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.'"
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.
First things first. Top priority for the pirate party should be to make speak-like-a-pirate-day a national holiday.
Break the sound barrier - bring the noise.
This is great. When do we get one of these in the US?
Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
In Germany, a recent poll showed a 2% support rate for the pirate party (Piratenpartei).
And lo and behold! Suddenly, politicians of other parties are discovering their love for the pirates' topics...
(links in German, and I'm too much a of a lazy ass to translate)
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.
-- Sorry, I can't think of anything funny to say here.
They don't have to win the elections.
If they get a few million votes and steadily increase share every election, even if they don't win the bigger parties might decide to adjust their policies a bit.
A lot of people say it's just a two horse race because of the "first past the post" system. Big fucking deal. That doesn't matter as long as you can influence the direction the horses are heading.
Fact is the big parties have changed over the years, so they can and do change.
If you keep voting for a party that you don't like, it's effectively saying to them "keep doing whatever you are doing". Why should they change if they keep winning most of the votes?
If they see their grip loosening, believe me, they'll do something.