Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Ask the UK Pirate Party's Andrew Robinson About the Issues

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the but-not-about-the-eyepatch dept.

Politics 391

VJ42 writes "With the 2010 UK general election fast approaching, the Pirate Party of the United Kingdom will be fielding elections for the first time. The Digital Economy bill and ACTA are hot topics for UK geeks, and the Pirate Party is looking to pick up some votes. Their leader, Andrew Robinson, has agreed to answer your questions. Normal Slashdot interview rules apply."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Forcing authors to lose rights over work (3, Interesting)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#31398776)

It seems Pirate Party UK's one of the core policies is reformin copyright and patent law so that non-commercial file sharing would be legalized. While certainly a noble goal, shouldn't content producers, artists, programmers, and basically anyone producing something have a right to their work?

This is not only limited to music, movies or other kind of entertainment - among other things, it also affects open source coders who release their code under GPL. If there weren't copyrights, there couldn't be GPL either, nor Creative Commons Attribution, No Derivative Works and Share Alike licenses. In this exact case copyright is used to allow the author to make sure he is attributed and his work isn't misused.

Wouldn't the world be less controlling if the authors actually had some saying over their works instead of being forced to lose control over their work?

Re:Forcing authors to lose rights over work (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31398808)

I do believe the policy is more about the shock value than a serious policy to be implemented verbatim. It is basically the polar opposite of current copyright use where it is used primarily for control until death and then some 70 years. I'd say it's easier to come to the table with the direct opposite to come to some middle ground than it is to make concessions from the beginning, no?

Re:Forcing authors to lose rights over work (3, Insightful)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 4 years ago | (#31399364)

I agree - politics basically works by middle ground. In many cases, it's an argument to moderation fallacy, and it's poor for many reasons (including the fact that it rewards people for taking extreme positions), but despite being a fallacy, it's how politics works.

If some people say "Copyright should be life plus 70 years, be extended whenever Mickey Mouse might become public domain, we should have laws criminalising telling people how to circumvent protections even if you legally bought the material, and anyone suspected of downloading should be banned from the Internet", and on the other hand you have an already compromising and reasonable stance, say, "Copyright should last 50 years, and maybe some of these other laws are too strict", what will happen? We won't get "Ah yes, the latter guy talks sense", instead at best will be a compromise between those two positions.

Also it's worth remembering that even the Pirate party's "extreme" position still believes in copyright for commercial use (IIRC, 10 years for the UK party?) The OP refers to the GPL, but most outrages of GPL violations seem to be about commercial use, in my experience.

Re:Forcing authors to lose rights over work (3, Insightful)

Gavagai80 (1275204) | more than 4 years ago | (#31399418)

If you take such an extreme view, it makes it easier for opponents to dismiss your group as dangerous extremists and prevent you from getting invited to the table at all.

Re:Forcing authors to lose rights over work (4, Insightful)

Locklin (1074657) | more than 4 years ago | (#31398876)

I bet you would find a rather large number of people who think that, for example, making a mix tape is entirely ethical and should be legal. Lots of people don't agree that artists should have ultimate control over their work. Also, who is being *forced*? not giving artists the privilege of ultimate control over the use of their published creations is not *forcing* them to do anything.

I hate that GPL argument. Sure it's technically correct, but the GPL was written with the intent of subverting copyright using it's own rules. The GPL would be unnecessary, and would most definitely not be common had the copyright system been much more lax during the last few decades.

Re:Forcing authors to lose rights over work (2, Informative)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#31398918)

The GPL would be unnecessary, and would most definitely not be common had the copyright system been much more lax during the last few decades.

With weaker copyright the GPL would certainly be less beneficial because the GPL relies on strong copyright. Without that we might not have the benefit of good GPL licensed projects like the linux kernel and the GNU userland.

Re:Forcing authors to lose rights over work (2, Insightful)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#31399060)

Unless every piece of software is open source, which is the goal of the Gnu project. Then copyright would be meaningless.

Re:Forcing authors to lose rights over work (2, Insightful)

Nazlfrag (1035012) | more than 4 years ago | (#31399336)

The GPL is an anomaly caused by strong copyright. If it was easier to merely contribute to the public domain and copyright had realistic fair use then the GPL would be unnecessary.

Re:Forcing authors to lose rights over work (1)

init100 (915886) | more than 4 years ago | (#31399420)

With weaker copyright the GPL would certainly be less beneficial because the GPL relies on strong copyright.

Why? I cannot see why the GPL would benefit more from the excessively strong copyright law of today compared to a sane copyright law with a term length of maybe 20 years, and no DMCA-style rules such as the notice and takedown system, anti-circumvention provisions, statutory damages of 150,000 USD per infringement, etc. Name one case where any open source developer has sent a DMCA takedown request to an infringer, or an open source developer suing a grandma for 150,000 USD because of license infringement.

Re:Forcing authors to lose rights over work (2, Insightful)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#31398990)

I think BSD license would be a lot closer in subverting copyrights using it's own rules. GPL clearly states that if you GPL'd code, along with the binaries you need to make your own source code available too. Having the source code available is something the author wanted and is using his right over his work. Without copyrights anyone could take anyones code and never release the modifications or even relicense it under non-compliant license like BSD license.

Re:Forcing authors to lose rights over work (3, Interesting)

mpe (36238) | more than 4 years ago | (#31399020)

I hate that GPL argument. Sure it's technically correct, but the GPL was written with the intent of subverting copyright using it's own rules.

"Subverting" in this context meaning more of "back to basics". Considering that it originated from the US and the US Constitution is quite specific on what "copyright type" things are ment to do.

Re:Forcing authors to lose rights over work (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31399154)

You Americans with your interpretations of the constitution that always somehow seem to precisely match your personal convictions. You're worse than Bible-thumpers (although I gather the majority of you are those too).

Re:Forcing authors to lose rights over work (5, Informative)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 4 years ago | (#31399378)

making a mix tape is entirely ethical and should be legal

Indeed, take for example UK artist Lily Allen - she believes that people who download are thieves, and was a vocal support of UK plans to disconnect people suspected of downloading. But even she seems to think it's fine to distribute mix tapes, on her record company's website, using other artists' material, in order to promote her own commercial material...

Re:Forcing authors to lose rights over work (1)

RichardJenkins (1362463) | more than 4 years ago | (#31399398)

The GPL would be unnecessary, and would most definitely not be common had the copyright system been much more lax during the last few decades.

Completely disagree with that. The purpose of the GPL is to allow me to release my project out to the world for people to play with/change/learn from however they see fit while preventing people from changing it then releasing an improved version without the same freedoms I originally gave.

It was originally created by RMS after he released a version of emacs to a company who modified it, then released their own version but refused to give out the source code, and absolutely requires copyright laws in place to be able to do that.

If people could distribute derivatives non-commercially without the source code, I suspect this would still be an issue for many FOSS advocates.

Re:Forcing authors to lose rights over work (5, Insightful)

FeepingCreature (1132265) | more than 4 years ago | (#31398886)

No.

:)

Basically, I disagree with everything you said. No, you shouldn't be able to retain permanent control over an idea. No, saving the GPL is not worth perpetuating our current broken copyright. And no, a world with drastically reduced creator control over their "intellectual property" would be on the whole far less controlling, instead of more.

Besides, how often does the GPL come up in non-commercial cases?

Re:Forcing authors to lose rights over work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31398904)

If they shorten copyright term to 5 or 3 years, it won't affect anything: who in the GPL land hasn't *changed* the code for that long? You can have the old version all you like.

Re:Forcing authors to lose rights over work (1)

Seyedkevin (1633117) | more than 4 years ago | (#31399190)

On the contrary, I think that in our current situation, shortening copyright term would only make things worse for the GPL. Think of it this way, the GPL was designed to keep software from going proprietary, and once the work has been out for 5 years or whatever, it'd be in the public domain. That means a company like Microsoft can just paste GPLed code in. Yes, the code may not be the most up-to-date version, but the initial release is probably all the company needs--patching up the program themselves to suit their needs is not that big of a deal. Plus, after that, you get patches going into the public domain on a daily basis. Also, what if they infringe upon the GPL and use works before it goes into public domain? It's difficult to tell if the company wrote the feature or if they used a patch illegally, and there's a good chance that the work will have gone to public domain before legal threat is over as long as it's not a really new feature.

On the other hand, proprietary vendors do not release sourcecode so we'll never see sourcecode, ever. Even if it goes in the public domain. In addition, they still have other terms we have to agree to like EULAs and terms of use. At the end of the day, I think a proprietary vendor being forced to give up their object code in the public domain does not actually hurt them but does hurt the GPL.

Re:Forcing authors to lose rights over work (3, Insightful)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 4 years ago | (#31399396)

In addition, they still have other terms we have to agree to like EULAs and terms of use.

The only plausible argument for EULs being a valid contract is based on copyright: namely, you need permission to even copy it from disk to memory, so you'll be committing copyright infringement if you don't accept the licence.

So if it was no longer copyrighted, you could simply use it without accepting the licence.

Re:Forcing authors to lose rights over work (4, Informative)

marcansoft (727665) | more than 4 years ago | (#31398922)

Here's how it (roughly) works over here (Spain):
- Audiovisual works can be shared noncommercially, but we pay levies on all kinds of media and copying devices (CD/DVD-Rs, hard drives, media players, cellphones)
- Software is protected and P2P sharing of software is not legal

Now, there's a huge SNAFU going on here with our RIAA-equivalent (the SGAE), who are lying bastards and cheaters, the levy system isn't ideal (many people get charged who don't use P2P, and the devices/consumables that get levies are just stupid - I think it'd be better to charge levies on internet connections instead of consumables and devices), and the way the levies are distributed is completely backwards (SGAE execs have been known to use some privately, transparency is nil, and small artists get squat). Nonetheless, the basic premise isnt all that bad: legalize audio/video/book file sharing, but impose some reasonable sort of cash stream from the people very likely to use P2P to the people who very likely have their works shared.

You also need to realize that legalizing file sharing does not imply removing all copyright. All it says is that sharing copyrighted files is fine (authors have less control over how their work is distributed noncommercially), but it doesn't imply licenses are invalid: You still can't produce a GPL'd derivative work and not provide source, you still can't violate the attribution/share-alike/non-commercial provisions of Creative Commons, etc. I don't think anyone is seriously arguing that copyright should be abolished - there's a huge difference between that and just making the usual P2P scenarios legal.

Re:Forcing authors to lose rights over work (1)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#31398960)

All it says is that sharing copyrighted files is fine (authors have less control over how their work is distributed noncommercially), but it doesn't imply licenses are invalid: You still can't produce a GPL'd derivative work and not provide source, you still can't violate the attribution/share-alike/non-commercial provisions of Creative Commons, etc.

If it wouldn't affect licenses at all, wouldn't EULA's then just state that to legally run the program or game you need to have a license which is only obtainable via proper channels (ie. buy the product)?

Re:Forcing authors to lose rights over work (1)

marcansoft (727665) | more than 4 years ago | (#31399042)

No, because audiovisual works don't have EULAs, and even if they forced them upon buyers, a clause preventing you from legally sharing it noncommercially would probably not be enforceable.

As a copyrighted work, software is considerably different from just media.

Re:Forcing authors to lose rights over work (2, Interesting)

AmonTheMetalhead (1277044) | more than 4 years ago | (#31399098)

We have those levies in Belgium too, that's why i refuse to buy media & devices in Belgium anymore, sucks for the local distributors, but I'm NOT going to contribute to the 'artist most likely to have their work shared'.

I buy Cd's, i have over 600 at last count, and none of those are from 'mainstream' artists (whom tend to suck badly anyway), if they insist on those levies, i want to be able to bring in my legal purchases as a reduction against those levies (hell, they'd owe *me* money that way) when i decide to buy a new memory card for my camera, and if that's impossible I'd at least appreciate having a say as to what artist gets my 'contribution', crap artists like 50cent and Britney Spears have no right to my money.

Re:Forcing authors to lose rights over work (1)

mpe (36238) | more than 4 years ago | (#31399104)

Now, there's a huge SNAFU going on here with our RIAA-equivalent (the SGAE), who are lying bastards and cheaters,

Isn't that a required "qualification" for such positions?

the levy system isn't ideal (many people get charged who don't use P2P, and the devices/consumables that get levies are just stupid - I think it'd be better to charge levies on internet connections instead of consumables and devices),

Which is still going to be just as unfair the only change is that it might be different people who are paying for nothing.

and the way the levies are distributed is completely backwards (SGAE execs have been known to use some privately, transparency is nil, and small artists get squat).

In other words the people distributing the money are completly corrupt.

Nonetheless, the basic premise isnt all that bad: legalize audio/video/book file sharing, but impose some reasonable sort of cash stream from the people very likely to use P2P to the people who very likely have their works shared.

You might just as well pay "artists" X amount of money from general taxation. If nothing else the people involved in paying out the money are likely to be more efficent and less corrupt.

Re:Forcing authors to lose rights over work (1)

marcansoft (727665) | more than 4 years ago | (#31399198)

Which is still going to be just as unfair the only change is that it might be different people who are paying for nothing.

I submit that making ISPs pay the levy is fairer, as 1) they are the ones who profit directly from downloads, 2) people connecting to the Internet are more likely to correlate to people who download (especially with higher-speed connections, which are marketed quite blatantly as being for faster downloads), at least more so than levies on blank media. Blank media isn't a good match because many people download onto their computer's master hard drive (which isn't levied), many people require mass storage for things other than downloaded media (including companies), and blank media producers don't necessarily profit from downloads, at least not nearly as much.

Nothing will ever be 100% fair, because the premise is that you just cannot control distribution of audiovisual works. This is why the levies were introduced, back in the day when the government realized that they couldn't do anything against people copying music on cassette tapes, and instead levied the blank tapes.

Re:Forcing authors to lose rights over work (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 4 years ago | (#31399114)

The levy system is not ideal, but it's the best thing we have. As far as I hear, Canada likes it.

Frankly, if I had to pay an extra $1 on a spindle of CDs or an extra $10 on an iPod and in exchange get the right to download whatever the hell media I want, I (as an American) would gladly take that option.

Re:Forcing authors to lose rights over work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31398930)

It's not surprising you have no idea why the GPL exists. The GPL opposes copyright using the tools of copyright. Without copyright, we have no need of the GPL.

Re:Forcing authors to lose rights over work (1)

damburger (981828) | more than 4 years ago | (#31398988)

The PPUK has actually worked on its policies to make sure they wouldn't be a threat to GPL. I believe Mr. Robinson has spoken to Richard Stallman himself on the matter.

Re:Forcing authors to lose rights over work (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#31399102)

Killing copyright is not enough, because companies would just release binaries which would effectively be useless to the community. You need to enforce the release of the source code when binaries are released, which is the whole point of the GPL.

Re:Forcing authors to lose rights over work (1)

pv2b (231846) | more than 4 years ago | (#31399430)

The Free Software Foundation's goals isn't to oppose copyright per se, it is to promote free software.

Anything that weakens the GPL may well weaken free software - in the way that code from free software could be used to create more non-free software. Under the PPUK proposed reform, it's not like you can take components from five-year old Windows and copy-paste them into Linux, and still have the result be free software. Binary blobs aren't free software, even if they're in the public domain, since there's no source code. This is the same reason freeware isn't the same thing as free software.

Re:Forcing authors to lose rights over work (1, Insightful)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 4 years ago | (#31399002)

Why do artists get to control their creation after they sell it? Manufacturers don't. Crafts makers don't. If I sell you a car I can't tell you how fast to drive it, where to drive it, or what brand of oil you can use for oil changes. Just because something is "artistic" or "creative" (a property that is ill defined and could apply to anything) should not give you special rights. You made something, you sold it, they can now do whatever they want with it.

Just a metter of time (1)

RotateLeftByte (797477) | more than 4 years ago | (#31399260)

until the car makers say

- What make of tyres
- What brand of oil
- what brand of fuel
- what type of windscreen cleaner to use

Otherwise you will void any warranty whatsoever (akin to the Microsoft EULA where they disclaim any liability whatsoever)

Re:Forcing authors to lose rights over work (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31399306)

So if I use 3-4 years to learn an instrument, 1 year to write songs, 2 months and 10 000$ to rent a studio and record an album, I should only get paid 20$ for one CD which the buyer then can copy and sell as many times as he wants?

The difference between music/movies/books and almost all other merchandise, is how easily it can be copied and distributed in an unlimited amount. In the case of a Car, the only thing copyrighted/trademarked is the design, because that is the only thing that can be copied an unlimited number of times for a small price. If I had made a car and you bought one, copied it several times and sold the copies, you would still have to spend money on buying materials, pay people to assemble the car, run commercials and the like. You would therefore have to charge a prize that would allow you to cover your costs, and I would be able to compete on a relatively equal basis.

If on the other hand you bought my CD, ripped it and sold it online, you would be able to charge much less than me, because you would not have to pay for musicians, studio time, advertisement, etc. etc.

Re:Forcing authors to lose rights over work (3, Insightful)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 4 years ago | (#31399410)

which the buyer then can copy and sell as many times as he wants

No, that wouldn't come under non-commercial.

Authors would NOT be forced to lose their rights! (1)

sigmundur (1599981) | more than 4 years ago | (#31399068)

"Forcing authors to lose rights" - NO! A common misconception. *Some* rights maybe, but only to guarantee the rights of the public!

This is the central question in all authorship legislature and morale: how to balance the rights of the public and the rights of an author?

Author should receive all attribution and credit, and certainly has the right to that. He also should have the right to forbid this attribution if parts of this information are used inappropriately (e.g. pasting a face into a pornographic image, or farting a sonnet); he should, however, be able to forbid the public of composing and publicizing the inappropriacies.

Public should receive the right to enjoy the work, spread it and re-use it, in the name of productivity in an information society. Out of pragmatic point of view, information is only useful when it's used, i.e., copied, spread and applied (or enjoyed).

Freedom of information (or freedom of speech, if you will) must go before the freedom of men to do what they please. The first is feasible, the latter is not.

Re:Authors would NOT be forced to lose their right (1)

sigmundur (1599981) | more than 4 years ago | (#31399308)

A slight mistake there... "he should, however, be able to forbid" > "he should, however, not be able to forbid"

Re:Forcing authors to lose rights over work (1)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 4 years ago | (#31399070)

Libraries, recording radio music etc aren't illegal and neither do they ruin the industry.
If there is an "anti-piracy tax", let that tax cover the perceived losses and let it go at this. I pay tax for purchasing a blank CD, to cover damages to the music industry for pirated songs I'm going to put on that CD. So why I still can't legally put the songs on the CD, if I paid that tax? The music industry is getting paid twice, once in my tax and once as damages from lawsuit against me...

Re:Forcing authors to lose rights over work (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 4 years ago | (#31399444)

Both libraries and radio music have inherent limitations built in that have the potential to make an individual purchase more appealing to some - a library has to actually purchase (or otherwise acquire a legal copy) before they can lend, and they can only lend that copy out to one person at a time. Recording radio means you have to wait around for the next song you want to appear on the play list, and play lists are rarely advertised anywhere in full so you again have to listen to the show (or record the entire show, and edit it).

Re:Forcing authors to lose rights over work (5, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 4 years ago | (#31399074)

Should creators have rights over their work? Yes. For a limited time. The problem is that the time is no longer limited and it is not the creators who are asserting rights, but huge third parties who are small in number. Small numbers of players in a marketplace means the consumer is screwed.

Mickey Mouse should have been free LONG LONG ago but is not. Much very old music such as "happy birthday" is still being used as a weapon against people everywhere instead of being released to the public as it should have been long ago.

The problem isn't that authors are being forced to lose control of their work -- it's that they are not. Worse, the authors ARE being forced into losing control of their work in favor of large copyright publishers.

Your idealism in in some of the right places, but to see the problems, you have to first see reality as it is practiced.

Why MUST they be allowed those rights? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31399086)

Why MUST they be allowed those rights? What do you mean by "a right to their work"? They have a right to who they give their work to, but why must they have the right to what happens to the work given to someone else? Even if I loan my car to a friend, I do not have the right to demand control of what he does in it.

Re:Forcing authors to lose rights over work (1)

Wildclaw (15718) | more than 4 years ago | (#31399342)

shouldn't content producers, artists, programmers, and basically anyone producing something have a right to their work?

It is important to separate copyright into commercial and moral rights. It is very possible to want to give copyright holders less commercial rights, while keeping or even strengthening the moral rights such as the right to be recognized as the creator of a work. In my opinion, moral rights should also not be for sale. (from my understanding, they aren't here in Sweden)

If there weren't copyrights, there couldn't be GPL either, nor Creative Commons Attribution, No Derivative Works and Share Alike licenses.

This falls under the discussion of what kind of moral rights a creator should have to restrict a work from being used for specific purposes. I personally feel that GPL/Share Alike are too far reaching. If the author should have rights to restrict the active reusage of a work, it needs to be fairly limited. But this is something that is always up for debate.

Wouldn't the world be less controlling if the authors actually had some saying over their works instead of being forced to lose control over their work?

As authors generally sell the commercial rights, the only control they have in the first place is through moral rights. But more generally. Why is it considered less controlling when author stops someone from making a derivative work?

Re:Forcing authors to lose rights over work (1)

init100 (915886) | more than 4 years ago | (#31399388)

it also affects open source coders who release their code under GPL. If there weren't copyrights, there couldn't be GPL either, nor Creative Commons Attribution, No Derivative Works and Share Alike licenses.

Yes, that is technically correct, but the non-confrontational attitude* of open source people hints that the increasingly aggressive copyright laws of today are not what they are asking for. I think that few open source developers/artists/etc would have any problems with reasonable term lengths (e.g. 10-20 years after creating a work) and lax enforcement w.r.t. non-commercial private use.

* = i.e. try to work out a solution first, only go to court if an offender fails to rectify problems after several attempts to raise awareness of a problem, and only ask the court to stop infringement - i.e. usually no damages are asked for.

Cooperation (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31398826)

Does the UK Pirate Party collaborate with pirate parties from other countries? If so - which ones?

Legitimacy of the Pirate Party? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31398868)

Andrew, what do you have to say to pundits and critics who argue that the Pirate Party is an immature, self-defeating organization run by low-income manchildren who do not understand the size or scope of the actual problems involved in intellectual property and copyrights? Do you deny that choosing the name "Pirate Party" is a deliberate attempt to pander to a generation of mouth-breathing, spoiled shut-ins who have never done an honest day's work in their life? And, given the fact that piracy hurts content producers, legitimate customers, and even pirates in the long-term since its an unsustainable and selfish practice that produces nothing of value and contributes nothing to society, would you say that your movement is more of a cancerous tumor, or rather an infected wound? Thank you.

Re:Legitimacy of the Pirate Party? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31398950)

Mr. Mayor, I have a question for you.....what if YOU came home one night to find your family tied up and gagged, with SOCKS in their mouths. They're screaming. You’re trying to get in but there's too much BLOOD on the knob...

Re:Legitimacy of the Pirate Party? (0, Redundant)

damburger (981828) | more than 4 years ago | (#31398972)

Passive aggressive troll is passive aggressive. Don't put your idiotic opinion into the mouths of anonymous 'pundits and critics'

Maybe when you are all grown up you will learn how to hold a proper argument.

The only question... (3, Interesting)

Jojoba86 (1496883) | more than 4 years ago | (#31398880)

The only thing I want to know is whether or not there are going to be some candidates standing for the pirate party in the general election, and if so in what seats? It'd be interesting to see how well they do.

Re:The only question... (1)

VJ42 (860241) | more than 4 years ago | (#31399422)

The only thing I want to know is whether or not there are going to be some candidates standing for the pirate party in the general election, and if so in what seats? It'd be interesting to see how well they do.

yes, Andy is standing himself (I believe it's Worcester, but don't quote me); IIRC there's also another candidate confirmed to be standing, but I can't remember where apart from "up North" ;p

We're also hoping to field candidates in the local elections on May 6th

In Principle vs. Practical (5, Interesting)

Zombie Ryushu (803103) | more than 4 years ago | (#31398888)

In Principle I really support what the Pirate party works. But in practical sense, there is a left-of-center ground for compromise. Copyright probably needs to go back to what it was around 130 years ago when it was a sane compromise. Now that ever happening in the western world is next to impossible unless there are large scale changes in governments. I'm sorta in favor of the idea that Copyright be fair, not non-existent. And not perpetual, and not in favor of massive IP holder trusts.

Re:In Principle vs. Practical (3, Funny)

Twinbee (767046) | more than 4 years ago | (#31399000)

I'm sorta in favor of the idea that Copyright be fair, not non-existent.

Interesting, I didn't realize there was a middleground - I thought one had to be either one extreme or the other.

Re:In Principle vs. Practical (3, Interesting)

91degrees (207121) | more than 4 years ago | (#31399038)

The pirate part is never going to get a seat in a British election (without major electoral reform). They know this. Single policy parties exist because of the spoiler effect. The people who think copyright reform is the single most important issue will vote Pirate. It's up to the other parties to soften their stance a little to make this more palatable to the voters.

Re:In Principle vs. Practical (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#31399108)

Which is one of the problems of a representative democracy, especially those with only two or three parties. If you agree with one party in some major issues, and with another in other issues, who do you vote for?

Re:In Principle vs. Practical (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31399234)

You prioritize, same as you do in all other aspects of life where conflicts arise. Shit, if you think voting is hard, wait until you have to decide who to marry.

Re:In Principle vs. Practical (1)

daveime (1253762) | more than 4 years ago | (#31399278)

The one who promises the biggest tax cut for your income bracket of course !

Re:In Principle vs. Practical (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 4 years ago | (#31399282)

Yes, but the problem with the alternative is that most people (including me) are stupid. Everyone wants lower taxes and more spending.

Money (4, Insightful)

Alistair Hutton (889794) | more than 4 years ago | (#31398898)

In a world with no copyright for "non commercial" distribution of work how is anyone who creates a non subscription fee based computer game or e-book supposed to make money given that the work will be freely available on file sharing sites?

Re:Money (4, Insightful)

damburger (981828) | more than 4 years ago | (#31398980)

Why do they have an a priori right to make money in this way?

Re:Money (2, Insightful)

AllyGreen (1727388) | more than 4 years ago | (#31399012)

Why would they make the work in the first place then?

Re:Money (1)

Alistair Hutton (889794) | more than 4 years ago | (#31399048)

Lets not go down a silly goose route. Lots of people create works for the fun of creating works, without copyright there would still be creative works but:
  • There would not be the variety as certain types of creative works would be totally unfeasible to create.
  • People would not have the opportunity to make a living from their creative works thus limiting the number that a person could produce
  • Large corporation would be easily able to 'wait out' the little man to then exploit popular creative works (for T-shirt designs and other tat) as the Pirate party "commercial" copyright lasts only 5 years.
  • We'd move back to a system of patronage for large works which relies on the edification of donors for the creation of work.

Re:Money (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31399340)

Curious. As you touch on your first, second and fourth bullet points, financial support or remuneration is necessary for most serious creative endeavours. So why be insulting when someone manages to point this out in a rather more concise ten word post? And in support of your own argument, no less.

Do you impress yourself with all the words you know? Does the Socratic method confuse you?

Re:Money (2, Insightful)

Alistair Hutton (889794) | more than 4 years ago | (#31399030)

Because I like new games that require a team of 100 and millions of dollars to produce?

Of course there is no a priori right to make money from an activity but what's the a priori right behind property laws (one man's property is another indigenous people's theft) or earning a wage for any job? Copyright has allowed us to move beyond the creative tyranny of patronage to an explosion of independent creation and allowing the investment of ridiculous sums of money into creative works.

Sure the setup we've got now is tilted incorrectly but the correct solution is reform not to burn the whole edifice to the ground.

Re:Money (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31399188)

Because I like new games that require a team of 100 and millions of dollars to produce?

Copyright has allowed us to move beyond the creative tyranny of patronage to

the tyranny of corporate control of all works.

This is not an improvement. Corporations don't get old and start worrying about their legacy.

Re:Money (3, Informative)

pv2b (231846) | more than 4 years ago | (#31399382)

How would you suggest copyright be reformed?

This is the UK pirate party's stance on copyrights, as from their front page [pirateparty.org.uk] :

Reform copyright [...] law. We want to legalise non-commercial file sharing and reduce the excessive length of copyright protection, while ensuring that when creative works are sold, it's the artists who benefit, not monopoly rights holders. [...]

Do you have another suggestion as for how the copyright system should be reformed that would be more moderate and still effective? Or are you just agreeing with the UK PP without knowing that you are? :-)

The concept that the pirate party movement wants to dismantle any and all copyright law is a wide-spread misconception. The stance (at least for the UK and Swedish pirate parties) is more moderate than the name might suggest.

Re:Money (1)

Alistair Hutton (889794) | more than 4 years ago | (#31399446)

"Legalise non-commercial file sharing"

Is this same as burning it to the ground. Legalised non-commercial file sharing is so close to not having copyright you may as well come out and say it in an honest manner.

This is a free cake policy.

Re:Money (1)

Targon (17348) | more than 4 years ago | (#31399384)

Copyright is more than just some corporate entity making money for 30+ years based on the work of someone else. Copyright is there so that those who make popular works can thrive, and so, make more popular books/programs. So, without copyright, authors, movie studios, and recording artists would not bring in enough money doing what they do to afford to live a comfortable lifestyle.

When it comes to movies, how many people does it take to make a movie, and how much money does it cost just to pay the actors, directors, writers, etc...? The initial box office sales may not be enough to even get back what went in to make the movie, so DVD/BluRay sales also help. And, the studios who make the movies also need enough extra money to be available to make other movies too, it's not just about making money on one movie, it is about having enough cash to survive if one or more movies do not do well(meaning they lose money for the studio).

Music recordings on the other hand are a much smaller operation, since you have the music artist(s), and then you only have the sound rooms and equipment for the recording process. The actual process to get music from the artist to the public does not take nearly as many people, and the actual costs for production are almost insignificant compared to the cost to make a movie, so the record labels and RIAA make far more profit on the sale of music than the movie studios and MPAA make.

You can argue that copyright may last far too long in the current system, but remember, people need to make a living. If you want talented people to continue making good music or movies, then you have to let them make a profit so they can live comfortably enough to continue making good products. There is also the idea that others should not profit off your work without your permission. So, if you make something, you don't want it stolen, even if you can make that "thing" again. Why should others gain from ANYTHING you make or do without YOUR permission? This is where agreements come into play, because when you work for someone else, there is a contract involved in most cases that says that what you do is owned by your employer. Those who create things can always demand that there is a non-transferable right to certain things as well, so your boss can't sell the rights to your work to someone else if such a contract were to be in place.

So, just think in these terms. Copyright may seem broken to those who simply want to download a song to listen to, but that is because the value of the recordings is overly inflated by the record labels and RIAA. The actual value of one recording should be on the order of $0.05(5 cents), with extra fees for the system of getting the music to you. The actual value of a movie is another story, because $20 for a legal copy of a movie may not be that far off. $20 for an audio CD vs. $20 for a BluRay movie....what is wrong with that picture?

Re:Money (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31399010)

Easy to answer. Content creators will be paid for the work they are actually doing at the time of content creation, not for the work they have done 20 years ago. The people that need the content---be it music, software, news or books---will pay the content creators. How this works in the detail depends on the domain. Most musicians, for example, already today live off teaching and giving concerts, so for them the changes will not be very huge. Journals and news items will probably become subscription-based and hand-tailored to the interests of the customers. How it affects the book market I personally cannot imagine, but since the vast majority of authors cannot make a living out of their books right now either, the changes will be much smaller than you might expect. I suppose the selling of physical items will become more important, so e.g. things like the quality of the print and typesetting of a book will matter more than now. Textbooks will be written by university staff and made available for free, which is already getting more and more common without changes in copyright law. All in all, the changes will be smaller than people might expect. However, there will be less crappy pop music, because wannabe musicians will no longer be able to compete against the professionals who have studied their instruments when their most important source of income is from live music and teaching.

Re:Money (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31399062)

And how much will they be paid? The Standard Rate as defined by government? So, you're basically advocating communism.

Re:Money (2, Informative)

VJ42 (860241) | more than 4 years ago | (#31399438)

And how much will they be paid? The Standard Rate as defined by government? So, you're basically advocating communism.

Imagine I'm a talented writer or painter. If you want a picture or literary work, pay me and I'll make you one. No government involvement needed.

Re:Money (1)

Alistair Hutton (889794) | more than 4 years ago | (#31399064)

How does a computer game get funded under this system?

Same way as a book. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31399158)

Same way as a book. It will be different, but not a lot.

Re:Same way as a book. (1)

Alistair Hutton (889794) | more than 4 years ago | (#31399228)

Hurgle wurgle?

A Booker prize winning book requires one guy to spend his evenings for a year writing. A AAA computer game involves a hunderd people working full time for 3 years costing millions upon millions of dollars.

They are pretty much not comparable as a creative endeavor.

Re:Same way as a book. (1)

daveime (1253762) | more than 4 years ago | (#31399294)

A computer game these days seems to consist of some newly colored uniforms, some new league fixtures, and another 80 dollars for Madden 2011.

Re:Money (1)

itsdapead (734413) | more than 4 years ago | (#31399110)

In a world with no copyright for "non commercial" distribution of work how is anyone who creates a non subscription fee based computer game or e-book supposed to make money given that the work will be freely available on file sharing sites?

Ask for donations? It seemed to go OK for Radiohead, provided you don't use RIAA fantasy accounting to count every non-payer as a $20 loss. (I also know of one independent band who successfully financed their last several albums by getting fans to pay over the odds, in advance for "limited edition" CDs. It worked, because fans wanted to support the band).

Get a day job and treat writing/making music as an enjoyable hobby? Accept that the technology that enables you to produce and distribute studio quality music or camera-ready publications for a fraction of the historical cost also has a downside? Heck, you might even make money from t-shirts and souvenir signed copies (sorry if you can't afford the trophy wife/husband and have to drive a car that can pass over speed humps).

Free software seems to have a pretty workable business model but, admittedly, its harder to sell support and consultancy for "art" like a music album, a novel or even a game...

Last time I looked, however, most of the Arts relied pretty heavily on subsidies (be it from Government or from private philanthropists). Why should music and literature be a cash cow?

Meanwhile, the flipside of the problem is that the status quo - strong copyright - is also in danger of stifling the arts [bbc.co.uk] (if artists can't take inspiration from earlier works without awakening copyright trolls, what then?) Current status in the UK, by the way, is that ripping a legally-bought CD to your own iPod is illegal [bbc.co.uk] - although that is rarely, if ever enforced.

PPAU apathy (4, Interesting)

acehole (174372) | more than 4 years ago | (#31398912)

I'm wondering if you had any trouble getting members for the party as opposed to what is happening in Australia. The pirate party here is suffering from member apathy, no one is going as far to fill out the paper work in order to help the party get the numbers needed to register as a political party. Has the UK pirate party had any similar issues?

Bring in a 3 strikes law (4, Insightful)

Xest (935314) | more than 4 years ago | (#31398938)

Can we have a 3 strikes for politicians so that when they've been caught with red handed with their hand in the checkout 3 times they're jailed and banned from ever entering politics again so that the likes of Mandelson would never have got to a position where he could single-handedly manipulate the Digital Economy Bill in the first place?

Re:Bring in a 3 strikes law (1)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 4 years ago | (#31399196)

3 strikes? What about zero tolerance?

Politicians are placed in an elevated position of trust, and need to be bludgeoned by the ban hammer for the slightest indiscretion.

Re:Bring in a 3 strikes law (1)

abigsmurf (919188) | more than 4 years ago | (#31399374)

I enjoy having a parliament which actually has people in it.

Everyone makes mistakes, even the most pure and honest people and the rules for MPs are mind bogglingly complex. Do we really want a situation where someone has been in politics for 30 years, has helped move the country into a new age of prosperity, suddenly gets sacked and loses his pension because he ate a cookie a little girl baked for him as thanks for keeping their school open (accepting a bribe/not declaring a gift)?

Priorities for spending of funds (5, Insightful)

jez9999 (618189) | more than 4 years ago | (#31398976)

Why does your treasurer and campaigns officer, apparently under heavy pressure from the likes of Eric Priezkalns, feel that spending almost all of the party funds on the upcoming general election is the right way to go, given that, realistically, the PPUK will not make much of an impact in these elections? Don't you think that the better approach is a long-term one, and blowing all the money available to the party right now on the upcoming elections would be resources badly spent, when they could be better used to garner long-term widespread support/publicity, and apply long-term pressure?

Diluting possible change (4, Interesting)

TDyl (862130) | more than 4 years ago | (#31398996)

Given that we have issues of such national and international importance do you not feel that another party, campaigning on such a narrow platform will only dilute the real change that is needed which is the ousting of labour and the restoration of faith in the institution of parliament and the fact that it should be working for the whole population of the UK and not the vested interests of politicians?

Since when is autorship transferrable? (3, Insightful)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | more than 4 years ago | (#31399004)

Why do people believe that I can give the fact that I wrote a story or a song away? Shouldn't the first issue in any copyright negotiations be that the author's right is non-transferable?

If author's rights are transferable, the "new author" (a publisher, for example) will not write the sequel to the original book, nor write the next song of the original author. In fact, the author is only discouraged to write anything if somebody else can steal his rights.

Re:Since when is autorship transferrable? (1)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 4 years ago | (#31399448)

The moral right to be identified as the author of a work is non-transferrable. But if you're going to have distribution rights at all, then you need to make them transferrable. Otherwise any author that wishes to distribute would somehow have to finance the purchase of printing machinery and international distribution channels themselves. Given that that's not feasible, they instead sell their rights to those that do have that capacity.

What is your stance on erosion of privacy in UK? (3, Interesting)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 4 years ago | (#31399054)

What is your stance on erosion of privacy in UK? Will your party only follow the path of Intellectual Property rights, or do you plan to fight for freedom of speech, against invasion of privacy online and in daily life, censorship and other vital freedom-related problems.

Re:What is your stance on erosion of privacy in UK (2, Informative)

VJ42 (860241) | more than 4 years ago | (#31399130)

What is your stance on erosion of privacy in UK? Will your party only follow the path of Intellectual Property rights, or do you plan to fight for freedom of speech, against invasion of privacy online and in daily life, censorship and other vital freedom-related problems.

We campaign on all three issues: http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/ [pirateparty.org.uk]

Naming Rights (4, Interesting)

Inda (580031) | more than 4 years ago | (#31399056)

My mother would never vote for a party called "The Pirate party". An image of Captain Pugwash springs to her mind every time I mention the word.

Us nerds and geeks get it, but how does The Pirate Party aim to convince normal people that this political party is more than a modern Monster Raving Looney Party?

Re:Naming Rights (1)

Glorat (414139) | more than 4 years ago | (#31399206)

Second this

Help for British copyright holders (1)

Andy Smith (55346) | more than 4 years ago | (#31399066)

I work hard to produce quality photographs for British newspapers and British news web sites. A major American company recently published several of my photos on their web site without permission. The company acknowledges that the photos are mine but refuses to pay, and says that I must file a complaint under the US's Digital Millennium Copyright Act if I want them to stop using the photographs. What could the Pirate Party do to help British copyright holders in situations such as this?

Re:Help for British copyright holders (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31399184)

There is nothing they could do even if they ran the government and the PM was your Tuesday golf buddy. Last I checked UKGov don't have a say in the US legislative process by constitutional decree.

Also the DMCA notice is almost identical to the demand letter you would send to a British publication doing the same thing so writing it shouldn't really be an issue to write it. The fact they wont pull it without the DMCA, unlike British counterparts, is to protect themselves from civil liability - pulling it without one could be viewed as an admission of guilt by courts.

Re:Help for British copyright holders (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31399346)

You mean, other than to laugh at them and then scan the negatives onto Flickr at 2400dpi?

Not a great deal, I suspect.

Swedish Pirate Party equivalent (1)

Fross (83754) | more than 4 years ago | (#31399076)

What steps/actions are you going to take, to ensure the UK Pirate Party can emulate the success of the swedish Pirate Party? Have you been in touch with them to discuss their approach, how they gained exposure, and how they managed to rally so many voters to their cause?

Good luck!

Re:Swedish Pirate Party equivalent (1)

muffen (321442) | more than 4 years ago | (#31399432)

In Sweden I think they got the support they did for a number of reasons.

1) The Pirate Party got the votes in the EU elections, not the national one. The Swedish national elections are coming up too and they don't even show up in the polls yet (meaning they have less than one percent). Basically, it seems like people in Sweden do not care about the EU elections that much, or alternatively they believe copyright is a European issue and not a national one.

2)There is a history of personal freedom where people believe that private citizens should not be monitored unless deemed absolutely necessary for criminal reasons. In the span of a few month, ThePirateBay was sued and in the media it appeared to be a result of pressure from the US. Also, ThePirateBay's servers were seized together with the servers of a number of companies, who made the only "mistake" of putting their servers next to thepiratebay's servers, most likely this was done unknowingly. Furthermore, laws were being discussed that would further reduce personal freedom and allow mass monitoring of the population. Stories were written in media and people got annoyed and began loosing trust in the authorities which resulted in more votes for the PP. Basically, they got votes from unhappy people.

If current polls are an indication, the PP is unlikely to have any impact on the national elections in Sweden. Instead, Sweden is jumping on the European extreme-right bandwagon.
We were unhappy with copyright laws, now we are unhappy with immigrants. My current prediction is that in 2014, we will have anti-dolphin parties (dolphins creep me out).

The Pirate Party (1)

onion2k (203094) | more than 4 years ago | (#31399080)

While there's nothing wrong with standing on a single issue 'point of principle', and it's admirable that you've been able to raise money enough to stump up the deposit(s) required and you're willing to give up your own time and energy to further the cause, isn't it moronically stupid to then torpedo* your chances running under a banner that will conjure such negative associations for most of the electorate?

In my opinion "Fair Use" copyright infringement should not be a crime, and those who do it should not be labelled criminals. So don't call them pirates. Pirates are criminals.

* Pun not really intended but what the hell, it's Monday morning.

Britis helection system is the biggest barrier (1)

Teun (17872) | more than 4 years ago | (#31399092)

Although I'm glad the Pirate Party is drawing attention to these very important but under exposed issues I feel the UK electoral system is an insurmountable barrier to a party with little more than a single issue.

Is reform from the present first-past-the-post system to for example the more democratic representative system maybe part of the Pirate party's program?

Monster Raving Loony Party (5, Interesting)

GuyFawkes (729054) | more than 4 years ago | (#31399120)

(for the yanks, it was and is a genuine political party)

Knew all the old crew (Sutch, Hope, et al) well, great social events and parties, no hope of ever actually winning, just thumbing your nose at the system.

Why is the UK Pirate party any different, apart from the lack of great social events and satirical candidate names? Oh, and the lack of any other decent policies to counter the insanity worked by the likes of Harman etc.

Whereas a vote for the BNP (British National Party, often called British Nazi Party) really would be a protest vote, as more than a handful of seats might actually go to them, and NOTHING would shock british politics more than a notable proportion of the population electing wannabe Hitlers to the House of Commons.

This is not a troll, this is a serious question.

Re:Monster Raving Loony Party (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#31399408)

Seconded, wish I had mod points. The Pirate Party UK comes across as earnest and angry [pirateparty.org.uk] . Since it's a tiny insignificant protest party, that's a rather risible position to take. If you don't develop some levity, shouldn't you expect to be mocked?

Why not (and this is also a serious question) lighten up and try and project a fun, positive message, rather than just impotently bitching and moaning?

Questions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31399140)

There was recently a debate on the blog of the leader of the UK Libertarian Party (Chris Mounsey - http://devilskitchen.me.uk/ [devilskitchen.me.uk] ) which was engaged in by several important members of your party. I followed this with interest but there were a few areas I felt were not well answered well which I am requesting you do so now.

1. Irrespective of if your candidates are representing at a local or national level they will be involved in policy decisions far outside intellectual property which, given the lack of any party policy beyond IP reform, is of some concern to me. Will your candidates participate in government policy decisions going beyond IP reform or will they be entirely focused on the IP reforms and recuse themselves from any other form of policy participation? If they will participate what platform will they work towards? If they will not participate what measures will you be putting in place to ensure they don't participate in any other policy decisions?

2. Assuming they don't participate outside of IP policy then how does your party differ from a lobby group other then trying to get someone in to office yourselves? Do you appreciate the danger of single issue parties entering either the local or national legislature in terms of dilution of representative policy decisions, EG a smaller number of legislators voting on policy decisions due to members recusing themselves as the issue is "not part of their parties platform"? If so what approach do you plan to undertake to address this issue?

3. The single issue your party is based upon is extremely "fluffy" in your parties manifesto. While I have read your forum and appreciate this is being worked on it seems to still lack any significant content in terms of planned measures and rather focuses on statements to the effect of "We will make IP more fair". Based on this fact how could people justify voting for your party when all we basically have is a statement of intent rather than implementable policy?

4. The majority of what appears to be your parties platform is already represented by the LPUK and has for a number of years. Why has another party been started further diluting the liberty focused parties in the UK rather than simply acting as an IP reform caucus within the LPUK?

On an O/T issue I am extremely encouraged that parties like the LP & PP are springing up in the UK, we might actually have a chance of getting some form of political reform going now rather then relying on Blair clones to further restrict our liberty. Even if I decide not to support the PP, assuming candidate availability in my county, I do hope you guys make some magic happen even if to only make people aware parties do exist outside the big three.

Typo (1)

Curmudgeonlyoldbloke (850482) | more than 4 years ago | (#31399226)

"Fielding candidates" not "Fielding elections".

One-issue party ? (1)

vikingpower (768921) | more than 4 years ago | (#31399246)

Sir,

Up to what degree should I consider, or not, the Pirate Party a one-issue party ? When I cast my vote for anyone or any party, I also take into consideration how they think about such varying and various issues as there are: economics, defence, justice, external relations. Do not take me wrong: I WOULD vote for the Pirate Party if and when they could convince me of having coherent stances on these topics. Thank you.

Any chance of a complete programme? (1)

hughbar (579555) | more than 4 years ago | (#31399254)

I'm both a green-supporter, leftish libertarian and (actually) a supporter of anything that will break the mould in decaying world of political 'brands'. Thus, I look with some favour on Pirate Party etc. etc.

But (you heard that coming, right?) there isn't a complete programme, a problem also for many green parties. Do you intend to do serious policy research and formulation and evolve a complete coherent position that would enable you to govern? When?

The Rest of Your Views & Stances (3, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 4 years ago | (#31399276)

You've quickly gone from forum member [telegraph.co.uk] to party leader in about half a year. It appears your background is graphic arts and music, not politics. How do you plan to convince your voters that you are competent and qualified? On top of that, your site only lists three core policies [pirateparty.org.uk] . Voting (to me) shows more than support. It shows I am confident in that person or group as leader of my country. As if by voting for you, I genuinely hope you are to be the next Prime Ministers, replacing Gordon Brown. Right now, privacy and copyright are important issues but possibly more important are things like foreign policy that might govern how you feel about the Iraq and Afghanistan wars or about the social programs in the UK. Could you extrapolate on your core issues to give us an idea of how you stand on the other major issues that will be debated among the more popular parties? I agree with you on your stated issues but being a one issue voter can result in disaster for the whole country, do you mind giving yourself more depth than just privacy and copyright?

Questions (2, Interesting)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | more than 4 years ago | (#31399286)

(In order of importance)

1. How are you going to improve our Schools and Hospitals?
2. What is your stance on the "War on Terror"?
3. The economy is facing another nosedive before the end of the year, how are you preparing for it?
4. How are you going to tackle the uncontrolled immigration problem?
5. Do you have any plans to control anti social behaviour?

(loads of other more important questions later)

4432. What will you change in copyright law, whilst still making sure that the 2 years+ unemployed bloke next door can come up a new idea and use it to get out of the rut that he's currently stuck in?

Re:Questions (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 4 years ago | (#31399402)

More importantly, how good of a job have the "other" parties done to address your areas of concern? Obviously not so well, since they are STILL problems that you see as needing a fix.

Your kind of thinking is what keeps democracy enslaved in a useless two-party system where both parties do an absolutely terrible job at everything. Why don't you take a chance for once and assume that a new guy might do no worse than predecessors on all the "other" issues but at least do a damned good job within one special area?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?