Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Media Government Politics Your Rights Online

Pirate Party Coming To Canada 394

Posted by timothy
from the but-the-vikings-hit-canada-hundreds-of-years-ago dept.
An anonymous reader writes "After scoring a surprise electoral win in Sweden and getting high-profile support in Germany, The Pirate Party is coming to Canada. The party's goals are fairly simple. People should have the right to share and copy music, movies and virtually any material, as long as it is for personal use, not for profit. It opposes government and corporate monitoring of Internet activities, unless as part of a criminal investigation. It also wants to phase out patents."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Pirate Party Coming To Canada

Comments Filter:
  • First Vote (Score:4, Insightful)

    by scream at the sky (989144) on Sunday July 05, 2009 @04:10AM (#28585255) Homepage
    I'm a DAMN proud Canadian right now
    • Re:First Vote (Score:5, Informative)

      by Hurricane78 (562437) <deleted@@@slashdot...org> on Sunday July 05, 2009 @05:34AM (#28585523)

      You mean, since they are the first on the north american continent? Oh wait...! [wikipedia.org]

      -- Proud voter of the Pirate Party in the EU election 2009!

    • Where do I get a bumper sticker? There's no sign that the Pirates are coming to the US, but I can show my support and make a political statement anyway. How about a flag? I'll run it up right below the US flag, and above the Arkansas flag. THAT will make people wonder!!

      • by aurispector (530273) on Sunday July 05, 2009 @08:40AM (#28586067)

        The pirate party's goals are too narrow. What the US needs isn't a political party solely devoted to IP and patent issues. What the US needs is a viable national 3rd party devoted to restoring a government for the people, by the people, ruled by the constitution. The issues that concern the pirate party would be covered if copyright went back to being a means for contributing to the public good i.e. copyrights that actually expire and go into public domain instead of perpetually feeding a corporations coffers. Rolling back corporate influence in government and lawmaking would result in an environment more conducive to IP fairness and privacy by default.

        • Re:Bumper stickers? (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Runaway1956 (1322357) on Sunday July 05, 2009 @11:44AM (#28586885) Homepage Journal

          I disagree, somewhat. The US needs ANYONE to run against the two established parties ON ANY PLATFORM, and to WIN offices around the country.

          Granted, if the Pirate Party came here, they wouldn't win seats in Congress and the Senate, they certainly wouldn't win the presidency. But, if (in states where judges are elected) we started seating judges, mayors, and state representatives, the two parties would take notice. And, it wouldn't take a lot of them, either. Our politicians may be crooked as all hell, but that doesn't make them stupid. They can read grass roots movements as well as anyone.

          Aren't we all sick of the same old crap we get from the two inbred parties yet? If not - well - I've heard that people get the government that they deserve. Maybe that really is true.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Andy_R (114137)

        There is a US Pirate Party!

        http://www.pirate-party.us/ [pirate-party.us]

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by jalefkowit (101585)

          ... which appears to have done diddly squat over several years (the USPP was "founded" in 2006) in terms of fundraising and base building, despite Americans being more politically engaged during that time than they have been in generations.

          Of the six offices [pirate-party.us] that comprise the USPP's "leadership", three are vacant and two more will become so this month. To the best of my knowledge, they've fielded no candidates for office at any level and have not organized enough people to win ballot access [pirate-party.us] in any state.

          In

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 05, 2009 @04:15AM (#28585261)

    If we had proportional representation then the pirate party(and other minority parties) would have a chance at being represented in the house.

    Instead we have rep-by-pop, which will be the status quo as long as the Conservative Party and Liberal Party continue to rule.

    • The fault of having rep-by-pop is not the fault of the parties. After all look at what happened in BC. You can blame the complexities or what have you, but the populace has clearly said, "NO!" As such it is what it is and will stay and what it is. Remember that, this is the second time they tried that vote in BC.

      Personally I am completely disappointed in this result since I would prefer something closer to proportional representation since I happen to be part of a smaller party (Libertarian). But democracy

      • by V50 (248015) *

        Yup. I used to be a big supporter of electoral reform, even as a Tory, (I favored MMP). While I still wish to see the system change, I don't want to ram it down anyone's throat, I feel the referendums, while disappointing, pretty much settled the matter for quite some time.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        With proportional representation the party leaders choose who represent you and you have no way to say no to a scummy person. Also independents effectively cannot be elected.

        I would prefer larger electoral districts where anyone with at least 10% of the vote becomes a representative of the district and gets 1 vote per 1 full percent of the vote he received. As to pay the representative would get a percentage of the pay for that districts representatives that equals the % of the vote received. This all

        • by kvezach (1199717) on Sunday July 05, 2009 @07:05AM (#28585753)
          With proportional representation the party leaders choose who represent you and you have no way to say no to a scummy person. Also independents effectively cannot be elected.

          For STV (like BC-STV, the BC method that was unfortunately defeated), that's absolutely not true. A voter can rank the candidates in his desired order. If a party fields a scummy person, you could choose to just not rank that person (effectively ranking him last), and if enough voters do that, then that person won't be elected, no matter the wishes of the party. The same thing goes for independents: they can run as independents, and voters may rank an independent like any other candidate.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        This is going to be mod troll or offtopic or whatever.

        I'm getting a little sick of Americans advocate they live on the biggest democracy of the world.
        You think democracy is the option between just 2 parties. You pretty much have that biparty system since I can remember. How do you people allow a system where private lobby's can legally donate millions for politician campaigns. How can such a system not been totally compromised?

        A party like the pirate party will never had significant expression on the US.
        Wit

    • by hedwards (940851) on Sunday July 05, 2009 @07:13AM (#28585773)
      Um, no we don't. We have a centrist party and a fascist party. With the centrist party representing liberals by default. Believe me a conservative party and liberal party would be a serious step in the right direction.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Phrogman (80473)

        This. I don't honestly understand how anyone can vote for Harper. I wouldn't buy a used car from the man.

  • Sick (Score:5, Funny)

    by iamdrscience (541136) <michaelmtripp&gmail,com> on Sunday July 05, 2009 @04:25AM (#28585291) Homepage
    I for one am sick of these neo-pirates perverting the time-tested ideals of classical piratism. Copyright and patent reform? What happened to grog, wenches and plunder? For shame on these people, ruining the good name of pirates.
  • by Kupfernigk (1190345) on Sunday July 05, 2009 @04:26AM (#28585297)
    US legislators appear to have forgotten that during the early phases of US growth, the US refused to acknowledge any foreign intellectual property - European books were copied and published in the US with no royalties whatsoever, and it was no less a person than Rudyard Kipling, all of whose works were stolen in this way, who described the US as a country of pirates. The US was one of the last developed countries to sign the Berne Convention, which it did not do till 1st March 1989. So you could say that the US only formally ceased to be a pirate itself 20 years ago.
    • by shutdown -p now (807394) on Sunday July 05, 2009 @04:41AM (#28585357) Journal

      US legislators appear to have forgotten that during the early phases of US growth, the US refused to acknowledge any foreign intellectual property

      Why do you think that they have forgotten? Quite the contrary, I believe that they're fully aware that present-day American economy has changed a lot since then, and large parts of it now depend on strong protection of "intellectual property".

    • by physicsphairy (720718) on Sunday July 05, 2009 @04:56AM (#28585407) Homepage

      It doesn't make sense to value foreign IP unless you plan on pulling a big take from selling your domestic IP abroad. The U.S.'s position has coincided with its economic interests, not its moral opinion.

      Right now China doesn't care much about copyright and patents, but you can bet in 20 years from when they have ceased trying to catch up to the superpower and effectively *are* the superpower, that they will be among those rallying for stronger enforcement.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        It's not uncommon actually. Switzerland developed in the same way. Eventually these countries start to produce their own IP and protecting it makes sense.
    • by kamapuaa (555446)
      This is the best logic EVAR! The US allowed books to be freely copied in the late 18th century, and therefore piracy should be legal in Sweden and Canada too I guess. Hey what, did late 18th century US laws have to say about keeping slaves, or divorcing your wife?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by servognome (738846)

      US legislators appear to have forgotten that during the early phases of US growth, the US refused to acknowledge any foreign intellectual property

      And most people have forgotten that hunter-gatherers didn't recognize the ownership of land since it was unnecessary for their migratory societies. Yet today we recognize individuals can maintain control over a section of the earth merely with a piece of paper that says so.
      Technology has changed what is considered valuable. The domestication of plants and animal

      • by Mathinker (909784) on Sunday July 05, 2009 @06:34AM (#28585675) Journal

        > intellectual property protects our DNA code, purchases, travel habits, and
        > other information individuals consider private.

        What universe do you live in? You have it exactly reversed (or, I really didn't understand what you meant to say). Large corporations have patented the human DNA of individuals for their own gain [nationalgeographic.com]. They haven't started to sue the children of the people whose genes they sequenced, but if Monsanto can succeed in suing an organic farmer whose crops were contaminated by their patented genes [gmofreemendo.com] (the link is for a more recent Canadian case, but they already won a similar case in the US!), it isn't unthinkable that it could happen in the future.

        Other large corporations, Google, for example, keep all kinds of records of people's web preferences, credit card purchases, and tons of other "information that individuals consider private", and if anyone is protected by IP rights in those cases, it's the corporations, not the individuals!

        IP rights only extend to "creative works", and there has yet to be a court system which defines "deciding to buy something" or "deciding to click a particular ad" as "creative".

  • by CrystalFalcon (233559) * on Sunday July 05, 2009 @04:27AM (#28585305) Homepage

    As an official in the Swedish Pirate Party, I can only wish our Canadian brothers and sisters a heartily welcome up onto the barricades, and the best of winds.

    We are changing the world together.

  • by unlametheweak (1102159) on Sunday July 05, 2009 @04:27AM (#28585307)

    The Pirate Party is coming to Canada.

    It's likely to split the non-neoconservative vote even further into obscurity.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      It's likely to split the non-neoconservative vote even further into obscurity.

      It's your own fault [wikipedia.org].
    • by unlametheweak (1102159) on Sunday July 05, 2009 @04:40AM (#28585353)

      To elaborate, we have at least 4 (serious) political contenders who are in (or near) the center of the political spectrum here in Canada:
      - The Marijuana Party
      - The New Democratic Party
      - The Green Party
      - The Pirate Party (the new kid on the block)

      These parties compete primarily with the Liberal Party (Canada's unofficial right-wing party); and the Liberal party is the only party that can offer any serious opposition to the Conservative party (Canada's unofficial neoconservative party), who tends to remain strong unless there is consistent and persistent and extreme scandals and incompetency during their terms in office (sorta like how the Republicans remain quite strong in the US despite their scandals and in-competencies).

      • by IamTheRealMike (537420) <mike@plan99.net> on Sunday July 05, 2009 @05:53AM (#28585599) Homepage

        I'm not sure I would describe the Pirate Party of Canada as "serious". Their website appears to contain no manifesto. It does link to the "International Pirate Party" website though, so I looked there ... but the section of that website to do with policies simply points you to a web forum where a bunch of people are arguing about what that should be.

        That leaves the original Pirate Party of Sweden. What are their policies? At least they do have some. Unfortunately they are self-contradictory and poorly thought out. For instance they believe that copyright should not apply for "non commercial use", ie, file sharing should be free. But what counts as commercial use then? They appear to think that, for example, a musician who writes music for a video game should get paid (and the law would enforce that) but the creators of the video game themselves probably won't get paid, depending on the whims of their customers. That makes absolutely no sense, because then the musician just wouldn't get hired at all. They also want to abolish pharma patents, and their proposed replacement is "government does all research". Somebody needs to study some basic economics, starting with Adam Smith.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by selven (1556643)
          Nineteenth century capitalism collapses when everything you make can be copied and shared at will. Government funding all research isn't such a bad idea, comparing to the pharma monopolies we have now.
          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            Nineteenth century capitalism collapses when everything you make can be copied and shared at will. Government funding all research isn't such a bad idea, comparing to the pharma monopolies we have now.

            In a lot of cases it isn't pharma monopolies doing the research. Taxpayers fund a lot then a patent gets applied for and the pharma company monetises all that government research.

            Yes, that patent will be the use of drug foo in the treatment of condition bar.

      • by MicktheMech (697533) on Sunday July 05, 2009 @12:44PM (#28587253) Homepage

        To elaborate, we have at least 4 (serious) political contenders who are in (or near) the center of the political spectrum here in Canada: - The Marijuana Party - The New Democratic Party - The Green Party - The Pirate Party (the new kid on the block) These parties compete primarily with the Liberal Party (Canada's unofficial right-wing party); and the Liberal party is the only party that can offer any serious opposition to the Conservative party (Canada's unofficial neoconservative party), who tends to remain strong unless there is consistent and persistent and extreme scandals and incompetency during their terms in office (sorta like how the Republicans remain quite strong in the US despite their scandals and in-competencies).

        This is so wrong I don't know where to start. First, I'm guessing you're pretty young if you think the Tories have been traditionally strong. Secondly, the Liberals are not, not have ever been right wing. They're a pragmatic centrist party. Before Chretien's election Canadian politics were dominated by the Tories and the Liberals. They were both centrists and back in the day the most common complaint heard was that there was no difference between the two. Then the Tories were decimated and the reform party which is definitely right-wing took over as the major opposition. Eventually they merged with the more moderate eastern tories to form what we know as the CPC today, though Reform appears to dominate the leadership. Though as an easterner I have no love for them, I would never say the party as a whole is neo-conservative.

        The NDP has always been left wing, they've always been tied to the Unions (not withstanding the split with Buzz recently). To call them (or the Marijuana party) centrist is just plain crazy. Your characterization of Canadian politics betrays a fairly extreme leftist bent.

  • Australia Too (Score:5, Informative)

    by QuantumG (50515) * <qg@biodome.org> on Sunday July 05, 2009 @04:30AM (#28585313) Homepage Journal

    Pirate Party Australia [pirateparty.org.au], join as a preliminary member today!

  • While it is certainly true that many patents have been granted of late for things that should not pass the obviousness test, patents do provide a strong incentive to develop new technologies. They provide a monopoly on new inventions for a limited period of time in exchange for disclosing the details of that technology to the world, so it can later be used like others. If technologies can not be patented, they can be easily duplicated, and researchers will lose their investment when competitors simply dup

    • Re:Bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)

      by swilver (617741) on Sunday July 05, 2009 @05:26AM (#28585493)

      My problems with patents is that as more and more people work in a certain field, the change of independent discovery of an idea increases drastically (especially the so-called "ideas" one sees patented these days). In the software world, any reasonable competent programmer comes up with any number of ideas during the course of their work (sometimes also referred to as "reinventing the wheel", although perhaps on a smaller scale).

      Programming software therefore is rapidly becoming a huge patent minefield, one which is not easily avoided since reinventing the wheel is pretty common in software development. Taking time to study patents to see if none were violated would make the cost of writing even the simplest software prohibitive. It would be like writing a message (like this one), except I'd have to check with the patent office if certain ways of expressing my thoughts (like one does in programming) aren't someone's exclusive property.

      In my opinion, the entire of idea of patenting something is assuming that you or your company are so smart that it could not possibly have been discovered by the other 6 billion people on the planet (whether they already did it before you which is often the case, or discover it independently later).

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by maxwell demon (590494)

      I'm not so sure. First, I think patents don't provide an incentive to invent. People don't invent in order to get patents, they invent in order to get solutions to problems. What patents are supposed top do is to make those inventions public knowledge, and enable other people to build upon them.

      However, I'm doubtful that even this part works well. Say a company has made an invention, and now has to decide whether to patent it or keep it secret. Now if the invention is non-obvious enough that you don't expec

    • Re:Bad idea (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Runaway1956 (1322357) on Sunday July 05, 2009 @05:52AM (#28585585) Homepage Journal

      Like copyright law, patent law was never meant to prevent the duplication of a product, process, or idea. It was only meant to prevent the duplication FOR PROFIT.

      I personally met one individual who patented a method to modify carburetors to increase fuel mileage. He sold his patent to GM. The man still worked on cars, and modified those big Chevy Impalas to get 30+ MPG. If he worked on your car, he could not accept payment. Doing so would have put him in violation of patent law. But, doing the very same work for his own amusement was perfectly legal.

      It's a shame GM wasn't putting that patent to use 40 years ago, when they bought it. They might not be bankrupt today.......

  • It also wants to phase out patents

    A lofty goal, but it's not realistic. Patents are abused, but they're also so ingrained into our society that it's unthinkable to not have any patents whatsoever. Everyone's made the joke that if they invent something that could make them a lot of money, they'll patent it.

    Perhaps the idea should be to take patents back to the original purpose of them - to protect the inventor from other people stealing their ideas, and NOT to be used as a legal weapon against other companie

    • by pudro (983817)

      Perhaps the idea should be to take patents back to the original purpose of them - to protect the inventor from other people stealing their ideas, and NOT to be used as a legal weapon against other companies.

      Perhaps the idea should be to take patents back to the original purpose of them - to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, and NOT to protect the inventor from other people stealing their ideas.

      Fixed that for you.

  • What is extremely interesting to me is that we are now seeing a multinational political party! Has there ever been such a thing before? It's not too far fetched to say that there might be a Pirate Party in all the major developed countries in the near future. This is truly an interesting prospect indeed.

    I mean these Pirate Parties might not have a majority in any of the countries they are in, but in the near future, the (theoretical) sum total of these parties in each country may well be one of the single
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by oiron (697563)

      As unfashionable as they may be today, there was the Ba'ath party [wikipedia.org] of Saddam Hussein fame.

      Also, the various Socialist/Communist Internationals could be considered too: First International, Second International [wikipedia.org], Comintern [wikipedia.org] and some other not-so-internationals too...

      While not parties, the European revolutions (1848, etc) were international in character to some extent...

  • Yes, its Piracy (Score:2, Insightful)

    by DiamondGeezer (872237)
    The Pirate Party is coming to Canada. The party's goals are fairly simple. ... It ... wants to phase out patents.

    Of course. What better way for people to be robbed of their intellectual property and the fruits of their hard work than to find that they cannot patent it, so it will be ripped off by the nearest corporation with the deepest pockets.

    The Pirate Party of Somalia is similarly opposed to the notion of private shipping and of the notion of the personal liberty of seamen without payment, feelin
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      Of course. What better way for people to be robbed of their intellectual property and the fruits of their hard work than to find that they cannot patent it, so it will be ripped off by the nearest corporation with the deepest pockets.

      Rick Falkvinge talked about that in Google techtalks.

      Patenting costs a lot of time and money - too much for private individuals. Even if you did patent something, and a big company would infringe your patent, you'd be in one helluva court battle. Needless to say: at least in some places money will buy justice.

  • by Langfat (953252) on Sunday July 05, 2009 @05:05AM (#28585431) Homepage
    For anyone interested in getting involved, check out the forum at http://www.piratepartyofcanada.com [piratepartyofcanada.com] - Doesn't look like there's much going on yet, but hopefully that will change shortly...
  • by V50 (248015) * on Sunday July 05, 2009 @05:13AM (#28585453) Journal

    My thoughts on this. First of all, the part is irrelevant, they have no chance of electoral success, they probably will only even run candidates in a handful of ridings. Even if they did run in all 308 ridings, they have no chance to get more than, at best, 5% of the vote in their best riding (and even that is a stretch). Our system, which has been confirmed by several recent referendums, essentially makes any votes for them "wasted" in a few ways. I'd still recommend anyone vote for them, if they support their principles.

    As for my thoughts on copyrights in general. I'm a generally libertarian leaning Conservative. I don't like how the RIAA/MPAA is conducting themselves. I don't like the abuses of patent systems, and I think copyright lasts way too long. I'd be completely in favor of reform of those.

    That being said, I feel the general idea of copyrights and patents is a sound one. IMO, people should have ownership over ideas and works that they create. An aspect of ownership is the right to deny use of your property to others.

    I see this in a similar manner as land ownership. Land ownership is a similarly abstract concept. One can only "own" land based on the collective agreement of the population, and the government. Likewise, even if one is not using a tract of land one owns, one can deny access to it from others.

    That being said, like a typical goodthinking Slashbot, I hate DRM, think the RIAA/MPAA are a bunch of thugs, and feel that copyrights last way too long (I think patents last about the right length, but stupid crap shouldn't be patentable). I don't, however, feel this gives people a right to pirate whatever they feel like, nor do I think it invalidates the idea of copyright, in general. (For my background, I'm a 22 year old white Canadian male who buys his games, music and movies, and buys a great deal of them.)

    I'd be interested in seeing well thought out disagreements, of course. I'm also sure my thoughts and my analogy could be worded much better. I'm usually terrible at getting my point across.

    • by Dunbal (464142) on Sunday July 05, 2009 @05:35AM (#28585529)

      people should have ownership over ideas

            I disagree. How can you be so egotistical as to think that you are the only one in the world that has had a given "idea"? How can you prevent - no - PENALIZE someone else from having the same idea?

            This is why IDEAS cannot be patented, and never should be. Lawyers have been trying to do end-runs around this concept for decades now.

            The development of an idea into something useful - a working prototype, a unique machine, an application of that idea that requires time, money and skill to create - yes, this should be given certain LIMITED protection. But the idea itself? You don't deserve to be paid just because you thought about something and put it on paper.

  • Can we have one in England too?
  • by Hurricane78 (562437) <deleted@@@slashdot...org> on Sunday July 05, 2009 @05:31AM (#28585511)

    First and foremost, they oppose any kind of censorship and totalitarian government.
    Then comes the goal to move from the imaginary "intellectual property" scheme back to what copyright, authors right and the freedom of ideas once were meant to be.
    They are not for the exploitation of artists. That is what the **AA is for.

    This TFS(ummary) is probably the worst summary of a party program I have ever read.
    Maybe some people are just so used to parties an programs being meaningless because they all belonged to the same industry lobbies anyway, that they do not pay attention to them anymore. :/

  • by robbrit (1408421) on Sunday July 05, 2009 @10:52AM (#28586647) Homepage
    I'd like to note that the summary is not entirely correct.

    We are not saying that people should have the right to copy whatever they like, despite what public opinion might be. Copyright is an important tool for innovation, we just think that it has gone too far (death + 50 years? Come on!). That does not mean that everyone should be allowed to download as much music/movies/etc. as they want. On top of that, we are not saying "phase out patents." There are some members of our forums that are saying that, but it does not reflect the entire Pirate Party's desires.

    Other than that, the summary is right.
  • Between CBC's coverage of Canadian Pirate Party and this slashdot post, I had a chance to ask Elizabeth May about the idea of a Canadian Pirate Party.

    http://r4nt.com/article/green-party-vs-pirate-party/ [r4nt.com]

    She says Green Party policy is copyrights should expire in 12 years (as opposed to Canada's effective 100 year copyright durations).

    I know the Green Party doesn't push this aspect of their platform very hard, but it would be nice to have an elected MP speaking on economically optimal copyright durations, as opposed to what is "right" or "wrong" with downloading MP3s (yawn).

    YouTube video of Elizabeth May on The Pirate Party and Copyright. [youtube.com] Also recycleable (and CC licensed) at Internet Archive [archive.org].

    If The Pirate Party runs against Greens, then copyleft voters will have their vote split. Given Canada's first-past-the-post system, that guarantees we'll never have an elected MP pushing for shorter copyright duration.

  • by Dan667 (564390) on Sunday July 05, 2009 @07:54PM (#28589851)
    After the Jamie verdict and the Pirate Bay verdict, it was enough stupid for people to get involved. This is exactly the opposite of what the RIAA wanted. As tools like the RIAA radar gain popularity and the brands of the RIAA are hurt more, they will eventually lose.

    http://www.riaaradar.com/ [riaaradar.com]

    Why would anyone knowingly pay the RIAA that actively suppresses music and does not take care of the very artists they say they are protecting. The RIAA demise is not coming soon enough, but nice to see the cracks in the dam.
  • A bit thin (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jandersen (462034) on Monday July 06, 2009 @04:06AM (#28592211)

    The party's goals are fairly simple. People should have the right to share and copy music, movies and virtually any material, as long as it is for personal use, not for profit.

    Much as I agree with the sentiment, I feel it is too little to form a political party on; a proper party program should address all or most aspects of running a society, possibly based on a shared worldview. What is copying movies going to do about the army, social security or the war in Iraq, just to mention a few thing? In my view one shouldn't start with the right to copy music files and then add the rest as an afterthought; one should start with some more general principles, like equality under the law and whatever, and then derive the right to make copies from that, along with all the other issues out in the real world.

    But it is fully understandable that people feel nothing but loathing for politics and political parties as things are. I think at the bottom of it is not just the general, selfserving smarminess amongst politicians, but also the fact that they don't even seem to make an honest effort; so many of them are just narrow minded, incompetent windbags who are in it for the money and nothing else. I personally would vote for anybody that can convince me that he or she is going to simply do a good job in the interest of the country and the people; never mind whether they are God-fearing family people or promiscuous Satanists, staunch Capitalists or Communists, as long as they are honest and competent.

  • Payback time. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by nightfire-unique (253895) on Monday July 06, 2009 @02:35PM (#28598449)

    I am a Canadian and will support and vote for the pirate party. While I'm neither here nor there regarding copyright law, I am strongly in favor of iron-strength privacy protection, patent reform, and throttling the newfound arrogance our government has displayed recently.

    And, hey, if they throw in a little telco reform, they've got a lifetime member here.

    Go pirates, go!

Old programmers never die, they just branch to a new address.

Working...