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!

Pirate Party's North American Debut

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the scuttle-the-continent dept.

Canada 178

adonoman writes "A 25-year-old Winnipeg businessman is the first Pirate Party of Canada candidate to run for federal election. At the same time, the US and UK pirate parties have put out an open letter to Anonymous requesting that they cease Operation Payback's DDOS attacks and focus on taking a legal route to fix intellectual property law."

cancel ×

178 comments

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

Yeah, right. (-1, Troll)

russotto (537200) | more than 3 years ago | (#34337402)

Legal means have been exhausted. The pro-copyright side holds the upper hand. The unlawful means won't succeed either, but pissing off one's oppressors is a good thing in itself.

Re:Yeah, right. (4, Insightful)

Bucky24 (1943328) | more than 3 years ago | (#34337430)

pissing off one's oppressors is a good thing in itself.

How is that a good thing? If you mean oppressors in a figurative manner, making someone angry doesn't make you more right, and often it causes your side to lose support. If you mean literal oppressors, then pissing them off usually just ends up causing greater oppression. Anonymous and the Pirate Party are fighting a law. Laws are not repealed by going out and breaking more laws.

Re:Yeah, right. (4, Insightful)

idontgno (624372) | more than 3 years ago | (#34337468)

Laws are not repealed by going out and breaking more laws.

Of course they are. [wikipedia.org]

Quite effectively, too.

Re:Yeah, right. (4, Informative)

elfprince13 (1521333) | more than 3 years ago | (#34337620)

Only when you can get positive media coverage out of it. Public sympathy is important.

Re:Yeah, right. (2, Interesting)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#34338070)

The media has a deep invested interest in the preservation of copyright as most of their business models revolve around it, be it in print, TV, radio or online. It's not about left wing or right wing, they're pretty much all pro-copyright mouthpieces. I think trying to win sympathizers, that is non-participants that still sympathize will not get you anywhere. It's about recruiting participants and making them aware how many of the people around them do it too. Raise the "status" of being a file sharer to something you openly admit to the people around you. The potential is huge, in Sweden it's up to 20% of the population now and roughly 50% in males 16-25. 20% of 300 million Americans is 60 million.

To take one example - and I'm not comparing copyright to Gandhi's fight here - Gandhi broke the salt law simply by telling everyone to make salt. The British arrested over 60,000 people in one month. ONE month. Every jail they had ran full and yet they still kept doing it and trading it, there was no end and no victory in sight. That's how copyright will fall too, through the sheer mass of people, not a few demonstrators doing it as a provocation but many doing it for themselves. Granted they did get public sympathy, but that was not the force that led to victory. There's a whole different power in mass civil disobedience than in just civil disobedience.

Re:Yeah, right. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34338582)

An impossibility in itself, the media are the ones pushing for the laws, of course it will always be reported as a negative act.

Re:Yeah, right. (2, Insightful)

goldaryn (834427) | more than 3 years ago | (#34337742)

Laws are not repealed by going out and breaking more laws.

Of course they are. [wikipedia.org]

Quite effectively, too.

I actually have mod points at the moment, but instead of modding parent up, I want to reply in agreement.

I couldn't agree more. I'm sure Rosa Parks [wikipedia.org] would as well.

I live in Britain and frankly, I feel disgusting at the way that ordinary people have been increasingly criminalised in recent years. Particularly since Blair, legislation has been more and more as a means of control. This is not a thought, it's a fact. Look at the statistics for the number of new pieces of legislation that came in under his tenure. I really don't like the way this country is going at the moment.

Now, I'm not going to go into the rights and wrongs of piracy, but I will say this one thing. The world is changing. Record companies still desperately cling onto the old models, and it make me laugh at their blinkeredness. When music copying is so mainstream that any kid with a PC can copy a CD, it starts to become clear to everyone bar the music companies and the governments they lobby that one way or another, things need to change. Just in case some of those people are reading, I will give you a few clues to get you started: how much is a track worth to a buyer? What percentage of that does the artist receive? How much of that SHOULD the artist receive? How much would the buyer pay if he/she felt the artist would receive FAIR royalties?

You made a lot of money for many years, give artists a fair deal, reduce your ridiculous profits and you MIGHT survive, record companies. Otherwise, I hope every single artist out there makes a website selling their MP3s and every single record company goes totally fucking bust.

Re:Yeah, right. (1)

man_of_mr_e (217855) | more than 3 years ago | (#34338878)

I hate when people bring up Rosa Parks (and linking to her, no less.. as if you are bestowing upon us some fact nobody is in the slightest bit aware of) in regards to copyright laws.

Rosa was not breaking any law by refusing to give up her seat. In fact, the law was on her side, as recent case law had sided with others in her position. She was merely violating bus company rules. Not that her stance wasn't important, but please.. don't equate disobeying a bus driver with breaking federal law that can land you in federal prison.

Where the hell is bad analogy man when you need him?

Re:Yeah, right. (0, Troll)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 3 years ago | (#34337474)

I think what it means is that it makes you feel good.

It's simply playground logic that's being addresses here. So and so pissed you off, so you want to club him or rat to the teacher to get them to club him.

Re:Yeah, right. (1)

russotto (537200) | more than 3 years ago | (#34337572)

It's simply playground logic that's being addresses here. So and so pissed you off, so you want to club him or rat to the teacher to get them to club him.

If you want to reduce it to playground logic, "so and so" beats you up for your pocket change. The teachers take his side. He's been taking more and more of late. You have a chance to throw sand in his face. Do you take it? He'll still take your pocket change, so it won't improve your situation any.

Re:Yeah, right. (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 3 years ago | (#34337588)

Telling the teacher or clubbing him won't stop him from pissing you off either. what it does is make you feel good/better if not only for a short period of time.

Yea, it make you feel better when you are trapped and nothing you can do will change the situation so you do what little you can for payback. That's what I'm saying.

Re:Yeah, right. (2, Insightful)

shentino (1139071) | more than 3 years ago | (#34338130)

Let me guess.

The bully is giving the teacher a cut of the money he takes from you.

And seriously, the real world isn't much different from the playground. What starts out as bullies testing their muscles escalates to companies flexing their legal strength, and countries proving their military might.

The entire world is about power and who has the most of it. When people are "looking out for number one", power is the only thing that actually works.

Throwing sand in someone's face could quickly get you detention/trade sanctions, but if that's all you have, may as well use it if you're going to be raped anyway.

Re:Yeah, right. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34337754)

of course its playground logic, what do you expect from the bunch of self-obsessed hippies with entitlement issues that run the 'give us free stuff!!!1111' party?

Re:Yeah, right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34337944)

Nice description, it fits RIAA quite well...

More than that (2, Interesting)

Roger W Moore (538166) | more than 3 years ago | (#34337870)

I think what it means is that it makes you feel good.

There is that but there is also the fact that if it makes your oppressors even more oppressive then they are likely to irritate even more people. This will improve your support and give your arguments even more weight.

An important step has already been taken in that direction in Canada: Access Canada, the body which licenses Universities to use copyrighted material, has raised its fees by almost a factor of three and also added additional, more restrictive terms. The result is that all the major Canadian universities have opted not to renew the licence. I now foresee a huge backlash amongst faculty and students as access to material will now either become far more restricted or expensive. Give it enough years and enough students should have been affected that there will be some change.

Re:Yeah, right. (1)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 3 years ago | (#34337546)

Anonymous and the Pirate Party are fighting a law. Laws are not repealed by going out and breaking more laws.

Actually, in my view, the Pirate Party should not have so much as made mention of what Anon is doing. By writing the open letter, they might be taking a bit of a moral ground, but at the same time, they are associating themselves with that sort of behavior.

Do I think what Anon is doing is "right"? Nope.
Do I think that they should keep doing it? Absolutely.

I think at some point it is up to everyone to take a moral stand and make their view heard. If the person you are speaking to has their hands on their ears and is yelling "LA LA LA" sometimes, in my books, it is okay to give em a slap to the face to snap them out of it.

There is nothing wrong at all with fighting a fight on multiple fronts. Have one side of the fence, in this case the Pirate Party doing all it can through legal means. At the same time, another group, here it is Anon, goes on an all out offensive fighting a running battle of harassment and annoyances.

In this case, it seems that they both have a common enemy. They are both trying to fight a law. I don't think that taking the moral high ground while forgetting that the Enemy of your Enemy is your friend is a good plan - unless of course you know whatever you say won't be listened to anyhow, then it just becomes politics.

Re:Yeah, right. (0, Flamebait)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 3 years ago | (#34337728)

Do I think what Anon is doing is "right"? Nope.
Do I think that they should keep doing it? Absolutely.

Sounds like you don't actually understand what the words "wrong" and "right" mean. Either that or you're some sort of sociopath.

Re:Yeah, right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34337814)

Or the end justifies the means.

Re:Yeah, right. (1)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 3 years ago | (#34338286)

Or the end justifies the means.

Bingo.

Often times you have to do what is wrong for the greater good. Please allow a simple example about war - something we can all pretty much say is "bad" and "wrong":

Is war okay?
What if that country is talking about attacking your country?
What if that other country attacked your country in the past?
What if the country happens to be developing a dangerous technology that it might or might not use against your country in the future?
What if the country is doing horrible things to it's own people that you disagree with?
What if groups within that country are attacking you?
Or how about if they support someone else who is attacking you?
What about when they invade you?

War is wrong and bad, but at some point in that list, most people will say it is okay, because at that point the end justified the means. The end often justifies the means. If you think otherwise you are either very young, naive or have rose colored glasses on most of the time.

Re:Yeah, right. (1)

man_of_mr_e (217855) | more than 3 years ago | (#34338942)

Not to get all godwin or anything, but i'm sure Nazi's thought the ends justified the means as well. The problem is, very few people can honestly say that without being self-serving.

In most cases, there are better, and more legal ways to achieve the end. The end only justifies the means when there is absolutely no other way to achive "the greater good". And, in the case of Operation Payback, i do not believe for one second that there isn't any other way. Even the name is a very important clue as to the motivation... "Payback".. aka "Vengence". In other words, a very greedy, self-serving, and selfish way to deal with the problem.

Anonymous's major problem is that it feels it is justified in deciding what's right and wrong. They feel they can impose their beliefs on others. And they feel completely justified in doing illegal things to get their way. If this wasn't the only such incident, it might be chalked up to poor judgement, but it seems that "vengence" is the only thing Anonymous wants to do. Even the choice of "V for Vendetta" masks shows that they're more in love with the wrath bringing than solving the problem.

While I too think Scientology is a sham, i also don't believe it's my place to pass judgement over anyones religious beliefs. Doing so is a very slippery slope. Again, Nazi's though Judaism was some kind of cult and evil.. where do you draw the line? I am seriously expecting an Anonymous member to blow up someones car soon. I hope i'm wrong.

Violence begets more violence. And many people get a rush from doing the things they do (even been to an Anonymous rally? They're having a ton of fun at someone elses expense).

Radical behavior is a last resort. It's not like someone is imprisoning anyone for file sharing, but Anonymous seems to be acting like it's a life or death situation.

Re:Yeah, right. (1)

russotto (537200) | more than 3 years ago | (#34338978)

Not to get all godwin or anything, but i'm sure Nazi's thought the ends justified the means as well.

The Nazis ends were evil as well as their means.

Anonymous's major problem is that it feels it is justified in deciding what's right and wrong.

Every moral entity decides what's right and wrong. There's no way around it; if there is an objective morality, it's not directly accessible. You can delegate your decision making to some authority, and claim that following the dictates of authority is right while violating it is wrong, but that's making a moral choice as well.

Radical behavior is a last resort. It's not like someone is imprisoning anyone for file sharing, but Anonymous seems to be acting like it's a life or death situation.

People HAVE been imprisoned for violating the DMCA.

And that "last resort" became the only remaining one somewhere around the time of Eldred v. Ashcroft and Grokster.

Re:Yeah, right. (1)

man_of_mr_e (217855) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339086)

People have been *wrongly* held for violating the DMCA. Dmitry and Elcomsoft were Acquitted of any wrongdoing.

I don't like the DMCA either, but the blame for that situation was with the FBI, not the DMCA (although certainly it gave them a reason to wrongly hold him).

Re:Yeah, right. (1)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339060)

Not to get all...

While I do agree with some of your points totally, I am less convinced by others. And this isn't having a go at you at all. You might even convince me :)

Anonymous's major problem is that it feels it is justified in deciding what's right and wrong. They feel they can impose their beliefs on others.

How is that different to **AA imposing their beliefs on others - and not only that, but buying enough lobbies to make it law? They now don't even have to fully impose their beliefs - the law system does it for them?

While I too think Scientology is a sham, i also don't believe it's my place to pass judgement over anyones religious beliefs. Doing so is a very slippery slope.

I too think it is all a sham, actually I think it is nothing more than a "networking religion" at best for the top few folks in there. But they don't try to impose their rules on me. I honestly wouldn't care if they told their members to run around in small circles until they passed out on a nightly basis - until they try to force me into it.

Radical behavior is a last resort. It's not like someone is imprisoning anyone for file sharing, but Anonymous seems to be acting like it's a life or death situation.

Try telling that to the cases where people have been fined/sued for upwards of a million dollars for sharing a few mp3s. Try spending a year in litigation and then paying the lawyers without calling it "life changing". I know that if I had a choice of handing over a million dollars I don't have, or spending a few nights in prison, I would choose a few nights in prison.

Violence begets more violence. And many people get a rush from doing the things they do...

You can look at it that way, but I think that Anon here is actually looking at it in that exact way - except they don't see themselves as being the instigators. They see it as "Payback" for all the crap that has been allowed to happen so far.

When I was little, I was always taught to stand up to bullies. Here, I see a lot of "big money" and "big corporation" as being the bully here - and I WILL stand up.

Re:Yeah, right. (2, Insightful)

JesseMcDonald (536341) | more than 3 years ago | (#34338960)

If the end justifies the means, and the end is right, then the means are right.

If an action is "wrong" or "not right" that means you shouldn't do it. If it's "right" then that you are permitted to do it, or in some cases should do it. To say that some action is "not right" but that one "should keep doing it" is a contradiction.

Re:Yeah, right. (1)

1000101 (584896) | more than 3 years ago | (#34338922)

Laws being repealed are just the tip of the iceberg [wikipedia.org]

Re:Yeah, right. (2, Interesting)

camperdave (969942) | more than 3 years ago | (#34337432)

Legal means have been exhausted

Unless and until a dictatorship is in place, there is always a legal means: getting elected and changing the copyright laws.

Re:Yeah, right. (3, Insightful)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 3 years ago | (#34337602)

Unless and until a dictatorship is in place, there is always a legal means: getting elected and changing the copyright laws.

The thing is, can one or a handful of elected people make a change? In the States, Libertarian candidates actually get elected every once in a while, but I'm afraid nothing has changed.

But if one has quite a bit of money, it's amazing how the system just bends to your will.

The big corporate machines with all the cash will never allow anyone to change IP law.

Re:Yeah, right. (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 3 years ago | (#34338280)

Finally, someone nails exactly why the status quo isn't going to change.

Not to mention that the big corporate machines get that cash in the first place by exploiting legal loopholes that already do exist.

Re:Yeah, right. (5, Insightful)

mug funky (910186) | more than 3 years ago | (#34337656)

"...there is always a legal means: getting very wealthy and changing the copyright laws."

FFY

Re:Yeah, right. (1)

Microlith (54737) | more than 3 years ago | (#34337434)

I give up. We can't possibly succeed.

That, right there, is the attitude of a WINNER.

Re:Yeah, right. (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | more than 3 years ago | (#34338814)

You are confusing being a loser with being a pragmatist.

Legal means exhausted (1)

ArchieBunker (132337) | more than 3 years ago | (#34337442)

If by "legal means" you are saying millions in campaign contributions then legal means have not been exhausted. Maybe if the RIAA/MPAA ceased donations they could stop claiming lost sales?

Re:Legal means exhausted (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 3 years ago | (#34337530)

copyright laws have largely been address independent of the **AAs.

Those seem to be American organizations and copyright laws have all been started in Europe first then brought to the US. Even the infamous DMCA was the result of an international treaty.

Sure, the **AAs might encourage the stuff. They might even activly support it. But if you are going to concentrate on them, you will never win. You have to find the problem, not the front man in the operation taking advantage of the problems.

Re:Legal means exhausted (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 3 years ago | (#34337876)

The reason for that is that international treaty supersedes the US constitution.

Re:Legal means exhausted (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 3 years ago | (#34338062)

No it doesn't.

The courts have let some treaties supersede- mainly the ones in existence at the time the constitution was created but the constitution says that the laws and treaties (except for the existing ones) shall be made in accordance with the constitution.

However, this is pointless as the constitution give congress the power to regulate copyright. All treaties the US enters in has to be implemented into law too.

Re:Legal means exhausted (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 3 years ago | (#34338290)

In theory no.

In practice, all the law does is serve as a tiebreaker in a fight that isn't settled before trial.

Re:Yeah, right. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34337448)

And with attitudes like this (or, even worse, the Stallmaneque version, where trying to get paid for your work is somehow morally repugnant), it's no wonder that the vast majority of people will continue to ignore you.

Re:Yeah, right. (1)

The Archon V2.0 (782634) | more than 3 years ago | (#34337480)

pissing off one's oppressors is a good thing in itself.

So if you're getting beat up by a cop with a nightstick, the best thing to do is scream at him "YOU CALL THAT A SWING? WHAT KIND OF PANSY ARE YOU?" ??

Re:Yeah, right. (1)

russotto (537200) | more than 3 years ago | (#34337542)

So if you're getting beat up by a cop with a nightstick, the best thing to do is scream at him "YOU CALL THAT A SWING? WHAT KIND OF PANSY ARE YOU?" ??

Given the choice between that and "Please sir, may I have another?", yes.

Note that I'm referring to pissing off one's oppressors as a _moral_ good. As a practical matter, kneeling at the zipper is safer.

Re:Yeah, right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34337592)

I think a better analogy would be:

If you see someone getting beat up by a cop with a nightstick, gather a fairly large group of people and make sure everyone deserves to be beaten up by that cop until he cannot provide anymore.

Re:Yeah, right. (1)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 3 years ago | (#34337522)

Canada isn't decided really. If anything even our conservative gov isn't anti-piracy. The libs would probably put something more concrete in place that was pro-piracy even.

Pirates create junk for the rest of us (0, Troll)

B_SharpC (698293) | more than 3 years ago | (#34337536)

Pirates create junk media for the honest people.
If you disagree, please post your Credit Card and Bank numbers
with security codes. It is just electrons for all to see.
I knew you would not. Pirates are hypocrites.

Re:Pirates create junk for the rest of us (1)

mug funky (910186) | more than 3 years ago | (#34337714)

capitalism: if it can be done cheaper, it will be.

piracy: if it can be done free, it will be.

what's the major difference, really. "piracy" is just a consequence of having a worldwide near instant distribution network and the ability to make infinite perfect copies of a product.

technology has allowed this, and there's no way in hell it can be stopped. distributors need to come up with something that is just as if not more convenient than getting the product for free. until they drop their prices and up their quality, that's not going to happen.

disclaimer: i work for a major film distributor.

Re:Pirates create junk for the rest of us (1)

B_SharpC (698293) | more than 3 years ago | (#34338128)

Post child porn or bank account numbers online and let us see capitalism in action. Instead, piracy is a legal & economic issue, not a technical one. It is not a geek issue.

The quality of movies will rise again when Pirate websites are shut down and website owners are sued and lose their homes. Movie theaters should post Pirate's personal financial information for the whole world to see. It's an eye for an eye.

Why is a Movie corporation's product NOT protected but a Pirate's personal product, bank info, IS protected?? The legal side is just slowly catching up.

Why do Pirates have copyright protection but a large Movie corporation has no protection??

Re:Pirates create junk for the rest of us (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34338390)

capitalism: if it can be done cheaper, it will be.

piracy: if it can be done free, it will be.

what's the major difference, really. "piracy" is just a consequence of having a worldwide near instant distribution network and the ability to make infinite perfect copies of a product.

technology has allowed this, and there's no way in hell it can be stopped. distributors need to come up with something that is just as if not more convenient than getting the product for free. until they drop their prices and up their quality, that's not going to happen.

disclaimer: i work for a major film distributor.

Bullshit. I subscribe to "The Movie Network" with my cable provider and am also paying for my Netflix.ca account. I can download a lot of that stuff for free, but I am still choosing to pay; TMN gives me fairly recent movies that I can watch using the included On-Demand service and Netflix for a bunch of the older stuff (I just restarted watching the tv show Heroes from Season One). I don't have a full HDTV setup yet, so can't comment on the HD experience using those services.

You do have a point that distributors need to come up with something fairly quickly - Netflix works well and you can use a PS3/Wii to watch on your TV.

Piracy did a great thing for the world: accelerate distribution times. For instance SWEp1:The Phantom Menace was released May 19 1999 in USA/Canada, but people in some major E.U. markets had to wait until late September-Mid October [imdb.com] to go an see it. By time time SWEp3:RotS was released, this was back to within 2 weeks [imdb.com] !

Pirate parties do great work to get "our" rights back, e.g. if I buy a CD, I want to be able to rip it, convert to mp3/aac/flac, and put that on my portable player. This is a right that people have had for a long time. Ouch. What can we do. I know! Let's invent some silly form of "copy protection" on the CD. And THEN we make it illegal to bypass that. Woohoo! Problem of allowed-copy solved by disallow-bypass.

Pirate parties can also do great work with the "settlement letters' racketeering scheme.

Re:Pirates create junk for the rest of us (1)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 3 years ago | (#34337810)

Pirates create junk media for the honest people.

Wha?

If you disagree, please post your Credit Card and Bank numbers
with security codes.

Disagree with WHAT?

It is just electrons for all to see.
I knew you would not. Pirates are hypocrites.

WTF? Were you stoned when you wrote that comment?

Re:Pirates create junk for the rest of us (0, Troll)

B_SharpC (698293) | more than 3 years ago | (#34338026)

You refused to post your Credit Account number.
You want copyright protection for YOUR data but not for OTHER people's data, articles or music. Hypocrite!

Re:Pirates create junk for the rest of us (2, Informative)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 3 years ago | (#34338052)

Do you actually speak English, or are you just running this stuff through google translate?

FYI, "copyright" doesn't mean what you apparently think it means.

Re:Pirates create junk for the rest of us (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 3 years ago | (#34338434)

Copyright and privacy are two different things. I don't advocate piracy, but even I see a difference between wanting to share what has already been published from wanting to share something confidential.

Re:Pirates create junk for the rest of us (1)

B_SharpC (698293) | more than 3 years ago | (#34338684)

Copyright is also confidential. It is limited access determined by the originator. Likewise Credit Card numbers are confidential.

Music songs and Credit Card numbers are both copyright protected. Credit Card numbers have legal force of law. Music should but does not.

Piracy has been around for 1000s of years. No problem, as long as worst offenders are controlled, such as, closing down music copy websites. The law is just taking time to catch up. When it does, the quality of music will be better instead of junk quality caused by current MP3 pirates.

Re:Yeah, right. (-1, Flamebait)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#34337570)

I'm an author. Anonymous and their ilk are oppressing me by stealing my property. They're the ones who should piss off.

Re:Yeah, right. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34337594)

No, they're not stealing your property.

And no, pointing out the fact that copyright infringement isn't theft does not mean that I'm a pirate or that I endorse piracy.

And yes, that IS what you were going to claim.

Re:Yeah, right. (-1, Troll)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#34337696)

Okay. You're not necessarily a pirate. You're just semantically misguided. The fact is, if you have something that belongs to me and you didn't pay me for it then either I gave it to you for free or you stole it. Even if you created the copy you possess. The content belongs to me, not you, and you stole it in order to possess it.

Any questions of how easy it is to copy, whether it deprives me of anything, whether you would or wouldn't have paid for it, etc., are moot. The act of taking something that is not yours is theft.

Which brings us back to piracy. None of these clowns is a pirate. Pirates are sailors who raid ships. These are pimply jagoffs who flood network connections and rip CDs onto torrents. Put them in a room with an actual pirate and they'd crap into their own mouths to get out.

Re:Yeah, right. (1)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 3 years ago | (#34337854)

You went pee-pee in the washroom, and then you flushed, and your pee went into the water supply, and one of the H20 molecules in that pee eventually ended up inside a glass of water which I poured out of the tap. I'm sorry for taking something that you didn't give me. Who shall I make the cheque out to?

Re:Yeah, right. (1)

Dalzhim (1588707) | more than 3 years ago | (#34338046)

Let's say you draw a circle inside a square. I look at your drawing, and then I draw a circle inside a square as well. You pretend I've taken your idea and it wasn't mine in the first place. I reply that you've taken my freedom to come up with this idea in the first place and this freedom wasn't yours. You called me a pirate, I call you a pirate too. You say that act was theft? I am saying you've thieved first.

Re:Yeah, right. (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#34338078)

You're just semantically misguided. The fact is, if you have something that belongs to me and you didn't pay me for it then either I gave it to you for free or you stole it.

Woah - now YOU sound semantically misguided.

If someone steals from you and gives it to me - I did not steal from you.

Re:Yeah, right. (1)

man_of_mr_e (217855) | more than 3 years ago | (#34338982)

The fact is, if you have something that belongs to me and you didn't pay me for it then either I gave it to you for free or you stole it.

Wow, you have a very narrow field of focus. I can think of many other possible ways something you consider to be yours came into my possesion without my having stolen it from you.

1) You dropped it, and I found it.
2) Someone else took it from you, and I found it.
3) I was awarded it as a judgement against you
etc.. etc.. etc..

There is a reason it's legally called "infringement" and not "theft". Copyright infringement is more akin to trespassing, in that as a land owner you have the right to say who can and can't use your property. But, just because i walked on your grass doesn't mean I stole your property from you.

Theft is depriving someone of property, which copyright infringement doesn't do. It violates your right to control who can make copies of the material, a right you can grant to someone else for a fee... just like You can charge someone rent to use your property, or to use it for hunting or whatever.

Re:Yeah, right. (1)

B4light (1144317) | more than 3 years ago | (#34337678)

Yea, sure, Anonymous is stealing your ebooks instead of pirating video games.

Re:Yeah, right. (1)

Mathinker (909784) | more than 3 years ago | (#34338102)

Riiiiight. Unfortunately, the most likely truth of the matter is that practically no one has heard of you, and anyone who has downloaded your content because of curiosity is simply similar to someone cracking open your book inside a bookstore. And if you had a magic button which, when pressed, made your content unavailable except for pay, no one would pay you out of curiosity, they would find something else which seemed more interesting, instead.

And actually, you're being granted the right to rent our "property" back to us, society, for a limited (if currently ridiculously long) period. Because we understand you have to eat.

Re:Yeah, right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34338132)

You don't own what you create. Nothing you've ever created was entirely novel to begin with, from the words to the structure. It all existed before you. Wanting to benefit from what you create is understandable, insofar as the capitalistic system forces you to derive personal benefit from monetization (restriction) of your creation for your own survival. That doesn't make it right.

Re:Yeah, right. (1)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 3 years ago | (#34337616)

How am I oppressing you by holding title to software I write?

A politician that listens. What a difference (3, Interesting)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 3 years ago | (#34337446)

Here in America, we have politicians that tell us to grin and bear the gloved hand of tyranny up our metaphorical rectums. This past week has been a tumultuous time for our country with millions upon millions angry, demanding the end to the usurpation of our human rights. These calls have fallen on deaf ears.

Canada, the great untamed frontier, still seems to have politicians who put people over policy. What a topsy-turvy world we live in that we Americans finally look northward for leadership!

Maybe it's time we held our own Boxing Day.

Re:A politician that listens. What a difference (1)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 3 years ago | (#34337528)

Here in America, we have politicians that tell us to grin and bear the gloved hand of tyranny up our metaphorical rectums. This past week has been a tumultuous time for our country with millions upon millions angry, demanding the end to the usurpation of our human rights. These calls have fallen on deaf ears. Canada, the great untamed frontier, still seems to have politicians who put people over policy. What a topsy-turvy world we live in that we Americans finally look northward for leadership! Maybe it's time we held our own Boxing Day.

No no no. Socialism is bad, mmmmmkay?

Re:A politician that listens. What a difference (1)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 3 years ago | (#34337612)

Yes, of course, you're right. Politicians that listen to the public are weak. We should have politicians rule us like the plebes we are.

Re:A politician that listens. What a difference (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 3 years ago | (#34337768)

I think the word you're looking for is proles [wikipedia.org] .

Re:A politician that listens. What a difference (1)

vux984 (928602) | more than 3 years ago | (#34338568)

I think the word you're looking for is proles

I think plebes is a perfectly suitable word.

Its a contraction of "plebeian". It comes from Roman times; where society was divided into the patricians (the elite upper class), the plebeians (the middle/lower class), and slaves. Today its its an insult, meaning that they are inferior and/or ignorant -- which is likely the intended meaning here.

As an aside plebeian is particularly suitable, because for a long while they were forbidden to know the law, but were of course still held responsible if they broke them.

Proles or proletariat is also the lower/bottom class, but they are defined more in terms as having no property. Although somewhat synonomous to plebeian. I think plebeian is really the more fitting word than prole here.

Re:A politician that listens. What a difference (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 3 years ago | (#34338950)

Yes, I'm aware of what the term plebe means. I was referring to proles in the 1984 sense, not the "short for proletariat" sense. If you haven't read it, go read it. It will make what's happening in the U.S. right now seem all the more disturbing. You have the party members, who are kept under strict dogmatic control and are not allowed to stray from the party's position (how very Republican) or to question anything the government does, and then you have the proles, who despite having no real freedom, are given enough of an illusion of freedom that they can't be moved to rebel. They believe whatever the government says even when the government is lying egregiously in ways that should be obvious to anyone who chooses to pay attention.

Re:A politician that listens. What a difference (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34337682)

> This past week has been a tumultuous time for our country with millions upon millions angry,

Would that be why all the headlines so far have said things like "Opt-Outs Largely No-Shows", and "Opt-Out Day Turns into a Non-Event"?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/11/24/national.opt.out.day/index.html [cnn.com]

Don't make the mistake of thinking a little bit of outrage on Slashdot and a few other sites amounts to a hill of beans in a population of 300 million.

i hate to tell u about Canadian libel law (1)

hildi (868839) | more than 3 years ago | (#34338238)

just google it. i hate to break your love for canadian 'freedom' but, it ain't that free.

Re:A politician that listens. What a difference (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#34338712)

My representative is great at listening. Doesn't make a damned bit of difference in what he does, but he will definitely listen to you.

Oh, THAT North America (-1, Troll)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 3 years ago | (#34337464)

I thought you meant the real one. Next time just say Canada.

Yes, even though they are more North. The thing is, it's too North.

Open letter in Flash? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34337538)

Why do we need to allow Flash to read the letter? It's a letter ffs, it should be in text or html format.

Re:Open letter in Flash? (1)

B4light (1144317) | more than 3 years ago | (#34337710)

Allow Flash by default and it'll work

Re:Open letter in Flash? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34337820)

You're reply is beside the issue. Those who know how to block flash do know how to unblock it.
The point is: why do we need to allow scripts to run to read a freaking letter??

Re:Open letter in Flash? (3, Informative)

PeterBrett (780946) | more than 3 years ago | (#34337972)

Why do we need to allow Flash to read the letter? It's a letter ffs, it should be in text or html format.

I just posted the PDF on our website [pirateparty.org.uk]

Yeah, I hate scribd too.

Like herding cats... (1)

Grapplebeam (1892878) | more than 3 years ago | (#34337556)

Except the cats are the ones who are extra unruly, and possibly feral. Getting anonymous to collectively do anything is near impossible without actual results. You want them to stop? Get a law written with support from other politicians that fixes all of this. Then again, because that will literally never happen, you will never get them to stop their attacks. The heart of the problem is capitalism itself, and socialism still has a lot in common with capitalism. Even if this is all accomplished in Canada, it won't stop American anonymous, so I guess the only way to get them to do this is fix copyright law in Canada (fat chance) then use NAFTA and other trade agreements to somehow use Canada's IPs (do they have any) to get American law to change to something more reasonable (snowball's chance in hell) and then somehow make the RIAA and MPAA less bastardly (completely impossible).

Update (3, Informative)

airfoobar (1853132) | more than 3 years ago | (#34337600)

O:P have replied to the Pirate Parties (link to pdf on their website [anonops.net] ), and basically told them to F off.

Re:Update (4, Insightful)

Xacid (560407) | more than 3 years ago | (#34338176)

"and basically told them to F off"? Umm, no. From your own link: "We recognize and respect the work of all the Pirate Parties and wish them luck. We hope that they all continue their fight as they think is right. And so will we fight, as we think is right." That's a mile away from telling anyone to "F off". They're supporting the same cause - they're just not aligned in their methodology.

Re:Update (1)

Andy_R (114137) | more than 3 years ago | (#34338200)

Indeed... while other O:P people have said they would stop.

The end result is that politicians of other parties will be less able to confuse O:P with the PP, and less able to dismiss the PP as rogue lawbreakers, since the PP can truthfull say they did more than anyone else to try and get O:P to behave lawfully.

Breaking Into North American Politics? (1)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 3 years ago | (#34337662)

I dunno... it sounds.... haaaaard!

Candidate's single sign... (4, Interesting)

adonoman (624929) | more than 3 years ago | (#34337740)

Given Mr. Coleman's limited budget, to save save money, he only used a single campaign sign [youtube.com] and posted it on the web. It's an interesting take on IP rights, given that the used another sign to create his.

Anonymous is people. (3, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34337816)

one should equate it to the masses in front of the guillotine back in 18th century. it is not wise, to keep ignoring their will, despite they having started to openly express it and become aggressive over it. last batch to do that, had their heads in a bucket.

Re:Anonymous is people. (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 3 years ago | (#34337980)

This doesn't work in the anglosphere unfortunately. The English had a revolution, remember, and they went promptly back to a monarchy, which they still have in the 21st century and no sign of wanting to change. And while the Americans overthrew the British yoke, that's a far cry from exterminating the nobles and clergy and reinventing society from the ground up, as was the goal in France.

Something in the collective psyche of the English speaking world seems to favour appeasement and compromise with the ruling classes, rather than killing them outright and replacing them and all of their legacy.

Re:Anonymous is people. (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34338208)

thats an interesting approach. or is it that, the old world still dominating the new, through its influence ?

Re:Anonymous is people. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34338762)

This doesn't work in the anglosphere unfortunately. The English had a revolution, remember, and they went promptly back to a monarchy, which they still have in the 21st century and no sign of wanting to change. And while the Americans overthrew the British yoke, that's a far cry from exterminating the nobles and clergy and reinventing society from the ground up, as was the goal in France.

Something in the collective psyche of the English speaking world seems
to favour appeasement and compromise with the ruling classes, rather than killing them outright and replacing them and all of their legacy.

'

Hmmmm.... As I remember the French Revolution the revolutionaries did exactly what you propose. They ended up killing each other because each faction found the other factions not quire politically correct enough for their own purposes. The French revolution is evidence that the goal of changing society for the better through getting rid of the clergy and God doesn't work. The Soviet Union found out the same thing. Remove God from society and it falls apart and degenerates into mass drug abuse through the lack of hope and destruction of morality that looks to something greater than humanity itself. Remember, the Soviet Union had alcoholism rates of over 50% in the general population, and the government murdered millions of its own citizens.

Same goals, same approach, and same results: death, hopelessness and the destruction of the society and the repression of the best and brightest the societies had to offer. The French even threw Thomas Paine into prison because he came to understand what they were doing couldn't work and spoke out about what he saw.

And you want to repeat the same mistakes all over again? You need to remember the definition of insanity: Doing the same things all over again and expecting different results.

Re:Anonymous is people. (1)

mirix (1649853) | more than 3 years ago | (#34338866)

The Soviet Union found out the same thing. Remove God from society and it falls apart and degenerates into mass drug abuse through the lack of hope and destruction of morality that looks to something greater than humanity itself. Remember, the Soviet Union had alcoholism rates of over 50% in the general population, and the government murdered millions of its own citizens.

Drug use is way up in the former Soviet Union, Now that God is back, taking care of his flock.

I'm not certain, but believe alcoholism is fairly level (and probably was the same during the tsar era, no less). The difference now is the worst drunks no longer have state housing and end up homeless. Birth rates are way down without the state supporting single mothers and such (although they are working on this, I think Putin announced some grants for children recently). Although the Oligarchs are definitely in better shape now.

"MOSCOW, December 3 (RIA Novosti) - Drug use in Russia has increased almost tenfold since 1990, the head of the Federal Drug Control Service said on Wednesday. "
source [en.rian.ru]

Re:Anonymous is people. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34338998)

If you call 27-37% of the population claiming to have a belief in God the mainstream of Russian society, then you might have a point. However, even those numbers are skewed because most of them are Eastern Orthodox church members which was the state "religion" under communism and any state religion is nothing more than formalism that has no power to give life and hope to the soul as it has been co-opted by the state. So, basically it's a country in which only 12-17% of the population has any idea of who God is. That's not a country that believes in God.

Re:Anonymous is people. (1)

Shadow99_1 (86250) | more than 3 years ago | (#34338008)

Well the problem with ever finding their heads in the bucket is that the overwhelming military might is now on their side, as it has become since at least WW I. As long as they retain the support of the military they are confident their heads will stay in place.

Well that and they have spent ages creating public apathy along with their corporate friends...

Re:Anonymous is people. (1)

yariv (1107831) | more than 3 years ago | (#34338462)

The idea that no one ignored "the masses" since the French revolution is simply ignorant. You can see all sorts of riots since then, including in the US, which ended in nothing at all, or sometimes small compromises by the government. You simply don't understand the level of unrest required for a revolution, IP will never be enough, an economic collapse that will cause lack of food supplies might do it...

Oh, and stop romanticising the revolution, they beheaded not only the king, but tens of thousands, most of which were not part of the previous government. Thomas Paine was sentenced to the guillotine. It's not a coincidence they call (part of) it "The Reign of Terror".

nay (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34338556)

noone ignored the masses since french revolution. they always paid them attention. they rarely gave them what they wanted, but, they never ignored masses, for they knew that how it would end, if they did.

Re:nay (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34338906)

Splitting hairs and excessive comma splicing.

Best be sure you aren't next in line for the chop. (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 3 years ago | (#34338860)

one should equate it to the masses in front of the guillotine back in 18th century. it is not wise, to keep ignoring their will, despite they having started to openly express it and become aggressive over it. last batch to do that, had their heads in a bucket.

21% of peak Internet traffic in North America is a Netflix stream.

YouTube Video 10% Flash Video 6%. Everything BitTorrent, 10%. Video's Expanding Bandwidth, and What It Means for Internet Traffic [seekingalpha.com] [Nov 19]

Netflix reached those numbers with only a bare 2% of it's 15 million paying subscribers streaming video.

300,000.

That would put the number of prime time video pirates at less than 30,000.

Jamie Thomas took her case before three civil juries. Each one of which handed her head back to her on a plate.

It seems that nothing pisses off the masses quite like the geek's sense of entitlement.

 

Pushing more people to underground ? morons. (3, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34337948)

let me see. i have qualified in first 500 out of 1.5 million youth who took the national university entrance exam in my country during my generation (a very hard exam that people prepare for 3 years, like tokyo u entrance exams), i have entered a university that is in the first in my nation, and have been sending graduates to teach in schools like MIT (yeah the one in usa) for a long time. (actually my professor was flying to mit to give lessons, and flying back, while teaching us), i have quit college, not wanting to go on with a career, and out of nowhere, with nothing, i have learned coding/programming/databases and established myself as a professional in the field for 5 years now, with clients from all over the world.

during this time, i havent engaged in any illegal activity. havent been involved with the underground world, hacks, cracks, phreaks, and all that goes about it, despite i had ample opportunities, like any tech-savvy i.t. person that lives today.

but rip my freedoms off that way, and you will push a lot of people like me, to underground, with a cause. and, i assure you, pushing that many smart people that way, is not a good thing.

just saying.

i dislike but have no proof of... (1)

jappleng (1805148) | more than 3 years ago | (#34338010)

I dislike the idea of pirating simply because it can potentially take away earnings from the developers and possibly even cost the studio to release feature-less games if they got hit hard the first time around. However, numbers show that loyal gamers (for example) will pay full-price for a game and making $350million on the first day of selling Black Ops, I can say that the studio got more in return just from day 1 alone, and they expect to break $500mil with ease with just this one game. When I buy games on my 360, PS3, or PC, I tend to get addicted to the online features that you get (mostly achievements) when available, and these are the kind of things that properly programmed games won't be able to offer for pirated copies unless there's a underground server hosting it. Currently there is no proof that in the gaming industry at the very least, that people who pirate would have purchased the game if pirating wouldn't be an option. Rather, they would probably in my assumption buy a used game at Gamestop which is about on par with pirating if you think about it. When you buy a used game, the developers don't get royalties, so pirating is roughly the same as buying a used game or borrowing a game from someone in those terms. However, the gaming industry is doing a killing and the A++ titles are often making more money than blockbuster movies now. I will cut my post short from talking about movies, music and stuff but I just want to say that if they want to fight against piracy, they should offer A) service for free like on hulu for those who don't want to pay and B) lowered price in DVD and Bluray titles like $2 for DVD $4 for HD. That would be a great start :)

Need a name change... seriously. (0)

mark-t (151149) | more than 3 years ago | (#34338288)

Piracy is illegal. Period. Whether or not they actually condone such actions is wholly superfluous to the fact that by having that term in their name, they implicitly (and strongly) associate themselves with the advocation of illegal activities. Again, whether they mean to do this is quite irrelevant. They must change their name before they have even the slightest *hope* of being taken seriously in Canada. Otherwise it's just the rhino party all over again, as far as most people will be concerned.

If they want to get any real votes, let alone seats in parliament, then they need to change their name to something respectable. If they aren't willing to, it just ends up looking like they just want attention.

Adopting Pejoratives is a time honored tradition (1)

istartedi (132515) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339078)

For example, "Black" was pejorative. The accepted term at the time was "Negro", which has turned around and become a pejorative. Similarly, "queer" was also an insult, and it became the name of a movement.

If you unfairly treat X to the point where X has a higher moral claim then you do, then eventually X becomes a compliment.

When "pirates" were copying floppies and the industry was simply saying "don't do that", the industry seemed to have the moral high ground. In those days, I was on the side of the industry. When they started laying six figure judgements on students, they lost me. I'd be proud to call myself a pirate now.

Anon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34338294)

lol they will never stop lol if the Pirate Party doesnt get the rules then we are all doomed.

3. We are Anonymous
4. Anonymous is legion
5. Anonymous never forgives

When you mix that with anon and legion doing most things for the lulz.....

And upon what authority (1)

horza (87255) | more than 3 years ago | (#34338382)

Very disappointed in the Pirate Party. If they were winning seats in elections, successfully introducing legslation into parliaments, and making headway in making reforms relecting their policies, then I would understand their calls for Anon to stand down. However, I cannot see what platform upon which they have built their moral authority.

They can distance themselves from illegal actions, other than the illegal actions that *they* have decided should not be illegal, but maybe they should concentrate on changing the system from within in the way they wish rather than ordering the cessation of the civil disobedience actions of Anon. They know perfectly well Anon doesn't care what anybody else thinks and such pointless political grandstanding is a little unpleasant.

Phillip.

http://www.famalegoods.com (-1, Offtopic)

falas107 (1946890) | more than 3 years ago | (#34338610)

welcome to: W W W ( famalegoods ) c o m The website wholesale for many kinds of fashion shoes, like the nike,jordan,prada,****, also including the jeans,shirts,bags,hat and the decorations. All the products are free shipping, and the the price is competitive, and also can accept the paypal payment.,after the payment, can ship within short time. free shipping competitive price any size available accept the paypal W W W ( famalegoods ) c o m jordan shoes $32 nike shox $32 Christan Audigier bikini $23 Ed Hardy Bikini $23 Smful short_t-shirt_woman $15 ed hardy short_tank_woman $16 Sandal $32 christian louboutin $80 Sunglass $15 COACH_Necklace $27 handbag $33 AF tank woman $17 puma slipper woman $30 W W W ( famalegoods ) c o m

Anonymous has "a spokesperson?" (1)

Phat_Tony (661117) | more than 3 years ago | (#34338750)

Anonymous’ spokesperson...

I'm sorry, who?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?