backtop


Print 67 comment(s) - last by RabdDog.. on Aug 21 at 11:55 AM


Pirate Party demonstrators at a rally in Stockholm, Sweden on June 3, 2006.  (Source: Marcus Andersson)
Early predictions of America's newest political optimistic

Citing the state of Utah’s “strong history of political diversity and technological progress,” the Pirate Party of the United States has officially opened its doors for signatures in the state of Utah. The Utah branch, known officially as The Pirate Party of Utah, has until February 2008 to collect the 2000 signatures it needs for official recognition.

Ray Jenson, interim Administrator for the Pirate Party of Utah, says, “This is a big step forward for our party. Utah is a perfect place to start. With the right people, we actually stand a chance at turning around the civil liberties situation.”

In an e-mail correspondence with DailyTech, Jenson revealed that while The Pirate Party of Utah does not wish to be overconfident, at the current rate it expects to meet the minimum signature requirement sometime in mid-November. Note that these estimates represent actual, legally useful signatures -- not site registrations, which number substantially higher. Website registrations cannot be counted officially -- in fact, according to Jenson, the “register” link is only for “forum registration, and has nothing to do with [the] party.”

Aaccording to its web site, the Pirate Party of the U.S. was founded in July 2006, and seeks to change United States laws that govern over copyright, privacy and network neutrality. “The Pirate Party wants to return copyright law to its original purpose: to promote distribution of works as rapidly and widespread as possible,” states one section of on copyright issues; “we wish to rescind the many, mostly harmful, copyright acts that have been passed since the Copyright Act of 1790. In our view, America got it right the first time.”

Despite the name, The Pirate Party does notcondone the stealing of copyrighted works: “We've chosen to adopt the Pirate name so as to pay homage to the creative artists of the past, or as they would now be known, Pirates, thieves, and copyright infringers. We do not support nor condone any unlawful distribution of copyrighted works.”

The Pirate Party of the U.S. is representative of a larger international movement, says spokesman Andrew Norton, and Pirate Parties in various forms exist in Sweden, France, the Netherlands, Germany and others. Originating in Sweden, The Pirate Party or Piratpartiet, has met considerable success since its founding on January 1, 2006. In just 36 hours, Piratpartiet gathered 4,725 signatures, 2,275 over the 2,000 minimum signatures needed to gain official recognition. In the Swedish General Election of 2006, the party captured almost 35,000 votes, making them the 10th largest party out of the 40 parties participating.

Plans are already in the works for the party’s first rally, however the details have not finalized. “We'll issue a press release as the details are finalized,” says Jenson.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Why is this a Top Story?
By TechLuster on 8/15/2007 10:21:30 PM , Rating: 4
I know I'm going to get modded down for this (because anyone who criticizes DT always gets modded down), but why is this a "Top Story," when for example the Penryn launch date article yesterday wasn't?




RE: Why is this a Top Story?
By TomZ on 8/15/07, Rating: -1
RE: Why is this a Top Story?
By Hakuryu on 8/15/07, Rating: -1
RE: Why is this a Top Story?
By masher2 (blog) on 8/15/07, Rating: 0
RE: Why is this a Top Story?
By RjBass on 8/16/07, Rating: 0
RE: Why is this a Top Story?
By xsilver on 8/16/07, Rating: -1
RE: Why is this a Top Story?
By Oregonian2 on 8/16/2007 1:20:44 PM , Rating: 1
This is new? I suspect Beethoven had a lot of contemporaries who made trash with the concert hall owners hoping someone would be a hit.


RE: Why is this a Top Story?
By slacker164 on 8/16/2007 12:29:49 PM , Rating: 4
The laws may not have substantially changed since the 1989 release of Paul’s Boutique, but there have been court rulings that determined artists must pay for samples. For example, this case regarding NWA’s Hundred Miles and Runnin: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpolicy/2004-... An album like Paul’s Boutique would indeed be prohibitively expensive and/or very risky to make now while it was generally assumed back in 1989 that sampling was not a violation of copyright law, which meant artists were not paying to sample back then.


RE: Why is this a Top Story?
By masher2 (blog) on 8/16/2007 1:29:58 PM , Rating: 4
Very true; I stand corrected.


RE: Why is this a Top Story?
By Vanilla Thunder on 8/16/2007 5:56:35 PM , Rating: 2
Not true. All of the music on the masterpiece known as Paul's Boutique was created with uncleared (unpaid for) samples and jacked beats. There is NO WAY this album could be made today. The artists sampled range from Curtis Mayfield, to the Eagles, to the Beatles, and more. Do you have any idea what it would cost to sample a Beatles song? That is if you could even get permission to use it. Also, all of the tracks were done by an unkown (at the time) duo calling themselves The Dust Brothers in a basement. Mike D met these guys and begged for them to let the B Boys use their tracks for their new album. This album is pure genius and so far ahead of it's time, and the general public just overlooked it. The laws might have been the same, but the enforcement of said laws were no where near the level they are now, because in 1988, hip hop was still small money music. One of the first lawsuits that had a huge impact on the sampling scene was when The Turtles sued De La Soul over their sampling on 3 Feet High and Rising. This set the precedent and let musicians everywhere know what was being done and the money they could make. Bottom line. Now, with hip hop being a huge source of cash for record companies, many artists are collecting the residuals they "deserve", and a record company would never invest the amount of money it would cost to get all the clearances for PB. The return could never come close to the cost.

Vanilla "Eggman" Rollo


RE: Why is this a Top Story?
By nilepez on 8/17/2007 1:34:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do you have any idea what it would cost to sample a Beatles song? That is if you could even get permission to use it.


You could never clear it. I think how the sample is used is what really matters. When the sample is the hook, I'm less enthused. Examples of what I don't like include, but are certainly not limited to, Vanilla Ice's giant hit and to a lesser degree, P.M. Dawn's Set Adrift....(which used a very recognizable part of Spandau Ballet's hit, "True").

OTOH, using P.M dawn as an example I liked, their song Downtown Venus uses all kinds of samples, including some Deep Purple (song title now escapes me). If I hadn't read it in the credits, I never would have known it was there.

And I agree with others that note how hard it is to do sampling well. Likewise, the men and women who do lots of scratching, are very talented. I still remember seeing OZO Matli (sp) open for Lenny Kravitz, and their DJ played a kick ass drum solo using to records.

Twas a time I thought scrathcing and all that was crap. I was wrong. I'll never be a big rap fan, but there are plenty of talented people in that genre.


RE: Why is this a Top Story?
By herrdoktor330 on 8/16/2007 12:00:06 AM , Rating: 1
Funny you mention all of that.

Has anyone here seen the documentary "Good Copy, Bad Copy"? It addresses some of the things Hakuryu is talking about... plus it has a piece on the Pirate party in Sweeden.

It's worth a watch. I'm not going to tell you where you can find it though. ;) You are all smart enough to figure that out.


RE: Why is this a Top Story?
By Polynikes on 8/16/2007 12:03:39 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, I'd rather hear more artists making more original music, instead of lamely sampling other peoples' work. ESPECIALLY in the rap/hip-hop segment. They probably borrow the most material from previous works. Why can't they just make up some background music of their own?


RE: Why is this a Top Story?
By FITCamaro on 8/16/07, Rating: -1
RE: Why is this a Top Story?
By retrospooty on 8/16/07, Rating: 0
RE: Why is this a Top Story?
By Schrag4 on 8/16/2007 11:29:51 AM , Rating: 5
Is rap music? Yes, but the rapper 'rapping' is merely a percussionist. There is usually a musical element, but what does the rapper add? In my opinion the rapper is only there to add vulgarity. Nice.

I continually surprise those who know me because I don't know the words to a lot of songs. That's because I'm usually drawn into listening to a song because of the musical elements rather than the story they're trying to tell with the music.

I believe that in most cases (not all), effort put into creating a story for the music takes away from effort put into make the music good. Same goes for music videos. And you guessed it, I like a lot of classical music, which didn't concern itself with how it looked...

...and no, I'm not that old, not even 30 yet...


RE: Why is this a Top Story?
By TomCorelis on 8/16/2007 1:17:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In my opinion the rapper is only there to add vulgarity. Nice.
Sure, if you all you listen to is the top 40 stations. Once you step beyond the cacophony of pimps-n-hos, there's actually a lot of soulful writing and expression that could easily be classified as artistic. Further, to be taken seriously rappers/lyricists usually have to make it through the hip hop underground just to prove their credibility--something that's really not for everyone. You have to be extremely quick-witted to succeed. Seen 8 mile? They aren't just making that stuff up. It's "poetry" for a reason.

The Underground is about so much more than what mainstream top 40 leads to believe, you'll find artists belting out sung choruses to contrast their rapped verses, rappers collaborating with rockers collaborating with flutists collaborating with a turntablist. At one concert I saw a popular latino group whip out and play (well, I might add) a cello, and this was a minute after they whipped out a 10-foot water bong. And have you ever gone through the process cutting up and reengineering a music sample for use as "background"? What about programming your own synth for the basslines? Trust me, at the expert level, it's anything but simple.

I beg to differ with the purists that dismiss it merely on principle. If they spent any more than the five seconds it takes to change the radio station, you'd find there's a lot more depth than what you may be led to believe. Open your mind.


RE: Why is this a Top Story?
By Vanilla Thunder on 8/16/07, Rating: 0
RE: Why is this a Top Story?
By rcc on 8/17/2007 12:32:34 PM , Rating: 1
Ooooo, nice general categorization of someone that disagrees with you on music appreciaton.

Vanilla the attack doggie. Why constructively counter something when you can just attack the poster for his/her opinion. : )


By Vanilla Thunder on 8/20/2007 3:41:52 PM , Rating: 2
Because this is a forum for opinion, and if I want to attack someone that I know regularly posts comments full of racism, I will do so. Thank you for expressing your opinion, now move along.

V


RE: Why is this a Top Story?
By rcc on 8/17/2007 12:27:21 PM , Rating: 2
I saw an article years ago that said the world of music academia had categorized Rap with Gregorian chant. I about fell off my chair. I love dropping that on people that like Rap. It upsets them so. : )


RE: Why is this a Top Story?
By Hakuryu on 8/16/2007 1:38:31 PM , Rating: 1
Many songs today use elements from older works, not only rap. Rhianna the pop singer is famous because she used the "Tainted Love" riffs almost exactly the same as the older song. I highly doubt any new riff she came up with would have made that song as popular.

Completely new music is a good thing, but using samples makes something new also that can be just as good or even better then completely new music.

I'm surprised so many down ratings for anyone that mentions rap. I like the Grateful Dead and System of a Down too... that ought to put me at -1.


RE: Why is this a Top Story?
By kmmatney on 8/16/2007 3:31:52 PM , Rating: 2
Elvis Presley took a lot of old music and substantially changed it to make it more "pop" sounding. Almost all of his famous songs were remakes of older songs, were he often substantiually changed the tune and lyrics.


RE: Why is this a Top Story?
By cenobite9 on 8/18/2007 1:04:43 PM , Rating: 2
I guess Scatterbrain can't release anymore 'Down with the Ship' songs since the entire song is made up of guitar, bass, and drum riffs from everyone else's songs.


RE: Why is this a Top Story?
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 8/15/2007 10:34:04 PM , Rating: 5
Because I rule with an Iron Fist~!!!

But more importantly the "Top Story" distinction has specific criteria on our backend -- this story meets all those criteria. We try to maximize the traction for each of our stories.


RE: Why is this a Top Story?
By shabby on 8/15/2007 10:37:54 PM , Rating: 2
DT supports pirate'ism... ;)


RE: Why is this a Top Story?
By tuteja1986 on 8/16/2007 12:10:57 AM , Rating: 2
What are they fighting for ?

Copyright law as in no DRM or saying its okay to download MP3 of P2P network. Because i have been seeing the current trend and big major company are now starting to say DRM ain't so good.

Or are they going to fight for no packet shapping which all major ISP is doing.

I really don't fully understand what message are they trying to convey.


RE: Why is this a Top Story?
By derwin on 8/16/2007 1:46:41 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
What are they fighting for ?

The boooty! Yarrrr!


RE: Why is this a Top Story?
By masher2 (blog) on 8/15/2007 11:56:02 PM , Rating: 3
The formation of a new political party, born from the sweaty antics of Internet file traders, placing shoulders together to rollback two centuries worth of copyright law? On the issue of technology's impact on society, this is big news indeed.

For long term impact, it's quite potentially orders of magnitude larger than "yet-another-cpu-launch".


RE: Why is this a Top Story?
By BMFPitt on 8/16/2007 8:54:50 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, years from now we'll all be telling our grandkids where we were when the Pirate Party was formed......then they're ask us, "What are you talking about?"

I'm all for adding a lot more viable party choices into our system, but Ralph Nader has a better shot in 2012 than these guys have of doing anything.


RE: Why is this a Top Story?
By masher2 (blog) on 8/16/2007 10:14:41 AM , Rating: 1
> "......then they're ask us, "What are you talking about?"

As a sign of the times, the formation of a political party organized around a single issue is a major news event that demonstrates the growing importance of that issue. Yes, this party will die without ever electing a single major candidate, but its effect on the platforms of other parties will be felt long after.

On a side note, the Pirate Party of Sweden reputedly now has more members than does the nation's Green Party.


RE: Why is this a Top Story?
By Kuroyama on 8/16/2007 10:40:17 AM , Rating: 2
It would not be surprising if the majority of members of the Pirate Party in Sweden are not particularly serious and just think it's funny, sort of like those who elected Jesse Ventura as governor of Minnesota. Of course, as Minnesota showed, sometimes the gag candidate will win if enough people go along with the joke (and if the other options suck enough).


RE: Why is this a Top Story?
By BMFPitt on 8/16/2007 12:50:45 PM , Rating: 2
I'd vote for Jesse for President.


By therealnickdanger on 8/16/2007 2:10:05 PM , Rating: 2
I lived in Wisconsin at the time of the election, but moved over the rive to Minnesota that year. Ventura had a good radio show and had some great ideas to shake up the scene, but he fell apart under the pressure of actually doing the job. It was a terrible experience. We're stilling paying for that sh*tty light rail... Money that could have gone to bridge inspection? j/k hindsight is 20/20. Fortunately we have Pawlenty now.


RE: Why is this a Top Story?
By TomCorelis on 8/16/2007 1:56:24 PM , Rating: 2
To be honest, I disagree. In speaking with these folks, if there was one common characteristic I could identify, it would be their seriousness.


RE: Why is this a Top Story?
By nilepez on 8/17/2007 1:25:01 PM , Rating: 2
I thought that as well, but the more I heard Ventura speak, more I realized I would have voted for him.


Utah is definately diverse..
By mdogs444 on 8/16/2007 8:47:39 AM , Rating: 2
Well this article hits it right that Utah is one of the most diverse states. I dont know much about the "PiratParty", or what they are actually trying to achieve. But common sense tells me that not many people are going to listen to them - just as how very little people listen to Utah's "polygamy party". Besides, i can get 2 thousand signatures for just about anything by standing outside of a BK drive thru in suburban columbus.




RE: Utah is definately diverse..
By FITCamaro on 8/16/2007 9:54:45 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Besides, i can get 2 thousand signatures for just about anything by standing outside of a BK drive thru in suburban columbus.


Yeah really. Look at the Man Show. They got women to sign a list of people who wanted to revoke Women's Suffrage.

I hope to god everyone on here knows what that is. Cause the women who signed it didn't.


RE: Utah is definately diverse..
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 8/16/2007 10:35:35 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, I remember seeing that clip fly around. Now, remember... we let these same people vote :)

If that doesn't scare the hell out of you, I don't know what will.


RE: Utah is definately diverse..
By mdogs444 on 8/16/2007 10:40:27 AM , Rating: 2
Indeed, very scary isnt it?

Women signing for suffrage are deciding my future? Oh gosh, what has this world come to? hah.


RE: Utah is definately diverse..
By Spivonious on 8/16/2007 10:43:22 AM , Rating: 2
They weren't signing for suffrage, they were signing to revoke suffrage, because they all thought it was related to suffering. I watched that episode when it was new...does that make me old?


RE: Utah is definately diverse..
By mdogs444 on 8/16/2007 10:47:33 AM , Rating: 2
Whoops thats what I meant. I haven't been proofreading my posts today very well. :-(


RE: Utah is definately diverse..
By Xerio on 8/16/2007 11:53:27 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes, I remember seeing that clip fly around. Now, remember... we let these same people vote :)

If that doesn't scare the hell out of you, I don't know what will.


As scary as that is, our nation is built on the freedoms that we have, and each one of us, including the dumb ones, has the right to vote. Yes, that may be scary, but once the right to vote is taken away, more damage has been done than any stupid voters could possibly inflict.


RE: Utah is definately diverse..
By Ringold on 8/16/2007 11:55:33 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
As scary as that is, our nation is built on the freedoms that we have, and each one of us, including the dumb ones, has the right to vote.


That's what they tell us in Elementary School, along with Washington being a God-like military genius who smited the barbarian British armies with a whack of a Cherry Tree.

But in reality, neither is the case. Suffrage was generally restricted to white land-owning males of good standing -- which was a relatively small part of the population. Women or poor men had no such rights.


RE: Utah is definately diverse..
By PrinceGaz on 8/16/2007 11:04:26 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yeah really. Look at the Man Show. They got women to sign a list of people who wanted to revoke Women's Suffrage.

I hope to god everyone on here knows what that is. Cause the women who signed it didn't.


Well, if they've played any of the Civilization series of games they should know, because it is one of the Wonders you can create in them, and the description mentions what it was.


RE: Utah is definately diverse..
By TomCorelis on 8/16/2007 1:58:17 PM , Rating: 3
I doubt that there's a lot of overlap :-)


Seriously?
By Polynikes on 8/15/2007 11:59:53 PM , Rating: 4
Why do they even bother? I mean, start a party called the "Internet Freedom Party" or something if your ideology includes legitimate things like better copyright laws. Naming their party that way is like having a party whose focal point is improving the prison system and calling it "The Murderer Party." They're never going to get anywhere. My guess is it was founded by a bunch of ignorant teenagers.




RE: Seriously?
By lompocus on 8/16/07, Rating: 0
RE: Seriously?
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 8/16/2007 7:28:36 AM , Rating: 3
Well, I mean if its The Clash ... they have it coming

Oh yeah don't pirate DailyTech!


RE: Seriously?
By TomCorelis on 8/16/2007 2:00:13 PM , Rating: 3
Aw, cmon. I've always wanted to sue someone's pants off. And, if they're hot, their shirt too.


RE: Seriously?
By Misty Dingos on 8/16/2007 11:13:15 AM , Rating: 2
Are they a special interest group or a political party? What I am getting at is that these guys as a core belief simply want to change some laws. If that happened they would not have a reason to exist. While you can make the argument that all political parties are just special interest groups with better tax benefits I just don't buy that these guys want to change the world one copyright law at a time.

In my book they are a SIG not a political party. They just don't have the broad appeal that you can base a political view point on.

Democrats want to run things from the top down in their own way. Same with the Republicans and the Communists and the Libertarians.

Special Interest Groups. NRA, more guns for everyone! Hand Gun Control, no guns for anyone! NORMAL, dope for everyone! AARP, Dope and guns for old people!

The difference between a SIG and a political party is easy to make. They can call themselves a party but they are a SIG. And thus they need to get over themselves. Call themselves what they are lobbyists.


shame
By invidious on 8/16/2007 10:44:19 AM , Rating: 3
its bad enough that many young people dont understand the political system and think it is either out to get them or that they cant affect it. so lets go ahead and give them something they throw away their vote on.

seriously, there should be a 200,000 signature requirement to stop this nonsense.




RE: shame
By Schrag4 on 8/16/2007 11:41:59 AM , Rating: 3
In my opinion, if someone wants to throw their vote away on something like this, then that's better than them making an uninformed decision to vote on a viable candidate. The Pirate Party candidate should really be read as "The candidate for those who don't want to be burdened by real issues."


RE: shame
By TomCorelis on 8/16/2007 2:57:25 PM , Rating: 3
The real nonsense is the exclusionary old boys' club that our two-party system currently is. We'd be much better off if we had no party system and everyone thinks for themselves... oh but wait! Most of America doesn't seem to want to think for themselves. Mmm, prepackaged politics!

Things like that make me proud to be politically independent.


RE: shame
By Ringold on 8/17/2007 12:18:26 AM , Rating: 2
America, as it happens, was able to experiment with the no-party system in what actually provides a very relevant example.

The Confederate States of America was technically mono-party, I guess; all Democrat. When everyone is the same party, though, the end result is the same.

I read from it in a book from college (Civil War and Reconstruction -- best history class I ever had) I loaned out and never got back, so not sure where to pull up a reference. At any rate, it was utter chaos. Every individual attempted to be his own party, stand on his own platform, and push his own agenda. Ego's clashed and even simple bills were held up. Coalitions were extremely difficult to form and were quite fragile. It was actually amazing how ineffectual it made the Confederate congress and a large amount of blame for losing the war can be attributed to their inability to pass timely legislation in anything resembling a clean manner.

Now, if you look at the two parties, you'll see they really aren't all that static. Since the Civil War they've entirely switched ideological places, with the Democrats becoming the Northern big-government liberals and the Republicans the southern small-government conservatives. Both have transformed markedly even over the past 20 to 30 years on a wide range of things and both are pretty responsive to large shifts in opinion amongst their base.

Both parties also have their sub-groups. Republican's have outright libertarians (they by no means have a lock on them, but the libertarian position is impossible to reconcile with the present Democratic platform, making the Republican's the lesser of two great evils), the Reagan and Goldwater-style conservatives of old, a religious portion, the business class in general, and a new freak bread of big-government conservatives which, frankly, should be ejected if I had my way. The Democrats have the blue dog conservative's, a rapidly diminishing number of moderates (they tried to take Lieberman behind the Pennsylvania shed and execute him for his bipartisanship), the anti-war crowd, the anti-free trade crowd, and generally big-hearted souls that would like in good faith to help the poor at home and abroad, as well as socialists who, like libertarians, would rather have a socialist party but aren't so lucky. All these groups in both parties can, and do, exert influence on the larger political body.

The only thing that troubles me is their tendency to occasionally do what they want despite what American's say they want. Like this immigration thing; just watch. They'll pass the same pieces of legislation one piece at a time in unrelated bills in Congress for some of it and other parts will be implemented on the State, County and City levels.

That, too, can be fixed if people awoke from their slumber. I give them credit enough for the immigration thing though; I was surprised, and a local House Rep (not my own, but one of Orlando's) I was able to talk to I think was shocked.


Courtney Love
By CyborgTMT on 8/16/2007 1:22:31 AM , Rating: 4
Seven years ago, in a rare moment of sobriety, Courtney Love blasted the record companies and the copyright laws. Seeing someone's perspective, not only from inside the industry, but also as one who's work is being 'pirated' makes for a really interesting read ( be warned, it's long ).
http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/l...
Maybe if 3 minutes later she wasn't sitting in a corner drooling, people would have listened and we wouldn't be in the DRM hell we are today. Good luck to the Pirate Party.




RE: Courtney Love
By n7 on 8/16/2007 1:53:46 AM , Rating: 2
Wow, great link.


RE: Courtney Love
By Spivonious on 8/16/2007 10:41:14 AM , Rating: 1
I know she was in the industry, but it was my understanding that recording costs, video costs, promotion costs, and touring costs were all fully paid for by the record company. In her example with the $1 million advance, then yes that goes towards the future of the band, so if they spend $1 million for all that stuff, they come out with zero, but royalties are not recoupable, so with 20% royalties and 1 million copies for $10 each, that's $2 million to the band. Split among four people that's $400,000. It's your own fault if you buy the $3 million house and go bankrupt.


RE: Courtney Love
By CyborgTMT on 8/16/07, Rating: 0
swedish
By GNStudios on 8/16/2007 7:53:22 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
the Piratpartiet gathered 4,725 signatures


"the Piratpartiet" means "the the pirat party". Should be "the Piratparti".




RE: swedish
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 8/16/2007 8:01:49 AM , Rating: 2
Ah cool - thanks and fixed.


RE: swedish
By Visual on 8/17/2007 7:55:06 AM , Rating: 2
or maybe just "Piratpartiet"?


By RedHeron on 8/18/2007 8:47:10 PM , Rating: 2
This is my own opinion. Most of it agrees with the philosophies of the Pirate Party. The parts that don't are my own stance, and don't really reflect on the party as a whole.

Apologies for the length of the post. I'm trying to respond to everyone at once.

The way I see it, everyone in the country is a pirate.

The reason I have this view is that the definition that industry groups use to define what is or is not considered infringement (e.g., piracy). The main definition that seems constant is "duplicating anything created by someone else without their permission" and their actions indicate that they don't even respect the idea of public domain music.

Thus, anyone who uses language (by this set of ridiculous specifications) is a pirate. Thus, a political party with the same name makes a lot more sense. This also makes what the industry organizations does a direct attack on the freedom of speech. Protecting rights is fine and good, but not at the expense of progress.

Truly, using the name offered as an epithet as a badge of honor will speak volumes to those in the future.

Our list of issues are starting to look similar to a group of men in the late 1700's who decided to break away from their government. While we have no such intention, it bears mentioning that this group of men also wrote the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, and many of these also participated in the Bill of Rights that gave us a wide variety of powers in acting against those our founding fathers saw as tyrants.

The real question is, who would really want to join us? I mean, we're one of these "here today, gone tomorrow" political parties, right?

Not so.

We're likely going to be debating about lots of issues, because a pirate is historically someone who acts in a way that is unconventional, irrational, and often dangerous. Pirates did kill people, historically. However, so did the East Indian Trading Company (and with far more regularity than most of the pirates they often hanged, keel-hauled, and quartered). Our aim is to bring the word 'pirate' into everyone's minds at all times, because only when people are free to act can our party be silent.

My name is Ray Jenson. I am a pirate, just like the rest of the citizens in my country. I don't participate in file-sharing, illegal downloads, or other practices, because to me the law is important enough to warrant respect (even if I do want it changed to something more rational). However, being a pirate means that I have a vested interest in freedom. It also means I have a vested interest in privacy, due process, and governmental transparency. Governments should protect these as inalienable, and view any erosion as a serious offense against the people. As citizens, we should also realize that those in power, while powerful, are not omniscient. We should help the government understand that they don't get to hold all the cards. The best way to do this is to vote.

The real point of the party is to vie for its own death. By this, I mean that we shouldn't need to exist. The need, however, is one that has existed as long as there have been people who vie for absolute power over something or someone. These rights belong to everyone.

When our government uses its influence to try to protect a single industry (such as the WTO sanctions against China and the threat of the same against Sweden), then that act is inherently based in corruption, rather than in the best interests of any population. Who is the more criminal: the file-sharer who infringes on copyright when he so much as speaks, or the politician who serves the aims of a single industry?

And in one senator's case, both have been the case, apparently.

We believe in protecting copyright. However, current laws are extremely against both progress and creative process. People who listen to poetry quoted into sound can listen if they pay. And if that sound is converted back into text, it's the same laws that should protect it. Protecting something for the entire lifetime of the artist (plus 50 years) is ridiculous, especially when the bulk of art that has been produced is no longer used (and under current law, much of it is unusable).

With copyright, we are aiming for a more reasonable term, the loosening of definitions of what is or is not considered infringement, and a return to a more rational ideal than the current standards under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998. We also view the RIAA's activities in civil litigation a kind of circumvention of due process. They're not acting out of a sense of protecting the artists; they're acting out of a sense of protecting their bottom line--an industry largely marginalized by the advent of the internet. This industry fears for its livelihood, but it has nothing to fear any more than a bookstore has anything to fear from a public library.

And now this same industry wants to change laws to require free radio stations to pay a fee each time they play a song--an activity that has been protected by Congress for over 50 years. This isn't about actual protection of rights. It's about preserving a failing business model--one that is stuck in the Industrial Age, even as society moves into the Information Age.

This is my own thought. The real question now is: how much of what I've written is pirated? All of it, according to the standards promoted by industry groups. And according to my standard, I've borrowed from more than 3 sources, so it's research. The standards of law bear that out.

And, just for the record, I create music, write, and produce graphic arts. I also work for a small-circulation newspaper. Most of my work is free to copy and use. However, much of it is not. For these pieces, I have strict limitations over how it should be used. But in a year, if you wanted to run it all over again, I wouldn't mind, so long as my name was still attached.

So you see, I'm not anti-copyright. I don't think that abolition is a good answer. I'm also emphatically in favor of law and order. I don't believe in upholding any activities that are illegal under the law. And if it's a bad law, it should be changed. Or rewritten from the ground up.

Copyright is a good place to begin.

My name is Ray Jenson. I am a pirate, just like everyone else in the country.




Where is Madox on this?
By RabdDog on 8/21/2007 11:55:45 AM , Rating: 2
Where is Madox (Greatest site in the Universe) on all of this? He is a Pirate from Utah.




By rcc on 8/17/2007 2:39:21 PM , Rating: 1
>>cue beginning of "It's not theft, it's infringement" theme>>>


By HaZaRd2K6 on 8/17/2007 3:09:57 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, I'm overwhelmingly impressed at your ability to read a headline and deduce everything about the article, including the very explicitly stated, "The Pirate Party does not condone the stealing of copyrighted works."

They aren't thieves, you moron. They're making an analogy: that if artists from two hundred years ago had the same restrictions placed upon them that artists today have, then they would be considered "Pirates, thieves, and copyright infringers."

Excellent work. Next time try reading the reading the article, that's what it's there for.


"Well, there may be a reason why they call them 'Mac' trucks! Windows machines will not be trucks." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki