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

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.

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.

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: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: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.