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!

The Pirate Party of Canada Is Official

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the arrrr-eh dept.

Canada 430

wasme writes "The Pirate Party of Canada has become the first Pirate Party outside of Europe to become an official political party. Elections Canada confirmed with the party that the PPCA has gained 'eligible for registration' status, and can run in elections starting June 14. From the PPCA's official announcement: 'We are pleased to announce that as of April 12, 2010, the Pirate Party of Canada is officially eligible for Party Status. After 10 months of dedication and hard work, we have reached eligible status, which only leaves a 60-day "purgatory" period. After that, we will field candidates in subsequent federal elections, and begin the real work of a political party.'"

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

Congratulations (2, Insightful)

cbreak (1575875) | more than 4 years ago | (#31842862)

May the seas be open and the winds be fortunate. Although I can't help but wonder if the name "Pirate Party" for all the pirate parties isn't a bit too ... daring. Maybe even misleading.

Re:Congratulations (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31842924)

If everyone who has ever used the Internet to obtain an unrestricted digital copy of music or a movie is going to be labeled "pirate", then I don't have any reason to avoid the term. The term has already lost all meaning.

I was born in the U.S., I purchased DVDs while living there. Now to watch what I've purchased, I'm a "pirate".

Re:Congratulations (4, Funny)

lxs (131946) | more than 4 years ago | (#31843004)

Mr. Springsteen is that you?


I was born in the U.S.A.
Purchased DVDs while living there
Now to watch what I've purchased I'm a pirate yeah!
I was born in the U.S.A.

Re:Congratulations (1)

dangitman (862676) | more than 4 years ago | (#31843006)

The term has already lost all meaning.

Except for the fact that actual piracy on the high seas, with weapons, kidnapping and extortion is on the rise off the coast of Somalia. So yeah, it's not as cute to call yourself a pirate these days, as it was when it was a quaint thing of the past.

Re:Congratulations (2, Funny)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 4 years ago | (#31843132)

In the past?
You mean when there were even more pirates?

Re:Congratulations (1)

dangitman (862676) | more than 4 years ago | (#31843204)

In the past? You mean when there were even more pirates?

No, I mean in the recent past, before the resurgence of piracy. When piracy basically didn't exist.

Re:Congratulations (2, Funny)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 4 years ago | (#31843286)

You can blame that on global warming.

Re:Congratulations (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31843328)

"When piracy basically didn't exist" means "When they didn't talk about it on the telly" right?

Re:Congratulations (2, Insightful)

KarlIsNotMyName (1529477) | more than 4 years ago | (#31842964)

Yeah, personally I don't consider copying data or information as serious an act as pillaging, rape and murder, and I don't see how anyone made that connection.

No amount of specific sequences of 1s and 0s on my HDDs is going to make me think of myself as a pirate.

Re:Congratulations (5, Funny)

MrNaz (730548) | more than 4 years ago | (#31842988)

Your rather eloquent expression of the invalid conflation between egregious breaches of social morality and insignificantly trivial breaches of consumer behavior is misplaced.I think what you mean to say is "ARRRR!"

Re:Congratulations (2, Funny)

Vanderhoth (1582661) | more than 4 years ago | (#31843322)

Your rather eloquent expression of the invalid conflation between egregious breaches of social morality and insignificantly trivial breaches of consumer behavior is misplaced.I think what you mean to say is "ARRRR! Eh!"

Fixed that for you

Re:Congratulations (1)

angelwolf71885 (1181671) | more than 4 years ago | (#31843176)

as long as there be wenches freedoms and lots of booty treasure then i say arrrrrrrr maty

Re:Congratulations (2, Funny)

chewthreetimes (1740020) | more than 4 years ago | (#31843180)

You're right. Sharing a name with such a shitty baseball team could result in a lowered public perception of the party's competence.

And now for their party theme song (4, Funny)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 4 years ago | (#31842866)

Pirates of the Saskatchewan, by the Arrogant Worms

And it's a hi (hey) ho (hey) coming down the plains,
Stealing wheat and barley, and all the other grains.
And it's a ho (hey) hi (hey) Farmers bar your doors,
when you see the Jolly Rodger on Regina's mighty shores.
--------

But seriously, great news, and best of luck to 'em. Now go get those CRIA hosers.

Needs a better name (0, Redundant)

jdigriz (676802) | more than 4 years ago | (#31842890)

Americans shoot pirates (the seagoing kind), we need a better name for the Copyright Reform party on this continent. Let's call it the Broadside Party! As in, "Give them a Broadside!". Also has a copyright-related punny meaning. Or maybe the U.S. version can be the Upside Party, as in "Smack them Upside Da Head!"

Re:Needs a better name (5, Funny)

MRe_nl (306212) | more than 4 years ago | (#31842946)

If you're going to limit the naming of your party to "things Americans don't shoot at", you're seriously limiting yourself, slippery. "Democrats" and "Republicans" is right out the window for instance ; ).

Re:Needs a better name (0, Redundant)

jayveekay (735967) | more than 4 years ago | (#31843124)

US Navy Seals shot and killed 3 pirates last year. The pirates had attacked a US flagged merchant ship carrying humanitarian aid to Africa, and abducted the US captain and held him hostage for several days.

Pirates have been hijacking vessels of all kinds off the horn of Africa in recent years and I believe this has resulted in the deaths of both pirates and civilians on the targeted ships, along with the loss of freedom for the many hostages taken.

While I think that the Pirate Party of Canada does not endorse the hijacking of ships off Africa, that's only because having "Canada" (implies: good, friendly, peaceful, harmless) in the name has greater weight than the word "Pirate" (which implies: lawless, greedy, violent, dangerous).

Re:Needs a better name (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31843166)

US Navy Seals shot and killed 3 pirates last year.

Pfft! Hadn't you heard? Canadians are notorious for killing seals.

Re:Needs a better name (4, Funny)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#31843338)

I am Canadian*, and I give that comment my seal of approval!
.
.
.
.
.
* Made out of Canadian philosophy extracts and high-European thought syrup. ;)

Re:Needs a better name (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31843270)

If you're going to limit the naming of your party to "things Americans don't shoot at", you're seriously limiting yourself, slippery. "Democrats" and "Republicans" is right out the window for instance ; ).

As most people inside USA don't seem to know what a Republican or Democrat is. Here is a clarification of the above post:

  • Republican: someone in favor of Republicanism [wikipedia.org]
  • Democrat: someone in favor of Democracy [wikipedia.org]

Both groups have been the favorite shooting targets for US troops operating abroad since the 1880's.

Re:Needs a better name (-1, Flamebait)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 4 years ago | (#31842974)

i agree, pirate party is a retarded immature name. these clowns undermine serious copyright reform.

Re:Needs a better name (5, Interesting)

nawitus (1621237) | more than 4 years ago | (#31843050)

Why does it matter when a) they've been elected to the European Parliament and b) even the copyright lobby belives it's a "cool" name? It would be a near political suicide to try to change the name. There was a short lived "information society party" in Finland but that didn't go anywhere.

Re:Needs a better name (4, Insightful)

Jedi Alec (258881) | more than 4 years ago | (#31843168)

i agree, pirate party is a retarded immature name. these clowns undermine serious copyright reform.

These "clowns" are actually running for political office and working from within the democratic system. If nothing else, the fact that they're acknowledged as a legitimate political party gives them access to a lot of extra soapboxes. TV interviews, debates, questions, these all serve to raise awareness about privacy concerns and governments selling out to big media.

So what have you done lately to promote serious copyright reform? And no, bitching about it on Slashdot does not count.

Re:Needs a better name (1)

Vanderhoth (1582661) | more than 4 years ago | (#31843364)

I'm confused, I though being a "clown" was a requirement to be a politician. So I the way I understood the parent post was that it was saying the members of this party were perfectly suited for political office.

Heck, they can't be any worse then Jack Latyon, Steven Haper or Michael Ignatieff (the three stooges). I can't trust any of them or their parties, none of them ever tell the truth or stick to campaign promises (Not that I'd expect a politician to be honest). It's always a toss up when I'm voting because they all say they're different then the others and once elected they do the EXACT same things; I'm sure the Americans have similar issues with their parties. Maybe I should just drawing box and write "Other" next to it on the ballet.

Re:Needs a better name (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31843118)

Well, it's better than "Copyright Reform Party". Especially since copyright is often just a small part of the agenda of Pirate Parties, e.g. in Germany they also have privacy and civil rights on their agenda.

Plus, I doubt you could interest anybody with a name like "Copyright Reform Party". That sounds like a party for lawyers, lobbyists and other despicable scum. The various Pirate Parties achieved a relatively high participation from previously politically inactive people.

Yay! (0, Redundant)

darthdavid (835069) | more than 4 years ago | (#31842900)

Fifteen men on a dead man's chest, yo ho ho and a bottle of rum etc...

Pirate parties should rename themselves (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31842904)

Political campaigning for rights in the digital domain is a "good thing". Clearly individual freedoms are under attack by large corporations and governments. We want to reverse this trend - we want control over our own computers / digital devices, we want reform of copyright and patent law, we want guarantees of privacy and we want fair Internet access, perhaps even as a fundamental right.

However, by using the name "pirate" (pirates in the physical world are dangerous, armed criminals), the parties are alienating a potentially broader public. As far as I can tell the parties are not generally in favor of "piracy" (stealing intellectual property) but in favor of giving the buyer / consumer of intellectual property many more rights than they currently have.

Change the names to "digital freedom party" or whatever, but stop alienating large groups of people with this pirate nonsense. Rights in the digital domain are much more important than this schoolboy stuff.

Re:Pirate parties should rename themselves (2, Interesting)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | more than 4 years ago | (#31843066)

Political campaigning for rights in the digital domain is a "good thing".

I agree. However, forming single-issue political parties is generally a "bad thing". Pushing as hard as you can on a single issue and ignoring the rest of the world is ok when you are a non-governmental pressure group but not when your goal is to be in the government. If you think that is unrealistic in case of the pirate parties, take a look at crazy coalitions in some European countries where parties with 0.5% of the vote are actually represented in the government and able to influence things way beyond their mandate since their limited platform allows them to trade support on all kinds of issues in exchange for their favorite issue. Canada doesn't have a proportional system so it's not as much of a problem there.

Re:Pirate parties should rename themselves (5, Insightful)

MoellerPlesset2 (1419023) | more than 4 years ago | (#31843186)

I agree. However, forming single-issue political parties is generally a "bad thing". Pushing as hard as you can on a single issue and ignoring the rest of the world is ok when you are a non-governmental pressure group but not when your goal is to be in the government.

Who says their goal is to be in government?
Besides, the fact is, the PP in Sweden has succeeded rather well in both gaining lots of attention for the issues, and largely forced the hand of the established parties to start listening to people on copyright/IP issues. Across the board. The result is that Sweden is now one of the EU's biggest champions when it comes to advocating common-sense on these issues. (for instance, they've already made it quite clear they won't sign ACTA the way it looks at the moment).

take a look at crazy coalitions in some European countries where parties with 0.5% of the vote are actually represented in the government

Hyperbole. Which European country has parliamentary representation for a party with 0.5% of the vote? Usually the cutoff to get a seat in parliament is 3-4%.

..and able to influence things way beyond their mandate since their limited platform allows them to trade support on all kinds of issues in exchange for their favorite issue.

So? If all people care about is one issue, to the extent that they're prepared to vote for a single-issue party, then why shouldn't that count for something? It's up to the other parties to decide if they want to compromise in exchange for support or not. If anyone should be criticized it's them.

Re:Pirate parties should rename themselves (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31843312)

So? If all people care about is one issue, to the extent that they're prepared to vote for a single-issue party, then why shouldn't that count for something? It's up to the other parties to decide if they want to compromise in exchange for support or not. If anyone should be criticized it's them.

Not to mention that at least the Green parties started in the same way, and by the time they entered government coalitions their scope had been broadened significantly.

Re:Pirate parties should rename themselves (1)

dangitman (862676) | more than 4 years ago | (#31843374)

Who says their goal is to be in government?

The entire premise of forming a political party is to be in government. Why else would you do such a thing? It amounts to an act of fraud on the citizens to form a political party without aiming to govern.

Re:Pirate parties should rename themselves (4, Insightful)

MoellerPlesset2 (1419023) | more than 4 years ago | (#31843428)

The entire premise of forming a political party is to be in government. Why else would you do such a thing? It amounts to an act of fraud on the citizens to form a political party without aiming to govern.

You're confusing governing with being in government.
You don't have to be in the government (have cabinet posts, i.e. control the executive branch) to govern. You still have full legislative influence by being in parliament.
For instance, the Swedish Greens have never been in government, but have succeeded in influencing lots of legislation.
To make an analogy to US politics, what you're saying is akin to it being dishonest to run for Congress if you have no intention of seeking the Presidency.

It's not necessarily the case that a small, single-issue party can maximize their influence by being part of government, since that would force them to ally themselves with a political block. It would also force them to shoulder political responsibility for the government's policies, even when outside their sphere of interest, something which could risk dividing their membership.

Re:Pirate parties should rename themselves (1)

VJ42 (860241) | more than 4 years ago | (#31843440)

Who says their goal is to be in government?

The entire premise of forming a political party is to be in government. Why else would you do such a thing? It amounts to an act of fraud on the citizens to form a political party without aiming to govern.

Here in the UK, the Green Party has never been elected to a seat in Parliament, however just by standing and taking votes from the other parties they have managed to get their platform onto the agenda of the main parties - they've essentially won the argument. If the PPUK can emulate that, we'd consider it a success. I mean, we're just about to fight our first election, under a year after we formed; we're only standing in 10 seats out of the ~650 or so that there are.
Even if we won all 10 seats we couldn't form a government. Hell, if you can stump up £500* deposit you can stand, you don't even need to be part of a party. How is one person going to become part of the government?

*returned if you get 5% or more of the votes in that seat.

Re:Pirate parties should rename themselves (2, Interesting)

selven (1556643) | more than 4 years ago | (#31843380)

Canada doesn't have a proportional system so it's not as much of a problem there.

We instead have the problem where if you have less than 15% of the vote, unless you're a single issue party dedicated to one region like the Bloc, you have no power at all (see: Green party). I prefer having actual democracy to cycling back and forth between two major parties as soon as the current one does too many things you don't like.

Re:Pirate parties should rename themselves (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | more than 4 years ago | (#31843130)

I agree with that.

And on top of that it's all sounding highly opportunistic, good chance that the people in these parties prove poor politicians I have seen that happening in The Netherlands around the party founded by the late late Pim Fortuyn - the result was a lot of infighting and five, six parliamentary elections in 8 years time. His party gained some 15-20% or so of the votes, out of nothing. By then we had had the murder of Mr Fortuyn already and the party started to resemble a wrestling ring more than a proper political party. They were big enough alltogether to completely mess up the government, resulting in several cabinets since - slowly cleaning it up.

This "pirate party" movement is different because it is more in the fringes so won't cause this kind of upsets but on the other hand I don't think much will really come out of it.

Re:Pirate parties should rename themselves (4, Insightful)

Troed (102527) | more than 4 years ago | (#31843146)

However, by using the name "pirate" (pirates in the physical world are dangerous, armed criminals), the parties are alienating a potentially broader public.

Oh there are a lot of people who remember a happy youth, dancing to pirate radio stations since that was the only way to get the good music.

"Pirate" is the perfect name in this historical context and rings pretty well with the intended supporters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_radio [wikipedia.org]

Re:Pirate parties should rename themselves (2, Insightful)

Vanderhoth (1582661) | more than 4 years ago | (#31843408)

Personally I think we should get rid of parties altogether. The problem is you vote for a person, if that person belongs to a party they're going to vote the way the party tells them to regardless of how it hurts the area they're from. If they don't, they get booted out of caucus, lose the political party funding and have to sit as an independent (see Bill Casey and the Atlantic accord [wikipedia.org] ).

Serving two masters (-1, Troll)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 4 years ago | (#31842908)

When Kennedy ran for President of the United States of America, there was a very vocal opposition faction that didn't want him because he was Roman Catholic. The fear was that he would prioritize the Church over country when making decisions, and that electing him would give carte blanche to the Pope and Rome to govern within the U.S.

Those fears were never realized, since Kennedy knew he was an American first. His goals did not include sharing power with Rome.

But what worries me about the Pirate Party is precisely that it is fundamentally international in nature. The goals of the party are essentially dictated centrally from Sweden and then implemented throughout the world wherever the PP has any power to do so. Luckily, they only have one real goal, so their total impact is limited. However, the formation of international parties (much like the well known International Socialist Organization) bodes ill for countries on an individual basis.

Turning over power to multinationalists is a bad idea because generalized solutions do not necessarily fit the specific needs of any particular country.

Re:Serving two masters (4, Insightful)

polar red (215081) | more than 4 years ago | (#31842936)

Turning over power to multinationalists

keep drinking coca-cola-corp products, eating nestle foods, and driving GM cars ... The problem with your reasoning is that you don't apply it to corporations.

Re:Serving two masters (-1, Flamebait)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 4 years ago | (#31843002)

corporations don't make laws or form government you silly twit.

Re:Serving two masters (1)

polar red (215081) | more than 4 years ago | (#31843032)

That's meant sarcastically I guess?

Re:Serving two masters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31843068)

Yes, it is.

Re:Serving two masters (5, Insightful)

PhunkySchtuff (208108) | more than 4 years ago | (#31843052)

corporations don't make laws or form government you silly twit.

You must be new round here.

It's called the "golden rule" - he who has the gold, makes the rules. From where I'm sitting, corporations have most of the gold, and there sure are a lot of laws being made in their favour at the moment.

Plus, corporations may not form government, but they sure do field people who form government - Halliburton anyone?

Re:Serving two masters (1, Interesting)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#31843292)

I want to add the crucial detail of it saying “gold”. Not “dollars”. This is intentional.
The whole economic crisis didn’t happen for those, who had their money in gold. Its value remained stable. Or in other words: Rose dramatically compared to the dollar.
Now they just have to sell it, to buy that cheap cheap dollar, and they have extreme profits, bought with our labor.
Now guess who had the gold during that time... yup, the very people that caused it in the first place.

And now the rule-making part starts. ...What is marketed by political sock puppets as “Yeah, well, because of the economic crisis, we will make this law worse, and you have to work harder or be fired there, etc...”

Re:Serving two masters (2, Interesting)

MrNaz (730548) | more than 4 years ago | (#31843014)

He compares the PP to the International Socialist Org. I think his *real* problem is that he's rabidly against all that even slightly fetters corporate power due to his blind hatred of anything that smells like socialism. I wonder if he can spell "McCarthyism".

Re:Serving two masters (5, Insightful)

jdigriz (676802) | more than 4 years ago | (#31842956)

Please, Bad Analogy Guy, explain to us how differences in physical geography cause different needs for digital freedom.

Re:Serving two masters (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31843020)

Please, Bad Analogy Guy, explain to us how differences in physical geography cause different needs for digital freedom.

And, if possible, please use an analogy to illustrate your explanation.

Re:Serving two masters (2, Informative)

SpazmodeusG (1334705) | more than 4 years ago | (#31842960)

If you think it's bad I'm guessing you don't vote republican then? Seeing as though they are part of a larger international political organisation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Democrat_Union [wikipedia.org]

Re:Serving two masters (4, Informative)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 4 years ago | (#31842986)

Actually, no.

The different pirate parties don't all work the same. I see it as a generic name for the concept, just like there's a "Communist Party" or "Conservative Party" in multiple countries. They may agree on the basics between themselves, but don't necessarily actively cooperate or agree on the specifics.

The different pirate parties do disagree on things like how long copyright should last. There's a general agreement that the current length is too long, but the swedish one wants 5 years, while there are others that would be fine with 20.

Re:Serving two masters (2)

Fantastic Lad (198284) | more than 4 years ago | (#31843072)

We have a Communist Party in Canada, and have had one for a long time. This hasn't caused any problems. We also have a "Rhino" party, (or did for many years, anyway.)

When you have a multi-party system representing many voices, then what you are talking about becomes a strength rather than a problem. The more populous voices heard on the floor of the House of Commons, the better. At least in an ideal world, which we clearly do not have.

The problems seem to occur when one party gains too much power. Generally, when lots of people are all thinking the same way within an organized system of government, then it means propaganda and political advertising has won, any by extension, the very forces which are worst for the people are the ones being given all the keys.

Large groups of voting Canadians are becoming more stupid and more easily manipulated as the years go by. Our government is getting downright creepy if you ask me.

-FL

Re:Serving two masters (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31843114)

> multinationalists

Is that even a real word? Sounds like something made up by political lunatics in the US. Anyway, I'm not replying to insult you, IIRC you're a sane person judging from past posts, but I really don't get this (very US-specific) fear of other nations.

> But what worries me about the Pirate Party is precisely that it is fundamentally international in nature.

How can that possibly be a bad thing? Sure, a lot of things (location of a new city park or speed regulations) should naturally be decided on the appropriate level, but in todays world more "multinationalism" is needed when it comes to things like the invironment and conflict over natural resources, human rights and IT.

> Turning over power to multinationalists is a bad idea because generalized solutions do not necessarily fit the specific needs of any particular country.

Right. And turning over power to countries is a bad idea because generalized solutions do not necessarily fit the specific needs of any particular region.
Turning over power to regional administrators is a bad idea because generalized solutions do not necessarily fit the specific needs of any particular state.
Turning over power to states is a bad idea because generalized solutions do not necessarily fit the specific needs of any particular county.
Turning over power to county councils is a bad idea because generalized solutions do not necessarily fit the specific needs of any particular city.
Turning over power to the city council is a bad idea because generalized solutions do not necessarily fit the specific needs of any particular district.
Turning over power to the city district government is a bad idea because generalized solutions do not necessarily fit the specific needs of any particular household.
Turning over power to the mum is a bad idea because generalized solutions do not necessarily fit the specific needs of me and i don't WANNA go to be now coz i'm on level 32 and have 5 lives left!!1

(the different levels are a mix of american and european types of local governments, but you get the idea.)

Re:Serving two masters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31843152)

Ah. And turning power over to nationalists is better how, exactly?

Folks, the horses have left the barn already. Capital and capitalist interests are international since a couple of hundred years at least. And in those times it's turning stronger (NAFTA *cough* WIPO *cough* ACTA *cough cough*).

It's about time to find a balance of power at an international level. Otherwise democracy will be slowly killed by legislature laundering.

Re:Serving two masters (5, Insightful)

Troed (102527) | more than 4 years ago | (#31843154)

The goals of the party are essentially dictated centrally from Sweden

I'm curious as to why you think your fantasies are of interest to the rest of us? :)

Re:Serving two masters (5, Insightful)

SlothDead (1251206) | more than 4 years ago | (#31843182)

Spreading BS like "The goals of the party are essentially dictated centrally from Sweden and then implemented throughout the world wherever the PP has any power to do so." is very irresponsible, please stop that.

The various Pirate Parties are independent, there is no hierachy.

Raving Loony Party (4, Insightful)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 4 years ago | (#31843240)

But what worries me about the Pirate Party is precisely that it is fundamentally international in nature.

What worries me is that many political parties which should be international in nature pretend to be merely local. For example, the UK's Official Monster Raving Loony Party http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Monster_Raving_Loony_Party [wikipedia.org] should expand internationally. Entry by the OMRLP into US politics could be disastrous for both the Republicans and the Democrats, since the policies of all three parties would be so closely clustered (on the sanity scale).

Re:Serving two masters (1)

the_other_chewey (1119125) | more than 4 years ago | (#31843316)

The goals of the party are essentially dictated centrally from Sweden and then implemented throughout the world wherever the PP has any power to do so.

I laughed out loud. Do you really believe that? That has to be one of the cutest attempts
to discredit anyone ever.

Re:Serving two masters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31843342)

The goals of the party are essentially dictated centrally from Sweden and then implemented throughout the world wherever the PP has any power to do so.

You're stating that the Swedish PP is dictating the agendas of all other Pirate Parties. This is wrong, however, and I'm baffled as to what made you believe otherwise.

Think of the green movement in the 70's and you'll get the picture.

Re:Serving two masters (1)

Ceriel Nosforit (682174) | more than 4 years ago | (#31843348)

The goals of the party are essentially dictated centrally from Sweden

I think you bit off a bit too much rhetoric there, and that your worries are founded on air.

...the formation of international parties (much like the well known International Socialist Organization) bodes ill for countries on an individual basis

I won't take your word for it, and I expect you to thank me for it. Evidence please. That is, evidence of your main point, not evidence regarding the incidental ISO.

I could imagine that international parties are scrutinized more closely so that the people who make up their rank are not dabbling buffoons, but rather competent citizens with a clear sense of both ideals and morals. In the case of political pirate parties, it seems their main goal is to unify consumers so that when the bill is eventually footed it does not contain the price gouging and DRM that is expected of the entertainment industries. It might take the form of a tax, but then if it is written into law with competence it should be a very affordable tax that entitles you to high-quality entertainment regardless of your income and distributes the money to artist in relation to their accomplishment.

Naturally, if one thinks bureaucracy is always inefficient the point is moot... But then again that means one has been barking up the wrong tree for the past 40 years.

Reation from Big Media / Big Patents to this ... ? (2, Interesting)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 4 years ago | (#31842938)

Have there been any reactions from Big Media / Big Patents to this? Their strategy in the past has been to label these folks as common criminals when lobbying governments.

How do they swallow the fact that the Pirate Parties are now taking a legal and official route to copyright reform?

Have they issued any formal statements?

Maybe with more Pirates sailing the seas of governments, we will finally get information about what this super-secretive ACTA thing is all about.

I can't say if I am for or against the ACTA . . . because I don't know the details.

I do have a problem with so-called democracies sealing international treaties, while keeping their citizens (subjects) in the dark.

Re:Reation from Big Media / Big Patents to this .. (1)

dangitman (862676) | more than 4 years ago | (#31843058)

Have there been any reactions from Big Media / Big Patents to this? ... How do they swallow the fact that the Pirate Parties are now taking a legal and official route to copyright reform?

I'm thinking they'll just shrug their shoulders. They'll probably make a little money from this, by running human interest stories about the new "joke party" that started up. And they wouldn't be too far off the mark in calling it a joke party, either.

Re:Reation from Big Media / Big Patents to this .. (2, Interesting)

nawitus (1621237) | more than 4 years ago | (#31843064)

It actually seems they view pirate parties as legitimate, and do participate in debates with them.

New name... (2, Interesting)

captainpanic (1173915) | more than 4 years ago | (#31842940)

Although the "Pirate Party" is a good name to get some publicity in these early hours, I believe that on the long term a new name must be found which reflects the main issues the party stands for.

Pirate can be changed into Privacy - still a P, so not such a change.

But I would run with this name for the next months or even years.

Re:New name... (4, Interesting)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 4 years ago | (#31842968)

Yeah, many people amongst pirate parties feel that way too. But first, we think that the "second-degreeness" of the name is good and is a way to ridicule this "pirate" label that lobbyists are trying to give to people who just share files. There has already been some reaction (from the RIAA IIRC). They said that "pirate" was a bad term because it sounded "too cool" and that they needed to come out with a new term to qualify their enemies. We proposed "filesharers" but apparently that is not what they are looking for.

Re:New name... (1)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 4 years ago | (#31843294)

We proposed "filesharers" but apparently that is not what they are looking for.

You'd have thought that "copyright infringers" would have been short, to the point and accurate. Maybe that doesn't sound evil enough, even if it is correct.

As for "pirate", not only does it end up sounding 'cool' but it always had the wrong definition anyway, so it isn't surprising that they need something different.

Re:New name... (1)

dangitman (862676) | more than 4 years ago | (#31843074)

Pirate can be changed into Privacy - still a P, so not such a change.

How would changing the name to the "Privacy Party" be relevant? If it's not the exact opposite of what the party stands for, it's at least highly tangential. The Pirate Party stands for sharing information, not privacy.

Re:New name... (2, Informative)

CyberDragon777 (1573387) | more than 4 years ago | (#31843244)

The Pirate Party stands for sharing information, not privacy.

Umm, no.

"Started in 2009, the Pirate Party of Canada strives to reform Canadian copyright laws, reform the patent system, and protect every Canadian’s right to privacy."

http://www.piratepartyofcanada.com/ [piratepartyofcanada.com]

Re:New name... (1)

VJ42 (860241) | more than 4 years ago | (#31843272)

Pirate can be changed into Privacy - still a P, so not such a change.

How would changing the name to the "Privacy Party" be relevant? If it's not the exact opposite of what the party stands for, it's at least highly tangential. The Pirate Party stands for sharing information, not privacy.

Have you actually looked at our policies? At least here in the UK rolling back surveillance & defending individual privacy is part of our platform. Just look at the three bullet points on our front page: http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/ [pirateparty.org.uk]

Re:New name... (1)

dangitman (862676) | more than 4 years ago | (#31843352)

Have you actually looked at our policies?

No, I haven't.

At least here in the UK rolling back surveillance & defending individual privacy is part of our platform. Just look at the three bullet points on our front page: http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/ [pirateparty.org.uk]

OK, so that seems a bit schizophrenic. You want to increase privacy, but also want to "let information be free" in terms of allowing sharing of information. But increased privacy is the opposite of sharing information, it's increased control over it.

Re:New name... (2, Informative)

VJ42 (860241) | more than 4 years ago | (#31843406)

OK, so that seems a bit schizophrenic. You want to increase privacy, but also want to "let information be free" in terms of allowing sharing of information. But increased privacy is the opposite of sharing information, it's increased control over it.

We want openness and transparency from government and organisations but privacy protections for individuals. There's no contradiction there, just empowerment for the normal person. Copyright would still remain (at a much reduced length) for people who try and make money from others work, just sharing between individuals would be decriminalized. A full PPUK manifesto can be found from here: http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/press/releases/2010/mar/22/pirate-party-uk-announces-general-election-manifes/ [pirateparty.org.uk]

Re:New name... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31843304)

Doesn't matter what they call themselves, if they can't get a foothold in the US (ya know, the place which exports all the crazy copyright laws) they'll never make a difference.
And they'll never win in a two-party, winner-take-all system, they only have one issue which defines their party, and because it's a fringe issue which no one outside /. cares about, they'll never get any recognition.
If they were campaigning on abortion or gun control or immigration they might get some coverage, but again NO ONE CARES about copyright reform.

Especially given the number of conversations I've had with friends about HDCP and why their new BluRay player doesn't provide a better picture than their old DVD player.

History will look upon the pirate parties... (4, Interesting)

Max Romantschuk (132276) | more than 4 years ago | (#31842948)

...not as extreme promoters of the abolition of copyright, but the catalyst that led the eventual restoration of copyright as a tool to promote cultural innovation, instead of hampering it.

I can dream, can't I? :)

Re:History will look upon the pirate parties... (2, Interesting)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 4 years ago | (#31843274)

I don't think that dream is so far from reality.

Re:History will look upon the pirate parties... (1)

Max Romantschuk (132276) | more than 4 years ago | (#31843436)

I share your views. :)

But it's a dream until it actually becomes a reality...

Re:History will look upon the pirate parties... (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#31843330)

Wrong right. You confuse copyright — the exclusive right of publishers to copy a work (which is never physically enforcable) — with the author’s right — the right of a creator of a work, to get something in return for it (which in the US conveniently has little or no meaning).

Copyright was never about the ones who thought up the whole thing. But about those who wanted to be their liege lords. Something that is completely obsolete nowadays.

If you are an author/artist/creative, then just publish it yourself, and do not ever expect anything in return, after you passed your work on. A website is available for what? A buck fifty a month? (Protip: Make a deal to get what you want, when you put it out in the world for the very first time. And remember: Later, if you think it wasn’t enough, tough shit, cause you should have demanded it earlier.)

cd tax (0)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 4 years ago | (#31842958)

isn't this a null issue due to the cd tax in canada?

Re:cd tax (2)

nawitus (1621237) | more than 4 years ago | (#31843000)

Many countries (including Finland for example) have a cassette tax (which applies to CD's etc), but still have strict copyright laws. Besides, pirate parties have a broad range of issues from civil liberties to privacy, patents etc. Copyright is only a rather small part of our agenda.

Re:cd tax (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 4 years ago | (#31843010)

if copyright is only a small part of your agenda, why choose the name "Pirate party", unless your agenda also includes stuff about booty and adventures on the high seas?

from your opening move it seems like copyright is ALL your about.

Re:cd tax (2, Informative)

nawitus (1621237) | more than 4 years ago | (#31843030)

Because it all started from copyright. The Green Party (atleast in Finland) also has a broad range of issues they wan't to deal with. But they also started with the conservation of nature and such.

Re:cd tax (4, Insightful)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 4 years ago | (#31843062)

The CD tax is a way of labels to have a cake and eat it -twice- too.
First you pay for "pirated content" in media tax, and then they will litigate and sue you for damages anyway.

Re:cd tax (1)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 4 years ago | (#31843384)

Wrong. In any sane country (therefore this doesn't apply in the US) a CD tax has been a way to legalise pirating. Because you pay the tax, you get to fileshare until your heart's content.

Re:cd tax (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31843434)

Keep in mind, up here in Canada it's not that the media cartels wouldn't LOVE to be able to keep the tax AND sue everyone as well. It's just that our government is a little more resistant to legalized bribery than the US.

For now.

US corepirate nazi party remains unofficial (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31842970)

their 'party platform' consists mainly of greed/fear/ego based glowbull warmongering, & every night is prom night to them.

never a better time to consult with/trust in your creators. you know the rest?

May the extremists of the Pirate Party... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31843022)

Show the current government how extremist the other way its current policies are. I wish you a fair wind and clear sky.

Hallelujah ! (1)

vikingpower (768921) | more than 4 years ago | (#31843026)

Praise Gawd - and may the winds be fortunate to our pirate brothers' sailing in Canuckistan !

OZ? (1)

AndGodSed (968378) | more than 4 years ago | (#31843070)

I thought Australia had a pirate party already? OP says Canada is the first outside Europe?

Re:OZ? (2, Informative)

nawitus (1621237) | more than 4 years ago | (#31843076)

It's the first outside Europe to be officially registered as a political party.

Re:OZ? (1)

AndGodSed (968378) | more than 4 years ago | (#31843174)

Ah, thanks for clearing that up.

Oh great... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31843090)

Another Canadian political party siphoning off left-leaning voters. Already that vote is split between Liberal, NDP, Green, and (some would argue) the Bloc. This vote split is why the conservatives can continue to hold political power with 38% of the popular vote.

In political systems with fully proportional representation (example: Israel) these sorts of political parties make sense: the hurdle to get representation in the legislature is surmountable and you may even be brought into a coalition government. However, in first-past-the-post systems (Canada, US, UK) these vanity parties are only self-defeating. Whichever side of the political spectrum is best able to AVOID this fragmentation is almost guaranteed power. To use a Canadian example, look at the solid Liberal control in the 90s, made easy by a 3-way fragmentation on the right (the old PC party, Reform, and Alliance). Once those parties re-coalesced into the current Conservative party they were able to take over from the perpetually fragmented left.

If you have a particular issue that you want to advance in a first-past-the-post democracy, the correct move is to identify which of the major parties is most receptive to your goal, and organize within that party. Form an organization, raise money, make noise. If you're a visible constituency within a major party (and can be counted on to bring in votes, donations, and volunteers) then they will have reason to differentiate themselves by embracing your issue.

If instead your constituency says "ha! We're going to take our votes and make our own damn party" then BOTH major parties will simply say "ok, no need to listen to care what those guys want -- they're not going to vote for us anyway". You're only making copyright reform HARDER to achieve.

Re:Oh great... (3, Insightful)

Zironic (1112127) | more than 4 years ago | (#31843402)

And that's why first-past-the-post systems are pretty stupid. I'm continually amazed by how US and UK politics can be so fucked up.

Yar (1, Flamebait)

outsider007 (115534) | more than 4 years ago | (#31843142)

There ain't no party like a pirate party because a pirate don't respect intellectual property laws.

International politics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31843156)

Is the Pirate Party the first example of a political party that is operating in multiple countries at once? Surely that deserves some recognition at least?! Perhaps they will one day rule the majority of the world! :)

Re:International politics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31843226)

No. For instance the Green Party is multinational.

Re:International politics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31843332)

The Pirate Party isn't operating in multiple countries at once. There are many seperate Pirate Parties each with their own leadership.

This has been done before, for example, with the Communist Party.

Re:International politics (3, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 4 years ago | (#31843356)

Is the Pirate Party the first example of a political party that is operating in multiple countries at once?

How soon they forget. The Communists had this sort of thing going on a much larger scale than the Pirates.

Do not need (3, Interesting)

fyoder (857358) | more than 4 years ago | (#31843198)

What we need is a party to split the right. I would be happier to see a pro-intellectual property, family values, pry gun from cold dead hands, anti-abortion, anti-gay rights party announce, something that could siphon votes away from the Conservatives.

Hey, Preston, how's about giving that Reform thing another whirl?

Canadian Pirates (4, Funny)

psergiu (67614) | more than 4 years ago | (#31843224)

Arrr, eh ?

so fucking stupid and immature (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31843248)

That's all I have to say about the pirate party.

Re:so fucking stupid and immature (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31843256)

It's a waste of time is what it is.

Our global leaders won't deal with real hot plate issues what the fuck do these idiots think is going to happen with copyright reform?

Fat nerds (-1, Troll)

Lolmaster (1753970) | more than 4 years ago | (#31843420)

The pirate party consists only of fat nerds who didn't achieve anything in their lives. Therefore they had to build this so called "party" to fool themselves and their so called "friends" (lol). Now they can think they aren't the useless human waste that they really are. LOL!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?