Here's A Surprise: EU Green Party Adopts The Pirate Party's Position On Copyright
from the didn't-see-that-coming,-did-you? dept
While some try to write off the Pirate Party's positions on things because of its name (and I still believe its name limits the party's effectiveness), it appears that more and more people are recognizing that its positions on things like copyright aren't particularly extreme, but rather are quite reasonable in this day and age. Along those lines, the EU Green Party group has adopted the Pirate Party's positions on copyright as its own:- It must be made absolutely clear that the copyright monopoly does not extend to what an ordinary person can do with ordinary equipment in their home and spare time; it regulates commercial, intent-to-profit activity only. Specifically, file sharing is always legal.
- There must be exceptions that make it legal to create mashups and remixes. Quotation rights, like those that exist for text, must be extended to sound and video.
- Digital Restrictions Management should preferably be outlawed, as it is a type of fraud nullifying consumer and citizen rights, but at least, it must always be legal to circumvent.
- The baseline commercial copyright monopoly is shortened to a reasonable five years from publication, extendable to twenty years through registration of the work.
- The public domain must be strengthened.
Up until twenty years ago, copyright was hardly anything that concerned ordinary people. The rules about exclusivity on the production of copies where aimed at commercial actors, who had the means to, for example, print books or press records. Private citizens who wanted to copy a poem and send to their loved one, or copy a record to cassette and give it to a friend, did not have to worry about being in breach of copyright. In practice, anything you had the technical means to do as a normal person, you could do without risk of any punishment.I certainly don't agree with everything in the position statement, but it's the most reasonable policy proposal I've seen in a long time. They focus on letting individuals be able to share for non-commercial reasons (which I like in concept, but worry about how you define what is commercial and what is non-commercial). It also supports granting the legal right to circumvent DRM, and a ban on DRM that blocks legal uses of a work. Not surprisingly, the paper takes aim at the length of copyright -- calling it "absurd" -- and proposes a much shorter copyright, starting at 20 years. It also wants to deal with orphan works and bring back formalities (the need to register and reregister to keep your copyrights). Of course, with 5 year reregistration requirements, it would mean that the problem of orphan works would more or less erase itself... as the lack of a copyright renewal would put the content in the public domain where it belongs. There's also this:
But today, copyright has evolved to a position where it imposes serious restrictions on what ordinary citizens can do in their every-day life. As technological progress has made it easier for ordinary people to enjoy and share culture, copyright legislation has moved in the opposite direction.
Today’s ever more restrictive copyright legislation and practice is a major obstacle to musicians, film makers, and other artists who want to create new works by reusing parts of existing works. We want to change this by introducing clear exceptions and limitations to allow remixes and parodies, as well as quotation rights for sound and audiovisual material modelled after the quotation rights that already exist for text.Definitely nice to see a major political party willing to actually state that copyright today harms tons of musicians, filmmakers and artists who are limited by it.
Either way, this is great to see. Supporters of the copyright maximalist position continue to insist that those who are concerned about copyright and wish to pull it back are somehow on the "fringe." It's pretty obvious that's not true -- given the level of activity we see on these kinds of stories. But with a major political party adopting this position, it's yet another step towards realizing that lots and lots of people are quite concerned about how copyright is holding back culture.
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: copyright, green party, pirate party, politics
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It is also good politics. The Pirate Party is really a one trick pony, a one platform party trying desperately to be wider than that. If the Greens can suck up a part of the "pirate" people, it pretty much undermines the PP and may push them off the map entirely.
Think of it is pandering for votes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The swedish pirate party joined with the green group in the EP and has been voting with them in all matters on which the pirate party does not have an official opinion on. In return for this the green group has been a platform for the pirate party from which to spread awareness, both amongst green MEP and the parliament at large, about the core issues for the party.
The pirate MEP Christian Engström (http://christianengstrom.wordpress.com/) has been hugely succesful in spreading knowledge and understanding amongst the MEPs about the reality of the different proposals being voted on in the parliament. He's also been a world of hurt for the Commission (which doesn't always see eye-to-eye with the parliament) when they attempt to push through legislations in shady ways.
The pirate party (at least the swedish one) has also stated repeatedly that it isn't worried about others "usurping" them or stealing their politics. They WANT others to do that. The party is all about realizing its politics, it's not too fuzzy about who does it. When there is no more need for the party it will go away completely and everyone is fine with that. And being a "one trick pony" is not always a bad thing, it provides a clear focus which lets you actually be GOOD at a subject rather than the other parties which has muddled opinions on everything and are willing to compromise away anything in exchange for power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The Pirate Party has 3 issues they claim to push.
Any other party has 100 issues they claim to push, of which I am interested in maybe 15. After the usual it-was-just-lies-to-get-votes, bartering and quid-pro-quo they will end up implementing maybe 10 of those 100. The odds that I get many of my 15 issues implemented are virtually nil.
So yeah, PP is a 3-trick pony. But those 3 tricks are non-negotiable. A vote on PP is a vote on those 3 issues.
Also, the green group is actually formed by a large number of parties from different nations, here is an excerpt from Rick Falkvinges blog.
"A primer on the European Parliament is that it is not composed of individual parties, but of party groups. The elected parties join together in groups. There are seven such groups in the European Parliament, and these groups act like individual parties would in a national parliament."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
1) limits on the length of copyright, after which they go into the public domain "for all time".
2) registration of all copyrighted material. With all material not registered going into the public domain after 90 days of publishing.
Materials being put in the public domain for ever, removes the monopolies, and registration removes any chance of copyfraud.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't see how this is meaningful, given people can't seem to wait a week to legally watch some stupid Fox sitcom. If people can't respect copyright for a week, what makes you think they will respect it for 20 years?
Either way, this is great to see. Supporters of the copyright maximalist position continue to insist that those who are concerned about copyright and wish to pull it back are somehow on the "fringe."
5.7% is hardly mainstream. And given the fact that the vast majority of content that is unlawfully accessed is that of US origin, this 5.7% is even less significant.
It's pretty obvious that's not true -- given the level of activity we see on these kinds of stories. But with a major political party adopting this position, it's yet another step towards realizing that lots and lots of people are quite concerned about how copyright is holding back culture.
It's really about holding back access to US culture, not even their own culture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Law abiding citizens might be itching to do something interesting with a 20 year old work that they might not get permission to do if it's still under copyright for example.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And this would be significant, if all who were opposed to the current copyright laws were opposing them for the sake of piracy. We're not.
You'd be forgiven for thinking that in this specific instance (we are talking about the Pirate Party, after all), but it's simply false. For example, the FSF, Creative Commons, EFF, and now the Green Party: they have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with "piracy" in any way, shape or form.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It is not about restricting people, since personal/non-commercial copying etc. would be exempted/legalised (first bullet-point in article). It is for restricting commercial activity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Now, note that the three aforementioned groups sell one thing in common: shiny plastic discs. ACTA became, not about counterfeiting, but IP ingeneral. And it sure as hell wasn't about finding a balancing point for the public's best interest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: @"eejit": "balancing point for the public's best interest."
The balance point can only be to REDUCE PIRACY AND INDUSTRY PROFITS. Both those are easily done, but sadly, the three (or six) strikes rules aren't going to be balanced, mainly because freetards and to-hell-with-copyright-ists won't actually allow the industry necessary conditions (the previous terms, basically).
You can't just screech that the internet changes not only means of distribution but of /production/, when it doesn't. Production methods CAN'T change much: it's physical.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: @"eejit": "balancing point for the public's best interest."
There is no moral argument to be made but you keep beating that dead horse.
The public 'owns' culture, all creative works are derivative of the culture in which they were created, therefor the public 'owns' creative works. We, the public, take this 'ownership' and use it to grant limited sets of 'copyrights' to creators for limited terms. Where would the impetus to grant copyrights come from were this not so? This can also easily be contrasted with property rights which are not granted by the public/state and are not temporary but are instead recognized as pre-existing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: @"eejit": "balancing point for the public's best interest."
The public doesn't own the inputs that were necessary to translate culture into a unique creative work. The public is still free to enjoy the "culture" from which the unique creation was derived. Please don't suggest that "Othello" is in the public domain, that the public has a claim to the derivative motion picture "O" which the producers spent millions of dollars to make.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @"eejit": "balancing point for the public's best interest."
The public "has a claim" to every work that they view, read, or listen to.
If they didn't, copyright would not benefit the public, and there would be no reason for it to exist in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: @"eejit": "balancing point for the public's best interest."
No it's not. George Lucas took ideas from Akira Kurosawa in order to make Star Wars. Harry Potter is the unique story from various fables around the world. Stories of werewolves (European folktale), witches (again, European folktales), and magic (guess what it's from), told to a modern setting and through a tale of growing up in this dangerous world.
" Consequently, the creators (and I'm being generously neutral as to the material produced, most of which I find of cow-pie quality) MUST have a greater say over "interests" than others. "
Just because you can't find good quality works when they're out there, doesn't mean they don't exist.
" They PAY for its production: you don't. "
Rebuttal: You can pay for production too at whatever level you want to join.
" They've PAID to control it, and generally that's been a societal good, depite horrible excesses possible with mass markets."
Paying Congress to control content is not going to mean anything to me the one who consumes that media.
"When you just violate that control as freetards, the reaction is predictable."
At least we agree. I'm going to have less respect for laws that try to control my morality or find alternatives to it. Both = less money to those that impede progress in a medium.
" I don't like that increasing control, but neither do I care for "gimme" freetards just taking work-products (over-consuming it to turn brains into mush): two bunches of thieves don't make for freedom."
Have you ever heard of civil disobedience? Or have you read how those in different countries are interested in American goods at their own convenience? Food for thought.
"The balance point can only be to REDUCE PIRACY AND INDUSTRY PROFITS. Both those are easily done, but sadly, the three (or six) strikes rules aren't going to be balanced, mainly because freetards and to-hell-with-copyright-ists won't actually allow the industry necessary conditions (the previous terms, basically)."
Wrong. The balance point is to compete against piracy and offer better products than what pirates can do. Taking away access will do nothing but mean less money for you in the long run.
"You can't just screech that the internet changes not only means of distribution but of /production/, when it doesn't. Production methods CAN'T change much: it's physical"
They went digital too or are you ignoring the amount of cameras, hard drives, and ways people actually use media nowadays?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: @"eejit": "balancing point for the public's best interest."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: @"eejit": "balancing point for the public's best interest."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: @"eejit": "balancing point for the public's best interest."
"the public" doesn't have a role in the /creation/ of works.
Even conceptually, this is not true. First of all, professional artists create primarily for an audience, not primarily for themselves. If they weren't, they would never publish the works in the first place. You'd never sing outside your shower, play guitar outside your bedroom, or publish that novel you wrote. If you're truly doing it only for private reasons, then your art will remain private.
Second of all, as others have pointed out, art is never created in a vaccuum. Art is created from culture; and the more that culture is owned by private interests, the less it can be used to create art. And art that is not created out of culture is art that is simply not valuable.
There is a good reason for this, a reason which you especially may find hard to swallow, but is nonetheless true. And that is that "artistic value" is not created by the artist. Artistic value is created by the audience. You may have the guitar skills of Joe Satriani and the songwriting skills of John Lennon. But unless, and until, an audience likes it, your music has exactly as much "artistic value" as some kid playing "Smoke on the Water" in his bedroom.
Now, I am not arguing that popularity is the same thing as "artistic value." (Good Lord, am I not arguing that.) That would make the mistake of believing that there is only one audience: the overall mass of humanity. But human beings are not monolithic; there are millions, perhaps billions, of different audiences. My point is that the audience, whatever that audience, is the arbiter of artistic value. Art, music, film, and so on, are only valuable because they are part of a culture - not the other way around.
And this type of value is expressly what copyright is supposed to promote. If you're arguing that the public has no stake in the arts, then you're arguing that those arts should not be covered by copyright at all. I have no problem with that argument, but I suspect you might.
They PAY for its production: you don't.
Oh, so you mean it's totally legal, and morally good, for me to simply take whatever art that I like without paying? Good to know.
...Wait, what's that? I don't have that right, and I have to pay for enjoying art? I have to actually buy a CD, or purchase a theater ticket, or pay to see a symphony orchestra?
Well in that case, I am paying for its production. The moment you start charging for your art is the exact moment that you are demanding that others pay for its production. And it is at exactly that moment that I have a right to use the art that I paid for.
This also brings up another point. Most artists do not pay for its production. They are paid by sponsors, labels, studios, publishers, and so on. In fact, this is literally the difference between professional artists and amateurs: professional artists are paid for their art by someone else. If you are arguing that the people who pay for it have the ultimate right to it, you are arguing that these entities have more of a right to the art than the artists themselves.
This is fully in agreement with copyright law, and it is one thing I do not at all like about copyright: it takes power out of artists' hands, and puts it in the power of the businessmen who make money off of them. I suspect you don't like this aspect of it either.
They own it morally, besides in practical terms.
Copyright in the U.S. and England was never about artists' "moral right" to their works. Even in Europe, where such "moral rights" exist, they are limited to stuff that is covered by libel laws in the U.S. Essentially, the extent of "moral rights" is CC-BY (which is why that's the least restrictive CC license that is lawful internationally).
Aside from the law, it is really hard to argue that artists have a "moral right" to control what happens to their works once they are released to the general public. It's like saying artists have a "moral right" to a good review in a magazine. It just doesn't fly.
They've NO obligation to distribute it according to what's convenient for you in either method or price.
Indeed they do not have this obligation, and nobody is saying that they do. The question is whether they should have the right to stop other people from distributing it, at their own cost, in what is convenient to the public in either method or price.
If we had an open market, the answer would be "no." The right to keep others from offering their version of your product is called a "monopoly." Remember Lord Marclay's words, when he was discussing copyright law, in 1841: "the effect of monopoly generally is to make articles scarce, to make them dear, and to make them bad."
"Scarce," "dear," and "bad." Could any words better describe the American cultural landscape in the 20th century?
Hence the increase of corporate control is directly linked to piracy and file-sharing.
You must be joking.
The type of "piracy" you're talking about - non-commercial, person-to-person sharing - hurts only those corporations you're so adamantly against, and only those corporations that refuse to offer a viable, competing service to those potential customers.
On the other hand, the technology that enables artists to create valuable works without corporate control, is the same technology that allows non-commercial file sharing. You can't fight against one, without damaging the other. That piracy may hurt those artists who are dependent upon those corporations as their sole source of income (which is very few of them), but every other artist is better off. Artists have more opportunities to make money now than they did twenty years ago, or even ten years ago.
This is what the media corporations are fighting against. Corporate control of the arts hasn't increased, it has decreased - and not by a little. And this is the real purpose of all these "anti-piracy" laws: to regain control they've lost, as gatekeepers to culture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Read the other part of the policy - only commercial non transformative use would be subject to copyright at all.
5.7% is hardly mainstream.
Most people who vote vote tribally and seldom change their vote.
Most of the people who vote Green have changed their vote recently and therefore given policy issues some thought.
5.7% of the population is a huge proportion of those who actually think about these things.
And given the fact that the vast majority of content that is unlawfully accessed is that of US origin, this 5.7% is even less significant.
Uh? what has that to do with anything - other than suggesting that it would be a good idea economically for Europe to strip foreign content of copyright protection - just like the US did to European content in the 19th century .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What happens in EU area politics is that it comes down to hundreds of little sliver special interest groups, all of whom want to be the tail that wags the dog. The funny part is what you have is a huge collection of tails, but there is no longer a dog. So they end up wagging each other. There is no functional system to move forward in many of these countries.
The current economic crisis in Europe shows just how useless the EU is - they can't get anything done. So many factions, so many splinters, so little getting done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
(short version: the nation is NOT a meaningful economic unit, and the cities, which Are, have stalled in their growth cycles in sufficiant numbers that the ones that Haven't are no longer compensating. also? free trade agreements (or just generally tarrifs set lower than they should be, taking into account the cost of import vs the cost of local production vs the money available to Spend on that.) invert the primary step in the process that drives that growth, stalling the growth cycle and causing intermittent shrinkage. that's right, your large continent size trade blocs are a Bad Thing.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It seems you are confusing the two cases, seeing you are referring to the "meaninglessness" of 20 years of monopoly when people won't wait a week to share the latest episode of X.
What's missing from that argument is that sharing the latest episode of whatever, when done outside a commercial enterprise, is always legal, okay and encouraged. The 20 years don't apply to peer-to-peer sharing.
Cheers,
Rick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I was simply implying that the "gotta have it now" mentality of Fox TV viewers was a widely held conviction among those who favor less restrictive copyright. I may be wrong but I don't think that shortening the life of copyright to twenty years would have much of an impact on commercial infringing. Any idea what percentage of infringing content currently being distributed is more than 20 years old. I'd guess it's quite small.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The broadbrush is strong with this one...
I favor less restrictive copyright because enforcement of strong copyright laws has a nasty habit of stepping on my rights of free speech and privacy.
I am not part of the "gotta have it now" crowd whatsoever - I have no problem whatsoever waiting for the one or two Hollywood movies a year worth watching to come out on Showtime or Netflix.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Remember now: You don't have the right to someone else's speech. So now, what part was 'stepped on'?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Remember now: You don't have the right to someone else's speech. So now, what part was 'stepped on'?
This is the part where they whine that discussion forums that are also on infringing sites disappear when the sites are seized. Of course, no mention of the fact that the operators could easily have a separate discussion site that wasn't part of one engaged in infringing. Also, no acknowledgement of the fact that the only reason anyone uses their forum is that they happen to be on the site to get free content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
For starters, the constant attack of fair use has definitely created chilling effects in regards to speech.
The domain name seizures by ICE/DOJ/Disney has already caused huge collateral damage. (Does mooo.com ring a bell?) COICA would have been even worse and PIPA doesn't look much better, especially in terms of the ability to overreach the original intent of the laws and very little protection against prior restraint.
The three (or six) laws/agreements could assuredly restrict an individuals free speech based on mere accusations.
The recent attacks on 3rd party service providers could also pose free speech problems, especially if the legal atmosphere makes it impossible to host user comments anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You poor soul. How empty and meaningless your life must be without this. You're right, no one should have to suffer such deprivation. Go ahead and steal it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is what I admire most about the freetards, they exude such class. For the record, just because this is the practice at your place of employment doesn't mean it's happening elsewhere. Though, I suspect it may the only reason you still have a job. Nice that you're good at something. Clearly debate isn't it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do you really want to go there? Because if I look at any comments before that one specific example you're using to broadbrush "freetards", I won't find a single one from people on your side of the argument insulting anyone, right?
I thought so. The hypocrisy is strong in you and yours. But it's all fun and games til someone does it to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do you really want to go there? Because if I look at any comments before that one specific example you're using to broadbrush "freetards", I won't find a single one from people on your side of the argument insulting anyone, right?
I thought so. The hypocrisy is strong in you and yours. But it's all fun and games til someone does it to you.
I'm sure it's uncomfortable to have nutjobs like this associated with your cause. I could care less what insults are hurled by a frustrated, powerless loser who lashes out from the anonymity of a keyboard in his parent's basement. Just like the Tea Baggers are an embarrassment to mainstream Republicans, his wonderful example of human garbage is yours to own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And you see, you yourself just insulted a plethora of people here without pause. "I could care less what insults are hurled by a frustrated, powerless loser who lashes out from the anonymity of a keyboard in his parent's basement." How do you know about the people here? By that vague statement, you yourself are a frustrated etc etc etc who lashes out from the anonymity of a keyboard etc etc etc.
Could you post an example of these benign, non-profane comments you speak of? Because most of the ones I've seen reported/censored are the ones about "Pirate Mike and why is piracy not ok". The ones that litter each and every article and have done so for the past week (AT LEAST), despite proof/quotes/evidence being given that refutes such statements.
Also, how does the community seem to be okay with it? Is it because no one speaks up? Is that what you mean by "okay with it"? Perhaps, some people report/censor comments. And some people can just move on and ignore the stupid comments. There's plenty of other logical and plausible reasons for people not saying anything. The problem you have is "assuming", well said by yourself. You make assumptions based off practically nothing. One guy says something rude, oh "it's condoned and representative of all the freetards". When one pro-copyright does it, not a peep from you. When someone is essentially trolling against Mike, perfectly okay. When someone trolls the troll it's a vast conspiracy by TD staffers. Lol. I'm not saying you said/feel/think that, but it seems to be the thing from your side of the cause. Perhaps the best thing to do is act like an adult. Ignore the stupidity on both sides and move the f*ck on. Support what you say with evidence, facts, proof, etc. Not resort to YOUR personal opinions on issues as being facts, not resort to using terms like "freetards" etc (because not everyone who disagrees with you is a freetard or copyrightmaximalist or whatnot), and try and show a little more respect towards one another in general, even if we all agree to disagree.
Keep doing what you're doing, and you're only adding fuel to the fire and helping maintain the circle of whatever. Freetardedness and Copyrightmaximalism. I don't know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It seems a bit odd that comments that include phrases like "Pirate Mike" are censored and ones asking whether you'd sucked your bosses dick aren't. Like I said, neither bother me. But when Techdirtbag Nation censors the former and lets the latter go forward, it's an unflattering commentary on them. These self-styled champions of free speech are revealed as world-class hypocrites. Censorship in this community has everything to do with the position taken by the message and little to do with any excesses that people engage in.
Personally, as far as I'm concerned as this is a private board and the owners and/or community can do whatever they want. But it's hard to take "free speech advocates" seriously when the only speech censored represents the opposing point of view.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, since they can't counter our ironclad arguments, the crew of the Queen Anne's TechDirt Revenge have to resort to censoring us. Just watch how Calico Mike ignores my rebuttal of this post:
Mike: I am rubber, you are glue, everything you say is FUD and it sticks to YOUD!
Here's a number from today that the community doesn't not seem to find objectionable:
You are such a typical communist. Always blame people for their opinions and how they aren't letting you employers fuck them harder.
Go back to your communist boss, I bet you haven't given him his blowjob today
did you give your boss that blowjob yet
in principal you're a communist douche-bag, but in practice your a slimy, greedy, weasel.
Again, I have no problem with this loser's rantings. But I am amused as hell by the hypocrisy of Techdirtbag Nation and think it only bolsters my argument that this is all about getting free content and all of this high-minded talk about free speech, due process, liberty, justice, etc is all a smoke screen for freeloading parasites to avoid having to pay for the content that they enjoy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Go to that article. Look under the comments. You will see one person telling people, and specifically Marcus, to go "fuck himself" multiple times in that article. No one has flagged his comments, although IMO they are uncalled for and should be flagged. Guess whose side the AC saying those things is on? I'll give you a hint, it isn't on the side of the "freeloading parasites".
Same article, you have multiple ACs and one or two people with non-AC usernames insinuating things about Mike and the article in general. Which is beyond a common occurrence here, yet you don't say anything about that. Also, notice how those comments haven't been flagged/censored. It seems like you're just pointing at one or two things, ignoring everything else, just to attempt to prove/justify what you're saying.
The hypocrisy is amusing. But don't just point fingers at one group, when both sides are guilty of it. You're showing one example by one guy. It is uncalled for and wrong. But you can't say it's just him and the "freeloading parasites". Which is exactly what you're doing. And that isn't actually the case.
And no, this isn't just about getting free content. Or that's not all it's about. To some it is, to most it's not. There's more to the issue at hand, but if as your bias is showing is thinking about "freeloaders" and "parasites" and "hypocrisy", it isn't too hard to see how you might fail to notice or easily dismiss the more important issues at hand. The potential to be used for censorship, the lack of due process, the invasion of privacy, etc. that the pro-copyright/anti-piracy side is advocating for in various laws and acts. I can see both sides of the argument, but I can't support a side that believes in "accusation = guilt" and that "profits trump Constitutionally protected rights". How you can is your thing, but at least try and see things from more than a biased perspective.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Who knows? Maybe even Techdirtbag Nation has grown sick of him and has stopped circling the wagons.
Same article, you have multiple ACs and one or two people with non-AC usernames insinuating things about Mike and the article in general. Which is beyond a common occurrence here, yet you don't say anything about that. Also, notice how those comments haven't been flagged/censored. It seems like you're just pointing at one or two things, ignoring everything else, just to attempt to prove/justify what you're saying.
I just said that it happens and cited an example.... which you asked for. Sorry.
The hypocrisy is amusing. But don't just point fingers at one group, when both sides are guilty of it. You're showing one example by one guy. It is uncalled for and wrong. But you can't say it's just him and the "freeloading parasites". Which is exactly what you're doing. And that isn't actually the case.
Do you not understand that I don't really care about letting comments stand? I occasionally hit the 'funny' or 'insightful' button but never the 'report'. I actually believe in free speech. Not F-R-E-E speech like so many of the free speech poseurs who like to wrap themselves in the First Amendment to further their freeloading.
And no, this isn't just about getting free content. Or that's not all it's about. To some it is, to most it's not. There's more to the issue at hand, but if as your bias is showing is thinking about "freeloaders" and "parasites" and "hypocrisy", it isn't too hard to see how you might fail to notice or easily dismiss the more important issues at hand. The potential to be used for censorship, the lack of due process, the invasion of privacy, etc. that the pro-copyright/anti-piracy side is advocating for in various laws and acts. I can see both sides of the argument, but I can't support a side that believes in "accusation = guilt" and that "profits trump Constitutionally protected rights". How you can is your thing, but at least try and see things from more than a biased perspective.
I hear you but your assessment of censorship and due process is out of step with current judicial interpretation. You can hark back to the framers and speculate on intent and application all you like. The legal underpinnings of the Roja seizure and Protect IP will be tested in upcoming days. I disagree with you and think the federal bench does as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Or perhaps, no one cares in general. And only a handful of comments get flagged, and the "hypocrisy" is not as big an issue by the freeloaders as you make it out to be.
"I just said that it happens and cited an example.... which you asked for. Sorry."
You cited ONE example. And an example that you possibly carefully selected just to show the freetards in a bad light. Allowing that, but censoring pro-copyright comments. I.e. you selectively show what you want to suit your argument/point
"Do you not understand that I don't really care about letting comments stand? I occasionally hit the 'funny' or 'insightful' button but never the 'report'. I actually believe in free speech. Not F-R-E-E speech like so many of the free speech poseurs who like to wrap themselves in the First Amendment to further their freeloading. "
You don't care, but you made a big deal about it. Enough so that we've done the back and forth a bit now. No one's so far as I can see in this page/article even remotely compared or made any comment trying to justify freeloading (as you put it) to the First Amendment. If some do, fine. But you're painting everyone in the same light.
"I hear you but your assessment of censorship and due process is out of step with current judicial interpretation. You can hark back to the framers and speculate on intent and application all you like. The legal underpinnings of the Roja seizure and Protect IP will be tested in upcoming days. I disagree with you and think the federal bench does as well."
I think I'd like to point out what you said, "out of step with CURRENT judicial interpretation". So it's okay NOW, but later it might not be. And so what? Is that basically what you're saying? I agree, the legal underpinnings will be tested in the upcoming days. And regardless of whether you agree with me or not, that's irrelevant. "The federal bench does as well." And as we all know, things that were legal/illegal/laws were never in the right one moment and then shown to be in the wrong later. /s They might agree with you now, but in a year or two they might agree with me then. Will that change your stance on the issues? Or will you say they're wrong then? I like to look a little further down the road than some. If something has the potential to be abused, it will be. Laws, technology, etc. But to say that it isn't now and thus never will be is to ignore human nature.
Example. You and your comments so far. We've had back and forth with examples, you show one thing to support you. I show another to disprove you, not necessarily to support me. So these laws and rulings can easily be twisted by the people implementing them. Which is my point. People are implementing them, people who have their bias and their prejudice and all that jazz.
I don't care what the laws say one way or another. These laws are just the first step down what may very well be a crappy road. So what happens when they're not effective enough? We'll make tougher laws to prop up these two specific industries. And what about when those don't work? And so on and so forth. By the time you know it, we're all chipped and they can see what I do on my computer as I do it and arrest me (or not) as they see fit. (Not saying it'll come to that, but it's a possibility. Give 'em an inch, they'll take a mile. It's just how people are.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I just said that it happens and cited an example.... which you asked for. Sorry."
You cited ONE example. And an example that you possibly carefully selected just to show the freetards in a bad light. Allowing that, but censoring pro-copyright comments. I.e. you selectively show what you want to suit your argument/point
There are 3-4 others in that thread. You claimed they were all "Pirate Mike" shit. Not that this is justification, but not true so I picked the example that most contradicted you. It's a debate for Christ's sake, you want me to what??? pick weaker examples?
You don't care, but you made a big deal about it. Enough so that we've done the back and forth a bit now. No one's so far as I can see in this page/article even remotely compared or made any comment trying to justify freeloading (as you put it) to the First Amendment.
I care about the hypocrisy, not insults and bad words. And my point is that these so-called free speech advocates use specious First Amendment arguments to cloak their true agenda... free access to content. If they (the Techdirtbag community) was truly about free speech, you wouldn't see a quorum censoring relatively benign remarks from opposing viewpoints and allowing profane, psychotic rants from people they agree with. They should simply allow both if they want to claim fidelity to the First Amendment.
If some do, fine. But you're painting everyone in the same light.
If the shoe fits, wear it.
I think I'd like to point out what you said, "out of step with CURRENT judicial interpretation". So it's okay NOW, but later it might not be. And so what?
So what indeed. Separate but equal, slavery and no vote for women all used to be the law of the land. The law evolved. But we live in the here and now. Look forward all you like. Right now the law protects the intellectual property rights of creators and rightsholders. Maybe that will change.
At the end of the day, my exposure to Techdirt has made me a stronger advocate for better distribution. I do think that piracy has provided insights into consumer demand. People want a la carte, on demand content service. And it's coming. But as the transition continues, the fight against freeloading will also continue. Ultimately, you'll get what you want. Probably not as fast as you'd like. In the meantime stop stealing (if the shoe fits).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm sure we've had this conversation before, but I'm also sure you haven't watched how piracy isn't a huge issue either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, I DO NOT think piracy has provided insights into consumer demand. If it had, then the content industries wouldn't be struggling to deal with piracy because they'd have already offered the customers what they want. Instead, they let others do the work (Netflix, Hulu, etc) and take all the risk, with the assumption that they won't succeed. Then when they do, they swoop in with demands and ultimatums that in the end, only hurt all parties (the Netflixes/Hulu, the content industries, and the consumers).
People want things at their convenience and in reasonable manners and prices. That's not coming anytime soon. Evidence is readily available that says so. Just look at the Netflix situation, Hulu, ISP data caps being placed just when streaming is taking off and becoming mainstream, etc.
The fight against file sharing will continue, it'll never end. It's irrelevant in the long run what's done to "stop" it, because it can't be stopped. The best thing to do is just offer people a better alternative to piracy. If you can't do that, you have no one to blame for perceived and imagined losses but yourself. The money's there, if you aren't willing to provide people what they want and take their money, your problem/loss. Somebody else will. It's how markets work.
Finally, no one is stealing. I don't know how many times in these comments and articles it's been stated, but file sharing/piracy IS NOT theft/stealing. It is copyright infringement, the Supreme Court has ruled on the matter. As someone who appears to be on the side of the law and in support of it and all that's coming, you'd do well to acknowledge the distinction.
AND as I stated up above earlier, I DO NOT DOWNLOAD A THING. Thus "if the shoe fits" DOES NOT apply to me. Insinuating I do any such thing is a cheap and rather pathetic shot. Hey, I think people who say what you do and do not think of the consequences of any actions are f*cking doucheb*gs and idiots, if the shoe fits and all. Otherwise, you shouldn't be offended, right? I'm not calling you that, just saying I think that of people who say "it's the law, and the law is the law is the law, and any problems caused by the law down the road are inconsequential, because that's later and f*ck later, it's now now". Which is what you were basically saying as far as I understood things.
To reiterate, while I understand your views, they're not well thought out. They're relatively reasonable, but you're overlooking many key things and making assumptions about people based on preconceived notions that are incorrect. Thus, you're no longer worth attempting to speak reasonably to, as such, let's part ways here. I'll ignore you, you ignore me. We all lead happier lives. You think everyone's a freeloading thief, I think some are douchb*gs. And the world keeps spinning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hulu is Fox and NBC/U
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Good point. I'm going to report those right now.
Of course, last time such comments appeared, they were actually posted by one of those Masnick-hating A.C.'s who calls people "freetards," for the express purpose of trying to discredit Techdirt.
So, there's that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
not that copytards care who gets what legitimately or pirated, of course, too busy whining over trivial shit so you can keep your status quo of monopoly cash flowing in
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
perhaps the site needs adjusting so that once the comments start setting their left margine too far to the right they start being hidden and you have to expand them out in an overlay or something so that doesn't happen?
(sorry, green AC, this has nothing to do with your post, but i'm not scrolling back up past all that crap again to find the reply link you clicked, sorry.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Green/EFA grouping, not Green Party per se
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Green/EFA grouping, not Green Party per se
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The traditional left-wing (which in Europe means really left-wing, not vaguely social-democratic which is as far left as it's possible for a mainstream politician to be in the US) bloc in the European Parliament also generally supports balanced IP laws. The (centrist) liberal and mainstream centre-left groups are split, while the right-of-centre groups tend to support maximalism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In reality it is the parties that are most part of the establishment that are IP maximalist - fringe parties of all kinds tend to have sensible IP policies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
the main sources of problematic abuse of the current system are multi-national and/or US based corporations, after all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not surprising that the Greens are adapting this plank...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not surprising that the Greens are adapting this plank...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not surprising that the Greens are adapting this plank...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not surprising that the Greens are adapting this plank...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"create new works by reusing parts of existing works"
"... file sharing is always legal."
Simply unworkable. Along with the insistence on remix and mashup would soon ensure that NO NEW works get created. Strikes me as backdoor to inflicting a cultural Newspeak by stifling new works, limiting the range to existing. No new expressions outside that range would be made because pirated immediately. -- Remember that the Greens are basically commies and WISH to restrict society, so I see it as consistent for that, but NOT liberating.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "create new works by reusing parts of existing works"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "create new works by reusing parts of existing works"
It is likely that those 'Fox' and other copiers are just time shifting. Not terrible likely they are selling their copies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "create new works by reusing parts of existing works"
who you callin' pieced-up, PUNK? as the rainbow you are cutting pieces out of me everytime you use a color (hell when you just type the name of the color you are deriving), you sorry freetards think just because i offer so much content in one place that you are entitled to free colors to use, re-use and abuse when and where-ever you see fit
well, the parties over freetards, the time of wild west rainbows is coming to an end!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "create new works by reusing parts of existing works"
Imagine if Pocahontas was still under copyright? Or had been yanked back under copyright? Would Cameron have still made the movie? (and made $2,782,275,172, according to Wikipedia (yeah, I know, can't trust Wiki 100%)).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "create new works by reusing parts of existing works"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "create new works by reusing parts of existing works"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "create new works by reusing parts of existing works"
While remixes and mashups are most often thought of in terms of over-dubbing or raw combinations of existing music, there's plenty of shades that are far less blatant in their inspiration. Essentially, you're broadbrushing what remixes and mashups can be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i would truly like to see some notice taken of these proposals, though, and the industries concerned start/made to realise that their days of demanding, then getting, laws that were of benefit to no one other than them, were numbered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I believe he would. Given that he follows related subjects closely, any party with that platform would attract his attention sooner or later.
The question is, would people who do not follow these issues as closely have heard of it? That party name is sure an attention catcher.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[Copyright] "regulates commercial, intent-to-profit activity only"
But to say that you can run a "private" DVD duplicator 24/7 so long as no profit is made from it is to all but guarantee that commercial production of NEW stops. Every movie old and new would be instantly copied and traded -- no profit: just exchange of disks or USB drives or files.
This is the old commie notion of re-distributing wealth without allowing for the motives and opportunity that drive the creation of NEW wealth, the part of "capitalism" that's actually good and not sheer plutocracy that ends up same as communism in entrenching a ruling class. -- In short, The Rich need to be watched and pulled down continually so that they don't oppress innovators and laborers, set themselves up with feudal entitlements merely by reason of lucky birth. (They've an entire myth on how their parasitism is good for society.) But that doesn't mean wish for the destruction of all proprietary rights of persons, letting the rabble just duplicate as much as they will. No, the solution is fixed and enforced laws, for a limited time, just as in US Constitution, oddly enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: [Copyright] "regulates commercial, intent-to-profit activity only"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: [Copyright] "regulates commercial, intent-to-profit activity only"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: [Copyright] "regulates commercial, intent-to-profit activity only"
A lot of the music I got interested in I found out from friends who let me listen to a track. A lot of it I like it enough that I get a bunch of music (that I pay for, natch) every paycheck. I easily have the means to get it for free with nary a look back (and I did do that in the past), but I don't do that because I want to support the art, and the art I get I am able to get conveniently and easily.
Going to ignore the non-sequitur about The Rich (aka The Man) keeping the Proletariat down...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What an unfortunate choice of words.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is what I admire most about the freetards, they exude such class. For the record, just because this is the practice at your place of employment doesn't mean it's happening elsewhere. Though, I suspect it may the only reason you still have a job. Nice that you're good at something. Clearly debate isn't it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
and you're rising to it quite nicely.
*ponders* animatronic strawman?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Small correction.
It's not _a_ Political party, it's the Green Group in the EU, made up of all the green parties that have elected representatives (And the Swedish Pirate party).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Target
What? Bitches can sink too..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then put them in power and they will be yet another corporate lap dog.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
freedom of thought
I certainly agree with the second part, that circumvention should be legal-- what I do with a sequence of bits in the privacy of my own home is nobody's business but mine.
But I actually disagree with the first part. If I assemble, say, an album of public domain photographs, surely that should be legal. Whom have I harmed? If I keep that album to myself, or destroy it, surely that should be legal. If I build a self-destruct mechanism into it, that should be perfectly legal too. And if I then sell it, not mentioning to the buyer that the album will resist being lent, or that it will turn to dust in a year, then I'm certainly guilty of fraud. But if I tell the buyer up front about the rigging, and the buyer is still willing to buy, then whom have I defrauded? What rights have I violated? (And before suggesting that people have a right to public domain material, or a right to buy things without DRM, please reread the part about my right to destroy the album without selling it).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: freedom of thought
Would you not be falsly worded when you say that you sell it, when you really are offering a limited-time use?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: freedom of thought
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: freedom of thought
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: freedom of thought
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: freedom of thought
(perhaps the fact that you just Know the corporations will find some way to twist things back to at least where they are now if that option is left available? it's substantially easier to make the use of it illegal than to remove the law making the circumvention of it when it is present illegal...generally speaking at least, i don't know about the specifics of the EU.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh no! The green party is killing the pirate party's political industry. Perhaps the pirate party should sue them for infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually, I don't see it as that much of a surprise. The (Swedish) Pirate Party has always been environmentally conscientious so it doesn't seem like too much of a surprise that they will work together.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]