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 Releases Book of Pirate Politics

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the entitled-yarr-yarr-end-copyright-yarr dept.

Piracy 158

ktetch-pirate writes "If the SOPA/PIPA blackouts were a wakeup call to many people, then the U.S. Pirate Party has released a book that might help explain some of the issues. The book covers issues such as Corporate Personhood, the 4th Amendment, the history of copyright, and how DRM laws are made. There are even cartoons from Nina Paley throughout to add a bit of humor. DRM-free eBook versions are available to download from the book's site, or you can buy a paperback edition from Amazon for ten bucks." The book is under the CC BY-NC-SA, and features essays from the likes of Lawrence Lessig and Rick Falkvinge.

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

Y'ar they be no true pirates! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38810437)

True pirates only believe in a keg of rum and a fair splittin' o' the booty!

Re:Y'ar they love BLACK COCK (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38810459)

True pirates only believe in a keg of rum and a fair splittin' o' the booty!

My cock and balls split yo mama's booty.

Re:Y'ar they be no true pirates! (1)

Austerity Empowers (669817) | more than 2 years ago | (#38810617)

Yar, I think we all be appreciatin' a nice booty! Shiver me timber.

Re:Y'ar they be no true pirates! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38810675)

Yar, I think we all be appreciatin' a nice booty! Shiver me timber.

My cock can shiver your ugula.

Re:Y'ar they be no true pirates! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38810985)

Avast, have ye got a mirror for that booty so as to share the wealth?

Re:Y'ar they be no true pirates! (3, Informative)

Tuoqui (1091447) | more than 2 years ago | (#38812045)

Link to the torrent file for those who hit the slashdotted website. Viva La Bittorrent!

http://bit.ly/x5gtHe [bit.ly]

Re:Y'ar they be no true pirates! (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38812783)

A book on Pirate Bollocks? Bollocks!

Running through my head... (5, Funny)

sonoftheright (1372723) | more than 2 years ago | (#38810479)

... are thoughts concerning the possible destruction of the universe were I to pirate the Pirate Party's book on Pirate Politics.

Re:Running through my head... (4, Funny)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#38810495)

Pretty sure that's why it's DRM-free. For the sake of the Universe.

Re:Running through my head... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38811681)

Many bothans died to bring us this insight!

Re:Running through my head... (1)

ClintJCL (264898) | more than 2 years ago | (#38810519)

You wouldn't need to, since TFA said they have it to download for free. The only way you could pirate it would be to buy a paperback and manufacture conterfeit paperback copies.

Re:Running through my head... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38810593)

or he could sell counterfit "No Safe Port" ebooks :>

Re:Running through my head... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38811171)

Just because someone releases something for free doesn't mean they also release the license to allow further distribution and copying by an independent unlicensed third party.

If they are releasing this as a truly free and unlicensed document, I could make troll version that either completely replace all the text with some meme or change a few words slightly to distort the goals of the paper and then re-release it using the same exact authors, title, etc. without them being able to stop me. If I was a pretty powerful entity, I could make hundreds of zombie sites that link back to my copy and rather quickly be #1 or #2 in search results and buy out domains and keywords related to the document and releasing entity.

Re:Running through my head... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38811341)

No that would violate defamation laws. Duh. Further, if I was a powerful entity I would just write my own astroturf. They could have released it without a copyright with no issues. They are being hypocrites. I could never understand why people would hate the system around copyright then turn around and say the only way to fight it is by using it.

Re:Running through my head... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38811303)

No...because of the license, if you were to take the work, adapt it into a new, commercial work and either did not give them attribution or made it look like they endorsed your new work, you would be violating the license and would technically be pirating it. Part of me would find it hilarious if the MPAA or RIAA purposefully did this and started selling it for a penny. Although they'd have to be very careful or their adaptation may stray into the realm of a protected parody.

Re:Running through my head... (1)

cp.tar (871488) | more than 2 years ago | (#38812075)

If they did that, they’d get hit with the very same rules they’re forcing on us. It would be more than hilarious.

Re:Running through my head... (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 2 years ago | (#38811309)

I assume that would be perfectly OK, because they are totally against copyright.

Re:Running through my head... (1)

cp.tar (871488) | more than 2 years ago | (#38812029)

Well, the Pirate Party published a pamphlet on pirate politics precisely to prevent people from possibly pirating it by putting it up for purchase-less download.

Re:Running through my head... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38813093)

Possibly, but I'd speculate one person proposed a peaceful publishment for pretty impressive proliferation of their propoganda. Poor permissions would make the pamphlets less appealing and dampen acceptable penetration. Perhaps preventing interplanetary pandemonium was pure serendipity.

Re:Running through my head... (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 2 years ago | (#38813887)

... are thoughts concerning the possible destruction of the universe were I to pirate the Pirate Party's book on Pirate Politics.

...while through my mind runs a different tale of Universal destruction by Pirates, wherein I ask The Pirate Bay to print me a 3D printer with their 3D printer.

Great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38810485)

Finally some actual literature on the anti-SOPA/anti-PIPA issues, rather than incessant webcomics and memes.

Re:Great! (1)

Tuoqui (1091447) | more than 2 years ago | (#38811787)

If Slashdotted get it from the torrent...

http://bit.ly/x5gtHe [bit.ly]

Fair day's pay for fair day's work (5, Insightful)

Kevin McCready (1553337) | more than 2 years ago | (#38810499)

Hopefully we might one day move towards the revolutionary notion of a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. Yes I know it's terribly problematic determining the parameters, but if the principle was accepted we'd be a lot further ahead.

Re:Fair day's pay for fair day's work (2)

davester666 (731373) | more than 2 years ago | (#38810611)

False. We must all work to support the ability for individuals to become billionaires.

Of course, don't tell anybody that for one person to become a billionaire, a WHOLE LOTTA people have to be zeroinares.

Re:Fair day's pay for fair day's work (2)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 2 years ago | (#38810917)

Yes, don't. Especially since it's wrong [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Fair day's pay for fair day's work (4, Insightful)

Flammon (4726) | more than 2 years ago | (#38810869)

Exactly! Doing something once and getting paid a hundred million times for it is a loophole in our system and it desperately needs to be fixed. Sadly the people who took advantage of this loophole have made enough money which has given them power to control the goverment and preserve the loophole.

Re:Fair day's pay for fair day's work (0)

kiwimate (458274) | more than 2 years ago | (#38811099)

Exactly! Doing something once and getting paid a hundred million times for it is a loophole in our system and it desperately needs to be fixed.

Why?

Re:Fair day's pay for fair day's work (5, Insightful)

Fned (43219) | more than 2 years ago | (#38811951)

1) Because it produces no value. Copyright is meant to encourage the creation of new works by rewarding the creator, rewarding the creator is not the end goal. There is some encouragement provided by creators seeing a tiny, tiny percentage of other creators become rich, but that effect is more than nullified by the chilling effect of big media locking down the public domain for ever and ever. Eventually, no one will be able to create anything new without paying someone a fee based on some ancient crap no one except the rights-holder remembers.

2) Because copyright as it currently stands is incompatible with computers. Copyright seeks to monetize individual packets of information, and individual packets of information inside a computer system have zero value; in fact, individual packets of information in a computer can't even be made to have value without breaking the computer, since all a computer actually does is separate information from permanent media so that you can copy, destroy, or muck about with it at no cost.
Copies mean nothing in Computerland, only creation and access have value.

Re:Fair day's pay for fair day's work (1)

Karlb (87776) | more than 2 years ago | (#38813215)

So... given the man power/logistical overhead of producing say an application/film/book/music/etc how would you suggest that cost is recouped (with a reasonable profit margin, cos, hey most of us need jobs right?)

Not mocking, I am actually curious

Re:Fair day's pay for fair day's work (1)

kiwimate (458274) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814771)

Because it produces no value. Copyright is meant to encourage the creation of new works by rewarding the creator, rewarding the creator is not the end goal.

And how does piracy change this?

Because copyright as it currently stands is incompatible with computers. Copyright seeks to monetize individual packets of information, and individual packets of information inside a computer system have zero value

You might just as well say individual letters of the alphabet have zero value. Or individual globs of paint have zero value.

I like Karlb's question on your post. How do you respond?

Re:Fair day's pay for fair day's work (2)

jd2112 (1535857) | more than 2 years ago | (#38811997)

Exactly! Doing something once and getting paid a hundred million times for it is a loophole in our system and it desperately needs to be fixed.

Why?

It's called "The Golden Rule". He who has the gold makes the rules.

Re:Fair day's pay for fair day's work (0)

operagost (62405) | more than 2 years ago | (#38811331)

I can imagine the quality of music and movies we would have if you could only count on being paid for them once. I think the new ticket price would be $100,000,000.

Re:Fair day's pay for fair day's work (1)

Flammon (4726) | more than 2 years ago | (#38811989)

How about copy protection until the creators have made a reasonable profit. That goes for software, music, movies, patents, drugs etc.

RANSOMWARE (KICKSTARTER model) (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38813653)

Any product that can be deliniated in a computer file can be 'held hostage' until the ransom is paid to the creator [who charges enough up front s/he doesn't care about any subsequent piracy and lost revenue] by those interested in paying part of the ransom. Once the ransom is paid, the file is distributed. The creator got paid. The buyers got what they wanted -- everybody wins. Otherwise NO MONEY CHANGES HANDS.

See Kickstarter

http://www.kickstarter.com/

One Kickstarter project I saw got completely funded for the mid-4 figures in THE FIRST 24 HOURS of the 30-day campaign!

There were enough supporters willing to support this particular project.

CAPTCHA: retail [kickstarter + sane pricing + co-operation = the antidote for the retail model of sales which is fraught with expensive 'overhead' which is passed on to the people who buy the stuff at the end of the line.]

Re:Fair day's pay for fair day's work (1)

mayko (1630637) | more than 2 years ago | (#38812051)

Seriously? I think Brittany Spears was making like 1.2 million per show on one of her tours, not bad for a night's work. I imagine she'd still be just as popular had everyone gotten her damn music for free. Performers should get paid for performances. Sell the digital music cheap to drum up fans and excitement. Don't worry about a few downloads... just more fans who may eventually drop 100 bucks a ticket to come see a show.

Re:Fair day's pay for fair day's work (3, Insightful)

Fned (43219) | more than 2 years ago | (#38812065)

Nearly everyone involved with actually making movies -- directors, actors, crew, caterers, editors, foley artists, stuntmen, gophers -- gets paid once for each movie.

So, I rather suspect the ticket price would be exactly what it is now, except everyone who wants to see the film would need to buy a ticket before the movie starts getting made.

The parasites that actually DO get paid over and over, and then cook the books so that it looks like they're not making a profit and therefore don't have to pay anyone royalties? Those guys? They'd be fucked. Everyone else from the scriptwriter to the moviegoer would be just fine.

This idea that copies are worth something is an idea that people are going to have to learn to let go of if they want to join the rest of us here in the computer age.

Re:Fair day's pay for fair day's work (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38814903)

This idea that copies are worth something is an idea that people are going to have to learn to let go of if they want to join the rest of us here in the computer age.

Case in point:

TITANIC OST CD BY JAMES HORNER
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanic_(soundtrack)

Value in 1997/1998: About $20.00 brand new
Value in 2008/2009: $0.25 used (I called a place that bought used CDs).
Value in 2012: $0.01 (plus shipping) on Amazon used (10.40 new)

But I bought it back in 1998 for its artistic value and it one of only a handful of scores where
EVERY track on the CD is worth listening to. Even better when a score (such as this one) can transcend
'background music' status and can be enjoyed WITHOUT watching the movie it was scored for.

If this isn't proof that the value of physical media is essentially $0, I don't know what is.
[Of course, 30 million copies got pressed so that is probably why its so cheap.]

The internet has driven down the price of entertainment IP. You can get old movies at WAL-MART for $5.00 per movie (or more movies for $5.00 if the movies are OLD and related)

Today, the value of data is only linked to its size and the prevailing cost of storage media (i.e. hard disks)
in order to determine its 'true' value.

ORIGINAL CAPTCHA: purging [what the Internet has doen to the value of physical entertainment media]

Re:Fair day's pay for fair day's work (1)

morgauxo (974071) | more than 2 years ago | (#38815113)

Of course.. without all those movies people might actually get up off their fat asses now and then and actually live interesting lives.
nah.............

Idealism vs Reality (2)

Brain-Fu (1274756) | more than 2 years ago | (#38811093)

The value of a unit of work entirely depends upon the perceptions of the people who benefit from said work. As such, it varies with many variables, including location, culture, material availability, labor availability, alternative benefit availability, time, etc.

It is very easy to deem that someone else is overpaid because of the low value their output has to you personally, without taking into account the high value it may have to the people who are actually paying for it. The opposite is also true.

The matter is further complicated by the possibility of economic predation, where people can position themselves so as to be able to force the extraction of pay that is way beyond the value provided in anyone's perception. Though this is the most visible and most hated issue driving income inequality, the other variables contribute just as significantly to the imbalances (or the incorrect perception thereof).

Re:Fair day's pay for fair day's work (0)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#38811677)

Socialism has already failed doing that.

Re:Fair day's pay for fair day's work (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38812773)

Yeah. Socialism is like... evil and shit. I disagree with it so it's bad. I know that's true because I heard it on a news station!

Re:Fair day's pay for fair day's work (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38813543)

Yeah. Socialism is like... evil and shit. I disagree with it so it's bad. I know that's true because I heard it on a news station!

Yeah it is evil ... you need a brain to figure it out , though ...

Re:Fair day's pay for fair day's work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38814645)

So has capitalism.

Suggestions?

Re:Fair day's pay for fair day's work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38813005)

People already receive a fair day's pay for a fair day's work - it is the price they are offered for their work.

Education (4, Insightful)

omganton (2554342) | more than 2 years ago | (#38810531)

I have been waiting for this. Blackouts and protests can raise awareness, but those interested yet lacking knowledge require a targeted repository of information on the issues at hand. The distribution of knowledge is the best way to prepare the masses for the lengthy and technical debates that are sure to arise regarding SOPA/PIPA in the following years.

Re:Education (4, Funny)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 2 years ago | (#38810683)

I've been waiting for it too.

The book is under the CC BY-NC-SA

Ha! I'm going to sell it without attribution. What are you going to do about it, Pirate Party?!

Re:Education (4, Funny)

Tokolosh (1256448) | more than 2 years ago | (#38811273)

Put it on Megapload.

Re:Education (0)

sourcerror (1718066) | more than 2 years ago | (#38811501)

Order you pizza and hookers. Oh and your password is hunter2.

Re:Education (4, Insightful)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 2 years ago | (#38811557)

Ha! I'm going to sell it without attribution. What are you going to do about it, Pirate Party?!

The Pirate Party opposes the present understanding of copyright, but it does not oppose the moral right of the author to be credited. It can be argued that copyright is a recent innovation (the early US legislation noted that it is a government fiat to spur creation, not a natural right) and alien to most people, but claims that authors have the right to be credited stretch far back into antiquity.

Basically, copyright violation and plagiarism are two different issues.

Re:Education (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38812527)

They're different issues, but don't fool yourself about how one is a noble right that dates to antiquity. Shakespeare and his clan borrowed frequently without giving credit to anyone.

Re:Education (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 2 years ago | (#38813035)

The Pirate Party opposes the present understanding of copyright, but it does not oppose the moral right of the author to be credited.

Not quite. Their licence forbids others to sell copies of their book. That is indeed a copyright claim. They are trying to dictate what I do with the copies I make. How can they do that unless they claim to own them?

And what if I oppose the "moral right" of the author to be credited. What's to say the Pirate Party are right and I'm wrong? Has not the Pirate Party demonstrated that they believe the moral course of action for me is to act based on my beliefs, not the author's beliefs. Therefore they should understand when I sell copies of their book without attribution.

Basically, copyright violation and plagiarism are two different issues.

Burglary and robbery are two different issues.

Re:Education (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38813317)

Not quite. Their licence forbids others to sell copies of their book. That is indeed a copyright claim. They are trying to dictate what I do with the copies I make. How can they do that unless they claim to own them?

Oh, I'm sure that they don't mind if you sell copies of the book, if you get rid of copyright first.

You aren't arguing that they shouldn't be allowed to use copyright just because they don't support copyright, do you?

If it worked like that then I shouldn't have to pay tax since I don't support tax.
I should also not have to follow the law since I never approved of it. (Except for the cases where it benefits me.)

Since it's pretty much required to make a bad analogy: I don't think it is OK to hit people but if someone hits me I am sure going to hit back.

Re:Education (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38812905)

Capitalist) You're entering the market after them, with the same product, at a higher price. Good luck with that :)

Academic) Attribution itself may well be covered by real laws (copyright is more 'clown' than 'real' to me).

Gun user) The have reserved the right to take legal action against you but, presumably being decent human beings, they would try to reason with you first. Similarly, if you bump into someone which causes them to bang their knee on a table leg they will not just jump right in and sue you (unless they are disgusting people).

Libertarian) Even if they released the work under the CC0 licence, redistributing their work without attribution is a dick move akin to vandalising a Wikipedia page. People will find your action contemptible but are not about to start saying "there ought to be a law...".

There are so many things wrong with what you said I can't even ... hmm ... damn! I sense a squadron of whooshes bearing down on me. Have to run!

Re:Education (1)

Tuoqui (1091447) | more than 2 years ago | (#38811079)

Yeah the website is temporarily down due to slashdot...

LOIC got nothing on Slashdot :D

Re:Education (3, Informative)

ktetch-pirate (1850548) | more than 2 years ago | (#38811657)

DANGIT! We're gong to get the site back up ASAP! Meantime - Torrent - http://bit.ly/x5gtHe [bit.ly] TXT - http://bit.ly/xrPGl5 [bit.ly] ODT - http://bit.ly/zC6TE1 [bit.ly] RTF - http://bit.ly/xHI7MO [bit.ly] PDF - http://bit.ly/xVI0t1 [bit.ly] MOBI - http://bit.ly/wtYRQQ [bit.ly] EPUB - http://bit.ly/zt99zw [bit.ly]

Re:Education (2)

polymeris (902231) | more than 2 years ago | (#38813605)

Suprisingly, that actually is the book. No goatse or cheap luxury handbags.

Re:Education (2)

ktetch-pirate (1850548) | more than 2 years ago | (#38813819)

I'm not a dick like that. I't's my submission to slashdot. Thus I've got a vested interest in making sure y'all get the book!

...and Slashdot Takes It Down (0)

OverTheGeicoE (1743174) | more than 2 years ago | (#38810641)

Slashdotted. Figures.

Re:...and Slashdot Takes It Down (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38810717)

Guess I'll have to pirate it since I can't get it from the site.

Re:...and Slashdot Takes It Down (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38810813)

Enjoy http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.nosafeharbor.com/get&hl=en&strip=1

Re:...and Slashdot Takes It Down (1)

Tuoqui (1091447) | more than 2 years ago | (#38811163)

It might be up on www.tuebl.com soon if the site remains down much longer.

Linux on the desktop is dead (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38810697)

I tried Ubuntu and Mint, and I declare Linux to be now dead on the desktop.

As a note, I'm surprised to find more freedom in MacOS X than on Linux...

Cool! (0)

kiwimate (458274) | more than 2 years ago | (#38810703)

The book is under the CC BY-NC-SA

So it's copyrighted?

Re:Cool! (2)

Rostis (797) | more than 2 years ago | (#38811067)

That's a license, not a copyright. The copyright is by default.

Re:Cool! (4, Insightful)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 2 years ago | (#38811795)

The primary goal is copyright reform, not abolishment.
Copyright isn't evil; it's just being abused heavily.

Re:Cool! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38812623)

"Copyright isn't evil"

False! Copyright is most certainly evil in so far as it restricts a citizens ability to communicate with his peers (a 'copyright' law which only applies to companies may not be evil). The question is whether or not it is a necessary evil. Perhaps:

1) the current form of copyright (in the USA) is necessary for a healthy and functioning society with good quality of life;
2) a significantly reduced form of copyright will do just as well (or maybe even better);
3) a healthy, high quality of life society can exist without any form of copyright.

I'm eager to read the book and perhaps it can convince me of (2) where the opinion I've formed myself has been that (3) is the best choice for any community which treats internet access as a basic utility. Although I have thought about the necessity of copyright a lot over the last 10 years I'm certain I'll learn a lot more by reading this book.

Re:Cool! (1)

Score Whore (32328) | more than 2 years ago | (#38812829)

So here's a thought:

1) write books.
2) hold your copyright for the length of time you think is appropriate. this could be zero years.
3) after that time passes, release your books into the public domain.

If you are right that your options 2 or 3 are superior to the existing system then you'll become more successful than the people using the existing system and therefore everyone will use your approach to copyright.

My guess is that you won't be successful.

Re:Cool! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38814593)

Poorly formed experiment: the reason he wouldn't be "successful" is that in order for this to work, he would need to not use any of the established publishing companies, who would forbid this in their contract (if they even let you retain your own copyright at all). He would be forced to publish independently, in competetion with the majors with marketing/promotional budgets in the [mb]illions. His inevitable failure would not be proof that his approach doesn't work, merely that his approach doesn't effectively coexist with the current approach. Which is not to say that if his approach was adopted across the board, that it wouldn't work effectively.

Re:Cool! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38814817)

You mean like Cory Doctorow [wikipedia.org] ? (All (I think...) his fiction is Creative Commons and available for free on his website.)

Re:Cool! (1)

russotto (537200) | more than 2 years ago | (#38813379)

Copyright isn't evil; it's just being abused heavily.

If copyright isn't evil, why does it run around wearing a Snidely Whiplash mustache and tying people to railroad tracks? OK, they're mostly neckbeards and not maidens, but still...

Re:Cool! (1)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814051)

"Copyright isn't evil; it's just being abused heavily."

It's more then just abused heavily corporations have outright stolen the public domain, any attempt at reform will be blocked and consistently attacked again until it's back where it started. I really hate how ignorant some slashdotters are about copyright history.

Do you really think the people and companies behind the following will not attack and overturn reform at the first chance they get?

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

Re:Cool! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38811881)

Under US copyright law, every creative work is copyrighted as soon as it's fixed in a tangible medium.

I'll wait for the audiobook. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38810733)

Then I'll torrent it.

Corporate Personhood, worst conspiracy ever (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38810797)

Corporations are not considered actual people and do not have "the same rights" as actual people. They cannot vote, sit in a jury, or obtain a passport or driving license.

Corporations are however considered "legal persons", for very good reasons, and have a different set of rights. Many of the rights are overlapping, which makes a lot of sense, because just because you carry on your business through a company rather than in person should not make you lose any meaningful amount of rights. For example, whether you choose to sell burgers as Joe Bloggs (your real name) or Joe Bloggs Ltd should make no difference when it comes to whether you have protection against people falsely claiming you put rat meat in your burgers.

I wonder if the entire gigaconspiracy theory could have been avoided if whoever called them "legal persons" originally instead could have called them "Legal Organisations" with the same set of rights that "Legal Persons" have today.

Re:Corporate Personhood, worst conspiracy ever (4, Insightful)

pugugly (152978) | more than 2 years ago | (#38811111)

This neat theory that corporate personhood was a badly phrased but highly meaningless concept vanished the instant the Supreme Court extended the protections of freedom of speech to corporations. Combined with money == speech, corporations have rights unmatched by any but the wealthiest Citizens.

But thank you for playing and here's your copy of the home game

Re:Corporate Personhood, worst conspiracy ever (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38813209)

Let me think about the answer to that.

Oh wait, I have already answered. Did you even read my post? And yours is +5? What kind of asinine crackpots moderate here?

Quoting the reply I already wrote in the grandparent: "Many of the rights are overlapping, which makes a lot of sense, because just because you carry on your business through a company rather than in person should not make you lose any meaningful amount of rights. For example, whether you choose to sell burgers as Joe Bloggs (your real name) or Joe Bloggs Ltd should make no difference when it comes to whether you have protection against people falsely claiming you put rat meat in your burgers."

Substitute example with:

"For example, whether you choose to sell burgers as Joe Bloggs (your real name) or Joe Bloggs Ltd should make no difference when it comes to whether you have the right to tell people that your burgers are good".

Please read before posting.

Oh, and to round off:

"Combined with money == speech, corporations have rights unmatched by any but the wealthiest Citizens."

But not unmatched by several moderately wealthy citizens banding together and spending their money to speak one message together, which is kind of an exact analogy for how corporations function in this instance.

Re:Corporate Personhood, worst conspiracy ever (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38814209)

The value of a voice should not be determined by monetary wealth. There are practical problems to ensuring that however. It will always be easier for a wealthy person to publish a book than a poor person to do so. While corporations are just a bunch of people working together, those people are for the most part wealthy. There is also strength in numbers. Therefore, the wealthy (aka. the 1%) have an advantage due to their money and their numbers. Anti-corporate personhood is an attempt to level the field between the rich and poor by placing restrictions on corporations.

Re:Corporate Personhood, worst conspiracy ever (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38811427)

Corporations are however considered "legal persons"

Pretty much only in the United States of America. Why do corporations work perfectly well in the rest of the world without this strange legal shield of "personhood" that they neither earned nor deserve?

...whether you choose to sell burgers as Joe Bloggs (your real name) or Joe Bloggs Ltd should make no difference when it comes to whether you have protection against people falsely claiming you put rat meat in your burgers.

Why is it necessary for Joe Bloggs Ltd to be legally considered a person to protect Joe Bloggs? Why can Joe Bloggs not simply sue in his capacity as the owner of Joe Bloggs Ltd.?

Re:Corporate Personhood, worst conspiracy ever (1)

tabrisnet (722816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38812747)

In order to do so, might one also need to make the quorum shareholders of a publically traded corp each plaintiffs for any lawsuit that a corp wants to file ?

Limited personhood perhaps makes sense, but I'd call it merely a 'legal entity' that is empowered to do certain things (financial and legal transactions) and not do other things (vote, unrestricted speech, etc). But that is more complicated than just calling them persons en toto.

Site is down (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38810845)

Site seems to be down. Even direct IP does not work, anybody else having this problem?

"Humor", right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38810851)

There are even cartoons from Nina Paley throughout to add a bit of humor.

Look, it's from the Pirate Party. You don't have to pretend. We all know the cartoons don't add any humor and most likely just add an air of smug, borderline-solipsistic arrogance, using blunt, condescending, oversimplified metaphors that would make Jack Chick drool with envy.

*sigh* But, it'll be smug, borderline-solipsistic arrogance by one of our guys, so that makes it okay and better than the other guys' smug, borderline-solipsistic arrogance. Go team.

Re:"Humor", right (1)

Fned (43219) | more than 2 years ago | (#38813161)

blunt, condescending, oversimplified metaphors

When' you're combating heavily-armored paradoxes like "intellectual property", finesse and sharpness are poor tools. What's needed are maces, hammers, RPGs.

Once the shell is cracked, then you can be subtle.

Re:"Humor", right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38813619)

That analogy works almost as well as the ones comparing downloading music from BitTorrent to stealing a car.

Almost.

Using Piracy (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38810921)

Again they use one thing only to attach what they really want which is to censor the entire web. I want to use a banner on these pages, bose videowave [tvsmartreview.com] , bose videowave review [tvsmartreview.com] , and videowave [tvsmartreview.com] to make sure that people are aware of this. The SOPA/PIPA is not so much in my opinion about censorship or piracy, it's is an effort to shut down our communication in times of need. Other countries do this by shutting down internet and phone access in troubled times. Don't let this happen to us! When the feel like we are too organized, they will just block us. They must know something is around the corner that will require this or they wouldn't be doing it.

Write, call, email, do what you have to to stop this madness.

Using Piracy (-1, Offtopic)

cmstn (2560159) | more than 2 years ago | (#38811323)

I posted earlier using the same subject line........ just wasn't logged in. In case it didn't take I will say I don't like the use SOPA/PIPA to control how well we the people can organize and this is what it's really about. They are not interested in piracy, it is a prop to get what they really want. I will be posting on my pages bose videowave [tvsmartreview.com] , bose videowave review [tvsmartreview.com] , and videowave [tvsmartreview.com] to make people aware of it's true intent. Write, call, or email them to let them know you don't want all the attachments.

The first article is totally stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38811375)

The killing of an American overseas ... yeah, yeah, except they never mention he intentionally threw away his rights by declaring war on the US ... the rest of the book is probably just as stupid.

Slashdotted... if only... (1)

nilbog (732352) | more than 2 years ago | (#38811463)

The site to get the eBook is down. If only The Pirate party had access to some kind of distributed download system that could handle the traffic...

Re:Slashdotted... if only... (4, Informative)

ktetch-pirate (1850548) | more than 2 years ago | (#38811703)

It's available on torrent. We're using the canadian pirate party's CaPT torrent tracker. Magnet is magnet:?xt=urn:btih:79ADFF2965C672CC66F2AD54D67857BD3BAEEC61&dn=NoSafeHarbor_eBooks-USPirateParty&tr=http%3a//www.pirateparty.ca/tracker/announce.php OR the torrent file is http://bit.ly/x5gtHe [bit.ly] Keep track of @nosafeharbor for more info

Wait until my patent . . . (1)

NicknamesAreStupid (1040118) | more than 2 years ago | (#38811773)

. . . on 'giving ebooks away for free' comes out.

Can't download from a US internet connection. (1)

yanom (2512780) | more than 2 years ago | (#38812077)

Can't download from a US internet connection. Has the site been slashdotted or is it censored in the states?

Not particularly good (4, Informative)

frank_adrian314159 (469671) | more than 2 years ago | (#38812559)

I read the first few essays and, though I agree with the sentiments therein, I found most of them rather poorly written - either unsure of their target (e.g., most non-computer-geek persons will not know what a "zombie botnet" is and how it relates to DNS, which is also not described) or incredibly dense in legality or just scattered (jumping from point-to-point with little connection). As a document, the whole thing would be unreadable by the normal man on the street. If you actually want a good example of what a publisher and the editorial services they should provide bring to the table, you need do little more than try to read this document. The distance between where this document is and where it should be to be effective (which should demonstrate the amount of work it would take to bridge the gap) is also a good indicator as to why these intermediaries deserve to be paid for these efforts.

If you want to kill copyright, you should put out a document showing that the services of those paid by copyright is no longer necessary. This document, though heartfelt, is crap.

zit twins (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38813443)

https://www.facebook.com/zittwins?sk=app_182667455607

The US has a Pirate Party? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38813461)

That will probably be the reaction of many. Yes, it does. Unfortunately, there is no proportional representation so any vote in a state that was not cast in favor of the winner in that state, goes in the trash.

This has two effects:
* In states safely in hands of incumbents, it doesn't matter if you vote PP or not. You won't win. You don't get a voice.
* In states that are heavily contested (swing states), even PP supporters are tempted to vote R or D, just to make sure "the other guy" doesn't win, depending which side of the fence they are on.

This book will hopefully draw a lot of attention to the USPP; being able to get the message out might prove to be just as effective.

Re:The US has a Pirate Party? (1)

ktetch-pirate (1850548) | more than 2 years ago | (#38813849)

Thank you for this. That's actually the EXACT point of my first piece in the book, "Breaking the Two Party Two-Step"

Anti-American (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38813859)

It may be just me, but at least the copyright section seems very anti-American. Its anti-dark-ages-Catholic-Church also, but who isn't, really.

Is America the only country in the world after 1776? So why does the rest of the world get 2 paragraphs? The US wasn't even a party to the 1886 Berne Convention until the 1990s. Of course, in typical anti-American fashion, this must have been for evil purposes; America's so-called "freedom" is only lip service, its real aim is to enslave the world. (Anything to the contrary is anti-Party reactionary lies.) Not of course, because it is typical overpriced European crap.

The most European things of all - cars! The European Cars! - weren’t good enough for the American people. They all bought Toyota instead. This was an apocalypse-grade sign that Europe was approaching its end as industrial nations, unable to compete with Asia.

FTFY as well. (*Now* does it sound like b.s.?)

I mean, I know why no one ever cites foreign laws. America is the only place in the world with every law *ever* enacted by Congress available on Wikisource. (Well, actually, 1931 -1950 isn't, but is available elsewhere.) Laws, in America, unlike the UK, are *not* copyright, nor are even copyrightable, again unlike the UK. Its not like you could just print all the UK laws without violating needing permission. (WTF really?) German laws are hard to find, because like France, their messed up legal system (which is sooo awesome) results in completely new Constitutions (and governmental systems) every 50 years (because they worked so well.) (At least they aren't copyrighted though.)

At least make the effort to actually find non-American laws on the subject, and enlighten yourself people. I know it will be *extremely* difficult to actually find the law (which you are expected to know by heart) of a country outside America, but I can't do everything myself.

Re:Anti-American (1)

ktetch-pirate (1850548) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814179)

You know the author of that piece isn't American, right? He's actually Swedish. There's an 'about the authors' section at the end.

The cartoons are awesome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38814451)

...are there anywhere they are collected on their own?

seeding (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38814743)

http://bit.ly/x5gtHe

No response to inequity RMS raises re: software? (1)

jbn-o (555068) | more than 2 years ago | (#38815361)

I was hoping to find a Pirate Party response to Richard Stallman's essay [gnu.org] on how the Swedish Pirate Party's proposed short term of copyright creates a needlessly unequal opportunity between copylefted free software and proprietary software upon entry into the public domain. In the same essay Stallman proposes a fix that resolves the unequal opportunity.

It's the unequal results upon entering the PD that is unfair: Proprietors don't release source code so upon entry into the public domain their works would be redistributed as binaries without users being free to inspect or modify the work. By contrast users would be free to incorporate the formerly copyleft free software program. As Stallman points out, "the Pirate Party's proposal would give proprietary software developers the use of GPL-covered source code after 5 years, but it would not give free software developers the use of proprietary source code, not after 5 years or even 50 years". As he mentions, proprietary programs that timebomb themselves might remain useless even to users who merely want to run the program. Stallman wrote, "I could support a law that would make GPL-covered software's source code available in the public domain after 5 years, provided it has the same effect on proprietary software's source code. After all, copyleft is a means to an end (users' freedom), not an end in itself. And I'd rather not be an advocate for a stronger copyright.".

We should strive for equal opportunity for use upon entry into the PD but the Pirate Party's recommended copyright policy would allow proprietors to exempt themselves from the freeing effect of entry into the PD. Stallman's idea of requiring proprietary software escrow when the binaries are released seems eminently sensible to me. Then users would be on equal footing with formerly copylefted free software source and formerly proprietary software source entering the public domain.

If anyone can point me to a good response to Stallman's essay on this written by a Pirate Party representative I'd appreciate it. I've read the /. thread on Stallman's article and I didn't come across such a pointer.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?