Slashdot Mirror
The Pirate Party of Canada Is Official
wasme writes "The Pirate Party of Canada has become the first Pirate Party outside of Europe to become an official political party. Elections Canada confirmed with the party that the PPCA has gained 'eligible for registration' status, and can run in elections starting June 14. From the PPCA's official announcement: 'We are pleased to announce that as of April 12, 2010, the Pirate Party of Canada is officially eligible for Party Status. After 10 months of dedication and hard work, we have reached eligible status, which only leaves a 60-day "purgatory" period. After that, we will field candidates in subsequent federal elections, and begin the real work of a political party.'"
May the seas be open and the winds be fortunate. Although I can't help but wonder if the name "Pirate Party" for all the pirate parties isn't a bit too ... daring. Maybe even misleading.
Political campaigning for rights in the digital domain is a "good thing". Clearly individual freedoms are under attack by large corporations and governments. We want to reverse this trend - we want control over our own computers / digital devices, we want reform of copyright and patent law, we want guarantees of privacy and we want fair Internet access, perhaps even as a fundamental right.
However, by using the name "pirate" (pirates in the physical world are dangerous, armed criminals), the parties are alienating a potentially broader public. As far as I can tell the parties are not generally in favor of "piracy" (stealing intellectual property) but in favor of giving the buyer / consumer of intellectual property many more rights than they currently have.
Change the names to "digital freedom party" or whatever, but stop alienating large groups of people with this pirate nonsense. Rights in the digital domain are much more important than this schoolboy stuff.
Turning over power to multinationalists
keep drinking coca-cola-corp products, eating nestle foods, and driving GM cars ... The problem with your reasoning is that you don't apply it to corporations.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
Please, Bad Analogy Guy, explain to us how differences in physical geography cause different needs for digital freedom.
corporations don't make laws or form government you silly twit.
You must be new round here.
It's called the "golden rule" - he who has the gold, makes the rules. From where I'm sitting, corporations have most of the gold, and there sure are a lot of laws being made in their favour at the moment.
Plus, corporations may not form government, but they sure do field people who form government - Halliburton anyone?
Specialist Mac support for creative pros, Melbourne
The CD tax is a way of labels to have a cake and eat it -twice- too.
First you pay for "pirated content" in media tax, and then they will litigate and sue you for damages anyway.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Another Canadian political party siphoning off left-leaning voters. Already that vote is split between Liberal, NDP, Green, and (some would argue) the Bloc. This vote split is why the conservatives can continue to hold political power with 38% of the popular vote.
In political systems with fully proportional representation (example: Israel) these sorts of political parties make sense: the hurdle to get representation in the legislature is surmountable and you may even be brought into a coalition government. However, in first-past-the-post systems (Canada, US, UK) these vanity parties are only self-defeating. Whichever side of the political spectrum is best able to AVOID this fragmentation is almost guaranteed power. To use a Canadian example, look at the solid Liberal control in the 90s, made easy by a 3-way fragmentation on the right (the old PC party, Reform, and Alliance). Once those parties re-coalesced into the current Conservative party they were able to take over from the perpetually fragmented left.
If you have a particular issue that you want to advance in a first-past-the-post democracy, the correct move is to identify which of the major parties is most receptive to your goal, and organize within that party. Form an organization, raise money, make noise. If you're a visible constituency within a major party (and can be counted on to bring in votes, donations, and volunteers) then they will have reason to differentiate themselves by embracing your issue.
If instead your constituency says "ha! We're going to take our votes and make our own damn party" then BOTH major parties will simply say "ok, no need to listen to care what those guys want -- they're not going to vote for us anyway". You're only making copyright reform HARDER to achieve.
> multinationalists
Is that even a real word? Sounds like something made up by political lunatics in the US. Anyway, I'm not replying to insult you, IIRC you're a sane person judging from past posts, but I really don't get this (very US-specific) fear of other nations.
> But what worries me about the Pirate Party is precisely that it is fundamentally international in nature.
How can that possibly be a bad thing? Sure, a lot of things (location of a new city park or speed regulations) should naturally be decided on the appropriate level, but in todays world more "multinationalism" is needed when it comes to things like the invironment and conflict over natural resources, human rights and IT.
> Turning over power to multinationalists is a bad idea because generalized solutions do not necessarily fit the specific needs of any particular country.
Right. And turning over power to countries is a bad idea because generalized solutions do not necessarily fit the specific needs of any particular region.
Turning over power to regional administrators is a bad idea because generalized solutions do not necessarily fit the specific needs of any particular state.
Turning over power to states is a bad idea because generalized solutions do not necessarily fit the specific needs of any particular county.
Turning over power to county councils is a bad idea because generalized solutions do not necessarily fit the specific needs of any particular city.
Turning over power to the city council is a bad idea because generalized solutions do not necessarily fit the specific needs of any particular district.
Turning over power to the city district government is a bad idea because generalized solutions do not necessarily fit the specific needs of any particular household.
Turning over power to the mum is a bad idea because generalized solutions do not necessarily fit the specific needs of me and i don't WANNA go to be now coz i'm on level 32 and have 5 lives left!!1
(the different levels are a mix of american and european types of local governments, but you get the idea.)
Well, it's better than "Copyright Reform Party". Especially since copyright is often just a small part of the agenda of Pirate Parties, e.g. in Germany they also have privacy and civil rights on their agenda.
Plus, I doubt you could interest anybody with a name like "Copyright Reform Party". That sounds like a party for lawyers, lobbyists and other despicable scum. The various Pirate Parties achieved a relatively high participation from previously politically inactive people.
The goals of the party are essentially dictated centrally from Sweden
I'm curious as to why you think your fantasies are of interest to the rest of us? :)
it's in my head
i agree, pirate party is a retarded immature name. these clowns undermine serious copyright reform.
These "clowns" are actually running for political office and working from within the democratic system. If nothing else, the fact that they're acknowledged as a legitimate political party gives them access to a lot of extra soapboxes. TV interviews, debates, questions, these all serve to raise awareness about privacy concerns and governments selling out to big media.
So what have you done lately to promote serious copyright reform? And no, bitching about it on Slashdot does not count.
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
Spreading BS like "The goals of the party are essentially dictated centrally from Sweden and then implemented throughout the world wherever the PP has any power to do so." is very irresponsible, please stop that.
The various Pirate Parties are independent, there is no hierachy.
But what worries me about the Pirate Party is precisely that it is fundamentally international in nature.
What worries me is that many political parties which should be international in nature pretend to be merely local. For example, the UK's Official Monster Raving Loony Party http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Monster_Raving_Loony_Party should expand internationally. Entry by the OMRLP into US politics could be disastrous for both the Republicans and the Democrats, since the policies of all three parties would be so closely clustered (on the sanity scale).
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
Is the Pirate Party the first example of a political party that is operating in multiple countries at once?
How soon they forget. The Communists had this sort of thing going on a much larger scale than the Pirates.
I am officially gone from
Why? Copyrights exist to promote the public interest by encouraging authors to create and publish works that they otherwise would not create and publish, while minimally restricting the public in terms of both the scope of protection and the duration during which the works are protected.
A perpetual right is not only unconstitutional (the Constitution requires that copyrights be granted only for a limited time), but clearly cannot ever promote the public interest precisely because it is perpetual. Further, for nearly all of our history, we've never had rights like that in the US, and even today, the closest we get is to barely have them for a fraction of works (almost nothing qualifies, by design). Yet we still have lots of works being created and published. Pretty clearly, many authors simply don't require such rights as you describe in order to be incentivized to create and publish; they'll do it for less, in which case it would be wasteful to give them more. (Like the $500,000 screwdriver of military spending infamy) I doubt there would be a big explosion in the number of authors creating and publishing works if we did grant them; most of the rest of the world grants those rights (although not perpetually AFAIK), and they don't totally overshadow the US in terms of creative output.
No, moral rights are simply bogus. They harm, rather than benefit, the public; they aren't so desired by authors that authors are willing to actually do or not do anything in order to get them; they aren't even sensible (who cares about these things outside of matters of fraud, which there is already a law for); and they are particularly harmful to free speech (whatever the uses of works that authors might be offended by, I am certain that those uses are more important than the easily hurt feelings that the author has; more speech on public issues is always better than less, and there's nothing wrong with recycling someone else's).
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Your argument is the exact same one I hear all the time in the USA, when it comes to the Libertarians. (In fact, the man most people probably consider the quintessential Libertarian figure today -- Ron Paul? He's run on the Republican party ticket since the mid 1970's!)
The problem with the entrenched 2-party system is, the 2 parties tend to align themselves with certain "goals" they want to achieve. Individuals signing up to run under one of their party names who have different ideas quickly get marginalized or "shut down" by the majority in the party.
Now, if you've really only got a single issue you're trying to advance, sure ... your best best is to pick which of the 2 major parties would be more receptive to it, and try to weasel in there. Whether you agree with many other things they want to do or not, you pretend to care while you try to "wheel and deal" to get your idea out there. (And so far, I'd have to say, that's my problem with the current "Pirate Party". They really do only seem to focus on one issue - copyright. They may pay some lip service to holding other political beliefs, but I've never seen them make any effort to, say, become outspoken on environmental issues or discuss whether or not government intervention of certain type might boost an economic recovery.)
But I think it's dangerous to cling too tightly to that belief that a 3rd. party "only helps one of the other 2 major parties, so it's pointless". If he actually cared to do so, Ross Perot could certainly have become one of our U.S. presidents, despite his 3rd. party affiliation. And if enough people get disgusted with the way the Republicans and the Democrats of today both seem to have the SAME agenda on so many major issues (Obama is pretty much just following the same advisers Bush did about what to do with the war)? We're ripe for a 3rd. party to step in and take control.
I can't say if I am for or against the ACTA . . . because I don't know the details.
I don't have to know ANY of the details to be against it -- why would they keep it a secret if they thought it was benign? There are media companies and governments, NO input from citizens, and "my" representatives are keeping it secret from me. What's not to hate?
Free Martian Whores!
However ideal the agenda of the party might actually be, the term 'pirate' is very heavily associated with anarchy and activities that involve breaking the law, rather than the far more positive notion of working within the legal system to effect the potentially revolutionary changes that the Pirate Party wishes to advocate. Unfortunately, people who have never heard of them will take one look at the name and judge the party based on that, rather than investigate what their actual platforms are. Without a name change, they don't have a hope in hell of making a difference. They are likely going to be taken about as seriously as the Rhino Party.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
No. That is your and some American forefather's interpretation of why the copyright exists.
Well, that's good company to be in. Of course, it is also the reasoning of the British, when they created what we think of as copyright, even earlier in the 18th century. And it's been the opinion of at least the US courts up to the present day. And, frankly, it's the only reason that is compatible with the idea of a natural right of free speech.
In other countries, the right to be recognized as an Author of a work is already perpetual (as well as untradeable)Plainly wrong. Who says it isn't in the publics interest that creators are recognized perpetually.
Again, you're failing to explain your assertions. In any event, I say it isn't in the public's interest. People naturally have a right of free speech; it applies even to statements which are matters of opinion, or even things which are false. It is not a right that should be interfered with unless there is a very compelling reason to, there is no better alternative to limiting speech that would address the reason, and the restriction accomplishes what it needs to do, without going one bit further. And that's if you accept the idea that speech should be restricted at all. The absolutist position is appealing, and has been seen at even the very highest levels in this country, and perhaps elsewhere.
Here, you want to prohibit people, with the force of law, from speaking freely. What if there is a dispute as to authorship, possibly without any solid proof (e.g. were the plays of Shakespeare written by Shakespeare, or by someone else?) What if you want to reprint a book, but you don't want to attribute or misattribute it to anyone? What if the author doesn't want to be recognized, or wants to credit someone else (e.g. a ghost writer), but you ignore his wishes just as much as you do everyone else's?
I could understand restricting fraud: If I write a book, and I list someone else, someone famous, as the author, this could mislead people into buying it. And if I were famous, I might take a book written by someone else, take credit for it, and thus exploit my advantage unfairly. But we've already got laws against fraud. We don't need more laws to cover the exact same thing. And the victim of fraud is often not the actual author, but the customer who was defrauded.
Further, why should the right be perpetual? The author can not suffer injury once he's dead. But the public, as a whole, will still be around. Their right of free speech will still be suffering from a limitation. Why should this last forever? How does it benefit them? And in a democratic society, which recognizes free speech as one of the most fundamental rights to be protected (and which doesn't recognize copyright as such; that's just a convenience for the public), how could such a restriction be tolerated?
That is your claim
Restrictions on speech always harm the public. They may carry with them some benefit to the public, which outweighs the harm, but I've yet to see such a benefit to the public shown in this case. Further, what benefit could outweigh a perpetual restriction?
Well, they already have them where I live. And they damn well don't want to lose them.
What authors want is irrelevant, save for how the public benefits overall as a result. Think of dairy cows: The cow might want a solid gold cowbell, but the dairy farmer is only going to spend money on the cow's well being if it improves his bottom line. He will not waste money on the cow just for the hell of it, regardless of what the cow wants.
And in any case, if you don't live in the US, I don't care much what your copyright laws are, if you keep them to yourself. Paying even the tiniest iota of attention to foreign copyright laws has seriously harmed US copyright law. The sensible thing for us to do is to withdraw from all of our copyright treaties, unilaterally grant national treatment to foreigners (i.e. nationality will be irrelevant for applying for a US copyrig
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
I can dream, can't I? :)
Yes, and you're the kind of individual we need running for office.
Some of The Pirate Parties' main points are: Defend the right to privacy and personal correspondence, less surveillance, shorten copyright, abolish patents, remove laws against reverse engineering, promote open source software, ensure net neutrality, stronger laws against plagiarism, ensure due process in all cases, and much more. Basically, to use a cliché, The Pirate Parties exist to steer the world away from 1984, as far away as possible.
My other account has a 3-digit UID.