The founder and chairman of the Pirate Party, Rickard Falkvinge, has quit after five years heading up the anti-copyright political vehicle, citing boredom as one of the reasons he decided to step down. “There’s nothing left for me to learn. Everything ahead would be subtle variations of things I had already done,” he said in a …
'He will stay working as a “political evangelist” of the party mainly covering “keynote invitations” in Europe.'
So he'll ditch the work and keep the jollies? Nice work if you can get it.
If it wasn't such shameful horsepucky I'd think about leading the UK's Pirate Party myself.
Freetards = slackers?
Slight case of ADHD or is it just people who can't be bothered to go to the cinema or pay for stuff are also generally rather lazy?
Don't understand how you can be anti-copyright?
Surely people have a right to copyright their work? Its how they manage the copyright that matters.
Maybe these guys don't understand that since most people that download have never contributed to the artistic community.
Re: Don't understand how you can be anti-copyright?
Spot on GeorgeTuk. The same people who do not understand the need to copyright work and protect an individual's creativity are probably going to be storming in here and downvoting anything that slightly hints at being pro-copyright. They just don't get it.
If I could suggest one improvement to copyright it would be additional protection and advantages for individual creative artists, instead of protection for the publishers who pocket over 90% of the profit.
Not anti-copyright, but have downloaded
I've downloaded material that maybe I shouldn't have.
This is because the DRM on the legal downloads make it an inferior product. I think consumers should vote with their feet, and insist on legal downloads being DRM-free.
Oh, and I've worked on quite a few television shows and I'm a writer.
"This is because the DRM on the legal downloads make it an inferior product. I think consumers should vote with their feet, and insist on legal downloads being DRM-free."
I *already* insist that my legal downloads are DRM-free, but no-one is listening to me.
Anti-eternal-copyright isn't anti-copyright.
I am pro copyright. Both myself and my fiancee rely on copyright to get paid for our works. Yet I do honestly believe that copyright should be limited to something less than the span of a human life. 25 years or so sounds about right. This life plus seventy concept is just crap.
There are more variations in opinion than the lack of depth presented in a typical black and white world view!
Anyone lucky enough to produce art which makes money, should enjoy royalties up to death at the minimum, to offset the crapness of growing old. After that I'm not so sure. But there are no losers per se in this kind of arrangement - providing people pay for the art, of course, and don't steal it. Being required to pay for something one wants - WANTS, that is, not needs, isn't oppressive.
This insisting others not be paid for their creations is absurd. We're not exactly talking about medicine patents here!
The issue of copyrights is more than "paying the creator." It also functionally prevents derivative works from being created until the copyright expires. Copyright needs to exist for a brief period to ensure that a creator gets reimbursed for their efforts, but I simply do not agree that any creator should be able to create a work and not only live off that one work for their lifetime, but their estate retain control of and royalties for the next 70 years. Assuming of course the creator gets *anything,* usually they sell their works for a pittance to a copyright holding company so that they can do things like actually pay rent at the end of the month. The copyright holding company then screws everyone for the next hundred plus years.
No, 25 years – NON TRANSFERRABLE – is the proper way to deal with copyright. Copyright should remain with the individual(s) who created the work, or the company that commissioned it. It should not last a human lifetime, but be made available for creative revisions and reimagining within the lifespan of the original “fans” of that work.
You may not agree with me – many people who believe (falsely) that they have a natural right to their efforts don’t – but you will not dissuade me of my opinion.
A blacksmith made for me a lovely knife this summer. It was a labour of days on his part…a true work of art. He sold this knife to me and at that moment he lost all control over that knife. I could use it for any number of things. I could destroy it. I could build a small shrine to it. It was a work of art and a physical object both…but at the point of sale he lost “creative control” over what happened to the physical item.
When it comes to intellectual property, this is a harder concept. Some would argue that George Lucas has the natural right to say what can and cannot happen to the Star Wars franchise for all of eternity. His estate should retain creative control for eternity and his descendants should be allowed to profit from his idea for the rest of time.
I very deeply disagree. In my view – as a paid and published writer who hopes one day to become a successful novelist and who is engaged to an actor – creative works /do not belong to the creator/!!! They belong to society at large. We (society) allow the creator a monopoly upon (and creative control over) those works for a (brief) time in order to encourage creators to continue to create. After a time however, (one I firmly believe should be 25 years from date of publication,) that work should be released into the public domain. Star Wars should be public domain by now; we should be allowed a fresh crack at the concept whilst people who watched the original are still alive to appreciate the comparison.
Public domain is very important. No creative work occurs in a vacuum. If you were a creator, you would know this; all creative works build upon those that have gone before them. Without that ability to do this, we isolate ourselves from valuable creative resources and we lose large pieces of culture at the same time.
If you want to know what I am talking about, then do not reply to this comment. Get up from this computer and go find a series of books called “Otherland” by an author named Tad Williams. Read them. The man is an absolute genius, and he has taken a great many public domain works and rolled them together with his own ideas to create an absolutely amazing unique and novel creative work. It is one of my favourite creative works of all time and it quite frankly would not have been possible had the concept of the public domain not existed.
Perpetual copyright is a very negative thing. No copyright is similarly a very negative thing. The balance point then is limit copyright to within a human lifespan. 25 years seems a great compromise; one that allows a creator the chance to reap some rewards from their works, but does not bind the hands of future creators.
No legal DRM-free downloads?
It's not 2007. Play, Amazon, 7Digital for starters.
How many of these are available to Canadians? How many offer Movies and television shows withour DRM? Netflix just arrived here, and it's selection is fractional! We're nowhere close to a DRM-free legitimate market yet...
El Reg, please WARN in future...
Something to the effect of :
"Anna Troberg" sounds like a hottie, but isn't!! (Unless, of course, you have a thing for Bilbo Baggins).
Paris, she's for everyone to taste.
Does she have hairy feet or something?
Checkout yesterday's dilbert.
still read "Dilbert?
... and calvin too! xkcd can wait.
Nothing left to learn?
“There’s nothing left for me to learn. Everything ahead would be subtle variations of things I had already done", says the retiring leader. I've been working in intellectual property since 1973 and have yet to experience this. Perhaps I'm a slow learner.
Apart from the legal and the commercial aspects of copyright and file-sharing, there's so much which -- if it has been learned at all -- has certainly not been taught. For example (i) how to respect and understand the sincerely-held opinions of people who disagree with you; (ii) how to encourage and foster investment in the creation of original and recorded works, bearing in mind the fact that some people take financial risks in one or more part of the process and others do not, and (iii) how to appreciate the needs and interests of the consuming public at a time of constant technological change.
The Pirate Parties in Europe have contributed to the debate, but it is sad when their leaders walk away from it before we have had a chance to satisfy so many conflicting interests and draw the debate to its close.
Re: Nothing left to learn
I see your point. And perhaps he has other reasons which he doesn't want to mention in public.. but it's also possible, that he is not a details person.. more of a high level leadership guy - so perhaps he is speaking from a different perspective. (I guess if you replace "subtle variations" with "details", you'll see what I mean).
- iPad? More like iFAD: We reveal why Apple ran off to IBM
- +Analysis Microsoft: We're making ONE TRUE WINDOWS to rule us all
- Climate: 'An excuse for tax hikes', scientists 'don't know what they're talking about'
- Analysis Nadella: Apps must run on ALL WINDOWS – PCs, slabs and mobes
- Yorkshire cops fail to grasp principle behind BT Fon Wi-Fi network