If anything indicated a need for change in politics and the way they are presented to the public it was that last year the PIRATE PARTY (Piratpartiet) won seats in the EU. Basically - for those who don't quite get it (or those that do) here is my take on them.
Here is what the Pirate Party THINK the world would look like if they got into power.
Here is what it REALLY would look like:
Why is this? Well, because they have no idea what they are talking about. Lets have a look at their policies and then show them for the spoutings of an uneducated idiot that they really are. Now the PP only have three polices and they are:
1
REFORM OF COPYRIGHT LAW
What is this:
Summed up they want to make anything copyrighted to be free (for non commercial purposes). That means that all us fans of downloading films and music etc on the Internet could do so perfectly legally. They also want to scale down copyright on cultural works from Death + 50 years to just 5 years from the day it was made. So that means everyone can have access to any film, music, book etc whenever they like - free stuff for everyone!REFORM OF COPYRIGHT LAW
What is this:
What would really happen:
There would be no more music, films, books etc. If the second it was released anyone could get it for free then no one would bother buying it anymore. Why would you? Therefore there would be no more money in the industry and no one who creates said media or any company that finances said media could afford to continue and therefore would shut down. No band would be able to record, but albums out or tour, no films or TV shows could be made, no cinema would be able to be open. No DVD or CD company could continue to produce products. Millions would lose jobs, and not just the big rich musicians and actors but everyone from the camera operators, the man who makes the posters, the guy who packs the Cd's into the boxes etc...THERE WOULD BE NO MORE CULTURE
Except for....government funded culture. If there was a demand, our taxes would pay to produce a minimum government controlled artistic outlet. Taxes would be raised because of this, oh and to cater for the newly millions unemployed worldwide.
When arguing this point with a hardcore follower of the PP last year his argument against was that THE GRATEFUL DEAD (pictured above) during their time had a special section in the audience at their gigs for people who wished to go in and bootleg the show and it did them no harm. I don't need to tell anybody sensible that this was a different time (before the Internet and even CD) when the band could do that and still sell millions of albums so it was no loss to them. It's not a valid argument these days.
Taking away the "death + 50" rule (which means that a work is copyrighted 50 years after the creator dies) means that the families and predecessors of the successful (think, Disney, Jim Henson, Bruce Lee etc) would no longer be able to continue. The PP think that 5 years is a good enough time to earn back the money from a creation and that if you don't do it in 5 years you never will. I don't need to tell you the madness in this, history is littered with examples to the contrary. Plus, no one would make any money back anyway because with the new "everything for free rule" that's the way it would be.
2 - ABOLISH PATENTS
What this is:
The PP believe that "the man" hordes patents on stuff like medicine making it unavailable for everyone for free. Get rid of this and everyone in the world would have free medicine forever.What this is:
What would really happen:
Pharmaceutical companies would become bankrupt. No one would bother to research for free and with no funding there would be no more research into new medicine. And not just medicine, with no patents NOTHING new would be created so we halt all new research and technology
...or we government fund new research. Is that cheap? I dunno, find out when the new tax bump comes in to fund it.
3 - Respect for the right to privacy.
What this is:
Taking away the madness of a "Big Brother" society.What this means:
Pedophiles, murderers, rapists right through to petty criminals have a much easier job.
Now - remember these things next time the Pirate Party wants your vote! With a halt in progress (both technologically and culturally) a revolution is just a few steps away, and with nothing to protect you from it it won't be long before something short of civil war happens. Or, if it all goes to plan we'd live in a society where our technological and cultural contributions were government controlled and funded. Not to mention that these three polices are their ONLY polices...everything else goes to hell. What's left of it to go to hell.
Now, the PP do have some good points in principle. Which could be addresses and this is where they have done a good thing because people HAVE voted for them it shows that a simple, different 3-point party plan was something that people could believe and relate to. This means one simple thing (along with the BNP getting some seats also) - WE NEED CHANGE!
Just not the PP or the BNP.
10 comments:
Hi,
I'd like to clear up sone misconceptions that have been portrayed about the Pirate Party.
Firstly, the various parties around the world are aiming for somewhat different things. While Sweden is in fact pushing to make copyright last for 5 years, as you said, Australia, for example, is aiming for 15 years, which is longer than the original protection.
When copyright was first introduced, it literally took years to get a work out into the Market for exploitation. Today, something can be produced and available for purchase within hours. So while distribution is so much easier and more lucrative, protection has risen for 14 years, with one optional extension of 14 years, to life of the author plus 70 years.
The purpose of copyright is to encourage creativity for the benefit of society, so the incentives that should be offered to creators should be the minimum that will get them to create. What true artist will refuse to create music because their great grandchildren won't still get paid for artist's work? I would contend that it wouldn't be much of an artist who would only work under those conditions.
As to legalising non-commercial copyright infringement. I know that many people, given the option, will take for free whatever they can get. I also know that many people will support the artists they like. They're called fans. I am often buying CDs and DVDs where I originally saw or heard a pirated version. Look at the indie film Ink, which languished in obscurity until it was leaked onto BitTorrent. After that, it went ad high as 14 on the all-time best movies on IMDB and the creators of the film made heaps.
File-sharing is free publicity in most cases. It has never been shown that a copy made is a sale lost. Many people download so much media that there is no way they could have actually bought it all, but they will still spend as much as they can afford. All this means is that the overall culture of society is a bit higher, with as much money spent as was ever going to be spent.
Basically, we believe (based on good research), that artists can make far more money when they are not over the barrel of just a few large publishers. It is time to embrace new business models in this digital era and accept the fact that you can't un-open a bottle of champagne. The Internet is here to stay.
Now for the patent system. We don't want it abolished. We want it fixed. Currently, many patents do not actually describe in enough detail how to reproduce the invention, which is a requirement of patents: You tell us how you did it and we'll give you exclusive rights for a time.
Another problem is pharmaceutical companies extending their monopoly on a drug through the use of process patents, which is where the same chemical is delivered in a slightly different way, so generic medications cannot be given in place of the brand name. Many countries have crises going on on their public health care systems, and a lot of it comes down to the price of medication from the large pharmaceutical companies.
Much of the ground-breaking research that goes into these drugs doesn't even come from the drug companies. The funding often comes from the public, through universites, so the public should not then be extorted to get access to the output of the research.
The other main issue with patents is that Software patents should not exist. Software is already covered by copyright, and there is rarely an idea that could be considered a patentable device that is free of a hardware implementation. Take Amazon's extremely profitable 1-click patent for example. It is blatently obvious, and can be done in different ways under the hood, but other companies have to pay them royalties for it. Patents are meant to exclude obvious ideas.
Other than copyright and patent reform, the Pirate Party is a Civil Liberties party. We believe in freedom of speech, and shockingly, yes, we think that privacy is important. I'm from Australia where we don't have any constitutional protections for privacy, so getting some level of protection is of vital importance. In the U.S., there are the 4th and 14th amendments that protect your right to privacy, so it is understandable if you are a little more complacent.
We are fighting against Internet censorship and for the rights of parents to run their own households with respect to limiting what their children see and do. The U.S. Government has supported the opponents to Internet censorship on Australia, on freedom of speech and privacy grounds, saying that there are more effective ways to combat child abuse without restricting freedom.
I haven't even spoken about transparent governance, the one-hit-wonder effect or artists making money from touring. We are actually a very well-educated party, despite your opinions, so we are happy to intellectually debate the issues.
Why is any of this so radical?
I'm typing this on an iPod, so I can't go into as much detail as I would like, so for more information, email enquiries@pirateparty.org.au
Regards,
David Crafti
President
Pirate Party Australia
P.S.: I like the images you used. Did you make them? If not, from where did you licence them?
It's ironic that you think that copyright reform to allow non-commercial copyright infringement would ruin the world.
You have copied (at least) the Pedophile Playground image by Darrell Perry from worth1000.com.
From worth1000.com's FAQ:
"You may not take even a single copyrighted image off of the Worth1000 website without our and our copyright holders' consent. Forward all requests here and we will reply promptly."
Do you have Darrell Perry's consent, or are you just a dirty thief trying to ruin the world?
ha ha ha - I may not take a single image eh? That's funny as a Google image search brought it up and I took it very easily, didn't even see the website so didn't even see the FAQ, there is no copyright written on it so....there we go. Strange how people put things up on the web and then have issues with it.
Anyway, my blog, my rules, picture just illustrates the point, was funny and makes it look pretty, could have been any picture.
No go and have a cry on some other blog.
@David Crafti
You'd make a great politician as you can say a lot without actually saying anything!
...those two very long posts actually cleared up nothing at all, I'd try writing less and coming to the point faster.
"I also know that many people will support the artists they like. They're called fans. I am often buying CDs and DVDs where I originally saw or heard a pirated version"
....yes NOW but was it all legal who would buy anything? If I was a huge fan of a band I and I think every other fan would download their album for free rather than buy it on CD if it was totally legal to do so....right? I mean, it's actually that simple! Wake up!
Now I'm the most lefty-liberal-anarchist guy you could meet so I'm not attacking this from a conservative right wing angle but the angle of realism. Again, you guys from the PP are going round thinking exactly that "fans will still buy albums" like the attitude is "it's ok, it'll work out"...
Your whole two posts just seen to never come to the point. Sorry dude.
Some further ironic findings is that here in my hometown of Borås there are a few places that small bands/cubs etc can go put up posters for forthcoming events. The PP seem to think its great to tear down these posters and put up several of their HUGE A1 posters over them....
Kinda sums it all up right?
@David Crafti:
1. Have ANYONE of you pirates every tried to make a living on your art? Looks like you have NO ANY clue about that.
2. It's fantastic that you and your party finds fundamental human rights, like freedom of speech, important, please do continue to work for that!
Especially when in your country the fundamental human rights are not provided by the Constitution and you are the only democratic country where you don't have a Bill of Rights...
So I am sure that you as a fighter for human rights and as the president of a party, you are very well familiar with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and one of your duties would be to achieve that finally, after more than 6 decades, it is also implemented in Australia.
Which includes Article 27:
"(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author."
Greetz from a single mom who is supporting herself and her son from creating and selling her art and would be absolutely unhappy being enforced to do otherwise...
I think it's safe to say people who fall for extreme interpretations of sayings will have difficulties coping with these things. This is one of the things that are interpreted in the extremes. Worst case scenario, no. This is miles worse than the possible worst case scenario.
Allow me to expand.
First of all, it's not your place to predict what would happen if copyright laws were removed. Summed up, and I heavily suspect not everything was taken into account with this equation, the removal of copyright laws won't ever, EVER, kill the culture. Or maybe it did die, but that wasn't because of copyright reforms. Radio killed culture, as did Internet and Youtube. It's wierd to see bands to their things even though they're obviously ruined by now.
Summed up: no. Just 'cause the music is free won't mean the bands will lose out on the money. The record companies, on the other hand, will. The record companies, on the other hand, hasn't much to do with the music. The Beatles, for instance, barely made it out of their garage 'cause of a record company. What the big money comes from are tours, and saying free music will make people not give a toss about tours with their favourite bands is like saying people stop eating steaks if only hotdogs were free. (Vegetarian options will of course still apply, but I'm not too informed about veggie cuisine.) In short: no. Even though the music is free I will never, ever miss a chance to see a good band live, provided the price is right and there's nothing else I have to do.
But then again, tape recorders did kill off the film industry, didn't it?
Addendum, why the flaming fuck would someone who did nothing about the music get the benefit for it? THAT, and not the reforms, is unfair.
Second of all:
Patents is NOT what makes inventions spring to life. Whatever made you think that, I can't imagine. Firstly, pharmaceutical companies won't get bankrupt. How would that even make sense? It's not the patents that make their money (oh, wait. Yes it is. They could do something worthwhile though, like making medicine instead of buying patents so that they can direct the market prices). You see, market prices are dictated by the one who owns the patent. In any other case people would shrug and wait for something cheaper to come along (which, in itself, isn't hard. Change ONE thing in a patent and you're free to call it your own), but here, when it comes to medicine, LIFE AND DEATH, we can't shrug. Who would be able to stand there and say "eh, I can wait, it's not like it's a big deal or anything important anyway", because, you see, medicine is bloody important. So, yeah, maybe we should let pharmaceutical companies (who in many cases had nothing to do with the research itself) buy patents for medicines and then let them push the market prices way beyond the borders of comfort.
Third of all:
No, paedophiles, murderers, rapists and the "petty criminals" won't have an easier job. How does this even make sense? Did someone invent the stabbing-people-through-internet-device yet? Surveillance won't deter crime, because if it did we wouldn't have any crime anymore, would we? Censorship isn't something to strive for, since it undermines a civil right: the freedom of speech act. There's this reasoning that paedophiles wouldn't be caught and child pornography would be distributed freely without censorship, but I don't buy that. Heard of tracking IP-numbers? There are other ways to bring people to justice. Censoring, and worse still, denying someone access to the Internet for nothing more than a fucking SUSPICION isn't about keeping people safe, it's about caging them.
All in all, my vote will go to the Pirate party, if only to tick paranoid people off.
Thanks Getatron, ok lets make this short and sweet...
"Just 'cause the music is free won't mean the bands will lose out on the money."
Yes it does - you see you are like everyone else that is thinking like the PP and their followers. This is a domino effect. I don't know if you have any experience in the industry, I do.
Big money come from tours....true! Well, kinda but without the simple product to support it at base value there would be no tours!
The big record companies need to make money to put out the next thing...as does the small band in the basement. Take this away and the next thing doesn't happen, it's a very simple fact.
Tapes didn't kill the film industry because the option of the big (easy) industry was always there. With PP it wouldn't be because everyone from Speilberg to some guy with a camcorder wouldn't be making a single penny, domino effect...no more films. No more cinemas. No more dvds, etc.
Beg to differ, patents DO make invention spring to life, or at least the incentive to create, right? The guys work because the money is dangling there once they finish?
Umm....if i need to explain to you how paedophiles would get away with their "work" easier you've missed something. Read the PP polices, you wouldn't be able to track the IP dude...you could be Gary Glitter all day long...
Hang on....you're not Gary Glitter are you? Is this Gary...is that why you're so adamant!
Post a Comment