Why the UK Needs the Pirate Party

Barence writes "The UK Pirate Party wants to reform copyright and patent laws, abolish the surveillance state and increase our freedom of speech, and it's just been recognized as a political party. In this interview with PC Pro, UK Pirate Party leader Andrew Robinson explains how he's planning to shake up the political landscape. 'What we really want to do is raise awareness, so that the other parties say "bloody hell, they've got seven million votes this time out," or one million votes, or enough votes to make them care and seriously think about these issues.'"

Comments

Sounds promising, but...

[IBBoard]

It sounds promising that we now have a "Pirate Party" in the UK who will stand up on copyright issues, but I suspect they'll take it too far. It makes sense to decrease the legislation that is heavily in favour of the company rather than the consumer (things like making it illegal to make personal backups or making fines for infringement hugely out of proportion) but if they get to complete freedom to pirate everything then they've taken it too far the other way and the economy will falter again.

People need the right to own what they've bought, but people don't need the right to own everything for free that's digital.

Re:Sounds promising, but...

[blackraven14250]

Yeah, but the way you get a major party to be moderate on an issue is by having an extreme viewpoint yourself. At least that way the votes get distributed across the spectrum instead of concentrated at one side.

Re:Sounds promising, but...

[noundi]

It sounds promising that we now have a "Pirate Party" in the UK who will stand up on copyright issues, but I suspect they'll take it too far. It makes sense to decrease the legislation that is heavily in favour of the company rather than the consumer (things like making it illegal to make personal backups or making fines for infringement hugely out of proportion) but if they get to complete freedom to pirate everything then they've taken it too far the other way and the economy will falter again.

People need the right to own what they've bought, but people don't need the right to own everything for free that's digital.

They're supposed to take it too far. Sweden was one of the first countries (if not the first, I'm not sure) to have a pirate party, nowadays with mandate in the European Parliament. The Swedish PP are very down to earth. They openly admit to not having a thorough agenda based on ideologies, such as the traditional party. However their intentions are not to win any election. Their intentions are to raise these questions, and force other parties to take a stance on them. The same year as the Swedish PP was formed many other parties officially took a stance on filesharing, privacy concerns and copyright/patenting. They are just as important for the societies of the modern world, as RMS is for FOSS. We all think RMS takes things a bit far sometimes, but you have to remember that there are far more "extremists" on the other end, those pushing for rights to more intellectual property and patenting. His function is absolutely necessary in order to land somewhere in the reasonable middle. Where producers and consumers get fair terms. Sadly people tend to think in black and white without realising the difference the pirate parties make without ever stepping a foot inside the parliament.

Re:Sounds promising, but...

[Odinlake]

Yup, and I think that if the pirate party of Sweden had taken a more moderate (reasonable) standpoint they would have been boring and quickly forgotten. By being outrageous they are now known by near enough everyone and got 7% or something like that (one seat) in the election to the European parliament. No, I think "outrageous" is just the way to go.

And come on - do you really think by giving them your vote you would risk a sudden abolishment of copyright?!

Re:The UK already has one dumbass party

[twoshortplanks]

Actually, the Pirate Party, putting all issues about copyright infringement aside, has one proper issue that I think is interesting. It's to do with encryption and privacy.

The concern is about how much the media owners and government have the "right" to monitor what you're doing. If you stipulate that the government should prevent copyright infridgement, it's not a big leap to say that they should monitor people to check that they're not breaking the law and punish those that do. Which is fine, until you realise that you've just said that the government should monitor all your communications, and the public shouldn't have the right to have private communications that the Powers In Charge don't read.

Now, I'm not overly worried about this in the UK right now with our current government (who, let's face it, are under the thumb of the press and more likely to try and waste taxpayers money to clean their private moats than oppress the masses), but if history has shown us anything preventing citizens from being able to privately critique government bodies without those bodies being able to read all the criticisms is not a good thing... I'm not really sure where the line between upholding the law and curtailing the citizen is drawn - and it's not just on this issue that it's worth thinking about, but it is, at least, worth thinking about. So I welcome the discussion.