Pirate Party Coming To Canada 394
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."
First Vote (Score:4, Insightful)
Proportional Representation (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Everyone (Score:1, Insightful)
If everyone can get a copy of a movie as soon as it's released in Russia and share it for other people to download, won't that negatively affect attendance in cinemas and DVD sales in other regions?
Re:Everyone (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of the time when I go to the cinema it is not because I can't wait to get to watch the movie for free but because I enjoy watching it on a big screen.
One Wallet (Score:5, Insightful)
Your question is interesting and one which many people ask themselves. I think it's more like people have one wallet to use and instead of spending money on music they kind of like they spend it on other things - just because they can get it by downloading. The total economic output is however more or less constant. I can only refer to my own spending statistics so feel free to contradict me. I don't put that same money in my savings account! I use it to go to the movies (5 of them past 6 months), fuel my car, go on vacation.
So the recent legislations in e.g. Sweden and the rest of Europe has nothing to do with economics, but rather only distribution of money and "fairness" to the companies. Of course, to succeed they must squash many citizen rights and deploy surveillance to keep citizens in check. One could argue that the win from such legislation really is nothing in comparison of how trampled the citizens become. Of course, the new legislation opens up a can of worms to further reduction of rights sort of like Pandora's box. We end up moving in the wrong direction if what we want is democracy. //S
Re:Everyone (Score:4, Insightful)
Probably not.
I can already get a movie as soon as it's out in cinemas. You may rest assured as soon as it's released somewhere on this planet, a torrent is created shortly afterwards. That's already how it's done. Do you think "allowing" this to exist in a country would change it one little bit? How can you spread it earlier than at the same time you get to see it at all?
Yet, people still go to the movies and they still buy DVDs. Why? Simple. I don't have a THX system at home and neither do I have a huge screen. And certainly no 3D machine. If the movie is good enough, I wanna see it like that! But is it worth the 10 bucks or more? I'm not gonna waste 10 bucks and 2-3 hours of my life on a movie when I don't know if it's worth it. 9 out of 10 times it's not. And, being a statistician, at that odds I'm on average better off if I don't go.
Re:It should appeal to the US too (Score:4, Insightful)
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".
Re:One Wallet (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, the effects on your local, domestic industries and services will most likely be negative.
As you pointed out, people only have so much money. When you only have 100 bucks (and banks clinging to money like never before, so overspending isn't really an option anymore) you can only spend 100 bucks. People will not get "and", they get "or". CD or haircut. DVD or dinner.
Now, which of the two will keep more money in your country? A haircut from a local shop with local people working there or a CD from a US rapper? A dinner at a local restaurant eating local food or a bollywood DVD?
(not trying to be nationalist here, but it usually makes the right wing proponents of stricter copyright laws shut up when they can't really argue against it without pissing off their "$country first!" voters) :)
Re:It should appeal to the US too (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Everyone (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, its Piracy (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.
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, feeling as it does that the contents of shipowners bank accounts should be freely available to all gun-toting, Allah-fearin' liberators of other people's wealth.
As a Canadian, my thoughts (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Yes, its Piracy (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.
Re:Bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)
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).
The goals are *WAY* bigger! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:As a Canadian, my thoughts (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Everyone (Score:3, Insightful)
If everyone can get a copy of a movie as soon as it's released in Russia and share it for other people to download, won't that negatively affect attendance in cinemas and DVD sales in other regions?
It won't, because original English movies are not shown in Russia; they're always dubbed, because so few people understand spoken English well enough.
As for the general point; well, the obvious "fix" on behalf of movie makers would be to release movies at the same time in all markets, no?
Re:Bad idea (Score:3, Insightful)
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 expect anyone to re-invent it until the end of the patent protection, you certainly won't patent it. It would only give you disadvantages: Short term, because you'd pay patent fees for a protection which secrecy would give you for free, and long term because after the protection period ends, your idea is in the wild, while with secrecy there's a chance you can protect it much longer.
Therefore you will patent only inventions which are
In both cases, the knowledge would have become public knowledge anyway.
Re:The neoconservatives are laughing (Score:5, Insightful)
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:It should appeal to the US too (Score:3, Insightful)
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 animals required investment to develop land and therefore provided incentive for protecting pieces of land. The printing press diminished the significance of the physical act of writing, and placed more importance on the ideas conveyed. Automated mass production has elevated design above the skill of manual craftsmanship. Now, the internet once again has changed the structure of the economy, further intellectualizing and virtualizing the resources we desire.
Generally, people "pirate" the creations of giant marketing machines. They pay for virtual clothes for virtual people in virtual worlds. We are transitioning into an ethereal realm, where identities, economies, and communities can't be covered by the laws designed for the physical world. The legal concepts under development aren't just there to stop the downloading of the latest pop music, intellectual property protects our DNA code, purchases, travel habits, and other information individuals consider private.
Was OK, until the dumb stuff at the end.... (Score:5, Insightful)
> 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".
Re:This is CRAP!!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
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:First Vote (Score:4, Insightful)
I know you're a troll and all, but I actually agree with your point (though not how you made it).
There's a fine line between fair and unfair use. If I like a film, money should go to the people involved in creating it and bringing it to my screen. If I like music, money should go to the people involved in creating it and bringing it to my speakers.
Sharing for non-commercial gain was fine back in the days of copying tapes for your friends at school. A group of you could club together, buy a tape each, and share them between you to get a good collection. Sure, the content creators might not get all the money they wanted, but they'd get all your pocket money. And all the pocket money from similar groups of kids all around the country.
But things have changed with the internet. Now only one person in one country has to buy it, and suddenly the group size changes from a handful of close friends into an anonymous P2P network millions strong. No industry could survive something like that - and I'm not just talking about the RIAA et all who would no longer be able to rape producers and consumers alike, I'm talking about there not being enough money around to invest in creating quality content for us in the first place.
It's all very well saying that if the content is good people will go out and buy it anyway - but once you make it legal, mainstream hardware manufacturers will come along with P2P-enabled set-top boxes which will bring convenience to the mass market, and there will be no reason for anyone to go out and buy any content. It would destroy the content creators overnight, and then we'd get no quality content.
Don't get me wrong - I agree that recent court cases and fines have gone too far, and totally disagree with things like the three-strike law. The industry is used to having it their own way for too long, and they have to realise that their days of bleeding the customer dry are numbered. Piracy and P2P are here, and no matter what they try, it's not going anywhere. They should be adopting their business models to take full use of technology, and provide affordable, legal and practical methods of content delivery. No DRM, no ridiculous fines for piracy; instead of us vs them, they should be working with us to say "if you like something, pay for it - it's only fair".
But behind all of this, there must be a legal framework to say what's right and what's wrong. Something that says "if you like something, pay for it - it's only fair".
Re:The neoconservatives are laughing (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It should appeal to the US too (Score:1, Insightful)
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.
So the argument goes: We had to crap on everybody else's IP right to get where we are but now that we are here we will bully anybody else into submission who dares to take the same route...
Say what you will, that attitude is still 100% pure, unrefined hypocrisy.
Re:This is CRAP!!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, rep by pop is not entirely immune to scummy party hacks.
Re:First Vote (Score:2, Insightful)
and you probably love being a bigoted, brainwashed neocon dog. 'let businesses be' 'corporations corporations corporations'.
gtfo. your era ended when your church leader alan greenspan confessed to senate that 'he couldnt understand why corporations didnt regulate themselves'
Grog? (Score:3, Insightful)
Rum, wenches, and plunder. Grog is watered-down rum, used by the Royal Navy starting back in the 18th century (but not totally phased out until the 1970.) Pirates aren't nancy-boys like the RN and can handle their rum straight.
Re:Bumper stickers? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:This is CRAP!!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
With things like ridiculous patents and trials of house-wife's over 22 musics, I think it pretty much tells who is in charge in the US.
Money.
Re:First Vote (Score:5, Insightful)
No industry could survive something like that
The movie industry continues to rack up massive (and record) profits year after year, they're doomed if movie trading ever hits the intertubes...
Re:Everyone (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:First Vote (Score:5, Insightful)
The RIAA and MPAA are a big problem for copyright supporters, since they are admittedly the most outspoken spokespersons for copyright, yet they represent everything wrong with copyright. Don't get me wrong, they also represent a whole lot of what is right with copyright, but oh so much that's wrong with it. There is the greed, there is hard bargains with artists, there are the no court appearance lawsuits, and there is the DRM, but at the same time, there is a lot more to copyright. There's the culture, the inspiration, even the images of celebrity and stardom that encourage others to participate. There's the satisfaction in knowing that you have some input, via the free market, in the art you experience.
We need to stop looking to scuttle this for petty revenge against the **AA. If the pirate party supports a reasonable, reformed copyright, and they understand exactly how much we owe copyright to date for our culture, then they have my vote, despite their name (I would check, but the page is slashdotted). If they wish to undermine copyright, if they are foolish enough to believe that, as the summary suggested, that sharing is somehow less damaging just because money isn't changing hands, then I suggest they give their party points some long hard thought. If they want to simply take down the **AA, then I will fight them every step of the way, because that is, frankly, a simply idiotic approach to change.
How would I go about it? I would leave it to the market. Copyright doesn't grant you a free pass to money. You first have to earn it through creation or investment, and even then, it still has to go through us regular people in order for it to make money. If we don't want the **AA to make money, then it won't. Pure and simple. Sure, they'll kick and scream, but with enough support, even the government will be forced to turn a deaf ear, lest their political careers be over.
Re:Proportional Representation (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
And a lot of Democrats are only somewhat close to the center. We have an authoritarian conservative party and an ultra-authoritarian ultra-conservative party. It really sucks for us left-leaning social libertarians, because we have almost nobody representing us.
Re:First Vote (Score:3, Insightful)
Well said. The industry must adapt and provide a service that is useful and desired by people now. It's stuck on an outmoded business model, which is no longer relevant to our times.The industry by and large refuses to recognize that its medium has changed from a discrete physical one (CD media) to the Internet.
When the music industry recognized the medium changing from vinyl to eight-track to tape to CD, it always embraceed the new medium and sold on it. It's incredibly weird that it hasn't embraced the new medium, the Internet. The musci/movie/etc. industries should long ago have become ISPs, selling access to the content they produce via the modern medium, the Internet.
Re:First Vote (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:First Vote (Score:5, Insightful)
It's all very well saying that if the content is good people will go out and buy it anyway - but once you make it legal, mainstream hardware manufacturers will come along with P2P-enabled set-top boxes which will bring convenience to the mass market, and there will be no reason for anyone to go out and buy any content. It would destroy the content creators overnight, and then we'd get no quality content.
It would destroy the content industry not the content creators. Not that artists wouldn't be affected but it will not kill the arts. And, in any cases, if protecting IP rights involves any of DRM, communication monitoring, restrictions on technological development, taxes that go mainly to companies and a handful of top (already rich) artists then I'd rather see the whole entertainment industry die.
Re:First Vote (Score:3, Insightful)
Precisely. I was talking about patronage.
Who said it would be a single person?
I have seen lots of great movies that were made on a low budget. Don't assume that all "A or B grade movies" come from Hollywood and cost millions of dollars. That's what they want you to think: that their existence is crucial to the production of worthwhile forms of art.
Re:First Vote (Score:4, Insightful)
Something that says "if you like something, pay for it - it's only fair".
Honestly, I like that a lot more than "if you don't pay for something, you'll go to jail". I think you're missing the point of the Pirate Party, though. Its a push back against draconian DRM that says if I download a song on my computer, I can't move it to my media box, or burn a CD to use in my car. This, folks, is where the RIAA and the big media companies jumped the shark. I can't even been to tell you how much stuff like that makes me seethe with anger.
Granted, personal use doesn't cover buying Peace Sells, but Who's Buying and putting it up on the web for everybody and their brother to download. The line is somewhere between there and where the RIAA wants it, though.
Consider this: you go to the store and buy a CD, listen to it on the way home and decide it's pretty good. You tell your {brother|sister|friend} about it and they ask to borrow the CD. Should you be able to loan them the CD? Most sane people say yes (not sure where the RIAA is on this question, but when sanity is involved, I can probably guess which side of sanity they choose), but if you take the same equivalent actions in the iTunes world and burn a CD for somebody to borrow, suddenly you're a pirate.
Don't get me started on DRM for books either. I, to this day, refuse to buy a book reader no matter how cool, convenient and connected to the internet they are if they restrict me to reading downloaded content ONLY on the device they were downloaded on. I have no less than 6 devices in my house and several more at work capable of reading books on - why would I focus all my reading on one deivce? That's insanity.
Re:First Vote (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:First Vote (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not what I'm saying. I said that they need to adopt and provide a service that meets consumer demand, at a reasonable price in the new internet-based world.
However, the piracy party seem to be saying that all content should be available to everyone for free, entirely legally. Who is going to go make a big-budget film when they can't make any money out of it?
And don't give me "all big budget films these days are crap, people should do it for the love of art" - how is hundreds of people spending years of their lives working on something going to pay their rent?
Re:First Vote (Score:3, Insightful)
If it's legal to share content with friends or strangers for free, on P2P networks or whatever, it will get mainstream hardware support, and everyone from grandchild to grandparent will have something hooked up to their TV that can download everything for free. They'll never pay a penny more, and they'd be stupid to do otherwise.
When there's no money coming in, people who make films and music will get no money to pay their bills, so they'll go do something that will.
There would never be another big-budget film with quality actors, soundtrack, story and effects. We'd be left watching old movies before the law was passed, and no-budget university students prancing around in abandoned campus car parks wielding make-pretend light sabers.
So no thanks, I'll continue to wait and hope the **AA figure out they can make more money out of working with their customers rather than against them. And until then, I'm sure a lot of other people will be happy with illegal P2P.
Re:First Vote (Score:4, Insightful)
Most movies make a profit from the theatre viewings alone. That profit won't change at all, since the movie maker can easily negotiate a contract with the theatres to forbid re-distribution.
Since most internet connections are not really capable of handling blueray-disk sized downloads, or even DVD-sized in some regions, even the DVD market won't be affected that much by downloads.
They will probably still make a profit on the disks themselves as well, since those need factories and a distribution network.
So no, the movie industry should have no problem adopting to a copyright free world.
Wrong connection (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:First Vote (Score:2, Insightful)
it turns out that you can do more than one thing in a given day. not all of these things need to be money making activites.
Re:First Vote (Score:2, Insightful)
Indeed you didn't; other people in this thread have said as much though, so it was partly in answer to those, and partly pre-empting a similar response.
Re:Wrong connection (Score:4, Insightful)
Do musicians need to reach out the same number of people at the same time with their live performances? I think not.
One music performance involves a lot less crew than the production of a movie, so a lot less people need to share in the profits. Besides that, people are willing to pay a lot more for a live performance than for a movie.
Re:First Vote (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's not just distribution (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not really my point. I'm not saying distribution is the only service the media companies provide. What I'm saying is the way they expect to be remunerated for these services is by placing a surcharge on the costs of distribution. I'm saying that the business model is fundamentally linked to distribution. And I'm saying that as real world distribution costs approach zero, it's going to get harder and harder to enforce the state monopoly that is copyright.
I'm not saying that the media company's position is wrong: neither because of falling distribution costs, nor any other reason. What I'm saying is that, regardless of the rights and wrongs of the situation, I think that a surcharge on distribution is rapidly becoming unworkable.
And for that reason, I think they're inevitably going to lose this fight.
Re:First Vote (Score:4, Insightful)
I guess that question should be answered by any soldier that has been send to a conflict zone...
And I doubt all those soldiers get paid just as much as those big-name actors, even though they do put their lives on the line, unlike those actors.
Or ask any sailor... Nowadays they even run the risk of being hijacked by real pirates...
Green Party's Elizabeth May on The Pirate Party (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:The neoconservatives are laughing (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:First Vote (Score:2, Insightful)
Indeed they have. The net has lowered the cost of distributing a work to just about zero, and made collaboration with other artists orders of magnitude easier. At the same time, other improvements in technology have made the cost of producing a work much lower. The case for free non-commercial distribution is stronger because of the net.
Do you pay for every book you read, or do you go to the library?
Do you pay for every joke you hear, or do you chuckle as someone re-tells a quip they heard from a friend of a friend around the water cooler?
Do you pay for every song, or do you sing in the shower without paying performance royalties?
It has never been the case that we've had the rule "if you like something, pay for it - it's only fair".
The net has made our library bigger, enlarged the circle of friends around the global water cooler, and made it possible for the world to hear us sing in the shower. That's all.
Re:First Vote (Score:3, Insightful)
Primer [wikipedia.org] The acting might not be very good, or it might be really good not-having-to-act. One of the best stories I've seen that only cost $7k, anyway.
As the cost of special effects comes down and the rental of a digital camera replaces the cost of film stock, the only real cost is manpower.
And as anyone reading this site should know, you can make some really good stuff in your spare time.
Re:The neoconservatives are laughing (Score:1, Insightful)
So pay for what is scarce. Pay for the labor, not for the work itself. As another post here said, the plumber doesn't get royalties every time you use your toilet; why should IP be any different?
Re:First Vote (Score:3, Insightful)
Copyright law has been perverted and twisted into a mockery of itself, until that changes your side of the street is filthier than ours. While its true that there has been some advancement in copyright law in the last few years, things like fair use and parody receiving limited protections, it isn't enough to offset the horrors done to public domain. Once logical copyright laws are in place I might switch to the pro-copyright camp, until then though I'm firmly with the Pirates.
Re:It's not just distribution (Score:3, Insightful)
They have every right to put their money wherever they wish. Its not my place to tell them what or where to invest their money. But it does become my place and right when they want me to pay to have their investment protected via immortal copyright or wasteful public spending.
2. Facilitation of access to studios, sound engineers and other such capital
While its true that a professional recording studio is needed for the ultimate in recording quality. With todays tech its possible to make a great demo at a "no I wont go bar hoping tonight" limited budget. At which point when the recording execs hear the demo we refer back to 1.
3. Marketing and promotion
Refer to point 1.
4. Selectivity: a record label only signs a minority of artists that they think are good. They filter out bad artists so that the public doesn't have to.
I didn't ask for this public 'service' nor do I want it. I'm very good at filtering out what I don't like without assistance thank you.
The **AA have made such a large amount of money on the distribution model of their goods that they feel entitled to it. They aren't, at least not to the degree they currently enjoy. Their industry will survive, music will be made, and artists will make a living. Just not in this current form, no one is taking away an artists right to perform live and charge whatever they wish. We only wish to make it so that in a few years it becomes public domain so that another artist may take their turn at spinning straw into gold.
A bit thin (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)