Swedish Pirate Party Wins Two One Seat In EU Parliament
from the thanks-to-the-Pirate-Bay-verdict dept
In yet another sign that the entertainment industry's "winning" verdict in the trial of The Pirate Bay was anything but a victory, the surge in voters signed up to be a part of Sweden's Pirate Party was enough to elect
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: elections, eu parliament, pirate party, sweden
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
As the political landscape evolves...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
With how the entertainment industry lobbies, we need a voice that's the complete opposite, to end up somewhere in the middle.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Since PP stole the whole media show they also managed to keep the xenophobic party Sverigedemokraterna out, which I'm very thankful for. In other countries those types of parties often use the EU election as a stepping point towards entering the national parliament. In a desperate attempt the leader of Sverigedemokraterna even wrote an article with the title: "I'm a file sharer". :D
I too hate the party name, but I also realize that they probably wouldn't have been were there are today without that name and all media attention that it attracted. Somebody once said: "I'd rather vote for a party with a silly name than a party with silly political ideas".
One can also note that some of the big parties misjudged the voters when they tried to talk about political issues that are not decided by the European Parliament in their election campaigns. At the same time both of the two biggest parties in Sweden (plus/minus some minor changes) support the laws making it possible for a civil authority to tap into all electronic communication crossing the borders of Sweden.
The Pirate Party's top candidate is a former anti-software patent EU activist for FFII. I hope he'll be the one who gets the seat in the parliament (the votes for individual candidates won't be finished until Wednesday).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Just curious, what would you not agree with?
(if you are uncertain of PP's stance in some question feel free to ask)
I get the impression that the main purpose with writing something like that is to not get tainted by the "pirate" word even though you seem to support most of their ideas. For example I know that Chris Andersson was advised against using the pirate word because of the way he could be perceived if he did, even though he had no trouble with the word himself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wow
As for the "civil rights" argument....please. Let's be honest and not academic for a minute: some people don't want to pay for content and, to make that work, some people create a belief construct that they shouldn't have to pay for it. That they cloak it in a privacy or "civil rights" context just reveals that they kinda know that what they're doing is likely breaking some laws. I agree that there are real privacy issues involved here...but most of those engaging in this activity could give a rat's patoot about that.
That they can get a seat shows the folly of the Swedish political process and the EU. The two party system in the US is pretty bad, very stagnant and presents only shades of gray (I so wish we had a viable third party to represent the 70% of folks in the middle). But the parliamentary seat-slicing approach leads to results that are as stupid, but less predictable. And so it goes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Why do you hate the name?
I think the name is great - it is not boring, it is understandable, it's got a bit of an edge.
It is necessary for the name to be a bit controversial. Why?
1. The first goal of a party like that should be to change how so called 'piracy' is perceived by general public. What would be a better start than to call yourself a pirate?
2. In EU there is some minimal limit you need to pass to get to the parliament - it is usually 4 or 5 percent. And it is not like in the US - there are hundreds of parties who are trying to get to the parliament so media people are usually only interested in those parties who are already in the parliament. And people usually vote only those parties they know about... from media. So here is a pickle.
And there is the only way to have a shot... you need to get some attention - any attention. Some anger against you from people who hate those who 'want to steal movies from the internet' is better then nothing. At least at the beginning you need as much controversy as you can get.
I am from the Czech Republic and there is a new Pirate party being formed right now. They are going to try this autumn - we have elections to our national parliament. And to have interesting program is not enough - I think their only chance is to find as much ways to let people know about their existence as they can. I am only sorry that when they were designing their logo they picked some boring "P" over good old Jolly Roger.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I worry that the advice of a so called "Pirate Party" may not be enough to swing things dramatically, however it's existence is, well, quite foretelling of youth involvement and their desire to provide a sovereign future for their own offspring.
Yes, it's quite possible that this promise of a "New World Order" may not go thru this time around, that sovereign nations will remain as such, and we'll have to deal with our neighbors, and work within the bounds of our already accepted practices throughout, well, this lifetime.
I always wondered what a Deutsche Marke looked like. However, t's too bad I will not see them when I visit in September. (Tickets are booked). I suppose there's a somewhat sadness that persists when you realize your country has given up a part of it's heritage. Usually something cultural, historical, ethical, or otherwise is given up, typically for monetary gain.
Perhaps I can imagine what a DM is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Wow
Like these people protesting outside the parliament against the wire-tapping laws you mean?
Come on! Of course the broad surveilance/wire-tapping laws has been a major factor in PP being able to gather this much support.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: As the political landscape evolves...
Poles... lol. It's polls. Duh.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Will they keep it?
The fact is that the EU has been very good for supporting the more moderate voices against copyright expansion/3-strikes laws, so is the party's position really needed?
But they've clearly gained a lot of momentum from the PB trail. It will be interesting to see if they can sustain it through to re-election.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I mean party members could say the name with impunity, but how would newscasters report on them? How would their names show up on ballots?
It would certainly be something to see...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Wow
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Will they keep it?
Really? So why did the European Parliament then recently support a copyright extension of 20 years? (and this was a compromise - the original proposal was for an extension of 45 years)
If the EP is against 3-strikes laws then why does the Telecoms Package mention "lawful content"?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Wow
You, a dinosaur like those blind fools in the entertainment industry, are unwilling to think or engage new ideas. Nature has proven time and time again that those who fail to adapt die out.
Time is on *our* side. With luck, enough people like yourself will die peacefully of old age before they do any real damage so others, better suited for the task, can step up and do what needs to be done.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
So much for content
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Will they keep it?
Words like lawful content would unfortunately but easily be glossed over in a multi-page letter such as the telecom package.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: So much for content
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bad name?
"Barack Hussein Obama" insanely bad name for anyone running for just about any political office in the USA. If it wasn't real life, and someone wrote a book about guy with that name getting elected president, I think the book would be criticized for being unrealistic. So far, almost one-third of all comments discuss the "bad name" issue. IMHO, including "Pirate" in the name will ensure that the MSM puts out a lot more stories about it. This may be a case where the old saying, "There's no such thing as bad publicity," might be true.
Rick Falkvinge, the founder of the Swedish Pirate Party, gave a talk at Google entitles "Copyright regime vs. civil liberties" (click here to see video). Essentially, he said that the PP has two issues: patent & copyright reform. The PP doesn't care about welfare, health care, defense spending, or any of the other typical political issues. So, he also doesn't care which party he joins into a coalition with. If he can keep increasing his share of the vote, at some point he'll get to play "Who wants to be prime minister?" It seems to me that things are going according to plan.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Wow
I will try and provide an alternative perspective on why this *is* an important topic.
The metaphysical issue at stake is whether or not a single person can legitimately lay claim to ownership of an idea. Whether that idea is a song, or the concept of a four wheeled vehicle driven by an internal combustion engine, all of society is hurt if one person is allowed to make an exclusive claim on the concept.
Monopoly rights encourage laziness, stagnation, and insensitivity to consumer needs and wants. This is why competition is such a highly valued concept in so much of the world. It makes no sense that competition be restricted in certain industries and not in others. It makes no sense that a television show has to pay performance rights for the songs that are played during the show, but no royalty to the designers of the clothes that are worn.
There is no substantive difference between the effort required to write a song and that required to design a lovely dress.
Since 2004 I have worked for and with post-bubble early-stage tech companies and their investors. The chilling effects of IP maximalists on innovation and entrepreneurship is tangible.
It is practically impossible for a startup to obtain funding these days without a patent or at the very least a patent application. This has two effects: a) suppressing good business ideas that because they are un-patentable will stimulate competition and be good for the economy, and b) the filing of bogus or marginally valid patent applications that once granted suppress competition which would be good for the economy.
Although it is clearly a matter of opinion, some of us feel that the metaphysical question of idea ownership is one of the most critical questions of this coming century.
I would suggest that the US government agrees since it classified the IP treaty that it is working on as a state secret. It is very likely that highly placed officials in the US government feel that IP "ownership" is one of the last industries in which the US has a fighting chance of maintaining hegemony. It is possible that "IP" is the new "oil" in the eyes of the D.C. think tanks, and is perceived as key to national security as oil was in the last century. Certainly US government behavior seems to support this, and definitely does not contradict this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Bad name?
Not a statement easily understood by people with no experience in coalition governments.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: So much for content
Now I see evolution coming, not opression that you seem to think is in the works. Dont feel to bad, change is a big fear that many people suffer from...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: So much for content
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Wow
BobinBaltimore, I have no doubt that description applies to some people in this debate, but even last month there was a new study in Norway (interviewing 1600 people) that concluded file sharers are 10 times more likely to buy "legal" music online than those who do not make "ilegal" downloads. This isn't about buyers vs downloaders, they are one and the same. They are consumers and fans that often want to hear something before they buy, or are dissastisfied with prices or the current legal offerings, can't afford all the content they want, etc. The fact that there is "piracy" serves as an excuse to the producers of content to ignore market forces. They live under the illusion that a lot more people would be buying their content if not for file sharing, while that is not necessarly true.
Plus, the fact that people might defend something for their own self interest does not disqualify their arguments. Otherwise the same could be used against people arguing for social security, universal health care, unemployment subsidies, lower taxes, etc, etc. Just about every issue in politics!
The western civilization once had lofty ideals about universal access to culture, knowledge and information. Ideals which gave us libraries. The US founding fathers where no exception. They setup a system where the default for creative works was the public domain (anyone can copy and publish at will). Creators that wanted a commercial monopoly on their works, had to register them, and only got 14 years. Now that we have this thing called the internet, that removed scarcicities on the making and distribuiton of copies, we can finally get much much closer to the ideal of universal access than anyone ever dreamed of. And without goventment funding! Yet some people don't want us to use it, just to protect their current business models! It's insane and a terrible shame if we go down that road. Just like it would have been a shame if we had allowed the "rights owners" to strangle radio broadcasting at birth!
I'm all for creators getting a share of commercial use of their works, even a share of the advertising from file sharing webistes (just like radio). Or even maybe a share of ISP revenue. But pursuing individual users sharing files "non-proffit", trampling over their privacy and freedoms in the process, is insane. It will only drive them fruther and fruther underground, and generate resentment towards big commercial enttities (like the major labels) and political backlash. And in the meantime not one penny more goes to the creators.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Wow
I have to disagree on the comment that "western civilization once had lofty ideals about universal access to culture, knowledge and information." I agree that there are aspects to some elements (specific nations, religions, etc) that held and still hold these lofty ideals. But western civ also has a history of substantially limiting information flow based on class, religion, gender, race, language and such. The Enlightenment broke through a lot of these, but was still much more about the upper classes than the whole of society. The trickle-down effect did occur, but it took centuries. There have been lots of burnings, hangings, excommunications and shunnings resulting from the "incorrect" flow of information or - worse - information which was at variance from the norm or from doctrine. Within the last 100 years (especially the last 50) universal access to information has become more the norm, but it is still deeply entangled in politics and class. Just think of the substantially leftist campuses in Western Europe and North America which make it difficult even today to espouse, much less further, any competing point of view.
And I definitely take your point on the defense of self-interest not being disqualifying. Thanks for that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Wow
And I am wholly open to debate, which is why I bothered to post as a (partially) dissenting voice. It's very easy to post in agreement with everyone and accept the mutual affirmations. The tough part is disagreeing, but trying to maintain a bit of an open mind while the arrows fly.
If you read my initial post carefully, my point isn't that this stuff is bogus or worthless, just that on a relative basis, my opinion is that it is not a top political priority for the world in context today. Nor is this election a watershed moment...it's a blip. Time will tell, though.
As for your conclusions about my unwillingness to "think or engage in new ideas"...couldn't be further from what I demonstrate every day in my life and work. But you COULDN'T know that, which is why your SHOULDN'T personalize posts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I wish I could say the same about the Netherlands. :(
Here the biggest winner was the xenophobic (well rather islamophobic) party PVV (ironically they are called Party for the freedom, they just don't mention whose freedom.) Very anti-everything.
I wonder how well they fair when they find out there is no interruption microphone, thus they can't do their hit-n-run tactics they are used to doing here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Law Wikis
The law that would make this happen in the US would never pass (till more techs get into government anyway) because it would hold everyone accountable (the horror) for adding things to bills. But it would almost be worth doing so we can actually get real information on what our congress people are doing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Wow
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Wow
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Economic problem? Get rid of copyright!
Military action needed? Get rid of copyright!
Need to protect poor people? Get rid of copyright!
Excellent ideas.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Wow
There is nothing base about desiring free content.
There is something horribly base about denying free acess to content to an impoverished Two-thirds world in order to uphold the copyrights of greedy thought merchants who believe they OWN every idea that they or their business partners come up with.
There is something horribly base about not only upholding, but enforcing with severe penalties a collection of monopolies, which have resulted in massive mis-allocation of the market's resources in the midst of a global economic crisis. If we are to believe the numbers put out by the IP enforcers themselves, then we're talking hundreds of billions of dollars that could have been far better spent.
Instead, it goes to ensure the creation of such high art as the litanies of Britney Spears and Hannah Montana.
There is something oppressively base about telling me, an American citizen, which concepts and ideas I may and may not share, modify, and benefit from as I see fit in the land of the free and the home of the fat and wealthy.
Obviously the very question of liberty is going on in Sweden, sir!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Wow
In these economically hard times restoring proper copyright and patent laws may be the most important political movement there is, as the stimulation of ideas almost always leads to weallth sooner or later.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: So much for content
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Considering the drastic economic development impact that the free flow of information could have in two-thirds world countries, your third point is also well taken.
In fact it's suddenly hard to tell for certain whether you were really intending to sound sarcastic.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Congrats to the Pirate Party, tomorrow you will rule the world!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Wow
I'd argue that civil rights, freedom of speech, privacy and innovation are all incredibly important topics. Why would you say otherwise?
As for the "civil rights" argument....please. Let's be honest and not academic for a minute: some people don't want to pay for content and, to make that work, some people create a belief construct that they shouldn't have to pay for it.
Yes. That's absolutely true. And SOME PEOPLE believe strongly in freedom of speech and civil rights.
Who are you to dismiss them because they also attract those you describe?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
No one is arguing that it gives them power. But it is a milestone.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Don't you think a lot of newspapers will write about the party and that people will ask "who are these guys and what do they really want?". Don't you think political analysts will highlight the fact that maybe the public wasn't so forgiving about the wire-tapping laws as politicians believed (the Swedish prime minister said a year ago that everyone would benefit if there was less debate and in a later statement he implied that the issues would later be forgotten by voters). Hopefully we will get more debate around IP and civil rights issues. It should be noted that the german pirate party also got a relatively strong support. It's not impossible that they too get a seat in the next election. The Swedish green party almost doubled compared to last election and they have a very similar political program to that of the Pirate Party. The green group in the EU also grows considerably and they seem to understand these issues better than others.
Anyway, the most important thing is to raise awareness and get people to discuss these issues.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
My father fought for freedom during WW2 and I will not forget that legacy. The creeping dictatorial powers being sought by both the EU and national governments need to be fought tooth and nail.
It is great to see that today's youth sense this attack on freedom - which is something their pampered parents do not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow
You're mixing a whole lot of concepts in your response, some of which I agree with (challenge of global monopolies with regard to developing countries) and some which smack of anti-corporate paranoia (telling "me...which concepts and ideas I may and may not share...") that have some basis in reality, but are too often extended to outright paranoia.
I don't disagree that there are those with noble intent on these matters, broadly thought and seriously applied to important issues of access to critical society-building and economy-building ideas, educational content and such, with an aim toward moving humanity forward. But the reality is that there are an equal or greater number who just want free songs and movies. It is the latter that confuses and debases the former.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Wow
As for civil rights, freedom of speech, privacy and innovation being important, I agree. However, just because an argument is clothed in civil rights or freedom of speech language, does not mean that they necessarily are. There are many actors in these causes who have extended much more mundane issues into these areas without (in my opinion) a decent foundation solely to give their cause the appearance of weight and import. This is not a-typical of emergent political causes, but it's also something that can't be ignored.
My comments were most specifically directed at the important of the seat one and the movement-of-the-moment, which I don't believe has "legs" due to the challenges and contradictions of a large chunk of supported/advocates.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Wow
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: So much for content
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: So much for content
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Wow
Oh, of course. Now I understand why you have the right to tell everyone else that their stance and opinion is worthless and unnecessary. Because you "think" so.
You're right, you have no stats to back it up, so please shut your mouth.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow
I agree, your nationality doesn't disqualify you from having an opinion. The very same nationality didn't disqualify me. It did, however cast reasonable doubt on the validity of your having actually observed directly the political culture of Sweden as you so boldly asserted.
Even so, rather than call you a liar, I simply asked. You then side-stepped the question and played it like some gross personal attack, "GASP! I can't believe he suggested that my unsupported claim was unsupported!" Well then whatever, in that case I'll bite. Based upon the evasive misdirection in your response, I'm now willing to bet you don't know Sweden from your elbow, and while you're perfectly entitled to your opinion, it's clear you've never observed anything in that country upon which to base that opinion.
Now, did you really mean to reply to me or are you happy just inventing a fictional value system for me like you did the good people of Sweden? I ask because you pegged me WAY WRONG, buddy. My degree is in business, I am a die-hard capitalist, and I have no problems whatsoever with corporations. I am in fact an officer in one, and I think they're truly necessary economic vehicles.
It's absurd to me that you so quickly assume that because I'm anti-copyright then I must be some basement dwelling hippie who hates and fears the man.
As for paranoia, there's nothing irrational or deluded about calling a spade a spade. I'm not spouting off about what might happen if we coast off a slippery slope. Our actual liberties have already been eroded over and over by ever more restrictively interpreted intellectual property laws. This trend has specifically impacted our freedom of expression.
Or what do you think copyright is? It's the right to copy and distribute "works," which has now been extended from printed materials to include software, business models, and even right now there are proposals in our congress to extend it to fashion design - we're talking about concepts - ideas that exist in ether are being granted to both corporations AND individuals as property. It's not paranoid to say that's wrong. It's not paranoid to point out that such monopolies impair the proper functioning of the market and wrongly restrict our natural freedoms.
If you're okay with it, fine. But it's not paranoid for me to look at what plainly is and say, I don't like it. Take paranoia and shove it up your "washed or unwashed masses".
"But the reality is that there are an equal or greater number who just want free songs and movies. It is the latter that confuses and debases the former."
So the people who want to exercise liberty are somehow less noble than those who simply pontificate about it? Or do you mean to say that film and music are less important art forms than literature or paintings?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Last I heard Sweden was going broke trying to support all it's social programs.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Wow
And yes it IS some sort of noble deal. People want art. They want film. They want literature. They want to be able to copy, modify, and distribute software and business models and books and practical inventions.
Two-thirds of them can't afford breakfast and their economies are on oxygen and their ability to recover is squeezed off by restrictive policies (quickly becoming global policies) on copying and sharing protected information.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Wow
Observation - you keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Let's make it super simple for you: Socialism is state-controlled production. Copyrights are a form of state-controlled production. Being anti-copyright is actually totally capitalistic.
Freakin' commies!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow
@hegemon13 - I've never said anyone's views aren't valid, useful or important. I have said the opposite, that important views in the topic area are too often dragged down by less important scrounging for free stuff. I'm sorry if my point of view makes you uncomfortable. And given that most of TechDirt is based on opinion, I think I'll ignore your advice to shut-up. Good day.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Exactly how do you link IP-rights (if we limit the Pirate Party's program to that) to a socialist state, extreme or otherwise? I'd really like to know.
And for your information: Sweden is not "an extremely socialistic nanny state". As far as socialistic goes, Sweden is quite similar to the U.S. Some differences to be sure but those are a matter of degree and not of kind (I'm a Swede by birth, and lived in the U.S. for ten years and they're remarkably similar in most respects).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow
And who knows? Your hunch is probably right. But it's beside the point, too.
I would like to deconstruct your statement:
"I'm simply saying that this topic, with real substantive issues at its core, has been co-opted by folks who are less interested in rights and freedoms and more interested in free stuff."
I don't really see the difference here. What exactly are you arguing when you say that people don't want freedom, they just want the benefits of freedom? Is it somehow more noble when they want it for others than when they want it for themselves?
In some of the things you've written, you almost sound like you agree with the natural rights of people to copy, distribute and modify the works of others. In other places you disclaim it as mundane or base for reasons of self-interest.
I agree there is significant self-interest involved on all sides. In fact I applaud it. I think capitalism is great. I just think everyone should get the same access to play.
Copyright prevents that. It's no different than feudal lords laying claim to all of the land occupied by their subjected serfs. They own the land, and the people simply work on it. Shame on anyone who thinks they should benefit materially from the produce of the land of their lord.
It's the same today for software, literature, movies, business models, music, (and soon it seems for fashion). Nevermind that there is simply no such thing as an original work, that as Solomon said, there is nothing truly new under the sun. Nevermind that art only exists in patterns, in repetition - that there is no meaning in the variation without the construct of the pattern, the repetition, the convention - that innovation is nothing more than the by-product of differently copying.
Do I believe that artists should be able to fairly market their art? Absolutely. I just don't believe that it should be at the expense of the natural rights of anyone who comes along to copy it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
That is pretty darn socialistic, no?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
AND in fact if you NEVER distribute your idea, then it most certainly stays your own, presumably (I highly recommend trying it.)
The problem is that once you share your idea with me. It becomes mine, not by any socio-political design (like in socialism), but by the nature of how ideas are exchanged. I simply can't take your idea into my head, without making it my own. No matter how much it looks to you like I've copied perfectly, from my view it's a little bit different. It can be difficult to acknowledge this because the natural response of your ego is to see yourself in everything, including seeing your ideas in my experience and reiteration of them.
The downside to this is that it tends to confuse communication a little because I can never decode your thoughts exactly as you encoded them.
The upside is that I also can never really steal your idea because I will always experience it in a slightly different way even if I am viewing or listening to an exact copy.
So no, your creation doesn't instantly become my property. That's just an ego-optical illusion.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow
But seriously, my take is that there is a balance where copyrights and patents play a role in protecting very real investment and ensuring that artists, inventors and creators can make a living from their work. I have heard all the contention that they could without copyrights as well, but I don't buy it, not when exercised on a national/global scale. But I totally agree that those rights have gotten out of hand and been extended (both in length of term and breadth of encapsulation) beyond economically and legally defensible limits. I especially agree that government intrusion on behalf of private interests has gone too far. I agree that these areas are in desperate need of reform, but not wholesale elimination. Am I doing okay so far?!?
Going back to today's post about some politics in Sweden, my original point - long since lost here - was that what drove the political support for this election may be less about concern over rights and privacy and more about wanting some free stuff. And I contend that it IS this support that drives these causes elsewhere. No, I'm not commenting on the "nobility" of points of view. Heck, I like free stuff, too. And the support the Free Stuffers provide may help the important causes at hand, at least for a short period of time. But I don't agree that this marks a watershed moment in the global cause relating to the issues at hand. Time will tell.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow
Oh indeed copyrights protect their investments, but I would argue that in most cases, these artists, inventors, and creators have over-invested if they based their evaluation on the protection provided by copyrights and other IP laws. In many other cases they have under-invested and worked well short of a level of investment that might have provided them a living without a copyright, if that living weren't artificially bolstered by copyright. Whether or not an artist can or will make a living at their art is immaterial. If it is worthy, then they will make it, and probably we would all benefit all the more if they contributed to the economy via a regular job as well until their art could support them.
My chief economic question is more fundamental. Is the kind of art and invention and other works that are produced in a copyright-based society really the kind we want?? Because most of what I see and hear looks cheap. Not cheaply bought, but cheaply invested, cheaply suffered for, cheaply made. Is the free stuff that your downloaders are free-stuffing really worth all the hubbub about people wanting free stuff?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: As the political landscape evolves...
Poles... lol. It's polls. Duh.
Maybe he really meant "at the poles". Maybe you can't depend on them to get up and go out when it's really cold out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Wow
When has Techdirt ever said such a right existed?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
"No, because you didn't actually create anything. You just copied things differently. (You really aren't God, you know.)"
Oh geez. Really, really deep. Let me guess, a Psychology Major? There is no god, get over it. Big bang, thanks much. Man creates things every day (in the immortal words of the late George Carlin "If you nail together two things that have never been nailed together before, some schmuck will buy it from you"). Writing a song, creating art, discovering a new compound, etc. We create things that otherwise don't exist every day.
The rest of your post is crap, existential horse manure for the ages.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"IP rights (specifically the idea of removing all IP rights) is very socialistic. You create something, and immediately everyone owns it. All knowledge and all content and all materials of any sort become common goods the moment they are brought into existance.
That is pretty darn socialistic, no?"
Not really. You might have had a point if the Pirate Party (since this discussion involves them) had advocated the removal of IP rights. They don't. They, among other things, advocate reforming IP rights. If one removes what you put in parenthesizes, your claim makes no sense. If there is (as it is in most countries) a IP-right, it by default would NOT belong to everyone as soon as you create it. IP-rights, copyright and patents especially, explicitly grants the owner a monopoly.
Going back to the Pirate Party and their ideas for reform...it involves how long an IP-right owner has the commercial monopoly of whatever he or she created (there's more to it than that though).
For example, if I write a novel the plot, characters, and what not in it will always belong to me even if the ideas of the Pirate Party would be accepted whole-sale. That is, none should be able to take credit for it except me. Credit where credit is due really. Others would be allowed to build upon it though (assuming it's good enough that anyone would want to...) or make derivatives of it.
Which is as it should be, since my book would build upon what others had done before me - consciously or otherwise. In the words of John Donne..."No man is an island", and neither is any works of man. And that holds whether the work in question is music, a novel, computer software, science, buisness methodologies, or something else. It always builds on something else.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow
And then you had the audacity to actually question Bob on it! Don't you know that you're never supposed to question Bob? Heretic!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
That is pretty darn socialistic, no?
No. Not even close. What you're thinking is socialistic is *communal* ownership -- that is, a good is equally owned/shared by everyone.
However, when people talk about the removal of IP rights, they're talking about the opposite of that. It's not about *communal* ownership, where everybody shares in the ownership of a single thing, but in capitalistic ownership, where everyone gets the rights to things that they themselves own.
Where your confusion comes in is the confusion between the original work and the copy. If everyone shared in the ownership of the original work, you might have a point. But that's not what anyone is talking about.
They're talking about how everyone gets to *own* (truly own) their own copy -- meaning that once they own it, they can do whatever they want with it, including making copies and giving those away. That's not socialism. That's not communal ownership. That's very much capitalist individual ownership.
Just understand the difference between the good and the copies of the good and maybe you'll see the difference.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow
Anyway, a friend of mine mailed some candidates from other parties and asked how they viewed copyright. Several of these top condidates said that the purpose of copyright is not to promote culture or work for the common good but just to secure the (natural) rights of creators to protect their work. They also said that copyright protection should last for as long as a work has commercial value and said that Shakespeare's and Mozart's works are good examples of why we need a long copyright term (!)
So even though I just want a shortening of the copyright term I can't really vote for many other parties except the left parties and the Pirate Party. I don't want to be represented by someone who sees copyright as a natural right. Even if some of they say that they don't want to extend the copyright term these natural rights people will never be able to provide any arguments for why not to do it, which scares me.
The media has been trying to paint a picture of the Pirate Party as people who just want stuff for free. Since I've been following the blog debate here closely I know that that is completely false. The civil liberties is what most people are concerned about. That said, I'm sure that your description fits a part of the Pirate Party voters (but not the party representatives and those vocal in the debate).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow
We won't know for sure until statisticians analyse the voting patterns in more detail I guess.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
However, I don't see what that has to do with the Pirate Party votes. I interpret these votes as a protest against the new form of nanny state we see in many countries which is supposed to protect us against nonexistant (at least in Sweden) terrorism by gradually depriving us of our civil liberties. The PP support is also a vote against the corporativistic blending of the state and special interests.
Or as Rick Falkvinge, the president of the Pirate Party, recently said:
"We don't accept being wire-tapped/monitored by the state. People are beginning to understand that the state is not always good."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: [socialistic IP rights]
That is pretty darn utilitarian, no?
If you read the american constitution and read between the lines you'll see that even the founding fathers realized what I wrote above - that intellectual rights/privileges are for the public good. They are not absolute natural individual rights, although some people are mislead to believe that due to years of propaganda.
Now, I'm not libertarian so I can accept copyright for what it is as long as it doesn't seriously infringe on other civil liberties and there is a balance between damages and gains. Any copyright term above 25 years I would argue has lost such a balance.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow
I am not "less interested in rights and freedoms and more interested in free stuff." Who are you to make such a claim about me (or what makes you think you know anything at all about me)? You don't even know who I am. Go stuff yourself, Bob.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Wow
And pro-IP'ers are usually baby raping perverts (just my observation...not stats to back it up).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Wow
Or to make a hamburger. Who's going to protect the burger flippers?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
French newspaper thinks Swedish prime minister is a pirate
"Christian Engström gains a seat in the parliament representing the party that was founded by Fredrik Reinfeldt in 2006"
For those of you who don't know Fredrik Reinfeldt is the Swedish prime minister. I guess he will have some explaining to do next time he goes to France... ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Economically, there is no difference.
If you have a copy and you can give the copy away as much as you want, the impact is the same.
Example, I produce something that cost $1000 of time to make (I hired a programmer) and I think 1000 people need it. So I sell it for $10 a copy (I want to make a profit), and I figure the total market is $10,000. Instead, you are the first one to buy one (for $10) and then you give a copy to the other 999 people who might need it. End result, the market went from 1000 copies to 1 single copy.
Now, would you have paid $10,000 for a $10 piece of software?
It is at moments like these that your logic falls apart. I don't wan't to have to sell t-shirts or miniputt games to break even.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Speaking about software - I voted for the Pirate Party because I as a programmer wants to be able to reap the fruits of my own work. If the EU legalises software patents that will hamper the competition and the technical development and put me as a developer in a very vulnerable position where someone could sue me any time for work that I created myself. I have already come up with several ideas which I have found to be patented in other countries - some of these were pratically speaking pure applications of mathematics.
Programmers can make money in other ways than by charging money for digital copies that have artificially been made scarce through laws. You can for example provide software or software consultancy as a service.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Who was arguing about God? Ever heard of a subtext? The point was about what it means to really create something and how egotistically PATHETIC it is to believe you have created something just because you nailed two things together.
OF COURSE, Being so brilliantly sardonic yourself, no doubt you are aware that Carlin's joke was sarcasm. He was making fun of how YOU think, Coward.
But hey, if I made you crap your pants and talk stupid, all the better.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is in fact here, that YOUR logic falls apart. Your assumption that all 999 buyers who were in the market when the price was $0 would have still been in the market when the price was $10. The only way that could be the case is if your demand curve is flat or simply ass-backwards.
Higher price -> fewer units demanded. Lower price -> more units demanded.
The market doesn't give a crap what you do and don't want to sell to break even, and I guarantee no one here thinks you are somehow entitled to 900% profit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow
I'm not Jason, but I'll answer - the word "observation". As the other guy indicated, you have a tendency to use the word "observation" when "unsubstantiated hunch" is more accurate. You haven't "observed" that "those who don't download illegally or plan terroristic events generally aren't sweating bullets on this front", you are just guessing that that is the case.
I'm not sure I would say I'm sweating bullets, but I'm someone who doesn't download illegally or plan terrorist events (I usually just wing it), and I'm following this issue pretty closely and with a good deal of concern.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Apparently they used it to refer to the US for not respecting foreign patents and copyrights during the industrial revolution. Oh the irony!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6483543718966313073&hl=en
Watch from 12m20s.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: $10 software
The *reality* of the market is that there is NO WAY you are going to prevent at least one of your thousand customers from sharing a copy of your work. Relying on your government to somehow make up for your inability to adapt to this new paradigm only serves to erode personal freedoms and stifle innovation.
It is up to you to come up with alternative methods to recoup your investment and profit from your innovative ideas. Many others have by recognizing that greater exposure leads to further opportunities, providing service and support for your ideas, providing supportive scarce goods, etc.
Personally, I am going to fight for my rights to privacy and ownership. The sooner you realize that the long term suppression of ideas is a *bad* thing for society, the better.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Access
[ link to this | view in thread ]