Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 11th Apr 2012 07:35 UTC
In the News "Germany's upstart Pirate Party has overtaken the Greens to become the third strongest political grouping in the country, according to a new poll. The survey by Forsa for broadcaster RTL showed support for the Pirates, whose platform is based on internet freedom and more direct participation in politics, pushing up to 13 percent and outstripping the Greens for the first time." Not surprising. I have lots of close friends in Germany (especially in the former DDR), and for obvious reasons, I've noticed they tend to have a very firm grasp of concepts like privacy and government spying. The bit about six parties being a lot and troublesome for coalition building made me smile.
Permalink for comment 513645
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: What's in a name
by cyrilleberger on Wed 11th Apr 2012 10:13 UTC in reply to "What's in a name"
cyrilleberger
Member since:
2006-02-01

Considering their stance on "copyright" and intellectual property in general, the term "pirate" is a well fitted word. While I agree about some of their points (the length of copyright protection and patents on drugs/software), I think they are taking things a bit too extreme:

* "Non-commercial use should be free from day one." how would anyone be able to makes any kind of money from their artistic work ? Except some musicians, from concert. I am all for limiting copyright length to something like 5 to 10 years, but during that time, you should not be able to exchange the copyrighted piece over p2p. Otherwise, you release an ebook, then someone buys it, put it on his non-commercial website, or non-commercial peer, and everybody goes for it. (or you would have to sell your book for 120000€, since you would sell only one). There are two cases where you could still make a profit, some music group are very good in concert, most just sucks at it but are still able to produce good music, and would deserve to get paid for it. This could work to some extent for movies. I am also fascinated by the number of open source people who like and vote for the pirate party, while their copyright ideas would destroy things like the GPL (companies would find loop hole in the non-commercial thingy for shipping closed source modification of GPL with hardware, arguing they sell hardware which happen to contain non-commercial software).
* as for the patents, I agree with them that software patent should be banned (they duplicate copyright, but then they have suppressed copyright...), and drug patent replaced by public research funded by tax on drug (mostly because commercial companies promote research on drugs that will give them the most profit and not the most benefit for the health of the population, not blaming companies, they are designed for making profit) but patents should stay for manufactured product "merely pointless (patents in the mature manufacturing industries)"... right... it smells the "I don't know anything about industry and still talk about it...", without patents how companies like ARM would manage to sell license and keep developing their CPUs ? I am assuming they consider patents to be useless for traditional industries such as clothing industry, which is again wrong, why would a company invest in research on a new type of textile (for properties like easier to cleaner, warmer, better for the environment...) if they could not protect their invention. Patents are still very good for the manufacturing industry, and should stay.

Quoted from http://www.piratpartiet.se/international/english


That said, a raise of the Pirate Party is good for putting pressure on the government to look into the issues related to IP and Privacy, and possibly come up with more reasonable policies than the existing ones and the pirate party ones.

Reply Parent Score: 4