Swedish Filesharers Start 'The Piracy Party' 723
sp3tt writes "Tired of being called criminals, a group of Swedish filesharers have started a new political party, The Piracy Party (Piratpartiet in Swedish). The party wants to abolish all intellectual property laws, reverse the data retention directive passed by the EU last month, and protect privacy with new laws. The party expresses no opinion on other subjects. The Piracy Party's webpage is so far only available in Swedish, at piratpartiet.se The party's goal is to get into to the parliament, which requires 4% of the votes, or roughly 225000 votes. Elections are held in September."
Immaterial? (Score:5, Insightful)
If their aim is to abolish immaterial law, then how do they reconcile that with protecting privacy? After all, that would be immaterial law, would it not?
I think this party would have much better support if they tried to reduce copyright terms to something more sensible like ~15 years, to see what affect competition with a more contemporary public domain would have on the market, before jumping headlong into abolishing copyright altogether.
Going too far, most people just want a balance (Score:4, Insightful)
Would you like to live in an anarchy? No. It'd suck because there were no rules.
Likewise this would suck.
Instead they should just be holding back on patents, fighting for fair-term copyrights (e.g., 50 years maximum), and fair-use rights (purchased music is owned and can be copied by the owner as many times, but not redistributed unless all other copies are destroyed/included in the redistribution) and to not have spyware installed on the computer regardless of how they respond to the EULA. Basically, strong limitations on what the corporations can and cannot do, and some restrictions on the users to encourage responsible behaviour.
Cute (Score:1, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:More Criminals should try this (Score:5, Insightful)
Are there really that many people, even on Slashdot, that think stealing intellectual property is not wrong?
Hopefully, most people on Slashdot are educated enough to know that "stealing intellectual property" is not even possible, by definition. (Well, maybe it is possible with some sort of memory erasing device.)
Not good marketing, but some good ideas (Score:4, Insightful)
In particular, derivative works are often the sources of significant new ideas, but the current laws make that very dangerous. Punchline: Walt Disney's stuff was highly derivative, but if a new creator tried to do the same stuff to Disney, Inc., they'd slap him in jail sooooo fast.
However, the largest abuse is probably unlimited term extension for copyright. There is almost nothing left for "society" in that area.
Wow. (Score:5, Insightful)
Err, wait a minute.
*thinks*
...
I mean, it must be absolutely awesome to live in a country where there's more than one political party.
Re:More Criminals should try this (Score:1, Insightful)
No it isn't. We got the idea from the RIAA. They have been doing it for many years.
Re:More Criminals should try this (Score:1, Insightful)
It really depends on whose intellectual property is being infringed. If it's a "faceless corporation" which has a market cap of millions, then it's perfectly acceptable to copy and distribute whatever they put out. Afterall, information wants to be FREE.
But try to violate the GPL terms, or, god forbid, try to take someone's crappy image composite (made on a pirated Photoshop) and you'll be savaged to death by hoardes of internet users who feel that their "work" is being stolen.
I don't like the RIAA, MPAA, and few other **AAs. It has mainly to do with their anti-piracy tactics and business practices, but the fact that most of us pirate content and engage in hypocricy is an undeniable fact. There is a double standard when it comes to intellectual property. Going by what I've experienced, overwhelming majority of people are in favor of protecting creator rights, it's just a matter of whose.
There's only a small minority who outright advocate "open market of ideas," which includes licensed content.
Abolish trademarks too? (Score:5, Insightful)
So, er, if trademarks and similar are abolished, how do you make sure you're voting for the real Piracy Party, and not something with the same name but vastly different policies set up as a stunt by the Swedish Anti-Piracy Bureau?
Re:Do Swede young males vote even? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, that is why they choose to call it a Parley-ment.
America's founding fathers were well aware of such a system. It was the one they were living under until independence was declared (with the caveat that they themselves were not allowed at the parley table); and so they were aware of its shortcomings and sought to obviate them. They were also well aware that they were trading one set of shortcomings for another. It's wise to remember that when the grass looks greener on the other side.
"Well, we solved that problem. Hey! Where'd that problem come from?"
All that said it's true that I have never had a representative in government, in the truest sense of the word, not one, in my entire life. Nor do I ever expect to have one. Under a parliamentary system I might well have someone who at least represents me in some focused issue or other.
KFG
Good but regressive. (Score:2, Insightful)
--
United Bimmer - BMW Enthusiast Community [unitedbimmer.com]
Re:More Criminals should try this (Score:5, Insightful)
Theft is any time that someone acquires property from someone without their permission.
From Webster: Steal v. t. "To take, and carry away, feloniously; to take without right or leave, and with intent to keep wrongfully; as, to steal the personal goods of another."
How exactly can I carry away so called intellectual property? Do do so (rather than to copy it and carry away a copy) requires that I deprive the original "owner" of that property. Making a copy of a dollar bill is not called stealing, it is called counterfeiting. Making a copy of a copyrighted book without permission is not called stealing. It is called copyright infringement. Knowingly violating a patent is not called stealing. It is called patent violation (or patent infringement). Passing off another's work as my own is not stealing. It is called plagiarism. Buy a dictionary already.
If a teenager stole my car every night and when joyriding but brought in back every morning before I left for work I would still consider it stealing.
...but you'd probably be wrong. They may have illegally borrowed your car, but if they intend to return it, it is not stealing, unless you count them keeping it for a time as "keeping it." In any case, copying something is not stealing it. That is why we have different words for different things. It makes these distinctions clear.
No copyright == no GPL too! (Score:5, Insightful)
The downside of their proposal is that it is extremely profitable for big business, more so then for occasional filesharers. If there is no copyright, businesses will be able to rip of any Linux distro and sell it as their own (or any other piece of copyrighted work). This will rearrange the playingfield, but the ones with lots of money to invest have a big advantage here.
Copyright is a double edged sword: it protects the big evil business taking advantage of musicians and authors, but also protects independent musicians and authors from the big evil companies (if they are smart enough not to sign all their rights over for a cheap meal and a record deal).
Re:Two questions: (Score:1, Insightful)
Most kids don't know how to write proper compound words anymore.
A sentence like "En svarthårig sjuksköterska" - "A black-haired nurse" is nowadays often written like
"En svart hårig sjuk sköterska" , wich actually means -"A black, hairy, sick, nurse"
Re:The Bodström Shield (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:More Criminals should try this (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:More Criminals should try this (Score:2, Insightful)
You make that statement in a way which seems to suggest that you think ideas are a form of property. The property system was invented to solve one very specific problem; physical objects can not generally be used by lots of people simultaneously, or often even consecutively. Applying notions designed to deal with property to things which do not have this restriction is stupid, it's trying to solve a problem which does not exist.
Or in this case, stealthily substituting a completely different set of concerns (the "right" to make profit), and hoping nobody will notice.
Why do you think none? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Going too far, most people just want a balance (Score:5, Insightful)
Only if they have never written a letter, posted on a message board, taken a photograph, made a sketch...
Re:That Long, Long List of Great Swedish Musicians (Score:2, Insightful)
Albeit that's a very superficial set, and personal tastes are not at hand here, they have plenty of output for a country of their size. And if you dig into the real cultural contributions - those more under the radar which cultural trends tend to follow - Sweden stands out among a select few places which conitinue to have significant impact on the rest of the world. Germany, Chicago, New York, Brazil, and Japan are others which come to mind.
Disclaimer: I was born there and am still a citizen, but my family moved away at a very young age and I currently live in the US.
Re:Do Swede young males vote even? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's funny how we preach democracy while working so hard to deny people choices and quash minority representation.
Re:Lost you sense of humor over the Holidays? (Score:3, Insightful)
They could just be testing the water, this sort of thing might catch on with other small parties.
Both sides are somewhat wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
I know, I'm the only person on Slashdot who feels that both sides in this issue are somewhat wrong, so please feel free to flame me.
They have my vote. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Going too far, most people just want a balance (Score:3, Insightful)
If I copy your school paper, what sort of damages are you going to seek? Statutory? Nope, you can't get that unless you register your copyright before the infringement occurs. Legal fees? Sorry, can't get that either. All you can seek is loss of income - how much income would me copying that paper cost you?
Yes, it's copyrighted, but it will never be enforced. Even a grocery list that you right is copyrighted, but when was the last time you saw a grocery list copyright case in the courts? The amount of people with copyrights that they'd ever enforce, if they even knew about them, is a small percentage of the population.
Re:Two questions: (Score:5, Insightful)
Think about the english noun "water tap". Notice that it's just that - a noun. If "water" was an adjective, then it would be an adjective and a noun; but it isn't, since if it was, it would make sense to say things like "the tap is water". The first word in "rusty tap", however, Is an adjective.
Though English puts spaces in nouns, it doesn't usually put spaces in adjectives (it's written "able-bodied man" instead of "able bodied man"). I guess that would just be too confusing..
To sum it up, English puts spaces in its nouns. Most other germanic languages don't. Who's being weird? =)
Re:More Criminals should try this (Score:3, Insightful)
"Your speculation is true - the founder is an extreme capitalist that views legal monopolies as unbalanced between the state and
the monopoly owner; the state is handing out monopolies like candy, getting nothing (or even negative value) in return. No
business would agree to exclusivity like that, ever.
Signed, the founder (and leader) of Piratpartiet"
i.e. - the reason a loss occurs is because of a state enforced ruling.
It is as if a law was passed requiring town criers (who knew sign language or something - imagine equal access law gone wild) to have any conversation in a municipal space. Your decision to talk about stuff without using the crier would be both illegal and a theft of potential earnings.
Of course, both of these are only in the context of the law that made it possible.
One could point out that copyright law was created to benefit artists - however one could also point out that isn't what is happening now, and there were and still are ways to profit as an artist with or without copyright law.
Re:Both sides are somewhat wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
You are not alone at all; I would bet nearly everyone on here believes that a record company, providing a valuable service for which they make money, and one that supports their artists, is not an intrinsically bad thing.
However, those same record companies under the aegis of the RIAA strongly believe that suing grandparents is right and just; they strongly believe that the copyright term is still nowhere near as long as it should be; and they vehemently believe that intellectual property copying is precisely the same thing, morally and practically, as physical theft of goods (but with far higher penalties, natch).
So this is not a contradiction at all - its just that the record companies you are speaking of are vanishingly small and very unpopular. None of the Big Four subscribe to your opinion. In the end you only agree with them in the most basic sense: that artists should profit from work. After that the practicalities deviate to such a degree that it is easier for your typical Slashdotter to simply say down with the record companies, lets replace them with something better.
Better yet.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I created a new party... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm even using the same name.... The Piracy Party.
And there's not a damn thing they can do about it.
Re:Two questions: (Score:3, Insightful)
When I voiced this same opinion some time back I got modded into the ground, then spit on.
While I'm Anglo, and can get by en Francais, speak enough Viet and Thai to be able to order food and be pleasant, and am trying to learn Cantonese (my wife hates it when I try to speak Guangdong-wha, says I sound vietnamese :) ) , my wife was born in Canton, China. They then moved to Lima, Peru. The whole family learned spanish to survive. They then moved the kids up here to the USA (so that Shining Path rebels wouldn't kidnap them for ransom) and they all learned English as well.
Even though she speaks fluent Castillian Spanish better than 90% of native south americans, (and grammatically better English than 95% of most Americans), she gets pissed at the other immigrants that refuse to learn English.
Here in Tampa Bay, Florida, it is ridiculous. Hillsborough County had to hire extra spanish-speaking employees for the 911 call center, as well as various other [tampagov.net] emergency services. So here we are, footing the bill for immigrants to be able to NOT assimilate into our (and by 'our', I mean every 'American', not just us 'whiteys') country.
Re:No copyright == no GPL too! (Score:3, Insightful)
One thing did just dawn on me that makes your statement even stranger - you're saying that the people who defend copyrights don't create copywritten works. If this is the case, these are the people who have the most to gain by the elimination of copyrights, yet they defend them? If they were content creators, and really believed in your personal system for getting speaking engagements or selling tickets, they could exercise it right now in our current environment, and do even better due to the lack of competition from others using this same system! Maybe your whole stance is only against the RIAA-type cartels, but these do not force anyone to join them, and it's just getting easier to publish/produce without them.
Re:Both sides are somewhat wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess I'm the only one on Slashdot who thinks it's reasonable for record labels to want to make some money.
Nope, I certainly don't think it is wrong for them to want money. I just don't see what valuable service they provide that they should have the right to be given money. Artists make art and should be paid for it. The RIAA has colluded to take over all the major distribution channels for music. As such they force artists to give up their copyrights in order to be heard. This is unethical and most likely illegal. Artists should be paid for their works. Promoters and advertisers should be paid for their advertising. Investors should be paid for their initial capital. Shipping companies should be paid to move goods. Retail outlets should be paid for their retail space and sales force. The RIAA should die, as they provide nothing to benefit anyone. The majority of artists in the US who sign with the RIAA actually have to pay for the privilege and try to make money on concerts and merchandise. When artists are paid negative money for their intellectual property, the system is fundamentally broken. I'd like to see severely decreased copyright durations, and a stipulation that only the original artist(s) can hold copyright to works. I'd also like to see enforced, percentage based minimum royalties on artistic works and the RIAA banned from collusion for their past illegal price fixing. If they want money, let them actually provide a service instead of building a barrier. Toll bridges are fine, so long as they are not over artificially created chasms between your home and your workplace.
Not a smorgasbord (Score:3, Insightful)
It is probably just a publicity stunt, just in the past few months two much more likely contenders for parliament (a EU sceptic party and a feminist party) fizzled in record time on grounds of not having a political line in all areas of politics (well, you can argue that they fizzled because they were clowns, and that probably contributed, but still). You can't run for parliament without having an opinion on taxes, school, healthcare, benefits and stuff. People do vote with their wallets and even if they find these issues important, they are not going to compromise day care for their kids or whatever is on top of their shopping list for that.
IPR is an issue of uttermost importance on the margin.
Voting for parliament is not a smorgasbord, it is set menues!
Re:Do Swede young males vote even? (Score:3, Insightful)
But, that 'tyranny of the minority' can often serve as a ameliator of bad policies that the majority wants to enact. It forces compromise, and cautious action, which is generally A Good Thing, IMO.
yup, we have two right wing parties (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:No copyright == no GPL too! (Score:2, Insightful)
In the video game industry, there are TONS of artists who just get a salary (and bonuses, stock options, etc.) They have given away, before the fact, the copyright to all of their beautiful digital imagery. Also true with sound effects, and music made to hire for video games. So we already have structures in place for paying artists who don't get copyright to their work.
Of course, the video game scheme is also founded on copyright. If a production house could go and steal the images and ideas from their favorite competitor, they could cut a lot of the art direction budget of video games, movies, etc. Oh wait. They already do that. What are we saving with the present copyright scheme?
What about novels? How is a novelist, a good one writing worthwhile stuff, supposed to earn the money, and the time, to write more? What does a world look like where all the market-driven 3rd-grade-reader-level crap has fallen away? I am not convinced that the present Oprah made-for-TV novel market is particularly conducive to good writing, or particularly beneficial to good writers. I have some favorite authors who are writing today, and I wouldn't want to take away their livelihood. But I suspect there are more good writers who gave up on the cheez-o market, and stopped writing. The artificial bottlenecks, the content monopoly, the capital-intensive machine that runs, I sh8t you not, the world of ideas. How broken can you get?
Artists, presently making money, don't want the rug pulled out from under them. They have a way of life. They have traditions, and institutions, which have produced glorious stuff. I can see no way forward, away from tight copyright, that would keep them completely safe.
Of course, it's easy for me to write them off. I am more of the embittered, untalented wannabe who never made any money from art. But the real, paid artists have a lot to lose if we tip the apple cart over. The plantation owners of the southern United States were in a similar predicament, when those pesky northerners pulled down their entire system of wealth. They were screwed, royally. Nowadays, we think of emancipation as a step forward. I do think that somewhere in the Star Trek future, people will think it's disgusting that we used to try to "own" ideas.