IFPI: The Pirate Party Shouldn't Be Allowed To Hold Its Positions

from the fascinating dept

Thu, Aug 20th 2009 1:44pm — Mike Masnick

I haven't been posting about the formation of local versions of The Pirate Party (a name I still hate) in places like the UK and Finland because I actually don't think it's that big a deal. However, Ville Valtasaari writes in and alerts us to the response of the IFPI to the formation of the party in Finland, which, oddly, seems to suggest that the IFPI doesn't think The Pirate Party should be allowed support its own positions at all:

"We are absolutely against the idea that any political party can give their support to the idea of free use of protected content."

Apparently freedom of political expression isn't high on the list of things the old recording industry likes. I have no problem with the IFPI saying that they disagree with the reasons for The Pirate Party's platform, but that's not what's being said here. The IFPI is claiming that no political party should be allowed to support such positions. Of course, the quote also totally misunderstands the party's position, but that's not much of a surprise.

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: finland, pirate party
Companies: ifpi

36 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Dark Helmet (profile), 20 Aug 2009 @ 1:54pm

Well...
It's actually an interesting semantic argument, but the way they carefully worded it is actually probably all good. To examine more closely:

"We are absolutely against the idea that any political party can give their support to the idea of free use of PROTECTED content."

To me, the key word in that sequence is "protected". Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Pirate Party does not stand for free use of protected content. Rather, they stand for limiting the protections of such content.

This carefully worded statement actually probably doesn't conflict with the Pirate Party in any way...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- drewmerc (profile), 20 Aug 2009 @ 2:18pm
  
  Re: Well...
  wow dark helmet that almost sounded like a normal human response
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Dark Helmet (profile), 20 Aug 2009 @ 2:27pm
    
    Re: Re: Well...
    Look over my comment history, I have just as many serious comments as I have jokes. Roughly, anyways.
    
    But yeah, they've gotten sillier lately. Too much ridiculous news, I guess...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 20 Aug 2009 @ 2:18pm
  
  Re: Well...
  I think the 'free use' part is the operative one. The RIAA would like their members to be paid for every use, and would like to see Fair Use/Dealing go away.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Dark Helmet (profile), 20 Aug 2009 @ 2:29pm
    
    Re: Re: Well...
    "I think the 'free use' part is the operative one. The RIAA would like their members to be paid for every use, and would like to see Fair Use/Dealing go away."
    
    I see what you mean, but again, if it isn't protected material then the entire statement by IFPI would not apply. So if the Pirate Party wanted to, say, eliminate copyright protection, this statement has nothing t do with that. It's only talking about "support(ing) to the idea of free use of protected content".
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Vincent Clement, 20 Aug 2009 @ 3:58pm
  
  Re: Well...
  It depends on what is meant by "protected". Is that protected as in encrypted? Or is it protected by copyright law? Or both?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- lassi, 21 Aug 2009 @ 2:04am
  
  Re: Well...
  of course it's for use of any content in any way possible.
  
  it's the pirate party. DON'T START MAKING COMPROMISES.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Keven Sutton, 20 Aug 2009 @ 2:34pm

Copyright notice
not to say that it was laugh out loud funny, but I found the link to the copyright notice at the bottom of the story quite amusing considering the context of it being news and it being about the pirate party.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Richard, 20 Aug 2009 @ 2:46pm

"We are absolutely against the idea that any political party can give their support to the idea of free use of protected content."

And I am absolutely against the idea that anyone should be allowed to lobby for the extension of copyright terms and the re-protection of content that has passed into the public domain.

Sauce for the goose......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
don, 20 Aug 2009 @ 2:52pm

I am totally against the idea that lobbyists from third nations interfere into inner public deliberations of other souvereign nations or party policy or public elections. I would suggest the government of these states to ban those representatives from entering the nations and call in the embassador of the United States.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RD, 20 Aug 2009 @ 3:06pm

Smoke and mirrors
"We are absolutely against the idea that any political party can give their support to the idea of free use of protected content."

Wonderful strawman there, since no one in the other political parties supports it either. But they can say that and make it SEEM like thats what the other side represents, when in fact they never said any such thing. They know this too. Total manipulation, and not a surprise at all coming from the *IAA's of the world. Where the truth wont fit their agenda, something invented and lies will do instead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
jdub (profile), 20 Aug 2009 @ 3:16pm

"Following that success, copycat groups sprang up in Britain, the Czech Republic and Australia among other countries."

This proves, that if you p**s off your customers enough, they will start to take action. Copyright holder beware, you days are numbered!!! LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fogbugzd, 20 Aug 2009 @ 3:33pm

Other side of the coin
The IFPI does not like giving protected content away for free. That is fair, and I don't think many people would disagree.

On the other side of the coin, let's look at what is going on with streaming audio. Let's say that you want to set up an internet radio station to stream nothing but music that is not protected. You still have to pay, and most likely, you have to pay a LOT.

If the industry thinks that people should get free access to protected content, then it is only fair that the industry should not get to charge for unprotected content.

The music industry should also not get the right to restrict access to music that musicians want to give away purely for the joy of sharing their music (a real motive for some) or for those who want to promote their own music. However, keeping control of music distribution is what the RIAA, IFPI and others are really concerned about. They will do everything they can, including imposing industry taxes on any other form of music distribution just so that they can keep control.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2009 @ 3:39pm
  
  Re: Other side of the coin
  "On the other side of the coin, let's look at what is going on with streaming audio. Let's say that you want to set up an internet radio station to stream nothing but music that is not protected. You still have to pay, and most likely, you have to pay a LOT."
  
  I would like evidence for this, where are the laws dictating this?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Richard, 20 Aug 2009 @ 3:48pm
    
    Re: Re: Other side of the coin
    I'm pretty sure that you have the right to stream audio that you have the rights to and audio that has been released under cc licenses. Magnatune does just that - and I'm pretty certain that they don't have to pay any third parties for the privilege.
    
    If the US courts had not been really stupid about sound copyright then there would also be a substantial amount of public domain music that you could stream for free.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2009 @ 3:34pm

This just proves the mentality some of those who want intellectual property to last forever. It's not about what's best for society and freedom of speech and advancing society, it's about what's best for special interest groups even if it comes at the cost of our freedom of speech and our freedom to start political parties and have candidates run that support what the people want. I don't care if they're against the idea of what the pirate party stands for, if the people want politicians that support the position of the pirate party trying to disallow them from running would be tyranny because it means that the special interest, not the public interest, gets to decide what constitutes and what does not constitute an acceptable candidate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2009 @ 3:38pm

I am absolutely against the idea that anyone can dictate what a political party may or may not give its support to (well, with specific limitations of course like no violence or terrorism or something like that).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2009 @ 3:50pm

In essence they're against the idea that a political party can freely choose what political decisions to support. That's anti-democratic.

Uhm, so does IFPI really stands for International Fascist Parade of Idiots?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RD, 20 Aug 2009 @ 3:54pm

Oh come now
"You still have to pay, and most likely, you have to pay a LOT."

"I would like evidence for this, where are the laws dictating this?"

Please be kidding. Seriously. You cant with a straight face doubt that statement. At least in the USA, there are performance collection societies that are allowed, by law, to collect even if you are NOT a member of them, even if you WANT to give your music away for free. If you want to stream, you have to pay a big license fee PLUS per-song/user fees NO MATTER THE CONTENT. Let me repeat that. You pay REGARDLESS of the content, regardless if the content is PD, CC, copyright, not copyright, or even if the rights holder has given his open consent to use his music for free. The "station" pays, regardless. The collection societies collect, regardless. Someone could specifically tell them not to collect on material they own the copyright too...and they STILL get to collect on it. Most other countries' collection societies work similar (PRS, ASCAP, etc).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2009 @ 4:23pm
  
  Re: Oh come now
  I would like to know where the law states this just out of curiosity.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2009 @ 4:24pm
  
  Re: Oh come now
  Or at least do you have court cases as precedent?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- zenasprime, 20 Aug 2009 @ 6:44pm
  
  Re: Oh come now
  this is not actually the case. You can stream all the CC and PD content you want without paying any money to the collection agencies. Only if you wish to stream music that does not fall under the umbrella of CC or PD do you have to pay royalties. Also, if you are an artist and do not wish for royalties to be collected in your name, it's your responsibility to make sure that you do release your music using CC or into the PD AND the radio station playing your music must make sure that they DO NOT report your music in their royalty lists to the collection agencies. Personally, I believe that the NO OPT OUT feature built into this plan is totally rediculous but I'm pretty sure someone sold it as "PROTECTION" for artists even though in reality it's a racket to make money for nothing.
  
  I've spoken with a representative from Sound Exchange for a good bit about my concerns with them "collecting royalties" on music that I've released using the CC as well as payments for streaming CC only internet radio. I have no reason to believe that they were misrepresending the facts but it does seem that the above is true.
  
  If you want to fight the system, you, as a musician and recording artist, are still free to step outside of it and do your own thing. The one stumbling block, however, are the increasing interference by the powers to criminalize and make difficult performing in a live setting outside the system. Corporations like Clear Channel are buying out venues left and right and paying for laws which make performances outside of their venues either very expensive to the venue owners or simply illegal. I know that in Philadelphia, if you are not part of teh established venue cabal, law enforcement will arrest you, take your equipment (or just destroy it), and very simply make life hard on you. Sad but true.
  
  So while everyone is busy being distracted by one side of the issue, the evil doers are sneaking around the flanks to cut off all other alternatives.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2009 @ 8:01pm
    
    Re: Re: Oh come now
    Well, this is exactly how the RIAA acquired its power to begin with. Through extortion and through denying anyone the means to create music outside the established system. It's very sad indeed and it must be resisted.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2009 @ 8:05pm
    
    Re: Re: Oh come now
    and of course then they feed you lies. They tell you that indie artists don't exist because it's not profitable for them to continue on their own when the real reason they don't exist and are not well known is because special interest groups have destroyed them the means of distributing their music without them. It's really sad. It's all based on lies, the RIAA, FDA, FCC, all of these agencies are extortion agencies that do nothing but feed us lie after lie after lie. and the people buy it hook line and sinker. I just don't see why Americans and people in general are so gullible. I wish it weren't so. People need to wake up and stop being gullible. We need more people like the ones on Techdirt, the fact is that the average person is gullible and believe whatever mainstream media feeds him.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2009 @ 8:09pm
    
    Re: Re: Oh come now
    "and paying for laws which make performances outside of their venues either very expensive to the venue owners or simply illegal."
    
    Can you please provide what laws these are. It's not that I don't believe you but I think it would do us good for everyone to know what laws you are referring to. What incidents are you referring to, are there any specific cases. It would be nice if some blogger investigative journalist looked into this. The public needs to know. Then again, it seems unlikely the public will do anything to stop it. It's been publicly known by everyone that taxi cab medallions limit taxi competition and it should be common sense that the reason has nothing to do with any good intentions. Yet people just allow it to happen. We simply don't care, we're too apathetic and we allow our system to turn into tyranny. It's really sad, just don't know what to do anymore. Our whole political election is a scam. Everything about this nation is a scam. and the people seem helpless to fix it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 21 Aug 2009 @ 7:57am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Oh come now
      Actually, n/m, I finally found this techdirt thread I was looking for.
      
      http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090109/1823043352.shtml
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Bettawrekonize, 20 Aug 2009 @ 10:10pm
    
    Re: Re: Oh come now
    I think one of the biggest problems in this nation is the legal authority given to unelected officials (ie: the FCC, FDA, FTC, etc...). By unelected I mean appointed, as in not elected directly by the people. I think even judges should be elected and elections should be held more frequently. Presidential elections should perhaps take place every 2 years but I think presidents should be allowed to stay in office for longer than 8 years, perhaps 10 years if the people elect them 5 times in a row. Perhaps even longer if the people continue to elect the same person.
    
    At the same time we need more election integrity. Read my posts here
    
    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090608/2201455173.shtml
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Infamous Joe (profile), 21 Aug 2009 @ 9:06am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Oh come now
      Actually, if you're talking about America, you can already be President for 10 years.
      
      So that if the VP has to take over halfway through a Presidency, for whatever reason, he/she does not "lose" a 4 year term.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
diabolic (profile), 20 Aug 2009 @ 4:07pm

IPFI should not be allowed to determine what a political party can and cannot support. Who cares what these jackasses think?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jerry Leichter, 20 Aug 2009 @ 7:09pm

Translation?
It's amazing how much attention can be applied to the exact wording of a statement that is either a translation, or was made in English by someone for whom English is not his mother tongue. ""We are absolutely against the idea that any political party can give their support to the idea of free use of protected content." Read that again. Does it sound like colloquial English to you? The whole sentence structure isn't "natural" for English.

The use of verbs like "can", which have complex and subtle meanings, is exactly the kind of thing that trips up non-native speakers. The "permission" aspect of "can" is not the primary one; in fact, in most contexts, one would prefer "may" for permission and "can" for "possibility". But he can't possibly me that it's *impossible* for the Pirate Party to hold such positions, since they manifestly do.

I can't tell you what Arto Alaspaeae actually meant. I wasn't there, I can't ask him. I certainly believe he strongly disagrees with everything the Pirate Party stands for. But I doubt he was trying to dictate what positions they should be *allowed* to take.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ..., 20 Aug 2009 @ 8:18pm
  
  Re: Translation?
  Thank you for that "interpretation"
  
  He didn't mean what you read that he said.
  I can't tell you what he really meant.
  I believe he disagrees with TPP
  But I doubt he ........
  
  Wow, that is clear as mud
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2009 @ 8:51pm
  
  Re: Translation?
  "The "permission" aspect of "can" is not the primary one; in fact, in most contexts, one would prefer "may" for permission and "can" for "possibility". But he can't possibly me that it's *impossible* for the Pirate Party to hold such positions, since they manifestly do."
  
  If I hold a position and the government kills me then it becomes impossible for me to hold that position. So he can, indeed, mean that it's impossible. If the government shuts down a political party that holds a specific position or disallows it to form then it indeed is IMPOSSIBLE for a party to hold such a position. So he could have meant that and it is probably exactly what he meant.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kevin Carson, 20 Aug 2009 @ 7:56pm

I don't think anyone should be allowed to advocate the use of force to guarantee the "owners" of proprietary content a monopoly rent on their so-called "property," by excluding competitors from the market or restricting what I can do with my own tangible property. So Microsoft, the RIAA and MPAA should be taken out and curb-stomped.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Piraattipuolue, 21 Aug 2009 @ 2:54am

Bad translation or not Alaspaeae actually said he was against a party allowed to hold such ideas. He didn't stop there and you could tell he had no idea what the principles of the party were. All he had to do was check their statements on their website.

http://www.piraattipuolue.fi/english

What a moron!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Killer_Tofu (profile), 21 Aug 2009 @ 7:08am

And they wonder why
all the public hates groups like this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
chronoss, 22 Aug 2009 @ 8:57am

they need to be careful ifpi
there are laws about treason that if you undermine the countries democracy you can be brought up on some serious charges and some countries its still a death penalty for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]