100 freetards an hour join Pirate Party UK The Pirate Party UK has been all but swamped by interest shown since they registered as an official political party last month, its leader claimed this week. Andrew Peter Robinson, party leader, told The Register: "It has exceeded all expectations. Put it this way, donations have been coming in so fast that PayPal were …
You have to forgive me, but there seem to be some sort of cultural difference between our countries here. Usually I find our two countries to be fairly similar in many respects, but while the North Sea is not that big it seems to separate us in some fundamental ways and not just geographical.
Do you require of your political parties to have policies on women in your country? Could you clarify which aspects of the subject these policies would cover? Is it how to handle them, whether or not they should be allowed to stay up after ten o'clock in the evening, if they should be allowed to vote, or simply how to talk to them?
Usually I would be handed my coat by now, but you lot get Paris instead. You see, inquiring minds need to know.
Whilst I have some libertarian leanings - I agree that less laws, low tax etc are good in principle - libertarians and their parties are absolutely NUTS.
Consumption tax, even the elaborate and complicated "fair tax" is regressive and pushes the tax burden even further onto the lower-middle class.
Libertarians would ditch all forms of social security. Libertarians would ditch the NHS.
Sorry, but Libertarianism is a great way to ensure that we end up with underclasses that are forced to contract themselves into slavery just to eat. No thanks.
@ElNumbre - Are you a moron?? Anyone who thinks that the Pirate Party could win a seat a general election needs to consider that they would need to gain between 10,000 and 20,000 votes in a single consituency for this to happen. Bear in mind that around 90% of voters choose from the main 3 parties and you'll start to understand that the idea that they could ever win even a single seat is utterly ridiculous.
You missed the point.
There's more to the debate than file sharing. There are vast numbers of people who are upset at the growing corporatisation and anti-privacy politics that are going on in the western world.
The pirate party represent a different view point that none of the mainstream do.
I don't agree with unbridled copying of other folks work, but I will support it wholeheartedly until DRM and region coding go away, copyright terms are reduced significantly and anti-technology laws like the DMCA and EUCD are repealed.
The pirate party represent the will of a certain section of the people here, saying it's just a bunch of crooks is stupid.
Also, your attitude on copyright and stealing is dumb. If I steal a car, you don't have it any more. That doesn't make unauthorised copying right or better but it's not the same. Why do we need to reduce everything to the point of the ridiculous? Are we children that can't cope with more than one type of crime? Murder is just like stealing too, stealing someone's life. Parking without a ticket - stealing a space! It's all theft, whatever you want to call it, so it's all the same in my eyes!
Nonsense.
As for your assertion that the other parties have manifestos so they can held to account - how wonderfully naive you are. I'd love to live in your world.
Filesharing isn’t stealing that’s crazy is listening to the radio stealing? Something that can be replicated infinitely for free can not be compared to a physical object. Its illegal because its illegal, ok so make it legal. Of course there is an issue about how creative people earn a living but bare in mind in the past a musician was paid for playing music, an artist for painting a picture. Living off the copyright proceeds of digital reproduction is hardly a human right. I develop software and am paid to do it I don't expect fees for this work in the future.
Intellectual property is theft against humanity. The idea the all creative, scientific progress would stop without these laws is refuted by the fact that they were not around during most of humanities existence. scientist and artists do what they do because of a need to express themselves in that way its the monopolies who are the leeches.I will certainly be voting pirate.
Some cogent points here:
"Filesharing isn’t stealing is listening to the radio stealing"
No (Assuming you have paid your TV licence, part of that is used to pay the PRS fees.)
"Its illegal because its illegal, ok so make it legal."
Wow, where to start with that one? there are many activities I dont agree should be illegal so I guess we should just make those legal?
"scientist and artists do what they do because of a need to express themselves"
so if all the other big pharma companies stopped paying the salaries of the scientists these guys and girls would just carry on working? The record companies stopped paying musicians these people would just shrug and get on with it? If your wages dried up because the software you develop didnt sell but was given away for free, you'd be able to survive?
<pedant> "but bare in mind" should be but bear in mind </pedant>
the party can win some seat. the (c) system is broken and need to be fix.
1. Prevent any company of any kind from owning any (c), only the actuall creator can hold copyright
2. (c) should last 3 to 5 years MAX. if the owner dies, it is instant public domain
3. Declare the MPAA/RIAA illegal and shut them down along will the other similar organisation accross the world.
here you go. Piracy problems solve (simply because there is no piracy problems and if you shutdown the RIAA/MPAA no one will complain.)
Which is it idiots, either free or reorganise the recording industry so the artists get more of the cut?
I know freetards are especially dense, but even they cant believe in both at the same time.
It just shows how deranged and stupid these people are... not to mention they are out and out criminals waiting to be caught.
"There's more to the debate than file sharing. There are vast numbers of people who are upset at the growing corporatisation and anti-privacy politics that are going on in the western world."
Agreed, I'm not particularly happy with it myself but in the terms of the Pirate Party, this seems to come from a desire to not be found caught taking copyrighted works. However, please remember file sharing is not the same as iligally (or unlawfully, whatever you prefer) sharing files.
"The pirate party represent a different view point that none of the mainstream do."
Their civil liberties stuff is covered by other parties and seems to me to be in order to create an obfuscation of their real policy of 'we should be allowed to take anything that can be copied that we want without consequences'.
"I don't agree with unbridled copying of other folks work, but I will support it wholeheartedly until DRM and region coding go away, copyright terms are reduced significantly and anti-technology laws like the DMCA and EUCD are repealed."
Either you agree or not? You can't disagree with something and wholehartedly support it unless you've perfexted doublethink. I personally don't think that making "fair use" copies of your own physical media onto other formats for personal use is a problem, it should be explicity legal. I don't believe that I should make this happen by putting copies of all of my music and videos onto the internet for all and sundry to take whenever they want.
"The pirate party represent the will of a certain section of the people here, saying it's just a bunch of crooks is stupid."
Why is calling them crooks stupid? They have mainly demonstrated themselfs to be so by their actions.
"Also, your attitude on copyright and stealing is dumb. If I steal a car, you don't have it any more. That doesn't make unauthorised copying right or better but it's not the same. Why do we need to reduce everything to the point of the ridiculous? Are we children that can't cope with more than one type of crime? Murder is just like stealing too, stealing someone's life. Parking without a ticket - stealing a space! It's all theft, whatever you want to call it, so it's all the same in my eyes!"
Where to start - if you profit from someones work (ie listen to or watch, copy their idea or software) and you don't pay them for it and this causes them to not get money to which they are legally entitled, you are a theif. As I said above call it what you want, the OED defines theft as someone who steals something and stealing as taking something without legal right with no intention of returning it or taking an idea which is not your own. Suits me.
"As for your assertion that the other parties have manifestos so they can held to account - how wonderfully naive you are. I'd love to live in your world."
What is better having no manifesto and not being able to be held to account for anything or having a manifesto and being held to account by the voters/members when you don't carry out what you've said you will? I'm not under the impression that you can expect a party to totally stick to their manifesto pledges, but I am of the opinion that it's a lot easier to hold a part to account for what they haven't done if you have a document saying exectly what they said they'd do in the first place.
Fraser writes...
"If the Pirate Party get a seat or two, they will be expected to perform their duties as an MP, not just bang on about their three policies. Being an MP is hard work, it's not all sponging off the state there is a hell of a lot of representation of constituents to do."
I'm sure there is, although the trail of questions left by the MP in my constituency would suggest otherwise. The Britard system of government doesn't really cater to addressing specific issues - it's all about buying into a continually changing package sold in local packages to people who either vote according to their perceived social class (yes, even today) or according to how lovely they think their MP is and "what a good job he does asking those [tame] questions in Parliament".
"Copyright infringement, Copyright theft, I really don't care what you want to call it"
Well, we do care. The term "copyright theft" is nonsense: no-one is asserting ownership over the works, even if people might distribute those works as if they owned them (such as the classic dodgy car boot sale or market trader and their suppliers), and even then such people aren't asserting control over what other people do with such works (squabbles with their rivals or competitors notwithstanding). Such terms are just intellectually lazy and convenient propaganda for those who would rather the average Britard didn't concern themselves with such matters and just kept spending money in the high street, buying the same stuff over and over again.
"Yes, you could effect some change by working for the pirate party,or any other single issue party, or you could work within an established party with proper fleshed out policies to effect change of many people's thinking. Single issue parties are generally very bad for democracy because there aren't the skills within that party to handle the rest of politics."
You could just as well argue that an established party doesn't have the skills to deal with these kinds of single issues. "Hello Mr Cameron, I'd like you to take a reasonable stance on patents, please." What's most likely to happen? Mr Cameron gets a phone call from some Big Pharma company executive or lobbyist telling him about the "economic impact" of those changes you proposed and suddenly your work is "not a core part of our campaign".
Besides, the Pirate Party seem to be tackling one of the most fundamental issues of modern society head on: the increasing use of surveillance and the increasing invasion of privacy by government entities. If you can't accept the very nature of society or government as it evolves into something that many people regard as being rather disturbing, matters like the countryside (which in a Tory manifesto probably panders to incoherent Telegraph columnists and bigots on horses) can surely wait while the more urgent matters get settled first.
Here is a little assistance to and for Anonymous Coward (Friday 14th August 2009 09:57 GMT)
"Black’s Law Dictionary defines unlawful as not authorized by law, illegal. Illegal is defined as forbidden by law, unlawful. Semantically, there is a slight difference. It seems that something illegal is expressly proscribed by statute, and something unlawful is just not expressly authorized."
http://legallad.quickanddirtytips.com/unlawful-versus-illegal.aspx
** I am not providing this as legal advice. Laws in your area may be different (no matter what the RIAA thinks).
There appear to be an interesting confusion among people when it comes to the Pirate Party. As far as I can tell there is no promotion by the Pirate Party that suggests that "freetarding" would be legalised or should be legalised. This means that some of the commentards above who assume that the Pirate Party is proposing to legalise what is today called copyright infringement may very well be "94 million miles of the target". What the party appears to be promoting is a revision of existing copyright. This by definition is not the same thing as abolishing copyright altogether - it is also not the same thing as arguing that copyrighted work should be freely copied by all and everyone without restrictions! On the other hand there are many good reasons for why current copyright legislation needs to be revised. People like to talk about the artist and his or hers rights - what exactly does this right have to do with legislation which protects copyrightholders ownerships 70 years after the artist death? Was 50 years not good enough? When copyright first was legislated it was limited to 8 years initially and then to 20 years after the work was first published. Why this "right" should be extended beyond the timeframe of other rigths such as patent etc is well worth questioning. Also why does copyright work need protection for seventy years after the death of the artist? In what way does this help any artist?
The other issue is surveillance: when did we accept mob culture and the right of corporations to make private judgement of citizens (without the need of going to court)?
"so if all the other big pharma companies stopped paying the salaries of the scientists these guys and girls would just carry on working? The record companies stopped paying musicians these people would just shrug and get on with it? If your wages dried up because the software you develop didnt sell but was given away for free, you'd be able to survive?"
......DON'T mix scientists with whiny pretty-boy-caddy-girl musicians !
Scientists LIKE to share data. for free! Bitch ass musicians and their pimps demand to be paid !
Scientists never have, probably never will , get fair pay.
That is all !
Mine's the Howie coat!
p2p fs is leagal its already bought its in the air how can it be illegal i looked into it and the courts just want money my cousin works at the pentagon i asked him to look into it and says they just want money he used to work in the white house.
the bible dont say thou shall not download its not stealing its in the air
Music has been reduced to little more than a means of making money - it is a prime example of the consumerisation of life and the Thatcher-Reagan free market economy Utiopan view that all things are better done if their industries are unregulated and able to do whatever they want to generate money. If it can be controlled, it can be sold.
This runs somewhat contrary to a key role of music in culture - freedom. Whether it's the blues music that evolved out of the slave trade, the flower-power peace and liberty attitude of the hippy era, the anarchistic ethos that underlined punk and encapsulated the breaking down of deference to the Establishment in Britain, or the underground 'music belongs to the people' attitude of techno, music and freedom go hand-in-hand.
Perhaps it's not surprising in an era where everything you can think of seems to be owned and controlled by a multinational corporation, it's our love of music that's turning a means of getting stuff for free into a libertarian movement. The Pirate Party, for all it's silly name and amatuerish feel, is the ONLY organisation actively making a stand against digitally opressive governments. And unlike those manufactured US Town Hall meetings where rich white Amercians get to complain about giving poor people free healthcare, it's a genuine grass-roots movement. Music predates concepts like money and intellectual property, and the importance of music to society is much deeper than merely making people rich and providing jobs. Music is a social entity, and our attitudes to music mirror our attitudes to life.
This is really about reclaiming society for the people who live in it.
Fighting for our right to have free (at the point of source) music is more than just about getting music without having to pay for it... it's about society adapting to the digital age. Technology offers new forms of freedom, but also new forms of oppression and social control. At the moment we seem to be getting a lot more of the latter than the former. It may only be a small blow for the cause of normal British people, but the Pirate Party will get my vote if they stand in my constituency at the next election.
And before I end, it's worth pointing out that all freedom movements start out being an exception to the norm, and they are almost always demonised by mainstream politicians and the mainstream press. Freedom is an emergent property of human societies that comes out of instincts most of us don't even realise we have. The Piracy Party is the tip of the iceberg - the visible part of a social need that is much larger than politicians and commentators can see.
"Wow, where to start with that one? there are many activities I dont agree should be illegal so I guess we should just make those legal?"
Of course. And if you get enough people to agree with you then they will be. Women voting was illegal until 1918 but enough people got together to turn it from illegal to legal. Male homosexuality was illegal until 1967 when it became legal.
The Register insinuates that may of its readers are 'retards' because they download fragments of their culture off the Internet, though don't hesitate to embed free trashy 'amusing' YouTube clips rather than carry out the proper journalism they used to.
Sometimes I look at my Nokia E71, with megapix camera, GPS navigation, WIFI Internet, etc, and remember how I envied Cpt Kirks communicator in Star Trek when I was a child. The mobile revolution has really changed society, and our expectations. However here the government has often been on the side of the consumer, stipulating investment requirements in exchange for frequencies, or capping roaming charges.
When I go online, I can nearly instantly access every movie, tv programme, song, and book ever produced. A lot of it free as the corporations that have locked up my children's heritage have tried to resist the social tide. Some people need to step back from the short-sighted "getting stuff for free" viewpoint and marvel at the technological and cultural achievement. A cultural utopia not found even in many science fiction books. Even if it persists then musicians will still make music, and money from gigs, and films will continue to be made with profits at the box office. Books and software, however, will be vulnerable and need to evolve either protection or business model.
The Pirate Party makes a number of valid points which I believe need to be addressed. I would vote for this single issue party as a way of raising the issues' priority with the main political parties. I wish them the best of luck.
Phillip.
"Either you agree or not? You can't disagree with something and wholehartedly support it unless you've perfexted doublethink. I personally don't think that making "fair use" copies of your own physical media onto other formats for personal use is a problem, it should be explicity legal. I don't believe that I should make this happen by putting copies of all of my music and videos onto the internet for all and sundry to take whenever they want."
And how are you going to make those personal copies? All the tools are illegal. I can't even use media I buy in all the machines I own because of stupid restrictions on region coding and other crappy DRM.
That's why I support it. At the moment there is no protection of fair use and the bias is too far to one side, the social contract that makes up copyright is being utterly abused by one side - so fuck 'em, total disobedience on the other is what they'll get in response. When the contract is rebalanced then perhaps we can all start cooperating and acting lawfully again.
As for the rest of your last post, it's not worth bothering with. You just childishly reduce different crimes to the same thing again, despite knowing that one is depriving someone else of property and the other is an act of copying, and then repeat you naive assertion that the UK populace give a crap about holding existing political parties to their manifesto promises.
you obviously haven't a clue that legal definitions are often quite at odds with what us mere mortals would take as a words standard definition.
for example unlawful from a LEGAL dictionary when applied to THIS (copyright) situation , which is a CIVIL and NOT CRIMINAL situation, hence the CIVIL cases going before the courts is this
"Unlawful- When applied to promises, agreements, or contracts, the term denotes that such agreements have no legal effect. The law disapproves of such conduct because it is immoral or contrary to public policy. Unlawful does not necessarily imply criminality, although the term is sufficiently broad to include it."
unlawful DOES NOT = ILLEGAL in CIVIL cases. sometimes in @can@ be deemed to be illegal by the presiding officer of the court and sometimes allegations of unlawful behaviour/conduct etc are found to hold no substance.
what DOES matter is that the LEGAL definitions are more often than not VASTLY DIFFERENT from the meaning you are i would apply to every day words.
which is thy, in general when you read legal documents and you think you understand it you are more often than not, you could not be more wrong if your name were W. Wrongy Wrongenstien.
epic fail bilgepipe.. EPIC FAIL. consider yer bubble of pomposity burst
Fraser writes...
"Their civil liberties stuff is covered by other parties and seems to me to be in order to create an obfuscation of their real policy of 'we should be allowed to take anything that can be copied that we want without consequences'."
Civil liberties covered by other parties. Well, yes, but taking a look at the big two favoured by most voting Britards, both of them say that they value freedom and then implement nasty laws under confusing names: those investigatory powers really needed "regulation" in an Act of Parliament, didn't they? The way that you're going on about "stealing" and conveniently ignoring the actual manifestos of the various Pirate Parties, the more you look like an apologist for the seedy relationships between the big two and their corporate friends.
"I personally don't think that making "fair use" copies of your own physical media onto other formats for personal use is a problem, it should be explicity legal. I don't believe that I should make this happen by putting copies of all of my music and videos onto the internet for all and sundry to take whenever they want."
You know, people have actually stated that they own various "copy-protected" works and have yet decided that using a torrent was easier than figuring out how to access those works in the way they wanted to (instead of in the narrow fashion that some executive and his legal pals had in mind). That it's easier to share stuff on the Internet than it is to get the data from one thing onto another only a few centimetres away shows that the "fail" is on the media companies.
"Where to start - if you profit from someones work (ie listen to or watch, copy their idea or software) and you don't pay them for it and this causes them to not get money to which they are legally entitled, you are a theif."
This is the problem with the "intellectual property" brigade: they start off "protecting" things that most people can get on with (for the most part) - software and content should have some notion of author-dictated control, with a way of regulating the compromise between reward and sharing (copyright) - but then they start nailing down anything that can earn a bunch of middlemen some money, such that a mere idea becomes something you can get a monopoly on (patents). All it then takes is a bit of propaganda and the gullible will gladly use terms like "theif", erm, "thief".
@Anonymous Coward 14.42
"Filesharing isn’t stealing is listening to the radio stealing"
No (Assuming you have paid your TV licence, part of that is used to pay the PRS fees.)
>>No license is required to listen to the radio. (UK)
Wow, where to start with that one? there are many activities I dont agree should be illegal so I guess we should just make those legal?
>> What!! Yes of course that is what this is all about - its called living in a democracy! Laws are about two things one the settled moral beliefs of a society (a bit) the balance of expressed power (a lot). In this instance the Pirate party is challenging the first for a rethink and at the same time showing that 7 million file shares may not take having individuals targeted lying down. That's called real politics.
"scientist and artists do what they do because of a need to express themselves"
so if all the other big pharma companies stopped paying the salaries of the scientists these guys and girls would just carry on working? The record companies stopped paying musicians these people would just shrug and get on with it? If your wages dried up because the software you develop didnt sell but was given away for free, you'd be able to survive?
>> Yes there would still be drug companies without patents (its called generics) the only argument is the speed of development which would simply mean state funded research replacing big pharma. I for one would rather less development if the result is everyone gets a crack at the drugs already developed. Personally I believe drug development would be quicker by thousands of smaller drug companies working on cheaper research strategies and sharing ideas.
Yes most musicians don't have record deals and do get on with it the record labels provide lottery winnings for a handful that would dry up up boo hoo. I get paid once to develop something someone needs then I look for new work - like most people I expect only to be paid for work done not for some ongoing ownership of mindspace..!
If they stood in a constituency I could vote in. The system needs a shakeup.
Also stop calling them freetards theregister. It's a social position some people choose to take, calling them retards for it every time you mention them is the very antisthesis of cool-headed, unbiased journalism. It would be okay if it was funny, but it's not - think up a new joke.
That's better than a lot of "Independant" candidates have! Most of the so-called 'independants' stand on one issue alone (school or hospital closure, siting of mobile 'phone masts or wind turbines, stopping link roads or distribution centres, alternate weeks collection of recycling and 'unrecyclable' waste) and have absolutely no sodding idea what to do about anything else, or what it actually takes to run a modern village, town or city.
The trick is, when the candidate arrives on your doorstep (alhough I've never seen an Independant actually going round and speaking to the Voters who are not members of their own little clique), you ASK what their views are on the things that matter to you - those mentioned above, or whatever else.
Then, when you have spoken to the Candidates and found the one whose promises most closely match your beliefs and desires, you vote for that candidate. Simple really, isn't it.
Except, of course, that they rarely live up to their promises - but that's an entirely different matter anyway.
Oh, and for those who seem to have skimmed the original article, PPUK are NOT proposing to do away with Copyright - they want to make it work for the artists and the consumers rather than the recording industry; more money to the artist for a shorter time and a reasonable limit to how long material can be "held hostage" - I've tried to get music CDs for 80's acts but the record companies don't have them, and it's right that I'm not allowed to copy my vinyl LPs because some businessman in a suit says so? Unlike some people, I haven't copied them across even though doing so IS PERFECTLY LEGAL UNDER UK LAW (since they would be for personal use only), nor will I do so until this half-assed law is changed.
Of course, it's perfectly acceptable for record compaines to keep indefintiely extending Copyright duration (what is it Disney have now, 99 years or something? So much for "public domain"!) since they are only doing it out of concern for the original artists (how old is Walt, again?).
And what happens once they manage to do away with physical copies anyway, or put everything on limited-use disks? (Several UK papers have given away CDs that will only play a few times before becoming unreadable/unplayable) People WILL end up having to pay each and every time they want to watch or listen to anything, but by then it'll be too late - but at least you'll still be able to point and say "Lookit those freetards over there - don't they look stoopid!"
By Fraser Posted Friday 14th August 2009 11:53 GMT
"If the Pirate Party get a seat or two, they will be expected to perform their duties as an MP, not just bang on about their three policies. Being an MP is hard work, it's not all sponging off the state there is a hell of a lot of representation of constituents to do."
Yeah I had to lol. It's totally all sponging off the state.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
