person, you could choose to just not rank that person (effectively ranking him last), and if enough voters do that, then that person won't be elected, no matter the wishes of the party. The same thing goes for independents: they can run as independents, and voters may rank an independent like any other candidate.

Re:This is CRAP!!!!

[wisty]

Also, rep by pop is not entirely immune to scummy party hacks.

Re:This is CRAP!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is going to be mod troll or offtopic or whatever.

I'm getting a little sick of Americans advocate they live on the biggest democracy of the world.
You think democracy is the option between just 2 parties. You pretty much have that biparty system since I can remember. How do you people allow a system where private lobby's can legally donate millions for politician campaigns. How can such a system not been totally compromised?

A party like the pirate party will never had significant expression on the US.
With things like ridiculous patents and trials of house-wife's over 22 musics, I think it pretty much tells who is in charge in the US.
Money.

Re:This is CRAP!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ugh, by no means was it a fair referendum. I have a point-by-point breakdown of one of the many lying ads that was out there on my blog: http://www.oddco.ca/zeroth/zblog/2009/05/13/political-expediency/
(I don't post here enough for a username... plus, the usernames I want are already taken)

The long and short of it is, a lot of lying went on, poisonous memes, a lot like the talking points free market fundies make about how ineffective the government is, etc. Only in this case, there was lots of talk about how bad this would be for the voters, and so on, just like what you are saying. You say there's no way to say no to a scummy politician. Yes there is. DON'T VOTE FOR THEM. Duh. No second place votes. No third place votes. If they are that bad, no one will give them any votes. :P

And yes independents can be elected. Take a look at ireland... or anything that uses prop rep. Hey, did you know, Oscars use STV? If its good enough for them, its more than good enough for us.

Seriously. That election was a perfect study in how to poison the minds of the populace with easy to remember talking points.

Re:This is CRAP!!!!

[arthurpaliden]

Proportional representation is that last thing you want. It does not work. It is the reason the Mid East problem will never be settled because Israel can never get a single majority government and as a result the ruling element is always a coalition of parties that must be kept happy or they walk and the government falls. Why else do you think the settlements keep going, because the little extreme parties want them to and it is the price the larger mainstream ones have to pay to stay in power. Then of course there is Italy but we wont even go there.

Re:This is CRAP!!!!

[abigor]

Unfortunately, the system as proposed in BC would have screwed over rural populations, as STV tends to concentrate power in major centres. It was largely rural/small-town BC that voted against it.

Re:This is CRAP!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Search the page for "is what it is".

Re:This is CRAP!!!!

[shutdown -p now]

Unfortunately, the system as proposed in BC would have screwed over rural populations, as STV tends to concentrate power in major centres. It was largely rural/small-town BC that voted against it.

Any fair (proportional) voting system tends to concentrate power in major population centres, by definition. It's either that, or some people's votes count for more than others.

That said, I have no surprise that people with more votes voted to keep them; but I think the flaw there is obvious.

Re:This is CRAP!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yeah, STV is a great idea. Totally give up on local representation and have larger ridings. You must be from the city.

Pirate party official party in Finland too

[barwasp]

They were registered a bit too late for being able to participate in last months EU-elections.

... but Congratulations to the Swedish pirate party for their EU - parliament seat.

Patents & Copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a world of Difference between Patents & Copyright.

What many people are protesting about (by using Pirate Bay etc) is Copyright.
The RIAA are bringing cases of Copyright Violation.

If the the likes of the RIAA had their way, even the works of Shakespear & Chaucer wiuld be put back into Copytight so they could make mony from them.

The likes of the RIAA etc are only after one thing. Money and more money. The more they get in the more they can spend on pursuing other people in order to get more money etc etc etc. They are not interested in paying the damages to artists whoose copyright may or may not have been violated.

Multinational Political Party

[njen]

What is extremely interesting to me is that we are now seeing a multinational political party! Has there ever been such a thing before? It's not too far fetched to say that there might be a Pirate Party in all the major developed countries in the near future. This is truly an interesting prospect indeed.

I mean these Pirate Parties might not have a majority in any of the countries they are in, but in the near future, the (theoretical) sum total of these parties in each country may well be one of the single biggest political movements across the world we have ever seen.

Re:Multinational Political Party

[oiron]

As unfashionable as they may be today, there was the Ba'ath party of Saddam Hussein fame.

Also, the various Socialist/Communist Internationals could be considered too: First International, Second International, Comintern and some other not-so-internationals too...

While not parties, the European revolutions (1848, etc) were international in character to some extent...

Re:Multinational Political Party

[Mashiki]

Yes the Green Party crosses national borders(Europe/EU, and North America), one of my friends here in Ontario is a member. I've been in long political discussions with him over the pros and cons of his parties ideals. I belong to the world dominating CPC, so it makes for interesting discussions. But will have to resign in a little while with my new job(can't hold any political affiliation as a public servant).

I'm always happy to see new political parties pop-up, it means people are expressing their democratic rights if they're unhappy with the current electoral system, or the current ways that the government is heading. Nothing better in a democracy in my book, especially with the low voter turnout that Canada has been trending the last few years.

People get the government they vote for, if you don't vote. You can't bitch.

Re:Multinational Political Party

[Andy_R]

In Europe we have (or possibly had) a party called Libertas, they stood across the whole of the European Union on an anti-EU-corruption platform, but the didn't do very well, just 0.65% of the votes went to them here in the UK.

Re:Multinational Political Party

[Anonymous Coward]

In Europe, the Green Party would be something of a multi-national party. As would the various Communist parties.

Yes, its Piracy

[DiamondGeezer]

The Pirate Party is coming to Canada. The party's goals are fairly simple. ... It ... wants to phase out patents.

Of course. What better way for people to be robbed of their intellectual property and the fruits of their hard work than to find that they cannot patent it, so it will be ripped off by the nearest corporation with the deepest pockets.

The Pirate Party of Somalia is similarly opposed to the notion of private shipping and of the notion of the personal liberty of seamen without payment, feeling as it does that the contents of shipowners bank accounts should be freely available to all gun-toting, Allah-fearin' liberators of other people's wealth.

Re:Yes, its Piracy

[Koookiemonster]

Of course. What better way for people to be robbed of their intellectual property and the fruits of their hard work than to find that they cannot patent it, so it will be ripped off by the nearest corporation with the deepest pockets.

Rick Falkvinge talked about that in Google techtalks.

Patenting costs a lot of time and money - too much for private individuals. Even if you did patent something, and a big company would infringe your patent, you'd be in one helluva court battle. Needless to say: at least in some places money will buy justice.

Re:Yes, its Piracy

[Plekto]

Of course. What better way for people to be robbed of their intellectual property and the fruits of their hard work than to find that they cannot patent it, so it will be ripped off by the nearest corporation with the deepest pockets.

Except it already is by China. Nothing we can do will stop them from copying it anyways, so all it really does is frustrate the law-abiding.

And the comment about the U.S. is also true. We were doing exactly what China is now a hundred+ years ago. The reason we grew so fast and so large is because everyone and anyone could make anything as fast as they could manage with hardly any rules. The U.S. ripped off every invention, copyright, and patent on the planet and claimed nearly every last one as our own.

Then made the rest of the world back down because we had the biggest army and biggest economy.

Watch history repeat itself over the next hundred years...

Re:Yes, its Piracy

[Anonymous Coward]

I support SOME of the Somali Pirates - they are trying to prevent massive illegal fishing and the dumping of toxic waste from Europe/Asia into their waters. Since they have no Navy/effective government, how else can they stop these boats from polluting and destroying their waters? Don't always believe the sensationalist FOX news - read up on reality.

Re:Yes, its Piracy

[Draek]

Of course. What better way for people to be robbed of their intellectual property and the fruits of their hard work than to find that they cannot patent it, so it will be ripped off by the nearest corporation with the deepest pockets.

They already are being ripped off so, at worst, nothing would change. Being able to crush any independant inventor is one of the (many) perks you get when you have a portfolio of thousands of patents and the best legal teams money can buy.

But perhaps you could point me to a couple examples where the little guy was able to *successfully* prevent a large corporation from ripping off his inventions without him being destroyed in the following countersuit, I know of none such example and I'm not aware of any story like that being posted here at Slashdot.

Official website here

[Langfat]

For anyone interested in getting involved, check out the forum at http://www.piratepartyofcanada.com - Doesn't look like there's much going on yet, but hopefully that will change shortly...

Re:Official website here

[Langfat]

Here's the Facebook group too. Sorry for the double post, there's no edit button...

As a Canadian, my thoughts

[V50]

My thoughts on this. First of all, the part is irrelevant, they have no chance of electoral success, they probably will only even run candidates in a handful of ridings. Even if they did run in all 308 ridings, they have no chance to get more than, at best, 5% of the vote in their best riding (and even that is a stretch). Our system, which has been confirmed by several recent referendums, essentially makes any votes for them "wasted" in a few ways. I'd still recommend anyone vote for them, if they support their principles.

As for my thoughts on copyrights in general. I'm a generally libertarian leaning Conservative. I don't like how the RIAA/MPAA is conducting themselves. I don't like the abuses of patent systems, and I think copyright lasts way too long. I'd be completely in favor of reform of those.

That being said, I feel the general idea of copyrights and patents is a sound one. IMO, people should have ownership over ideas and works that they create. An aspect of ownership is the right to deny use of your property to others.

I see this in a similar manner as land ownership. Land ownership is a similarly abstract concept. One can only "own" land based on the collective agreement of the population, and the government. Likewise, even if one is not using a tract of land one owns, one can deny access to it from others.

That being said, like a typical goodthinking Slashbot, I hate DRM, think the RIAA/MPAA are a bunch of thugs, and feel that copyrights last way too long (I think patents last about the right length, but stupid crap shouldn't be patentable). I don't, however, feel this gives people a right to pirate whatever they feel like, nor do I think it invalidates the idea of copyright, in general. (For my background, I'm a 22 year old white Canadian male who buys his games, music and movies, and buys a great deal of them.)

I'd be interested in seeing well thought out disagreements, of course. I'm also sure my thoughts and my analogy could be worded much better. I'm usually terrible at getting my point across.

Re:As a Canadian, my thoughts

[Dunbal]

people should have ownership over ideas

      I disagree. How can you be so egotistical as to think that you are the only one in the world that has had a given "idea"? How can you prevent - no - PENALIZE someone else from having the same idea?

      This is why IDEAS cannot be patented, and never should be. Lawyers have been trying to do end-runs around this concept for decades now.

      The development of an idea into something useful - a working prototype, a unique machine, an application of that idea that requires time, money and skill to create - yes, this should be given certain LIMITED protection. But the idea itself? You don't deserve to be paid just because you thought about something and put it on paper.

Re:As a Canadian, my thoughts

[Asclepius99]

ideas and works that they create

I could be entirely wrong, but I took the word "create" at the end of the sentence to mean exactly what you listed under something useful.

Re:As a Canadian, my thoughts

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I see this in a similar manner as land ownership.

Land: Scarce, rival and excludable.
Ideas: None of the Above

Re:As a Canadian, my thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry but what you have presented is a logical fallacy. You've assumed that no idea is novel, but in reality some are. Bending reality to suit one's conclusion is a flimsy way of making an argument.

You don't deserve to be paid just because you thought about something and put it on paper.

I think most writers would disagree.

Re:As a Canadian, my thoughts

[Theaetetus]

This is why IDEAS cannot be patented, and never should be. Lawyers have been trying to do end-runs around this concept for decades now.

"Lawyers have been trying to end-runs" usually means that they're trying to subvert the will of the legislature and the people - i.e. they're exploiting loopholes and such.

That doesn't apply here. Patents were so important to the Founding Fathers that they're one of the few things they explicitly enshrined in the Constitution as a power of the Federal Government. Yes, ideas can be patented, and they have been able to for more than 500 years, and all of this country's history. So the "end-run" purely seems to be around your naive idealism.

Re:As a Canadian, my thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

That being said, I feel the general idea of copyrights and patents is a sound one. IMO, people should have ownership over ideas and works that they create. An aspect of ownership is the right to deny use of your property to others.

In my opinion, people should not have ownership over ideas, and they already do own the works they create. If you make a painting out of your materials, you own the painting, no question about it. You're trying to deny others the right to use their property to create a work that is similar to your own; a very different issue indeed.

From the Canadian Charter of Rights and freedoms: "Fundamental Freedoms"
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: ....

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression

You lose a lot of freedom of thought and expression if ideas themselves are owned by others.

I see this in a similar manner as land ownership.

Interestingly enough, I do, too. :-)

I think you should no more own ideas than you should own oil rights on publicly owned land. It may be worthwhile to provide incentives for discovery of valuable resources (oil/minerals/interesting concepts), but that should not include ownership of the discovered (publicly owned) property. You manipulate public ideas to come up with your own intellectual discoveries; but the base of ownership is, and remains, public, not private.

Just my $0.02

--

AC

Re:As a Canadian, my thoughts

[Rocketship Underpant]

The concept of ownership only exists in the first place because physical objects are exclusive in their use â" not everyone can make a free copy so one person must be the owner. This does not apply to ideas, therefore the very notion of ownership is moot. You own your copy, that's it.

Re:As a Canadian, my thoughts

[mdielmann]

I think patents last about the right length, but stupid crap shouldn't be patentable

If patents were the right length, then the PNG format wouldn't have been created. It was primarily created to bypass the patented LZW compression algorithm (which is a valid software patent, and one of the few ones) which was owned by Unisys. IMO, that patent held back that area of the graphics world for about 15 years.
If a patent is so long that people would rather intentionally create a method that doesn't use the patented method, and spend up to a decade doing such, then the purpose of patents (limited monopoly to provide an idea to the general public) hasn't been met.
My personal opinion is actually pretty close to yours, but I think patents and copyrights should have different durations for different fields. Let's be honest here, anything in the software world that's more than 5 years old is pretty much a done idea. Why give patents on software that are longer than that?

Re:As a Canadian, my thoughts

[cpt kangarooski]

I'm not sure if you're talking about Canada or have gone on to the US, but in the US, the history and composition of the federal Constitution basically is as it is due to the failures of the states to ever work together under the previous government established by the Articles of Confederation. So it's not really that patents and copyrights were particularly important, it's just that letting each state handle them independently was turning out to cause problems.

Oh and no, you can't patent an idea. An invention may be patented, but that's significantly more refined and developed than a mere idea. Ideas cannot be copyrighted either, although expressions of that idea may be copyrightable.

Re:As a Canadian, my thoughts

[noidentity]

I love copyright and patents. I can spend the day coming up with even more ways that you cannot use your property without paying a license fee. Who couldn't love that?

Re:As a Canadian, my thoughts

[Fantastic Lad]

I'd be interested in seeing well thought out disagreements, of course.

That's a very Canadian attitude. I wish there was more of it up here, but still. . , it's one of the reasons I like living here. :)

As for my disagreement. . .

The land/idea similarity doesn't really work, and others have tried to point out why with some success. Here's my go at it. . .

--The desire to deny access to land you own is there generally because you fear people affecting a finite resource. You want the land to exist according to your desires, and you want to feel safe while living on it, etc. Your personal experience of the land is what you want to control because any changes to it made by others makes the previous version vanish! There is only one, so control over it matters.

Ideas are different. So long as you have enough disks or paper, ideas can be reproduced indefinitely, so the fear of losing control over your personal experience of that piece of ephemeral property, the idea, can safely be relaxed.

What people are left with are petty desires. --Which to me, (I find myself besieged by friends who have become parents of young kids these days), are best seen in mean little girls who want to stop nice little girls from singing the same songs, wearing the same colors, telling the same stories or drawing the same rainbows. Control over the group for selfish benefit. It's amazing how you can see the entire world in microcosm while sitting at a picnic table with a bunch of kids and a box of crayons. I should also add that little boys are much more relaxing. They don't try to control others minds until they get older.

The paradox is this; people need to eat, and if your expertise happens to be that of writing or playing music or being artistic, then you somehow have to convert your art into food and shelter. The funny part is that Artists are rarely the ones complaining about being compensated. It's the corporate owners who do all the heavy pushing. I've seen artists who are good at their craft and who make things others want to experience, establish very comfortable lives for themselves, and they way they do it is to get their work out there as much as possible in conjunction with having a large stock of items which they can sell to the public. Encouraging sharing is a great way to secure future sales as well as other forms of indirect income.

I write, for instance, and I've given away tons of work for free. The more of my work which is out there, the more often I am invited (and paid) to speak, make bulk sales, do private contracts. For an artist, the money doesn't come just from selling a copy of the work; it comes from many sources. For the corporate middle-man, (the record label, for instance), the money ONLY comes from selling copies, and so they are the ones who dread sharing. --The corporation also needs a lot more money for its private jets and tall buildings and other needless bullshit. An artist doesn't need millions of dollars to be secure, comfortable and productive.

Anyway. . , back at the picnic table and around town, I've noticed that the controlling kids tend to spend a lot of time and energy at the task and everybody watching can see them doing it. Observers quietly note this behavior and if opportunities come up, there is a silent but powerful force which resists allowing the mean kids from getting what they want, and which works equally to offer security and resources to the nice kids. And that's great! Mean behavior should not be rewarded in a community, especially among adults.

The trick is being aware. I make a point of quietly making life hell for people who are mean and controlling while making life great for nice and giving people. People are naturally like this, and so all you have to do is be very open when people are being mean and manipulative and not keep it a secret, (as the mean and manipulative people ALWAYS want you to do). The community will take care of the rest in a very organic way. Interesti

Re:As a Canadian, my thoughts

[cpt kangarooski]

I agree regarding different lengths for different fields, which can be handled nicely by a system of very short terms which must be renewed periodically (say, every year or two), but with varying numbers of renewals available depending on the field of the work or invention.

However, for software, I think that no patents are necessary at all. A patent is meant to encourage the invention, publication, and bringing to market of useful inventions and their entry into the public domain as fully and quickly as possible. With software, unlike most inventive fields, the inventors seem to be inventing like mad and publishing much if not all of the information necessary for a person having ordinary skill in the art whenever they bring their invention to market. For example, once Amazon started permitting people to buy via one click, pretty much all the information that anyone who cared was out there. Since Amazon quite certainly would have researched, developed, and implemented one click shopping even if it wasn't patentable, it shouldn't be patentable. The incentive was wasted on them, and the public should not have to suffer such waste. Usually it's impractical to make that determination, but AFAICT it seems to apply to the whole software industry. I'm happy to revisit the issue if the pace of inventiveness in the software field ramps down in the future, but for now, patents are doing more harm than good in that particular field. Business methods too.

Re:As a Canadian, my thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

My thoughts on this. First of all, the part is irrelevant, they have no chance of electoral success, they probably will only even run candidates in a handful of ridings. Even if they did run in all 308 ridings, they have no chance to get more than, at best, 5% of the vote in their best riding (and even that is a stretch). Our system, which has been confirmed by several recent referendums, essentially makes any votes for them "wasted" in a few ways. I'd still recommend anyone vote for them, if they support their principles.

As for my thoughts on copyrights in general. I'm a generally libertarian leaning Conservative. I don't like how the RIAA/MPAA is conducting themselves. I don't like the abuses of patent systems, and I think copyright lasts way too long. I'd be completely in favor of reform of those.

That being said, I feel the general idea of copyrights and patents is a sound one. IMO, people should have ownership over ideas and works that they create. An aspect of ownership is the right to deny use of your property to others.

I see this in a similar manner as land ownership. Land ownership is a similarly abstract concept. One can only "own" land based on the collective agreement of the population, and the government. Likewise, even if one is not using a tract of land one owns, one can deny access to it from others.

That being said, like a typical goodthinking Slashbot, I hate DRM, think the RIAA/MPAA are a bunch of thugs, and feel that copyrights last way too long (I think patents last about the right length, but stupid crap shouldn't be patentable). I don't, however, feel this gives people a right to pirate whatever they feel like, nor do I think it invalidates the idea of copyright, in general. (For my background, I'm a 22 year old white Canadian male who buys his games, music and movies, and buys a great deal of them.)

I'd be interested in seeing well thought out disagreements, of course. I'm also sure my thoughts and my analogy could be worded much better. I'm usually terrible at getting my point across.

I'm from Canada as well, and these were exactly my thoughts as I started reading the article. Copyright definitely needs a reform, but I don't know anything of politics (I hate them, along with most of those my age.) I don't really mind patents as long as it's not being applied to programming. You can't patent language, and you definitely can't patent mathematics. The people who say software patents are legitimate are those who've never programmed nor understood that the 'little blue button you click to open Microsoft Word' is also a mathematical concept.

I'd love to go on some "we as Canadians" boilerplate rant about how our rights are being infringed, but I don't believe they are. We have a damned good system so far, and it greatly exceeds our southerly neighbour's version (we could use their "lemon laws" though). With as much heyday alarmist propaganda we receive on Slashdot, Canada is really not bad at all. As much as people would like to say otherwise, our system is not bought by a large military industrial complex, nor by massive ecomomy-basing big business. The laws that are voted about here are more than 95% by people. If we Canadians don't like some law, it's not voted in, simple as that, and being alarmist about it is stupid.

Those that are usually on about rights forget the flipside of that coin is responsibiity, which is something many Slashdots definitely don't understand.

Re:As a Canadian, my thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, copyright applies to the expression of an idea, not the idea itself. Copyright applies to music (arrangements of notes from various instruments), books (arrangements of words to convey a message or entertain the reader), code (arrangements of words to perform tasks), art, movies, and so on and so forth. I'm sure you see what I'm saying.

The idea to make a movie about a boy in a galaxy far, far away isn't copyrightable. The tale of Luke Skywalker expressed as a three-movie trilogy is.

Re:As a Canadian, my thoughts

[Theaetetus]

So it's not really that patents and copyrights were particularly important, it's just that letting each state handle them independently was turning out to cause problems.

... and it was taken as a given that patents and copyright would exist, so the answer to let the Federal government have exclusive control was obvious.

Oh and no, you can't patent an idea. An invention may be patented, but that's significantly more refined and developed than a mere idea.

Pff. The difference between an "idea" and an "invention" is mere semantics, because an "invention", as currently defined by patent law, does not require any sort of tangible aspect. If you say there's something different, something not enshrined in 35 USC 102 or 103 that distinguishes an "idea" from an "invention", beyond the fact that it must be novel and nonobvious, I'd like to hear it.

Ideas cannot be copyrighted either, although expressions of that idea may be copyrightable.

Yes - copyright requires a creative work fixed in a tangible medium. Ideas aren't fixed in a tangible medium, so no, you can't copyright an idea. But no one ever said you could - you're arguing with an imaginary audience.

On the other hand, there has never been a requirement that patents protect an invention that is fixed in a tangible medium. I think you're attempting to apply the requirements copyright to patents to support your point which is, ultimately, unsupported by statute or precedent.

Re:As a Canadian, my thoughts

[cpt kangarooski]

... and it was taken as a given that patents and copyright would exist, so the answer to let the Federal government have exclusive control was obvious.

Well, more that they could. Some states had copyright laws, but not all. I've never looked into state patent laws, so I couldn't say anything about them. And anyway, the Constitution doesn't give the federal government exclusive control, it just lets the federal government participate. It's the supremacy clause that lets the federal government assert exclusive control if it wants. As it happens it wasn't until recently that the federal government got serious about that with regard to copyright law, and there are still a few remnants of state copyright law that are relevant at times.

Pff. The difference between an "idea" and an "invention" is mere semantics, because an "invention", as currently defined by patent law, does not require any sort of tangible aspect. If you say there's something different, something not enshrined in 35 USC 102 or 103 that distinguishes an "idea" from an "invention", beyond the fact that it must be novel and nonobvious, I'd like to hear it.

Utility. Reduction to practice. Patentable subject matter.

Yes - copyright requires a creative work fixed in a tangible medium. Ideas aren't fixed in a tangible medium, so no, you can't copyright an idea.

That's not the reason why. You could express an idea completely in a work fixed in a copy, but still have no rights to the underlying idea. Between Baker v. Selden and the merger doctrine it's really got more to do with what compromises copyrightable subject matter, rather than a mere issue of fixation.

On the other hand, there has never been a requirement that patents protect an invention that is fixed in a tangible medium.

I know. I'm just saying that you can't patent a mere idea floating in the air; it has to have been refined into a proper invention.

Re:As a Canadian, my thoughts

[Theaetetus]

... and it was taken as a given that patents and copyright would exist, so the answer to let the Federal government have exclusive control was obvious.

Well, more that they could. Some states had copyright laws, but not all. I've never looked into state patent laws, so I couldn't say anything about them. And anyway, the Constitution doesn't give the federal government exclusive control, it just lets the federal government participate. It's the supremacy clause that lets the federal government assert exclusive control if it wants.

... which they did almost immediately, in the Patent Act of 1797. Furthermore, any reasonable analysis of supremacy clause jurisprudence would say that the Federal government has full field preemption, by virtue of it being expressly granted to them in Article I.

As it happens it wasn't until recently that the federal government got serious about that with regard to copyright law, and there are still a few remnants of state copyright law that are relevant at times.

Yep. Patents? Not so much.

Utility. Reduction to practice. Patentable subject matter.

Utility and patentable subject matter have nothing to do with "idea" vs. "invention".
"Reduction to practice", however, does... And could you point to where that's a requirement? No, because it's not... unless you're going to talk about "constructive" reduction to practice - e.g. "filing a patent application". And what's the difference between mere constructive reduction to practice without actual reduction and an "idea"?

That's not the reason why. You could express an idea completely in a work fixed in a copy, but still have no rights to the underlying idea.

Under copyright, yes. But we're not talking about copyright, because no one (who knew what they were talking about) has ever claimed you could copyright an idea. Frankly, this was settled hundreds of years ago, prior to the founding of this country. It's moot at this point.

I know. I'm just saying that you can't patent a mere idea floating in the air; it has to have been refined into a proper invention.

And I'm just saying that, absent a requirement to actually practice the invention - which doesn't exist - the difference between "a mere idea floating in the air" and "a proper invention" is a figment of your imagination. I can write a application for a nonobvious machine that no one - including me - has ever built, in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art could practice it without unnecessary experimentation, and it would be absolutely patentable. Otherwise, patents would be the exclusive domain of the rich, particularly the pharmaceutical companies with billions of dollars in research labs. That's not what was intended, and is not supported by statute, CFR, BPAI or judicial decision.

Re:As a Canadian, my thoughts

[seanthenerd]

people should have ownership over ideas

I disagree.

Any ideas that I have are, to a considerable (possibly entire) extent, inspired or formed by the ideas that I've been exposed to prior to coming up with "my own" ideas. Really, when you think about it, can any creator take 100% credit for whatever it is they produce? Take philosophy for example, when someone writes up a book with some new philosophical theory, it's guaranteed that the ideas of philosophers going back centuries contributed to the new work.

Maybe the best example is chord progressions and jazz music. A whole pile of great jazz tunes were based on the chord progressions of songs by old timers like Gershwin - jazz artists would take the exact same chords, write new melodies, and improvise great tunes out of them. Imagine though, if copyright law had included chord progressions - jazz music as an art form would likely not exist. And really, why shouldn't chord progressions be copyrighted too? After all, Gershwin came up with some great ones. But the loss to society and culture would have been severe (although nobody would have noticed at the time). And at the same time, Gershwin when he wrote those chords would have been inspired by the musicians of his time that he listened to. So jazz musicians ripped off Gershwin (and other tin pan alley composers), and these guys ripped off previous composers, and society benefited enormously from all of that.

That's something that's all the more apparent today, since something created in one part of the world can be immediately visible worldwide, and won't be forgotten for years. For culture to grow and thrive, you need to be able to rip off, build on, and be inspired by the artists, creators, and inventors that came before you or are your contemporaries. That doesn't happen nowadays.

But the idea itself? You don't deserve to be paid just because you thought about something and put it on paper.

Well, maybe paid a little for putting together previous creators' ideas in a new combination. But in exchange, you have to let other people do the same with yours.


Also, a bizarre but fascinating exploration of perpetual copyright and the future, by Spider Robinson: http://www.spiderrobinson.com/melancholyelephants.html

Re:As a Canadian, my thoughts

[Dunbal]

I'm sorry but what you have presented is a logical fallacy. You've assumed that no idea is novel

      That's because I'm a scientist. One of the first things you learn is humility: to never be arrogant enough to assume that you've invented something. If you do the research, there's probably already a lot of work done in that field. The twist comes in the APPLICATION of the idea - not the idea itself. Yes there are people who make quantum leaps - Newton, Darwin, Einstein, etc - and they are recognized by history.

      You might consider my argument to be a fallacy. I consider thinking that you or I will be the next Einstein to be foolishness. However a smart person can sometimes take something that already exists and apply it in a novel way. This deserves patent protection.

      But some idiot sitting on the toilet and dreaming up a generic idea with no clear application or prototype - like "a method of causing two computers to communicate wirelessly" - or better yet, "one click shopping", come on, give me a break.

Re:As a Canadian, my thoughts

[mdielmann]

I think we can all agree that the one-click patent was bogus. 2 hours of any reasonably talented software team would have come up with that. Things like the LZW compression algorithm and the RSA encryption algorithm are a different animal altogether, and should be used as the test of what is reasonable for patents. Quaint things like totaling columns, and doing something people have been doing for over a century "over the internet" shouldn't receive patents even under the current law. And once we've found something that is actually innovative in the software world, we should limit the patents to something reasonable.

English Pirate Party?

[lattyware]

Can we have one in England too?

Re:English Pirate Party?

[Asclepius99]

You could see about forming one?

Re:English Pirate Party?

[rbrausse]

http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/

(and - to be more generic - on http://www.pp-international.net/ all pirate party organisations are listed)

Re:English Pirate Party?

[lattyware]

Why thank you good sir.

Re:English Pirate Party?

[Anonymous Coward]

we have one.. unfortunately it's kinda sucky and rudderless and its manifesto isn't great either.

Re:English Pirate Party?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's still very young (hell they've only just elected the legally required party leadership in the last couple of weeks). The Manifesto & Constitution are still very rough and unfinished. What they need are people to help get those core documents sorted, so that they can start to move forward, get the message out to the press and start recruiting members & campaigning.

Sitting back and waiting for someone else to do all that stuff won't help much, so if you're interested, go get involved and things will start to move much quicker.

The goals are *WAY* bigger!

[Hurricane78]

First and foremost, they oppose any kind of censorship and totalitarian government.
Then comes the goal to move from the imaginary "intellectual property" scheme back to what copyright, authors right and the freedom of ideas once were meant to be.
They are not for the exploitation of artists. That is what the **AA is for.

This TFS(ummary) is probably the worst summary of a party program I have ever read.
Maybe some people are just so used to parties an programs being meaningless because they all belonged to the same industry lobbies anyway, that they do not pay attention to them anymore. :/

Re:The goals are *WAY* bigger!

[Theaetetus]

Then comes the goal to move from the imaginary "intellectual property" scheme back to what copyright, authors right and the freedom of ideas once were meant to be.

And what are those?

Maybe some people are just so used to parties an programs being meaningless because they all belonged to the same industry lobbies anyway, that they do not pay attention to them anymore. :/

Maybe it's also because people spout meaningless platitudes like "the goal to move X back to what it was once meant to be". Expand for us, please.

Bumper stickers?

[Runaway1956]

Where do I get a bumper sticker? There's no sign that the Pirates are coming to the US, but I can show my support and make a political statement anyway. How about a flag? I'll run it up right below the US flag, and above the Arkansas flag. THAT will make people wonder!!

Re:Bumper stickers?

[aurispector]

The pirate party's goals are too narrow. What the US needs isn't a political party solely devoted to IP and patent issues. What the US needs is a viable national 3rd party devoted to restoring a government for the people, by the people, ruled by the constitution. The issues that concern the pirate party would be covered if copyright went back to being a means for contributing to the public good i.e. copyrights that actually expire and go into public domain instead of perpetually feeding a corporations coffers. Rolling back corporate influence in government and lawmaking would result in an environment more conducive to IP fairness and privacy by default.

Re:Bumper stickers?

[Runaway1956]

I disagree, somewhat. The US needs ANYONE to run against the two established parties ON ANY PLATFORM, and to WIN offices around the country.

Granted, if the Pirate Party came here, they wouldn't win seats in Congress and the Senate, they certainly wouldn't win the presidency. But, if (in states where judges are elected) we started seating judges, mayors, and state representatives, the two parties would take notice. And, it wouldn't take a lot of them, either. Our politicians may be crooked as all hell, but that doesn't make them stupid. They can read grass roots movements as well as anyone.

Aren't we all sick of the same old crap we get from the two inbred parties yet? If not - well - I've heard that people get the government that they deserve. Maybe that really is true.

Re:Bumper stickers?

[Andy_R]

There is a US Pirate Party!

http://www.pirate-party.us/

Re:Bumper stickers?

[Runaway1956]

Awesome. I'll be a member in a few minutes. Sweet. Thanks!!

Re:Bumper stickers?

[eltaco]

hear hear!
I've often wondered why all the pirate parties out there have such a narrow field of view. I also wonder what would happen, should they get a larger number of seats and asked to take a stand on global issues.
if I were really paranoid, I'd start thinking the big parties are using the (new) small parties to split the rogue votes, which are understandably getting more and more. So when a party comes along with just that agenda the parent mentions, they'll get far less votes than they might under other circumstances.

it's like the company that does actually invent a pill that makes your schlong bigger - but no matter how they advertise, they can't get through the spam.

Re:Bumper stickers?

[shutdown -p now]

What the US needs is a viable national 3rd party devoted to restoring a government for the people, by the people

Good luck on trying to get the people to agree on what a government "for them and by them" should be about. You might want to start with reconciling lefties and libertarians, and devising a common platform to which both can agree to subscribe - if you can do that, the rest should be relatively easy.

Re:Bumper stickers?

[murph]

>>Aren't we all sick of the same old crap we get from the two inbred parties yet? If not - well - I've heard that people get the government that they deserve.

The problem is that *I* get the government that they deserve!

Re:Bumper stickers?

[T.E.D.]

The US needs ANYONE to run against the two established parties ON ANY PLATFORM, and to WIN offices around the country.

That has happened before quite a few times in our history. There are always one of two results. Either the new party never gets enough support to become viable in the way you describe, or one of the other two parties withers and dies.

The fact of the matter is that our system is designed to have two major parties as its steady state. Changing that would require making large changes to the Constitution.

Re:Bumper stickers?

[jalefkowit]

A third party doesn't have to knock off one of the established two parties to have an impact. Another outcome that can be construed as success for a third party is to marshal a big enough block of voters that one of the two major parties pushes its platform in their direction in order to attract those voters. See, for instance, how the Republicans adopted the "Southern Strategy" to win over the disgruntled racist white Democrats who formed the Dixiecrat party after Roosevelt and Truman moved the Democrats towards supporting the civil rights of African-Americans.

Re:Bumper stickers?

[jalefkowit]

... which appears to have done diddly squat over several years (the USPP was "founded" in 2006) in terms of fundraising and base building, despite Americans being more politically engaged during that time than they have been in generations.

Of the six offices that comprise the USPP's "leadership", three are vacant and two more will become so this month. To the best of my knowledge, they've fielded no candidates for office at any level and have not organized enough people to win ballot access in any state.

In short, my question is: have these guys done anything over the last three years beyond buying a domain and dumping Drupal on it?

I'd recommend getting an answer to that question before you give them any money.

Mod parent up!

[Hurricane78]

It's just as important!

Me, Bender

[Anonymous Coward]

i'm going to make my own pirate party, with blackjack... and hookers!

Still called "The Pirate Party?" Get real.

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't believe they used the name "Pirate Party" to begin with, let alone using the same name now in other countries. Yes it's all very cute and funny. We get it. Most other people do not. These folks will receive NO respect from the ruling class until they change their name and their cavalier attitude. Popular opinion can only be swayed by their brazen display for so long until the mainstream spindoctors throw up a brick wall faster than an underpaid Chinese pseudo-slave. This kind of childish nonsense might cut it in fake countries like Sweden, but if they even plan on expanding their influence to Canada or Australia for real, let alone Germany, the UK, or the US, then they will have to learn to play ball the old fashioned way. In my country (US), calling your political group "The Pirate Party" is a one-way ticket to derision and dismissal. Grow up or get out.

Private use as opposed to what?

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's legal to download stuff for private use, what's the incentive for commercial use? Why buy a cow if milk is free? Take the example of coin collecting, some coins are worth huge piles of money above and beyond their face value. In the end, the price is supported by somebody who wants to be able to hold and stare at that particular Roman coin or whatever, to enjoy it "privately". All the price catalogs etc. are for the purpose of making that coinophile pay for his passion.

Anyone interested there has been discussions...

[blahplusplus]

... on at various places like The Globe and mail which have not gotten that much media attention.

Globes Public policy wiki:

http://policywiki.theglobeandmail.com/tiki-forums.php

Copyright Chat:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/download-decade/law-professor-takes-questions-on-copyright/article1141598/

Fact is copyright as it stands right now is ludicrous for many things, software that ends up being abandonware, game companies that release games and then don't release the source (which should be released so fans of the game can fix and patch the stuff developers didn't bother with, etc).

We need more John Carmacks in the world that realize that releasing the source doesn't harm you. He's released the source to nearly all of his game engines so I give him major thanks.

Was OK, until the dumb stuff at the end....

[Mathinker]

> intellectual property protects our DNA code, purchases, travel habits, and
> other information individuals consider private.

What universe do you live in? You have it exactly reversed (or, I really didn't understand what you meant to say). Large corporations have patented the human DNA of individuals for their own gain. They haven't started to sue the children of the people whose genes they sequenced, but if Monsanto can succeed in suing an organic farmer whose crops were contaminated by their patented genes (the link is for a more recent Canadian case, but they already won a similar case in the US!), it isn't unthinkable that it could happen in the future.

Other large corporations, Google, for example, keep all kinds of records of people's web preferences, credit card purchases, and tons of other "information that individuals consider private", and if anyone is protected by IP rights in those cases, it's the corporations, not the individuals!

IP rights only extend to "creative works", and there has yet to be a court system which defines "deciding to buy something" or "deciding to click a particular ad" as "creative".

Re:Was OK, until the dumb stuff at the end....

[ImNotAtWork]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/health/13patent.html she was also interviewed on NPR a very compelling story even if one hates the "liberal media" this one is worth investigating.

Enough

[Anonymous Coward]

It is now time for a Ninja Party!

Copyright? Personal integrity and privacy!

[pengipengi]

What made the Pirate Party successful in sweden wasn't, at least as I've seen it, the questions about copyright and "illegal" downloading and copying. What made the Priate Party successful this time is about personal integrity and privacy to the people.

During last year, the swedish goverment have created laws which allows companies which claims that their work have been downloaded from an IP-address to get all information about the person behind that IP. That law is called IPRED.

FRA (Försvarets Radioanstalt / National Defence Radio Establishment, in sweden) got a law that allowes them to monitor all traffic on internet that crosses the swedish border, which practially means that they got access to all internet traffic for the people in sweden. Most mayor sites used isn't placed in sweden, like facebook, hotmail... (probably only thepiratebay earlier).

So the Pirate Party's mayor goal for this election was to work for the privacy of the swedish people.

(I'm a student from Gothenburg, Sweden)

Pirate party???

[naz404]

I'm still waiting for the Ninja Party!

Re:Pirate party???

[KingMotley]

The ninja party has always been around, you just can't see it.

Re:Pirate party???

[jamstar7]

I threw a ninja party once.

Couldn't tell if anybody showed up or not, but the next morning, all my beer was gone and there was a serious dent in my liquor supply.

Re:Pirate party???

[CastrTroy]

How about the Marijuana Party?

Re:Pirate party???

[XavidX]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49fVYmO3yv0 Havnt you seen the Ninja Parade. Perhap the ninja party threw it

There's more to it

[stesch]

You are oversimplifying the goals. There's more to it. Or you just repeat what the MSM is reporting about the Pirate Party. But the MSM is in fear right now because they have the most to lose from a success of the Pirate Parties. Here's the program of the German Piratenpartei: http://wiki.piratenpartei.de/Bundestagswahlprogramm_Kernthemen

Grog?

[Eevee]

Rum, wenches, and plunder. Grog is watered-down rum, used by the Royal Navy starting back in the 18th century (but not totally phased out until the 1970.) Pirates aren't nancy-boys like the RN and can handle their rum straight.

Re:Grog?

[ImOnlySleeping]

To be fair, the rum they were watering down was 180-190 proof.

Re:Grog?

[ceoyoyo]

And they served it out by the half pint (undiluted). Plus, mixing the water with rum made the water more drinkable.

Re:Grog?

[Anonymous Coward]

actually.... pirates drank grog more than straight rum ... grog = survival, rum = fun

They would drink grog because the rum helped keep the water sterile on long voyages, and not get scummy and brackish ...

patents

[Anonymous Coward]

Not familiar with that history. Did the professors develop this using public money, working off of a public paid salary, or using public government grants, along those lines?

Somalia

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting side issue there regarding pirates and Somalia. Originally what was happening was foreign fishing vessels were seriously encroaching inside their territorial waters and taking all the fish with big factory boats. Somalia having little to no clout at the UN and other places due to a rather "relaxed" governmental structure, was getting no help in getting this stopped, so some of the local fishermen who were being economically devastated started "arresting" the trespassers, same as any other nation would. They also had an apparently legitimate complaint that several nations were illegally dumping toxic and radioactive waste there, because it was easier to get away with it there.

Of course now, yes, it has changed to just general hijacking, but it started as legit economic self defense.

I think they are overreaching a bit

[Luscious868]

Copyrights and non-software patents aren't a bad thing. In fact as originally intended they are a very good thing because they allow artists and inventors to turn a profit on their ideas. They originally gave a limited windows upon which those who created the work or came up with the idea could turn a profit before it entered the public domain.

I'd love for a party to appear that wanted to bring copyright and patent laws back in line with what they were originally intended to be. Namely a reasonable, limited amount of time in which a work or idea was protected. Reasonable and limited being the operative words.

The People Fight Back

[erroneus]

This is not the first sign that the government goes too far outside the will and interests of the people, but it is certainly a very significant one. Just think about what it takes to collect a group of people who don't know each other personally to fight for a cause? People are mostly and generally lazy, so the act of doing nothing is perceived as worse than the act of doing something about it. THIS is how one might measure whether government influenced by business/profit interests has gone too far.

Clearly, they have gone too far and people are starting to move on it.

And you can't cite just one reason either. There are lots of "US Laws" being pushed on other countries... that's motivation. There are lots of suits being filed and threatend all across the world... that's motivation. There are even criminal prosecutions going on for which there are no laws directly supporting the action (such as the case of The Pirate Bay)... that's motivation. And then there's this ominous, secret, national-security treaty that only top level government and copyright interests are a part of... THAT is serious motivation.

Oh yes, the people are fighting back. And casual, personal, not for profit, copying and sharing should be allowed as should the tools to facilitate such activities. And copyrights should be VERY limited in duration, scope, transferability and representation. (By duration, I mean time. By scope, I mean what can be covered under copyright and what cannot, by transferability I mean the buying and selling of copyrights and the identification of the PEOPLE [not entities] that created it. And by representation, I mean how copyright giants can be represented and how those representatives are allowed to behave... what I am trying to say here is no more RIAA/MPAA/BSA/etc.)

It's time the insanity and fear has been reigned in. "The power of government" comes from the people, at least in theory, and it's time the government reflects the interests of the people.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Not really...

[Alef]

With proportional representation the party leaders choose who represent you and you have no way to say no to a scummy person.

Not that I am an expert in electoral systems, but those I know of that have proportional representation also let you vote for individual candidates within the party you vote for. In Sweden for example, you can choose to vote for individual candidates if you like, and before this system was introduced you could strike off those from the list proposed of candidates you didn't like (for precisely the reason you give). I actually liked the previous system better since it effectively allowed you to vote for many candidates simultaneously, albeit not reorder the prioritisation.

Re:Not really...

[Alef]

Also, if the party puts "scummy people" on the list of candidates, then people will not vote for the party as a whole. (Obviously, they have to present the candidates before the election.)

I knew it!

[Anonymous Coward]

I knew the pirates were coming! You didn't listen to my warning!

As a member of the Pirate Party of Canada...

[robbrit]

I'd like to note that the summary is not entirely correct.

We are not saying that people should have the right to copy whatever they like, despite what public opinion might be. Copyright is an important tool for innovation, we just think that it has gone too far (death + 50 years? Come on!). That does not mean that everyone should be allowed to download as much music/movies/etc. as they want. On top of that, we are not saying "phase out patents." There are some members of our forums that are saying that, but it does not reflect the entire Pirate Party's desires.

Other than that, the summary is right.

Wrong connection

[PleaseFearMe]

Concerts are the analogy to movie theaters, but it becomes difficult for musicians to reach out to so many people at the same time. Some thing that may work for movies does not necessarily work for music. What troubles me is that lots of people point out the problems with the music industry's business model, but I never see them suggest any alternatives. I wish to live forever, but because I see no possible alternative to death, I try to not complain about death, and just live life.

Re:Wrong connection

[The_Noid]

Do musicians need to reach out the same number of people at the same time with their live performances? I think not.

One music performance involves a lot less crew than the production of a movie, so a lot less people need to share in the profits. Besides that, people are willing to pay a lot more for a live performance than for a movie.

"pirate"?

[a still small voice]

a political party bearing the name "pirate" indicates that it's members aren't interested in being taken seriously, imo, and calls into question their true love of art, which is ripe with symbolism and associations. financial considerations aside, why would artists that have a deep love for things good and nice associate themselves with a political party harkening back to murderous thieves and darkness?

Re:"pirate"?

[Anonymous Coward]

yep agreed

on a side note, the comment system on this website sucks

i can NEVER find any comments that I have posted

it's all fun and games until the memex arrives

[a still small voice]

...and what then? When the memex is ubiquitous, will it be illegal to play it back?

I'll start buying CDS again when...

[Joce640k]

I'll start buying CDS again when they print on the cover how much money the artist is going to receive from the sale and I can see it's a decent chunk of the money. (Like cdbaby.com does - I buy from them...)

Where do I sign up?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, this is as good as EFF and GNU! Patents are a drain on the economy. Cutting patents back to 10 years (maximum), and copyright terms to a maximum of 20 years is the equivilent of putting 50,000 people to work (for life). The free ride corporations have had for the last few decades is over. They should have to compete on merit every day, just like everyone else. Got a great idea? Good! You get to benefit for 10 years. After that, its someone elses turn to improve on it. If you keep improving on the idea, then you can patent the new thing (and get 10 more years). Over the working life of an inventor, thats 4 follow-on inventions. If you drop the ball, someone else gets to pick it up. I'm sick of this legal bull that lets people have income for life because of 5 minutes work.

It's not just distribution

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

The bottom line? In a time when media can be distributed for costs approaching zero, I question whether charging for distribution remains a viable way to compensate creators. And if, as I suspect it is not, then I have to question the utility of copyright itself.

What you're failing to see is that the record labels are actually offering a bundle of services, and not just distribution. They also offer the following:

1. Financing of the artists' production costs
2. Facilitation of access to studios, sound engineers and other such capital
3. Marketing and promotion
4. Selectivity: a record label only signs a minority of artists that they think are good. They filter out bad artists so that the public doesn't have to.

So copyright isn't just about recovering the cost of distributing a finished work; it's about recovering the cost of producing and marketing the work. Some of that cost has gone down with technological advances, but a lot of it has not.

Re:It's not just distribution

[NickFortune]

So copyright isn't just about recovering the cost of distributing a finished work; it's about recovering the cost of producing and marketing the work. Some of that cost has gone down with technological advances, but a lot of it has not.

That's not really my point. I'm not saying distribution is the only service the media companies provide. What I'm saying is the way they expect to be remunerated for these services is by placing a surcharge on the costs of distribution. I'm saying that the business model is fundamentally linked to distribution. And I'm saying that as real world distribution costs approach zero, it's going to get harder and harder to enforce the state monopoly that is copyright.

I'm not saying that the media company's position is wrong: neither because of falling distribution costs, nor any other reason. What I'm saying is that, regardless of the rights and wrongs of the situation, I think that a surcharge on distribution is rapidly becoming unworkable.

And for that reason, I think they're inevitably going to lose this fight.

Re:It's not just distribution

[IgnoramusMaximus]

I think that a surcharge on distribution is rapidly becoming unworkable.

That is only partially correct. The full answer is: a surcharge on distribution is rapidly becoming unworkable in an even partially free society. And this is a key difference. You see, in an authoritarian society, even one paying lip service to "freedom", the authorities can control, to a significant degree, distribution of all information, and so it is possible to institute a totalitarian-power-backed surcharge on distribution. Simply because such control of information is the very foundation of authoritarian societies.

And this is the reason for which the "intellectual property" forces are natural allies of all those who seek to take over and rule our societies under the guise of "law and order" or "crime fighting" or "war on ..." (fill in your blanks here). This is also the very reason for which many of us oppose the "intellectual property" nonsense in general. Because we see that a victory for that camp of short-sighted greed-motivated mental midgets will also, inevitably, mean a victory for those far more dangerous individuals who seek to essentially enslave most of humanity.

And for that reason, I think they're inevitably going to lose this fight.

While this might prove ultimately true on the historical scale, given the above link between the peddlers of "intellectual property" and totalitarians, the real question is how many broken lives, how much pain and misery, and quite likely how many dead and maimed people will that victory cost.

Re:It's not just distribution

[Trahloc]

1. Financing of the artists' production costs
They have every right to put their money wherever they wish. Its not my place to tell them what or where to invest their money. But it does become my place and right when they want me to pay to have their investment protected via immortal copyright or wasteful public spending.

2. Facilitation of access to studios, sound engineers and other such capital
While its true that a professional recording studio is needed for the ultimate in recording quality. With todays tech its possible to make a great demo at a "no I wont go bar hoping tonight" limited budget. At which point when the recording execs hear the demo we refer back to 1.

3. Marketing and promotion
Refer to point 1.

4. Selectivity: a record label only signs a minority of artists that they think are good. They filter out bad artists so that the public doesn't have to.
I didn't ask for this public 'service' nor do I want it. I'm very good at filtering out what I don't like without assistance thank you.

The **AA have made such a large amount of money on the distribution model of their goods that they feel entitled to it. They aren't, at least not to the degree they currently enjoy. Their industry will survive, music will be made, and artists will make a living. Just not in this current form, no one is taking away an artists right to perform live and charge whatever they wish. We only wish to make it so that in a few years it becomes public domain so that another artist may take their turn at spinning straw into gold.

Re:It's not just distribution

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

That's not really my point. I'm not saying distribution is the only service the media companies provide. What I'm saying is the way they expect to be remunerated for these services is by placing a surcharge on the costs of distribution. I'm saying that the business model is fundamentally linked to distribution. And I'm saying that as real world distribution costs approach zero, it's going to get harder and harder to enforce the state monopoly that is copyright.

Fair enough. The problem is that a surcharge on distribution is the most sensible way of remunerating the record industry for the services it provides. How else are the costs of producing professional music recordings going to be recovered? The two commonly proposed alternatives that come to my mind are:

1. Government subsidy of the record industry by taxing the means of distribution (e.g., taxes on raw recording media and internet access).
2. Advertising; either of third-party commercial products, or just to attract public to the artist's performances.

The tax-and-subsidize one clearly has a lot of awful problems which I won't go into (mostly because hardly anybody on Slashdot would be for it in the first place). The second one I think just is a step back from what we had 20-30 years ago; it just grossly disincentivizes spending money on making elaborate music productions to start with, unless they can be used to advertise a commercial sponsor (bands who supposedly want to attract public will just record their live performances).

And for that reason, I think they're inevitably going to lose this fight.

But what I would answer to that is that I'm concerned it's not just them who are going to lose. It's not like the music industry are saints by any means, or that everything they've done has been positive. It's that having a corrupt music industry that can finance elaborate productions might be a lesser evil. We might be worse off in a world where the only way to afford making a really well produced album is by making all your songs be about Pepsi or Calvin Klein--a world where the only option to that is to make crappy home recordings.

Re:It's not just distribution

[NickFortune]

The problem is that a surcharge on distribution is the most sensible way of remunerating the record industry for the services it provides.

Well, it's only sensible if it works. My point is that the model is rapidly becoming unworkable.

How else are the costs of producing professional music recordings going to be recovered?

Better to ask, 'how are they going to be recovered at all?'. I mean, consider:

• You're not going to stop millions of teenagers from downloading stuff. You'd have to persuade them that it was a a bad thing and .. well that's been tried and tried and made not the least impact.
• I don't think you can lock down the electronic distribution channels. I think there are too many potential side-band channels and too many disruptive technologies waiting in the wings. P2P was unheard of until Napster was squashed, for instance. And BitTorrent was an academic curiosity until the media people started poisoning the P2P networks.
• I don't think the RIAA lawsuit industry is going to provide enough income to keep the record execs in the manner to which they are accustomed.
• And trying to prosecute every downloading 14 year old on the planet (even assuming it to be anywhere near cost effective) sounds to me like a recipe for revolution.

I can surely understand why the media companies want to keep the surcharge-on-distribution model. But expecting that model to remain viable in the face of cheap, easy, ubiquitous distribution channels seems like wishful thinking on their part. Human instinct seems to be to propagate memes. We pass on jokes and stories, and good ideas. And catchy tunes. And our on-board firmware seems to put sharing an mp3 in the same mental category as teaching a friend how to sing a bawdy song.

At the end of the day, The media companies are running against human nature. That's rarely a winning strategy

I beg to differ

[Anonymous Coward]

"the Liberal party is the only party that can offer any serious opposition to the Conservative party"

Really? In Nova Scotia the NDP won the Majority. They won so many seats that even if the Conservatives and Liberals combined they are still outnumbered. NDP 31, Liberal and PC combined ~24.

freeballer

[freeballer]

while I'm no angel when it comes to downloading. Yes, I've downloaded an episode I missed or other things AND I feel that patend/trademarks should be allowed. I think though these guys might as well ask for world peace, curing all deseases and removal of all nuclear arms in the world. I don't like how copyrighted material is enforced, and their rediculous claims of "losses" in court you'll never get what your asking for "pirate party"... You should shoot for a, possibly, acheivable goal such as writting laws that allow for upto 3 copies per household or personal use. THAT COULD HAPPEN

Good Point

[PleaseFearMe]

I wonder how the equations relate to each other in determining how profitable movie-related talents are compared to music-related talents. Tickets for live concerts cost a lot but are limited. Tickets for movies cost much less but are almost unlimited. Production of music requires instruments, talent, recording instruments. Production of movies requires plane tickets, talent, more recording instruments (visual+audio as opposed to just audio), more crew. What a complicated problem!

Re:Good Point

[SpaceCadets]

Just a quick point, I don't go to many concerts, but the ones I went to a few years ago had visual + audio, in the form of big screens with multiple cameras focused on stage as well as a couple of audience shots. Obviously films use more cameras, but the logistics of having visual at concerts shouldn't be underrated. :)

Re:Good Point

[Trahloc]

Irrelevant. Copyright law was meant to give incentive for creative works to be made and the creators to make a living. The whole incentive part of copyright law has been twisted into a lottery ticket system instead of the original purpose of protecting the creator, for a limited time, from someone stealing the work and thereby removing their ability to make a living.

Just because they have been able to make a multi-billion dollar business out of raping the public domain and trampling our rights doesn't mean that business model should be protected.

Re:Good Point

[nagnamer]

from someone stealing the work and thereby removing their ability to make a living.

"Removing the ability to make a living [on your own]" is the modus operandi in a capitalist system. It happens to every one of us, not just artists.

Re:Good Point

[Trahloc]

True, but that's the nature of the system and is perfectly acceptable. What the current copyright law creates is a nigh never ending private ownership of humanities ideas. Society protects a creators rights, for a limited time, for its own enrichment not the creators. But now many big businesses are living off the protection we've handed to creators and twisted it out of proportion to protect their own. This was not the purpose of copyright. If society no longer gains a benefit from this exchange then society should stop protecting it. Then work on creating a new system that will finally kill immortal copyright permanently.

Re:Good Point

[nagnamer]

My point was, you can apply that very paragraph to virtually all professions, and insert "labor laws" (or whatever you like, for that matter) in place of "copyright".

Oh, and I don't believe there's such thing as a "nature of the system" which can be "perfectly acceptable". If you can accept such an artificial concept, surely you must accept copyright laws as the "nature of the legal system". It's not about the nature of the system, but about people's obedience.

The real question is why people find things acceptable that should have never existed in the first place, let alone persisted for so long.

Re:Good Point

[Trahloc]

By 'nature of the system' I mean the capitalist method of out doing your competition thereby taking away their customers with the result that you take away their ability to make a living. This is how that system is defined and by competing in that system you accept it. You can't try to encroach on someones business with your better and more efficient idea and then bitch about someone doing the same to you. Thats what I mean by 'perfectly acceptable'.

The difference between copyright and your worker is one creates a good that is infinite the other creates a good that is finite. We protect that infinite good for a short time as the long term benefit is worth its creation. That finite good is protected by the very fact that its limited.

No matter how thin you slice it....

[westlake]

It would destroy the content industry not the content creators.

The P2P trade is in big media - the corporate product.
Launch any file sharing program. Look at what is being offered. The date of release. How many sources are available.

The geek is lying when he tells you that this isn't what he wants.

 

Green Party's Elizabeth May on The Pirate Party

[gordm]

Between CBC's coverage of Canadian Pirate Party and this slashdot post, I had a chance to ask Elizabeth May about the idea of a Canadian Pirate Party.

http://r4nt.com/article/green-party-vs-pirate-party/

She says Green Party policy is copyrights should expire in 12 years (as opposed to Canada's effective 100 year copyright durations).

I know the Green Party doesn't push this aspect of their platform very hard, but it would be nice to have an elected MP speaking on economically optimal copyright durations, as opposed to what is "right" or "wrong" with downloading MP3s (yawn).

YouTube video of Elizabeth May on The Pirate Party and Copyright. Also recycleable (and CC licensed) at Internet Archive.

If The Pirate Party runs against Greens, then copyleft voters will have their vote split. Given Canada's first-past-the-post system, that guarantees we'll never have an elected MP pushing for shorter copyright duration.

Re:Green Party's Elizabeth May on The Pirate Party

[eoinmadden]

It is interesting to note that the Pirate Party sit with the Greens in the EU parliament. (Sitting together effectively means they act as one bloc)

looks like things have turned the corner

[Dan667]

After the Jamie verdict and the Pirate Bay verdict, it was enough stupid for people to get involved. This is exactly the opposite of what the RIAA wanted. As tools like the RIAA radar gain popularity and the brands of the RIAA are hurt more, they will eventually lose.

http://www.riaaradar.com/

Why would anyone knowingly pay the RIAA that actively suppresses music and does not take care of the very artists they say they are protecting. The RIAA demise is not coming soon enough, but nice to see the cracks in the dam.

A bit thin

[jandersen]

The party's goals are fairly simple. People should have the right to share and copy music, movies and virtually any material, as long as it is for personal use, not for profit.

Much as I agree with the sentiment, I feel it is too little to form a political party on; a proper party program should address all or most aspects of running a society, possibly based on a shared worldview. What is copying movies going to do about the army, social security or the war in Iraq, just to mention a few thing? In my view one shouldn't start with the right to copy music files and then add the rest as an afterthought; one should start with some more general principles, like equality under the law and whatever, and then derive the right to make copies from that, along with all the other issues out in the real world.

But it is fully understandable that people feel nothing but loathing for politics and political parties as things are. I think at the bottom of it is not just the general, selfserving smarminess amongst politicians, but also the fact that they don't even seem to make an honest effort; so many of them are just narrow minded, incompetent windbags who are in it for the money and nothing else. I personally would vote for anybody that can convince me that he or she is going to simply do a good job in the interest of the country and the people; never mind whether they are God-fearing family people or promiscuous Satanists, staunch Capitalists or Communists, as long as they are honest and competent.

Re:A bit thin

[Donovon]

I like the mission statement of the Pirate Party. I will be watching this favorably. I expect their philosophy and full plank would flow in logical progression from their already stated goals. If it is well thought out it will not philosophically contradict itself (like the parties that currently exist do - repeatedly). If that is the case, this is a party that might contain individuals for whom I could vote.

I think it is time there was a party in the United States that ran under a unified philosophical approach instead of broad spectrum polling data in their target demographic markets.

Will it happen? Only time will tell. The Hegel/Marx spiral continues to march toward inexorable disintegration.

=-Donovon

supporter and a story

[Anonymous Coward]

When the scripture was invented first, many smart people were afraid the knowledge they possess will lose value as it will become easier to obtain without their presence. With time, written texts became so numerable that there appeared a need for creating big libraries and jobs for many more smart people to handle all the information in those libraries. Thousands of years later Mr Gutenberg was in bad need for money and created the forgery machine of its time â" the printing press. In just several decades a big industry of the time â" manuscript copying â" was smashed by the new technology leaving thousands copyists jobless.
Every time a new way for distribution of ideas is discovered, jobs and industries are under threat. But did really content creation stopped? I donâ(TM)t think so. Quite the opposite â" a lot new content was created. Never forget that even the first of those jobs put under pressure â" that of bards/personal teachers/live performers/etc. â" survived to our days in perfect form.
Surely matters must be settled by dialogue and not by unilateral decisions. But balances are changing and everyone would be better to adapt fast to the new challenges in creative ways.

Payback time.

[nightfire-unique]

I am a Canadian and will support and vote for the pirate party. While I'm neither here nor there regarding copyright law, I am strongly in favor of iron-strength privacy protection, patent reform, and throttling the newfound arrogance our government has displayed recently.

And, hey, if they throw in a little telco reform, they've got a lifetime member here.

Go pirates, go!

Pirates all ower the place

[muntis]

There is one in Estonia too

lol

[Anonymous Coward]

while it would suck to not be able to share music, apps, games, videos, movies, etc.. it is detrimental to the media industry, as I would probably be spending $$ on the media if I couldn't download it.

and for an actual party to be formed called the "Pirate Party" is hilarious.. Slapping any law maker/supporter right in the face!

what next, a "Child Porn Party"?

The Party you are calling is ALREADY HERE.

[RobertB-DC]

I disagree, somewhat. The US needs ANYONE to run against the two established parties ON ANY PLATFORM, and to WIN offices around the country.

Someone to run against the two established parties? Done.

Someone with a FULL platform, one that doesn't sway with the political breeze -- like they were Key Values, or something? Done!

Someone to win offices around the country? Done, 160 times over .

But don't feel alone in not immediately saying, "Oh, yeah, THAT Green Party." Even Bill Maher is having trouble remembering:

WASHINGTON, DC -- The Green Party has sent an open letter to Bill Maher after a June 19 broadcast of 'Real Time' in which Mr. Maher said "[W]hat we need is an actual progressive party to represent the millions of Americans who aren't being served by the Democrats. Because, bottom line, Democrats are the new Republicans."

The Green Party's reply to Mr. Maher: "Hey, Bill, we're over here! What you described is the GREEN PARTY! We already exist!"

Grats Canada

[seekret]

Let me know when they come to the United States...the smear campaigns will be quite entertaining to follow. I really hope they accomplish there goals, but I doubt the government and corporations are going to let them achieve anything.