Gamex Pulls The Welcome Mat Out From Under The Pirate Party

Politics

from the here-today-gone-tomorrow dept

Mon, Nov 14th 2011 7:09am — Zachary Knight

For several months leading up to this November's Swedish Gamex show, the Pirate Party of Sweden had been pursued by the show's sales staff to attend. Then the week prior to the show's opening, the Pirate Party was told it wasn't welcome.

"On Tuesday afternoon, I called a representative of the show with a few simple practical questions, but she seemed generally stressed out and said something vague about the show and not wanting any problems before she hung up," says Troberg.

I thought it was a bit strange, but in the afternoon, the pieces fell into place when the fair manager, Bear Wengse, phoned me and kindly, but firmly, announced that the Pirate Party was no longer welcome at the fair.

Wengse informed Troberg that the exhibition is a meeting place and not a venue for political conflict, and the party's presence could cause problems, particularly since some of their work "could be perceived as criminal."

Just what those criminal works were, no one was able to explain. The details of the unvite were severely lacking. Troberg had tried to explain that the Pirate Party wants to change existing laws through the legal process and that could not conceivably be considered "criminal". Unfortunately, no one was listening.

Frankly, it is a sad day when a political voice is silenced for no reason other than a few legacy industries not liking the message. We have already learned that here in the US, the supposed bastion of Democracy, is refusing to hear all sides of legal issues. It really comes as no surprise to find that the same people would want to block access to those same dissenting ideas. Do we really think things will get better as we move more and more toward stronger copyright? Will the next step after SOPA be the silencing of any speech that can be perceived as "pro-piracy"? I certainly hope not.

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: gaming, pirate party, sweden
Companies: gamex

62 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

xenomancer (profile), 14 Nov 2011 @ 7:02am

Unfortunately, no one was listening.
I believe you have found the biggest problem with the matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2011 @ 7:13am

Since when are you entitled to attend a private event? Oh that's right, you're entitles to whatever you want. Sorry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That Anonymous Coward (profile), 14 Nov 2011 @ 7:20am
  
  Re:
  You skip over the event hosts having INVITED them to the event and then pulling the invitation.
  And the concept of it not being the right place for political statement went out the window as another political group was allowed to attend.
  
  Next time try RTFS.
  
  1/10
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Another AC, 14 Nov 2011 @ 7:21am
  
  Re:
  You are entitled to attend a private event WHEN YOU ARE INVITED. Don't be a fool.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ron, 14 Nov 2011 @ 7:32am
    
    Re: Re:
    Another idiot that cannot read. Read the freakin article and the post right above yours.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2011 @ 9:09am
    
    Re: Re:
    You are entitled to attend a private event WHEN YOU ARE INVITED. Don't be a fool
    
    I'd like to invite you over to my house to watch Monday Night Football tonight.
    
    *five minutes later*
    
    Sorry, I changed my mind because a couple of other guests think you're a shrill, obnoxious zealot and don't want their evening spoiled with your odious presence. You're hereby disinvited.
    
    Still think you're entitled to come?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - abc gum, 14 Nov 2011 @ 9:28am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Or maybe you need to use better judgment in the choice of friends - just sayin.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Another AC, 14 Nov 2011 @ 10:38am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Still think you're entitled to come?"
      
      You're still being foolish I'm afraid.
      
      Of course I can come to your party when you invite me... in keeping with your analogy, when you decide to become a prick and uninvite me because you were too stupid to realize I had a body odour problem, then of course I won't want to go over to your party with your elitist friends and their neanderthal attitudes to progressive thinking.
      
      But then again, none of that changes the fact that I was entitled to go! Again, keeping the analogy, just because I'm letting the world know that you're an uninviting prick doesn't change that. The two things are different, do you see it yet?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Cowardly yours, 15 Nov 2011 @ 1:08am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      If you also ask me to spring 50 USD for beer and snacks at the event and then not refund me when you withdraw your invitation it's still you that are an entitled asshole and not me.
      Just sayin'
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rikuo (profile), 14 Nov 2011 @ 7:54am
  
  Re:
  Yes, those dirty thieving pirate scum...how DARE they think they're entitled to go to a party that they had been hounded for months on end to attend. Its clearly their own fault that Gamex are political cowards and rude little pr*cks for inviting, then dis-inviting them!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Cowardly Anon, 14 Nov 2011 @ 8:41am
  
  Re:
  Reading comprehension fail.
  
  Zachary isn't saying they were entitled to attend the event. The Pirate Party was asked to come to the event by the event coordinators.
  
  They were invited, they didn't demand to go. Then the invitation was revoked with only a flimsy excuse given.
  
  Answer me this, Mr. Coward, if the private event didn't want a political party coming to their event, why did they invite them in the first place?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Cowardly yours, 15 Nov 2011 @ 1:06am
  
  Re:
  Um... check your facts. Gamex sold a booth to the Pirate Party. They even went so far as to spend a couple of months trying to convince the Pirate Party that attending Gamex was a good idea.
  Then, with a week left till the event they decided they did not want anything to do with the Pirate Party. But of course they said they would not pay back the money the Pirate Party had paid for the booth.
  
  I'd say that when you have been invited to pay for attendance to at "private event" and also paid the agreed price you're fucking well "entitled" to attend it. Sorry.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2011 @ 7:13am

"Frankly, it is a sad day when a political voice is silenced for no reason other than a few legacy industries not liking the message. "

Legacy industries? Wow, are you out of touch.

The reality is that the "pirate party" wants to play on the popularity of online piracy, and the "we can get it all for nothing" generation, but doesn't want to pay the price for that affiliation, real or imagined.

If they were the "Youth Speaks Party", they likely wouldn't have issues. But they chose their moniker, and they get to live with the consequences.

The real world doesn't work like the pretend world, does it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That Anonymous Coward (profile), 14 Nov 2011 @ 7:24am
  
  Re:
  Pirate has a negative connotation. Much like Hacker before it. Hacker is now the catch all term for anything to do with a comptuer even if the level of skill required was pressing the start button.
  
  The take being called Pirates and turn it into a proud banner, that the industry is out of touch with reality and they seek to undo much of the insanity that keeps getting passed as law. They are not "stealing" and handing out anyone products, they are trying to reform the law.
  
  But then I took TAC and turned it from an insult to something much more.
  
  Oh and they can stop being called legacy industries when they stop charging fees based on replacing outdated media fees in their contracts.
  
  2/10
  
  Is it still to early for the A trolls?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Atkray (profile), 14 Nov 2011 @ 7:47am
    
    Re: Re:
    "Is it still to early for the A trolls?"
    
    They are all busy looking at the leaked Black Friday ads.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - MrWilson, 14 Nov 2011 @ 8:32am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      No, no. They always respect the distribution windows of intellectual property set by the copyright holders...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - el_segfaulto (profile), 14 Nov 2011 @ 8:09am
    
    Re: Re:
    Nail on the head. I forget the linguistic term (and I was a linguistics minor!) but the act is when a group takes on the derogatory moniker that has been used against them with pride. Examples include the dreaded "n-word", "Yankee" (which was originally an insult), "Nerd", and "Redneck".
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2011 @ 9:11am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Techdirtbag?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - abc gum, 14 Nov 2011 @ 9:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Good one - lol
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - MrWilson, 14 Nov 2011 @ 11:27am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      We already did this with the term 'freetard.'
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2011 @ 7:32am
  
  Re:
  I think the real point here was that they were invited at one point and then, without being informed, were dis-invited. As they are a political party, their voice does deserve to be heard.
  While I may not like what you have to say, I respect your right to say it. And if you represent a significant portion of the political spectrum (Tea Party for example here in the US.) then I really do want to hear what is on your mind. Even if I really don't agree with you.
  Picking and choosing is bad practice in politics, as it is in most everything else.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2011 @ 7:35am
    
    Re: Re:
    Yes, but does a political party, especially one that the organizers (and many attendees) disagree with HAVE to be heard at this event?
    
    Are there any other political parties attending?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - That Anonymous Coward (profile), 14 Nov 2011 @ 7:40am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Yes... there were...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2011 @ 7:40am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      And that is a good question. Still, their ability to stick to what they say is not very impressive. I mean, if you invite them, man up and let them on.
      After that, learn your lesson and never do it again.
      Cowardice is unseemly and rudeness is not professional.
      
      Otherwise, what the hell were they thinking in the first place? Who's running that place? Some business noob?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2011 @ 7:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Nope, it could be as simple as having a piracy supporter, or a member of the party working on the event, and not saying anything up the ladder. You never know. When the bosses figure it out, they take action before the start of the show.
        
        It's not unusual when you dealing with humans and organizations that not everyone is aware of everything at all times.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 14 Nov 2011 @ 7:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So what? The event manager wasn't aware that invites had been going to the Pirate Party for MONTHS? I find that extremely unlikely...this is just a game show, not a governmental bureaucracy where you're far more likely to lose a billion dollars and have no idea where it went.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2011 @ 8:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        While I can see someone low level inviting them and not telling the boss, I have to agree with Rikuo from a professionalism point of view.
        
        Its too bad really, given who we are talking about here and the audience of the show, I suspect they would have had a lot of eyes.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2011 @ 8:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well, first off, we don't know how many offers were made, likely only one. Sales staff for shows like this can often be outsourced, giving a list of likely attendees, and then told to also look "outside the industry" for attendees, and that could include political parties and such.
        
        I wouldn't be shocked if the situation was only discovered when they were working on floor plan layouts and someone said "Eeek! The Pirate Party??!?!?!" and it went from there.
        
        Gamex isn't a small show - it appears to be Sweden's biggest gaming / media show of the year, and certainly appears to be a large scale event. It is very likely that the sales staff and the show staff didn't communicate a list of who has purchased booth space, or that it only comes up when the client signs the contract and sends it in to be countersigned, which is also a place where it was spotted.
        
        It's easy to try to come up with some grand conspiracy, but the answers in the real world are usually much simpler. A privately operated event has all the rights in the world to refuse service to a group they think encourages illegal activities.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2011 @ 8:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "likely only one."
        
        You are likely just making things up, and like usual, you are likely wrong.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2011 @ 8:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        and even if only one invite was made, who cares.
        
        "It is very likely that the sales staff and the show staff didn't communicate a list of who has purchased booth space"
        
        No, I think what's more likely is that you make things up as you go.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2011 @ 8:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Plain and simple: "fuck off prick".
        
        You really should sign in with your real name instead... prick.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        freak (profile), 14 Nov 2011 @ 8:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        AC: "You should login under your real name!"
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        freak (profile), 14 Nov 2011 @ 8:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I have to wonder . . . why?
        
        So you can google something embarrassing about him? So you can send him threatening messages? So that you can accuse him of something patently false on 4chan and get them to pizza him to death?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2011 @ 9:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, it's just that this particular anonymous is someone who posts here regularly, but chooses to derail discussions with meaningless asides as an anonymous, rather than using their usual sign in name. I suspect Mike would be upset if the guys real name was used for this stuff.
        
        Someone with absolutely no balls, a true prick.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 14 Nov 2011 @ 9:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, it's just that this particular anonymous is someone who posts here regularly, but chooses to derail discussions with meaningless asides as an anonymous, rather than using their usual sign in name. I suspect Mike would be upset if the guys real name was used for this stuff.
        
        Someone with absolutely no balls, a true prick.
        
        1. The AC you're debating is not Marcus, no matter how obsessed you are with Marcus.
        
        2. The AC you're debating is not employed by us.
        
        3. Your guesses are pretty hilarious. And always wrong. Amusingly, if I were to guess at your identity, which is not hard to parse out from your standard lack of logic, you would freak out and accuse me of violating your privacy. You might even tell me to FOAD. And then you'd whine about how no one here respects you. You're funny, dude.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2011 @ 11:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "You're funny, dude."
        
        I'd say hes more 'psychotic' then funny, but that's just me...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2011 @ 12:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Bring it on Mike. Just remember, if you violate your privacy policy to do it, well... ;)
        
        You also forgot to address the main issue: the "AC" in question is someone who posts here regularly, but who logs off specifically to detail discussions.
        
        I am still not convinced (even by your insistence) that it isn't someone who is either employed by you or has (or has had) posting privileges here. The writing style is a little too obvious, the goal a little too clear.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 15 Nov 2011 @ 2:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Your tinfoil hat is on too tight. Everyone's a sock of me. Yes, even you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2011 @ 8:28am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You really should stop trying to tell people what to do.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2011 @ 9:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You should really stop trying to derail anyone who opposed Mike.
        
        Get back to your work... you know, in the copyright world.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2011 @ 6:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "You should really stop trying to derail anyone who opposed Mike."
        
        Because disagreeing with you is derailment now.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2011 @ 8:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, they were invited, they paid for their booth space and their name was printed on the ads that ran for Gamex.
        They were aware.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        abc gum, 14 Nov 2011 @ 9:33am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "they paid for their booth space"
        
        Did they get a refund?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Cowardly yours, 15 Nov 2011 @ 1:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Nope, no re-fund. Gamex felt entitled to the money.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Tor (profile), 14 Nov 2011 @ 9:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "it could be as simple as having a piracy supporter, or a member of the party working on the event, and not saying anything up the ladder. You never know. When the bosses figure it out, they take action before the start of the show."
        
        It would have been a plausible explanation if it weren't for the fact that Gamex ran ads in the Stockholm subway where the Pirate Party was relatively prominently featured for hundred of thousands of people to see. I doubt the bosses didn't get to see that ad before they ran it (considering both the importance of it and the cost).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Cowardly yours, 15 Nov 2011 @ 1:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Seeing as they had the Pirate Party listed as a participant (in quite large font at that) on the official advertising I kind of find it highly unlikely that this was the work of a rogue booking agent, else the problems in Gamex are bigger than just being a bunch of cowardly turncoats and industry brown-nosers (which of course is the definiton of anyone who's livelyhood is dependant on the big boys giving them money).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 14 Nov 2011 @ 8:12am
  
  Re:
  I think they should take this as an indication that they are getting somewhere because someone in authority is scared by them.
  
  To me the situation is a bit like Libya was and Syria now is. Those in authority are beginning to get the wind up and are trying to crack down. Problem is that it won't work...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Beta (profile), 14 Nov 2011 @ 7:34am

we have standards
"[The Pirate Party's] presence could cause problems, particularly since some of their work "could be perceived as criminal."

I'm curious to know what party (on Earth) could get in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Groove Tiger (profile), 14 Nov 2011 @ 7:52am
  
  Re: we have standards
  Changing the law is against the law!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcel de Jong (profile), 14 Nov 2011 @ 8:02am
  
  Re: we have standards
  A good question. And another question would be:
  What does the Pirate Party do that's so illegal?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2011 @ 8:20am
    
    Re: Re: we have standards
    Object to the status quo?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Marcel de Jong (profile), 14 Nov 2011 @ 8:52am
      
      Re: Re: Re: we have standards
      That's not illegal, that's our duty. :)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Incoherent One (profile), 14 Nov 2011 @ 8:02am
  
  Re: we have standards
  Im more interested to know in where the Pirate Party has been brought up on charges for doing something illegal. Last I checked they were a political party which happens to think differently from most established parties when it comes to things like copyright. I didn't know that thinking differently from the established majority was a possible crime.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2011 @ 8:30am
  
  Re: we have standards
  Lets start a new political party, one that holds no positions on anything. Then we can get into any event we like!!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2011 @ 8:35am
    
    Re: Re: we have standards
    I admit that while your snarky comment is not useful to the discussion, I did laugh...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- hmm (profile), 14 Nov 2011 @ 4:06pm
  
  Re: we have standards
  Any of them because they know how to give/take bribes?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2011 @ 7:38am

It would be cool, if...
We could cut them off from technology for not listening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Loki, 14 Nov 2011 @ 8:33am

Frankly, it is a sad day when a political voice is silenced for no reason other than a few legacy industries not liking the message.

It's more then just the legacy industries. It is the legacy political parties. That was proven in 2004 when several independent candidates were arrested trying to participate in a supposedly "non-partisan" debate (really a bipartisan debate) and not a single "mainstream" news agency on either side of the fence (at least that I could find at the time) reported the story at all (as it would give publicity to someone outside the Big 2).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
paddyduke (profile), 14 Nov 2011 @ 9:10am

here in the US, the supposed bastion of Democracy

I sincerely doubt that anyone outside the US would cite it as a good example of democracy. It�s an almost perfect example of a plutocracy, and has been for a long time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2011 @ 9:28am

criminal?
What could be criminal with "pirates"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
anonymous, 14 Nov 2011 @ 9:35am

the silencing of any speech that can be perceived as "pro-piracy".
the way things are going, we wont even be able to speak without getting permission first. the topic will be irrelevent!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hmm (profile), 14 Nov 2011 @ 4:07pm

sweden is
The US's rentboy and has been for a fair while now.

They do anything the US wants (including the upcoming escape/magic disappearing act of Julian Assange)......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]