Slashdot Mirror
Pirate Party Gains Another Seat In EU
bs0d3 writes "Amelia Andersdotter is a member of the Swedish Pirate Party elected in 2009. Originally her votes were not enough to beat fellow pirate Christian Engstrom for a seat on the European Parliament. Today the EU has redrawn the lines and 12 countries are to gain one or more MEPs — including Sweden, where Andersdotter is set to be confirmed."
can easily and truly say that, 'they represent me'.
i have given no allowance or authority to any other party, or representative, up till this point.
Read radical news here
I cannot support this party.
I do not support ANY political party that tries to extract tears from mermaids.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
I have no doubt there might be a first time first post for you, but this isn't it.
First reply to your first
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Even at best, to try to take the name at face value, their naming suggests they are advocating something that is strongly associated with disobedience and anarchy.
They need to grow up, IMO.
(This post is probably going to get modded as a troll, but it's still my honest opinion.)
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
If you think that's what the Pirate Party holds as its political platform, you're an idiot or a shill.
You all saw it!
You have the second first reply to the second first post...
Yeah.
OR, you could check the actual data from the election researchers where the Pirate Party has had successes, which shows a different picture.
If you think that, you're an idiot.
PS: Atleast, its as good as the parent retort.
Does it bother you at all that that is not at all what he said? I ask because it makes me sad to see a human being incapable of parsing a very simple piece of text. Many people are dispirited by the realpolitik practised by most parties with any actual power, by the lobbying power of industries and of special interest groups with views which appear grotesque or simply stupid, and by political corruption. Furthermore, many countries have voting systems which are conservative - the populace tend to vote for the incumbents, or oscillate between two power blocks which are not radically different from one another. To state that most parties appear not to represent ones beliefs is very different from saying that one has almost no beliefs. Democracy, as it is currently practised, is certainly not a pleasant sight for an idealist. I'd do something about it, but I don't think I have the stamina, money, cynicism and skills. At least I can understand a simple post though.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Yes. Everyone everywhere is an idiot, or care as much about things like intellectual rights and content restrictions as the average American, which is not at all.
Of course.
Why, that's exactly why there could never be successful concert that used only creative commons works and artists rather than big names!
Oh wait.
Meh, the USA and Britian once had a major political party named "Whig Party".
The term Whig was originally short for 'whiggamor', a term meaning "cattle driver" used to describe western Scots who came to Leith for corn.
When will the Fourth Reich fall?
Now, now. I respect the right of anonymous people to be misinformed, even loudly. There's no need to call them names.
I have voted for them every chance I've gotten and I download everything I possibly can from iTunes, to the point of getting a US account. I also don't have a Spotify account since I don't like the pittance that the artists are awarded in contrast to what the labels themselves get for zero work. At least with radio, they send people out to bribe radio stations (which I'm against, but they *do* something). I can afford to, and am willing to, pay for music, movies, games and so on, and if that's what it was all about I wouldn't be writing this. I don't think that I'm a complete anomaly in the Pirate Party voter base. The current party leader is a publisher.
What voting for them is about for me is to put an end to compromising civil rights and democratic tradition in order for some industries to supposedly stay afloat. It's also about stopping communication surveillance that's almost completely useless and at any rate remarkably disproportionate and ineffective. (Search for "FRA law".) And, yes, as part of the party program is a plea to make sure that non-commercial file sharing is decriminalized because every possible (and quite a few impossible) obstructions are either contra-productive and/or violates basic laws or rights more severely that warranted. The whole green party bloc in the European Parliament has adopted Christian Engström's positions on this issue.
I suppose it's easy to just short-circuit to "I WANT FREE MP3S PLZ", but there really is more to it than that.
Because using Slashdot's "piracy" logo seems a bit counter-productive. Wikipedia shows a logo for the international organization.
That was my intention! ;)
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
But not in the way most people would be thinking.
Remember, Piracy was adopted as the major branding slogan by content publishers because they thought it would have negative connotations. Accuracy and truth were not a part of it; they were going for psychological hits rather than any actual reasoning based off of logic and justice.
In calling it a "Pirate Party" they are mocking the originators of the term. It had already lost its meaning and reversed, becoming an average term, and now used by a political party as a straight-out rallying term of endearment against anachronistic corporations and the politicians they control.
Which is in and of itself quite petty, and thus childish. Still amusing, and still a group of politicians that I'd trust further for many issues (completely unrelated to piracy or media) than most others.
What's sad is that some are so thoroughly indoctrinated by the religion of the capitalist world system that they cannot fathom a world in which musicians don't need to be millionaires. Nobody does. People sang before copyright laws and they lived happy, culturally enriched lives. Artists aren't served by the current system, in fact, artistic merit is borderline irrelevant in the modern music industry. By and large, the vast majority of musicians are images constructed by marketing machines and not really artists at all. Besides that, the bulk of the money generated goes to everyone in the middle, including the massive media conglomerate. Wake up.
Last I heard, the Tea Party wasn't an actual political party, just a bunch of whiners. Something to put on the end of your conservative political resume, not a specific political party you were a member of.
I mean, ignoring the fact that it was nothing more than a Republican vassal puppet.
You're right about the GOP, but I can't see it as anything other than an a funny way of saying they're regressive old twats.
I read what he wrote and understood what he said. I'm also not stupid, so I knew what he actually meant.
Not a right, but a duty.
It has become an overt political act. How else to act against their hostility? I'll take suggestions.
You are welcome on my lawn.
What's wrong with caring about the moral and economic repercussions of allowing corporations to own ideas? Or caring about government-sanctioned (or even run) extortion against citizens and unaffiliated content producers? Copyright needs to end. If the pirate party is the only party backing that move, then I support it. It doesn't mean that is the only issue I care about, but that I can't support a party that supports copyright.
Great Intellect...
Offended? Not at all, we love open debate! :-). And feel free to copy this text! :-)
It is rather amazing! Two members of the European Parliament; and a significant representation in Berlin, DE! Who would have thought that only a few years back?
We don't want to become any of those sleazy slippery-as-an-eel "politically correct" politicians who lie to you with a straight face and act like they are some weird perfect uber-humans for which making jokes or just being a normal human being is taboo!
The name is "Pirate Party" *exactly* because it is silly. And because it shows that we not only don't think politicians have to go to the basement to laugh, but that we also think that it's a good thing too to be human.
Because if there is one person who always promises me heaven and acts like he's infallible and goldike, while fucking me over left and right,
and another person who *changes his damn opinion when he finds out he's wrong*, admits when he did something wrong, is imperfect, but who I can trust to know where his heart is at so that I know it's where my heart is at too,
I always and without exception take the second person.
And so do you.
Which is why I know you will vote Pirate Party too.
This makes me want to pilly the Cursed Islands and defeat Vargas the Mad but I don't have my bravery badge,
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
As far as I know, the Pirate Party does NOT support the end of copyright. They support reducing it substantially. So if you cannot support a party that supports copyright, this isn't the party for you.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Wow, you're not only not stupid, you're psychic, too. How long have been able to read minds?
Things are way past the point of pirating movies although this started that way. On the other hand they could rename themselves the privacy party with little ill effect.
But... the future refused to change.
Copyright needs to end.
I can't agree with that, but it certainly needs reform. Twenty years for a copyright would be OK with me, and I don't think sharing or other noncommercial use should be illegal. I think they should go back to making a copyright date on a work mandatory (it isn't because the terms are so rediculously long). I'd like the registration fees to drop back down to twenty bucks or even farther.
Copyright has been a good thing in the past, in its present form it's an abomination that hinders creativity.
Free Martian Whores!
Greens are against urbanism, therefore they won't get my vote.
How you can be against urbanism and pro-technology at the same time, I have no idea.
What we need is a party that wants to put technology and research at the center of our society, not one with reactionary ideas about being in symbiosis with nature.
What makes me sad for being a member of human race is how many people confuse opposition against copyright monopoly with just wanting to download movies and music without paying. Pirate Parties around the world are built around the same values and ideals of sharing that have driven scientific progress for over 300 years. Isn't it peculiar that those parts of our economy most responsible for past progress and most important for future progress also have the least protection of "intellectual property"?
Not buying it would be the duty. Stealing it happens because you want something that you don't have. They can be totally separated.
How about one that represents itself with an ass?
Technically, the Democrats don't use the donkey officially But even so, of course a symbol of work and determination would represent a pro-worker party. Read what I wrote earlier about donkeys.
I don't think it actually has been a good thing in the past, it just hasn't been awful enough to offset social and technological progress. The idea of copyright is a strange holdover from medieval economics, which is where privately held legal monopolies should have stayed.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Does it bother you at all that that is not at all what he said? I ask because it makes me sad to see a human being incapable of parsing a very simple piece of text.
This is the actual problem. That the MAJORITY of people these days, cannot parse factual statements, let alone analyze and cross compare them.
Plato feared that the majority of people were too stupid to be allowed to have a vote. In 2,000 years, while the amount of knowledge AVAILABLE to people has increased; sadly, the basic intelligence of people has not.
"I havenâ(TM)t received any official communication. I do not know when Iâ(TM)m supposed to begin."
Well, the Secretary-General of the European Parliament is probably a good person to call.
"Hey ... uhh ... I was elected to the Parliament a while ago and I ... uhhh ... don't know what to do now. I am sitting in my living room right now and ... ummm ... drinking a beer and I ... umm ... heard on the Internets you guys are gonna let me come there ..."
Alternately, a "joke" I heard in high school which I now question the actual accuracy of: "The intelligence of the world is constant. The population is growing."
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
I don't support Piraty Party stance on copyright and patents - I consider it to be too extreme (e.g. they want to legalize "personal" sharing, which really means any non-profit redistribution - this effectively makes copyright worthless, even if it's still on the books). Even so, I would support them, for the simple reason that they are a minority (so far, at least), and cannot bend things their way altogether. What they can do is try to balance out, or at least moderate, the other extreme that we currently have at the peak of its power - the never-ending copyright term extensions, myriads of trivial patents granted on flimsiest reasons etc.
Just keep in mind that any vote for a mainstream party, other than possibly Greens (and even then it depends on the country) is a vote for the likes of RIAA. From that perspective, tactical voting for Pirate Party makes perfect sense.
I suppose it's easy to just short-circuit to "I WANT FREE MP3S PLZ", but there really is more to it than that.
Yeah. FLAC.
I keed, I keed...
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
That would be like telling the patriots in the original Boston Tea Party that they should have just not bought the tea.
Sometimes, political acts have to be overt and transgressive.
Believe me, I have no interest in seeing Hangover 2 or Harry Potter and the Temple of Doom Part 2. Those so inclined might not be downloading them because they want to see such crap, but because they want to seed such crap, as a non-violent act of civil disobedience.
Maybe you don't agree with such a view, or civil disobedience at all, or maybe you object to the anonymity of the seeders, but surely you can understand that such an act can be a political action. It's not so different from picketing a store that has unfair labor practices. Remember, when the Freedom Riders sat down to eat in a Mississippi lunch counter, they were breaking a local law, not because that diner happened to have the best patty melts, or because they were hungry after the long drive, but because the transgressive act itself was an expression of moral outrage. In this case, seeding is like a boycott with a hard-on.
There are plenty of reasons to feel moral outrage against the RIAA and MPAA and other **AAs.
(but not the GNAA, who are a swell bunch).
You are welcome on my lawn.
True, but non-commercial copyright isn't just reduced it is gone if the Pirate Party gets their policy through. So you can't make a Harry Potter movie from the Harry Potter books without paying royalties, but sharing both the book and the movie would be fully legal. That would of course make the movie rights much less worth, so I'd say it's pretty close.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
It isn't less childish than those goons who think it makes a difference running around in suits.
About time someone points a finger at that (again).
Offended? Not at all, we love open debate! :-). And feel free to copy this text! :-)
It is rather amazing! Two members of the European Parliament; and a significant representation in Berlin, DE! Who would have thought that only a few years back? a
Stealing it happens because you want something that you don't have.
Or, in this case, copying.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
I don't think sharing or other noncommercial use should be illegal
I don't know if this would be a good thing or a bad thing, but it would lead to a rather interesting world where corporations would probably end up sharing stuff... that their competitors produce. Would be rather amusing to see a release of say Windows 8 freely patched and distributed with the authenticity and quality we expect from Apple.
That confusion is only natural when the MAFIAA equates piracy with the same level of wrongfulness that nanny staters do with "think of the children!"
maximum 5 years is a much more resonable time.
How many studioes/publishers accept a movie/book that is not likely to turn a profit within a year or at best 2?
Copyright was explicitly made to entice creators to make their works availible to the public, by giving their work certain protection, the protection itself is not the main purpose of the copyright.
That isn't an "of course" at all. The correlation might as well be the complete opposite of what you assert.
Ergo, piracy, not warfare.
One question: do you have a better solution than democracy?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
They should make copyrights non-transferable too, to avoid the situation where an artist who composed a song loses the right to play it or is simply boned by the record label on royalties.
Copyright is free, BTW, you don't have to pay anything or "register" your work. The moment you make something you own the copyright on it, although in practice you may need to create some evidence of that in order to enforce it in court at a later date.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I've been working on The Paxil Diaries since 2003, it'll be in book form soon (I need permission to add a 40 year old poem by a dead poet). You have to give the guy who's working on something by himself a little time. An author or musician who doesn't have to do anything to do but write can get a book or album done in a few months, but for those of us with a day job there just isn't enough time.
Plus, most movies take a couple of years to shoot, by the time it hits the theaters your five year limit is halfway gone. IIRC, Star Wreck - In The Pirkinning took over five years to "film" because it was all volunteer part timers making it. With a five year copyright, it would have been in the public domain before shooting was finished.
When you reach your fourth decade you'll start to realize just how short five years really is.
Free Martian Whores!
The key word in that sentence is "noncommercial".
Free Martian Whores!
They should make copyrights non-transferable too
Agreed.
to avoid the situation where an artist who composed a song loses the right to play it or is simply boned by the record label on royalties
Part of that boning is that under copyright law, phonorecords are automatically "works for hire" -- the label holds copyright.
Copyright is free, BTW, you don't have to pay anything or "register" your work.
Copyright is granted as soon as the work is "afficed in tangible form", but you can't sue anyone for infringing unless you've registered the work with the US Copyright office. The fee is $30.
Free Martian Whores!
The idea of copyright is a strange holdover from medieval economics
Nope. Wikipedia:The Middle Ages (adjectival form: medieval, mediaeval or mediæval) is a periodization of European history from the 5th century to the 15th century.
Copyright was invented after the advent of the printing press and with wider public literacy. As a legal concept, its origins in Britain were from a reaction to printers' monopolies at the beginning of the eighteenth century.
The Queen of Anne statute in Britain was enacted fully three centuries after the medeval period. It protects authors from publishers (and publishers from other publishers), who wouldn't have to pay anyone for writing. Folks would still write without copyright, but not nearly as many. I can't see how abolishing copyright could be good for society, and you don't say how you think it would be.
Free Martian Whores!
Not exactly what the pirate party stands for. Downloading copyrighted material is at best a side issue.
But, assuming that it is the "platform", well compare it to more mainstream parties (in the US or the EU) and you'll notice that these have no recognizable party program at all?
Privately held legal monopolies existed in the medieval period. Copyright is a privately held legal monopoly. There are very few places where we still allow privately held legal monopolies. The only place legal monopolies make economic sense is in utilities, since they are natural monopolies already, but most of those are state or member owned. The main exception in utilities is telecommunications, which are privately held monopolies, and if AT&T and Comcast are any indication, privately held monopolies are awful even when the business is a natural monopoly. Publicly known intangible ideas, on the other hand, are the complete opposite of a natural monopoly, and making private monopolies out of them doesn't make any sense.
Without copyright, we would likely have MORE written, and interestingly enough, a higher proportion of what is written would be informative instead of for the purposes of entertainment.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Plus, most movies take a couple of years to shoot, by the time it hits the theaters your five year limit is halfway gone. IIRC, Star Wreck - In The Pirkinning took over five years to "film" because it was all volunteer part timers making it. With a five year copyright, it would have been in the public domain before shooting was finished.
The copyright monopoly clock starts ticking AFTER you've finished.
Part of that boning is that under copyright law, phonorecords are automatically "works for hire" -- the label holds copyright.
Wrong. Big labels wish they were and they've tried several times to remove the huge legislative block which prevents them from making recordings works-for-hire but they've failed. Recordings are owned by the artist who usually assigns the copyright to the label. It's close to the recording being work-for-hire but the main difference is that the artists can change their minds 35 years after they've assigned their copyright and get their recordings back. Sit back and watch the hillarity ensue in 2013 when the 35-year term comes into effect for the first time.
There are very few places where we still allow privately held legal monopolies.
Lets see, the gas company, the electric company, the water company, the ISP... probably well over a quarter of my income goes to monopolies.
Some utilities are owned by cities or counties, but most are corporate-owned. And yes, I agree that a telcom monopoliy is awful, but not a copyright (which should be a far more limited time, life+70 years is insane). I can listen to music without buying a CD, I can read a book or watch a movie without buying one -- they're available at the local library.
What makes you think that more would be written without copyright? And although I enjoy learning, what's wrong with entertainment? I probably read twenty novels for every nonfiction book I read.
Free Martian Whores!
"Lets see, the gas company, the electric company, the water company, the ISP... probably well over a quarter of my income goes to monopolies.
Some utilities are owned by cities or counties, but most are corporate-owned"
You limited your example of legal monopolies to utilities. In my experience, electric companies are generally coops, and water companies are generally municipal owned. I don't have a gas company, so I can't speak to that. ISPs were my example of what a horrible thing happens when we have a private legal monopoly. Outside of utilities, copyright, and patents, you don't see legal monopolies too often. The only other one I can think of is the company that has a legal monopoly on cocaine in the US.
"What makes you think that more would be written without copyright?"
The evidence available seems to suggest that. It makes sense, given that it's an economically backwards policy.
"And although I enjoy learning, what's wrong with entertainment?"
Nothing in particular, but copyright tends to give entertainment works a competitive advantage, which means that copyright discourages informative literature. Part of it would be that facts aren't copyrightable. It's particularly interesting, given that the Statute of Anne's stated purpose was the 'encouragement of learning', and nonfiction tends to fit that bill better than fiction IMO.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
True, but it still is gain without compensation. Are you as comfortable with going into an art gallery and snapping photos of the art for sell?
Copyright don't start ticking until the work is published but yes small publishers ought to be able to get a limited extension say another 5 years. Since they might take longer to get things printed and distributed etc.
No 5 years is not really a long time but as I said the purpose of copyright according to the law is to give creators incentive to release the works to the public by giving them a limited monopoly on the distribution and based on the average published work it's expected to make a profit within a year(Movies and Cd's for printed books maybe a little longer), thus 5 years should be ample time to earn a reasonable profit margin.
So you see it's not whether or not 5 years is a long time or not but if it's enough time for the average work to earn a resonable profit margin.
What's commercial about taking a product that would have no legal protection and giving it away for free? Sure, it might be impolite to do it with a competitor's product, but hardly commercial.
Me? Yeah.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
One reply: can you show me a modern functioning democracy? Hint: The united states is not a democracy. Neither by function, nor by design. Right from the start, it's a republic. and it acts that way too.
I find it ironic that the career landscape painter I talk with is of the opinion that people copying his work (without misrepresenting it as being an original) only help him economically.
Who said the Pirate Party held a green position? (And for that matter, who said greens were universally "against urbanism"?)
They're currently in the Green group in the European Parliament, because they presumably were most willing to agree to vote for the Pirate Party's positions on their core issues. In return, the Pirate Party votes for the green bloc's position in other places. That's how it usually works, except that when I voted for them I knew exactly which of their issues they'd be trading in (none) and what they'd vote for in return (according to their bloc for issues outside of their agenda; I would have preferred if they wouldn't have, regardless of bloc, but I'm happy to trade it for the leverage).