Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 8th Jun 2009 16:50 UTC
In the News The pro-internet file sharing Pirate Party yesterday scored a big win by securing a seat in the European parliament. It pulled in 7.1 per cent of votes in Sweden, which handed the party one of the country's 18 seats in the European parliament. "Privacy issues and civil liberties are important to people and they demonstrated that clearly when they voted today," Pirate Party candidate Anna Troberg told Swedish TV on Sunday.
Order by: Score:
v Civil liberties?
by ssa2204 on Mon 8th Jun 2009 17:53 UTC
RE: Civil liberties?
by tunkaflux on Mon 8th Jun 2009 17:56 UTC in reply to "Civil liberties?"
tunkaflux Member since:
2006-01-25

Omg... Get informed, will ya... http://www.piratpartiet.se/international/english

Reply Score: 7

v RE: Civil liberties?
by AxiomShell on Mon 8th Jun 2009 18:00 UTC in reply to "Civil liberties?"
RE: Civil liberties?
by Morph on Mon 8th Jun 2009 18:02 UTC in reply to "Civil liberties?"
Morph Member since:
2007-08-20

One might argue that it is a civil liberty to have competent, unbiased judges in the courts, without the unbalanced influence of international media groups with vested interests in court outcomes. Perhaps this is what the voters are protesting about?

Reply Score: 5

v RE: Civil liberties?
by foe83 on Mon 8th Jun 2009 18:03 UTC in reply to "Civil liberties?"
RE[2]: Civil liberties?
by ssa2204 on Mon 8th Jun 2009 18:28 UTC in reply to "RE: Civil liberties?"
ssa2204 Member since:
2006-04-22

well, ask the HIV/AIDS/TBC-affected in africa or other regions what they think of patents and copyrights and you might understand why some people fight for an completly free world.

ownership in any form is retarded. what the **** gives YOU the right to possess or own something others can't?


So you won't ever whine and cry like a baby if your car is stolen, or your house is broken into?

What gives me the right? What are you 5 years old? Grow up.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Civil liberties?
by jaramin on Mon 8th Jun 2009 19:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Civil liberties?"
jaramin Member since:
2006-03-31

Property as we know it has made it hard for us to think out of the box, and forced some kind of "my precious!" Gollum knee-jerk reflex on us. Travel a bit and you'll see it's quite possible to think otherwise.

While I might not want someone to break into my house, or steal my car, I wouldn't mind that it would be, under certain circumstances described by law, "our" house or "a" house, "our" car or "a" car. Let's just talk about fair use. Say I have a house, but have been letting it rot there for a year. It better be fair that someone who is in need for a roof can lay a claim to have some of his basic needs filled by it.

Edited 2009-06-08 19:14 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Civil liberties?
by JAlexoid on Mon 8th Jun 2009 20:25 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Civil liberties?"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

I believe that Norway has a law similar to that(concerning the unused houses). But, then again, I am not a Norwegian nor am I a lawyer.
I believe Lithuania has a law like that. But for unregistered property only.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Civil liberties?
by tuttle on Mon 8th Jun 2009 19:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Civil liberties?"
tuttle Member since:
2006-03-01

"well, ask the HIV/AIDS/TBC-affected in africa or other regions what they think of patents and copyrights and you might understand why some people fight for an completly free world.

ownership in any form is retarded. what the **** gives YOU the right to possess or own something others can't?


So you won't ever whine and cry like a baby if your car is stolen, or your house is broken into?

What gives me the right? What are you 5 years old? Grow up.
"

I am a big proponent of free markets and property rights. But there is a fundamental difference between real property and "intellectual" property: If I steal a car, I deprive the owner of the use of the car, so he has a measurable loss. If I copy some of his data, he still has the data to use himself. So copyright violation is not the same as stealing physical property.

The question whether physical property rights are a useful mechanism and whether intellectual property rights are a useful mechanism are thus not related. It is completely reasonable to be for physical property rights and against intellectual property rights.

Reply Score: 9

RE[4]: Civil liberties?
by dagw on Mon 8th Jun 2009 20:46 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Civil liberties?"
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

If I steal a car, I deprive the owner of the use of the car, so he has a measurable loss. If I copy some of his data, he still has the data to use himself.

But you may be depriving the owner the ability to make money off of the data. Data can have value just like physical objects, and by copying that data you may be lessening its value and thus inflicting a measurable loss on the original owner. So while I agree that physical and intellectual property is different and should be treated as such, it is far from as clear cut as you seem to be making it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Civil liberties?
by dmantione on Mon 8th Jun 2009 21:06 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Civil liberties?"
dmantione Member since:
2005-07-06

So the right word is not theft, but loss of income, isn't it?

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Civil liberties?
by tuttle on Mon 8th Jun 2009 21:12 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Civil liberties?"
tuttle Member since:
2006-03-01

"If I steal a car, I deprive the owner of the use of the car, so he has a measurable loss. If I copy some of his data, he still has the data to use himself.

But you may be depriving the owner the ability to make money off of the data. Data can have value just like physical objects, and by copying that data you may be lessening its value and thus inflicting a measurable loss on the original owner.
"
Society does not have the obligation to protect your means to make money. If you have some valuable intellectual property and you do not want people to copy it, there is already a perfectly viable way to do this: keep it to yourself.

But the current concept of copyright places restrictions on everybody on behalf of the copyright owner. It is a government-granted and government-enforced monopoly on behalf of the copyright owner.

So while I agree that physical and intellectual property is different and should be treated as such, it is far from as clear cut as you seem to be making it.


I did not say that it is clear cut. I just said that its two different categories of property.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Civil liberties?
by dagw on Mon 8th Jun 2009 22:30 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Civil liberties?"
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

Society does not have the obligation to protect your means to make money.

Of course not. But there are many things that society doesn't have an obligation to do (like provide you with an education). Yet many societies have decided to do so anyway because the members of the society believe it do be in the societies best interest. The question is if this is one of these things.

If you have some valuable intellectual property and you do not want people to copy it, there is already a perfectly viable way to do this: keep it to yourself.

Again a flawed argument. Everybody realizes that intellectual property only has values of it can be spread. Keeping it to yourself is virtually the same as destroying it. The argument hinges on who gets to decide how the data is spread.

I just said that its two different categories of property.

Completely agreed, but that does not a prior mean that they must be treated differently. There is a tenancy to assume that simply stating that they are different constitutes an argument that they must be treated differently. To me that seems like both weak and flawed argument.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Civil liberties?
by tuttle on Tue 9th Jun 2009 06:33 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Civil liberties?"
tuttle Member since:
2006-03-01

Again a flawed argument. Everybody realizes that intellectual property only has values of it can be spread. Keeping it to yourself is virtually the same as destroying it. The argument hinges on who gets to decide how the data is spread.


Google is not publishing their search algorithm. So they keep their IP to themselves. Yet everybody on the with an internet connection can use this algorithm.

"I just said that its two different categories of property.

Completely agreed, but that does not a prior mean that they must be treated differently.
"

But there are being treated differently by the law right now. One is theft, the other is copyright infringement.

There is a tenancy to assume that simply stating that they are different constitutes an argument that they must be treated differently. To me that seems like both weak and flawed argument.


The reason I want physical property and intellectual property to be treated differently is that the implications of enforcement are much different.

Physical property can easily be enforced "locally" by making the cost of not honoring the physical property higher than the value of the physical property.

But intellectual property requires the property owner to give away the property, yet still maintain control over it. Technical measures for this do not work (e.g. DRM), but legal measures must be draconian to work.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Civil liberties?
by gustl on Tue 9th Jun 2009 08:45 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Civil liberties?"
gustl Member since:
2006-01-19

The main problem I see is the extreme DURATION during which society grants the copyright holder the monopoly rights.

There is no sane or just reason why a copyright should continue beyond the life of the originator, as it is seen as a means of letting the artist continue performing his art.
Or, if the copyright is held by a company, last for 40 years from the day of it's creation. Within 40 years, the company better be positive from a work of art.

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: Civil liberties?
by Aragorn992 on Tue 9th Jun 2009 13:05 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Civil liberties?"
Aragorn992 Member since:
2007-05-27

"If I steal a car, I deprive the owner of the use of the car, so he has a measurable loss. If I copy some of his data, he still has the data to use himself.

But you may be depriving the owner the ability to make money off of the data. Data can have value just like physical objects, and by copying that data you may be lessening its value and thus inflicting a measurable loss on the original owner. So while I agree that physical and intellectual property is different and should be treated as such, it is far from as clear cut as you seem to be making it.
"

You're only depriving the copyright owner the ability to make money off it, if the owner assumed copyrights existed before he created the software.

If the owner creates such software without copyrights then you're not depriving him/her of anything since there is no guaranteed income from such software.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Civil liberties?
by ssa2204 on Tue 9th Jun 2009 09:22 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Civil liberties?"
ssa2204 Member since:
2006-04-22

DRM: Provide a realistic alternative, or stop whining. I could have more respect for those that whine about DRM if they would at least acknowledge honestly why it exists.

Copyrights: Without copyrights, nobody is going to invest the capital required to produce most games, movies, software, and films. Research firms that are not able to protect their IP will cease to exist, or simply make their IP even more restrictive of who can view it. Studios will probably cease to release DVDs. Those wonderful Showtime and HBO series will end, as they are almost soley reliant on DVD sales.

The defenders of Pirate Bay and all the other downloads are really not making a moral stand, they are just childish and selfish. A generation who think they are simply entitled to everything for free, without thinking about who exactly gets to finance the product in the first place. Sites like the PB are not exactly trading in the patents and research for medicine to provide to poor countries are they?

No, they are happily trading in the latest products of the same evil corporations they bitch about. Well if Warner Brothers, FOX, and other studios are so evil, then why watch their movies? There is absolutely no rights attached to be able to dictate to a studio how YOU can use their product, that is unless you are a primary investor. If not, then you either accept to use it or not.

And if you really really hate the different protection schemes such as DRM that studios employ, then might I suggest growing up a bit, researching WHY they exist, and then learn what needs to be done. Doing away with copyrights has got to be the absolute dumbest of the dumb ideas. One that I can assure 110% will NEVER go away in the near and probably far future.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Civil liberties?
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 9th Jun 2009 09:43 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Civil liberties?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

The defenders of Pirate Bay and all the other downloads are really not making a moral stand, they are just childish and selfish. A generation who think they are simply entitled to everything for free, without thinking about who exactly gets to finance the product in the first place.


Don't generalise. Downloading copyrighted content is fully legal in The Netherlands, even if the upload IS illegal (there is no such thing as "illegal downloading" here), and as such, I'm doing nothing immoral. Please inform yourself about these topics before generalising.

Reply Score: 5

RE[6]: Civil liberties?
by TommyCarlier on Tue 9th Jun 2009 12:13 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Civil liberties?"
TommyCarlier Member since:
2006-08-02

Downloading copyrighted content is fully legal in The Netherlands ... as such, I'm doing nothing immoral

Thom, what does legality have to do with morality?

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Civil liberties?
by ssa2204 on Tue 9th Jun 2009 17:42 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Civil liberties?"
ssa2204 Member since:
2006-04-22

"Downloading copyrighted content is fully legal in The Netherlands ... as such, I'm doing nothing immoral

Thom, what does legality have to do with morality?
"

You could consider the denial of due payment moral or immoral. When a company does not obtain enough revenue to keep employing people, those that lose their job would probably consider this subject pretty immoral.

This is just one of those subjects where someone can whine and bitch about copyrights, that is until they are reliant themselves on the protections. Then of course they will change their tune in a second.

Irregardless, the fact still exists that under current laws companies and indivuals have a right to protect their work. This is after all THEIR time and money spent, and I find it completly selfish and idiotic that some feel a right to others work. It is their property that they have chosen to share under their conditions. You either accept the conditions or look eleswhere. When you loan money, whether on a personal or professional basis, you have a right to dictate terms. Same goes if we are talking about a lawnmower or auto. It makes absolutely 110% no difference whether the product is the result of labor intensive work or research or a physical product. Whether a car is stolen, or a movie, the end result is that income has been deprived. It seems most here are either too damn young to have a job, or simply have not thought it through how they could keep being employed if their employer is deprived of income. God damn, it really is that simple.

I find this just so hypocritical considering that on the subject of movies, music, games, etc.. these are non-essential to one's life. They are essential to the producer to be able to obtain income however. If one finds the big evil media companies so objectionable, they why are so many of these same indivuals so willing to download their movies, games, music, and software?

It just boggles the mind I guess that some simply can not figure something out as simple as this. No copyright means no product. End of story. And if one is morally objecting to copyrights, then simply DO NOT use copyrighted material.

A little test some can do. Go try to find emloyment in a field that works with IP, tell them your beliefs on copyrights and patents, and see how swiftly you are shown the door.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Civil liberties?
by ssa2204 on Wed 10th Jun 2009 05:14 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Civil liberties?"
ssa2204 Member since:
2006-04-22


Don't generalise. Downloading copyrighted content is fully legal in The Netherlands, even if the upload IS illegal (there is no such thing as "illegal downloading" here), and as such, I'm doing nothing immoral. Please inform yourself about these topics before generalising.


Sure it may be legal, but do you honestly want to say that copyright holders should or will sit idly by while this happens? Please do not argue that there is no consequences.

You just don't get it, do you?

Where did I say I have moral objections to copyright? Because actually, I don't have moral objections to copyrigth at all.

The thing that I'm trying to point out to you is that in The Netherlands, I am NOT breaching copyright when I download copyrighted content off the internet, because our law SPECIFICALLY states that such activity falls WITHIN the boundaries of copyright.


I don't know why you keep bringing up the Netherlands, when I never referred to them, your post, or you. Am I missing something here?

Reply Score: 2

v RE[3]: Civil liberties?
by NicePics13 on Mon 8th Jun 2009 19:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Civil liberties?"
RE[3]: Civil liberties?
by Valhalla on Mon 8th Jun 2009 21:06 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Civil liberties?"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

ssa2204 wrote:
-"So you won't ever whine and cry like a baby if your car is stolen, or your house is broken into? "

As other have pointed out you are (deliberately?) confusing copyright with theft. We are talking 'illegal copies' not stolen property, there's quite a big difference. Also, while the 'pirate party' makes it sound like it's all about illegal copying this issue is alot bigger here in Sweden. Alot of people (particularly the younger enlightened internet generation) here in sweden are pretty upset that laws like ipred are passed which allows any company to demand the name behind any ip-address without any proof whatsoever and then start sending demands to this person with threats to go to court.

Just the idea that the government passes laws directly tailored to commercial interests is plain scary, and the fact that they are given rights that not even the police has (they have to go to court in order to get the name behind an ip address) just shows how far our politicians are bending to the will of private interests. Add to that the fact that if you are falsely accused you will have to pay any court defence yourself since this will be a civil case, which means that very few will have the means to even defend themselves and thus will have to settle for whatever deals are given them. Alot of ISP's here in sweden are now refusing to log traffic in order to protect their customers and the goverment has started to talk about changing the law so that they have to (again bending to the will of the copyright lobbyists). So personally I applaud the results of this election since it shows that this is a big issue (again particularly with the younger generation) and that it will likely be a hot issue in the next election. I do not want to live in a society where everything I do online is monitored, and no I'm no terrorist nor am I a pedophile (the usual attacks against people wanting privacy online).

Reply Score: 7

RE[3]: Civil liberties?
by foe83 on Tue 9th Jun 2009 11:58 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Civil liberties?"
foe83 Member since:
2009-03-02

in a perfect world, my car wouldnt be stolen. some one would ask if they could use it. okey, bring it back in one piece please.
the world is moving more and more towards an open-source world which spread out in other areas than filesharing, for example medical research and volunteer work.
in a perfect world, things would not have a price or value, in a perfect world we share. and nobody gets paid either. who ever come up with the idea that a world must have money and a value on possesions/ideas is the dumbest re**** ever.
the only reason to defend this, is to satisfy your ego.
it's like that brat in the sandbox, hoarding his HappyMeal and rubbing it in the face of the other kids.
i do realise that a perfect world will never exist, but the utopia keeps me sane atleast.

all i'm saying is that the problems with patents are greater than the benefits.
if let's say a painting was copyrighted, and i buy it from the painter, i physically own it - but intellectually the painter holds the right. so basically i own the paint, the frame but the content is copyrighted and i can't display it without consulting the original painter even though i actually own it (or do i? someone please #define OWNERSHIP).

it's like a car-manufacturer would have an EULA that you're not allowed to turn left with yer brand new volvo....

copyrights are a laugh, and ONLY benefits the holder, while everyone else loose out.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Civil liberties?
by dizzey on Mon 8th Jun 2009 19:01 UTC in reply to "Civil liberties?"
dizzey Member since:
2005-10-15

I have to ask are you stupid or just uninformed.
This election had nothing to do about the right to download freely.

But it had everything to do with the monitoring of all internet traffic and all phone calls.

laws that say's that all traffic to and from sweden is monitored buy our security service. and laws that want register who you talk to and when.

but maybe you version of freedom is a state where the government watches your every move to protect you from your self.

Edited 2009-06-08 19:02 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RE: Civil liberties?
by tuttle on Mon 8th Jun 2009 19:30 UTC in reply to "Civil liberties?"
tuttle Member since:
2006-03-01

So now it is a "civil liberty" to download content? Talk about delusional immaturity. Maybe they will introduce a bill explaining how content is to be financed if nobody is to pay for it?


It is not a civil liberty to download content. But the measures proposed by content holders to prevent downloading content are all diametrically opposed to civil liberties. You can not enforce intellectual property rights without building a police state.

I would have no problem with their stupidity if they went on their own to produce their own TV shows, movies, music, games, software, etc..But that is not the case. Plain hard truth, a party of idiots to cheap or spoiled to spend money who think they simply "deserve" for free. God, I should go to Sweden, get some of their home addresses, and just bloody well take whatever I damn well feel like it. Cuz you know, it is my civil liberty to have for free!


Intellectual property is not the same as real physical property.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Civil liberties?
by dagw on Mon 8th Jun 2009 20:40 UTC in reply to "Civil liberties?"
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

So now it is a "civil liberty" to download content?

There is a lot more to the Pirate party than downloading. In fact the parties European parliament representative himself said in an interview that he considers that a minor and unimportant part of their platform.

I voted for them and care little about debate around the pirate bay case or 'illegal' file sharing. I recommend you look at their real and central issues before spouting off, lest you come off sounding ignorant.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Civil liberties?
by ple_mono on Mon 8th Jun 2009 21:54 UTC in reply to "RE: Civil liberties?"
ple_mono Member since:
2005-07-26

I voted for the "pirate party" as well, because their stance on SOFTWARE PATENTS!

Reply Score: 4

RE: Civil liberties?
by Hypnos on Tue 9th Jun 2009 07:16 UTC in reply to "Civil liberties?"
Hypnos Member since:
2008-11-19

Others have commented on your poor information as to what the party is about.

I would also point out that your analogy is not apt. Material objects are naturally scarce; data objects are made scarce by a copyright regime.

So one must be careful in conflating copyright infringement with theft, and consider the purpose and function of a copyright regime before passing moral judgment.

(I realize also that you may simply be a troll who hit the mark.)

Reply Score: 3