Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Norway Liberal Party Wants Legal File Sharing

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the pirate-party-platform dept.

The Internet 563

dot-magnon writes "The Liberal Party of Norway (Venstre) passed a unanimous resolution that advocates legal file sharing. The party wants to legalise sharing of any copyrighted material for non-commercial use. It also proposes a ban on DRM technology, free sampling of other artists' material, and shortening the life span of copyright. The Liberal Party is the first Norwegian political party, and the first European mainstream political party, to advocate file sharing. The Liberal Party's youth wing proposed the resolution."

cancel ×

563 comments

Software? (2, Interesting)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 7 years ago | (#18744977)

It also proposes a ban on DRM technology

The article only mentions music - what about software? Would Apple and Microsoft have to provide DRM-free versions of their operating systems?

Re:Software? (-1)

Ygorl (688307) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745027)

This probably got addressed already, but Apple only provides DRM-free versions of their operating system.

Re:Software? (4, Informative)

pv2b (231846) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745125)

This probably got addressed already, but Apple only provides DRM-free versions of their operating system.
Mac OS X contains plenty of DRM. FairPlay technology which restricts copying of songs purchased through iTunes (or more precisely, prevents playback unless the DRM technology is used to unlock the file).

The DVD player software contains DRM software (though thoroughly ineffective, DVD-Jon has seen to that).

I've also heard there may be some DRM in OS X to prevent hackers from running Mac OS X on a generic PC -- but I'm not clued in on that area sufficiently to make a positive assertion of that.

Sure, you can argue that the DRM isn't active unless you have DRM:ed files, and it's the files that are the problem, and not the OS itself -- but the fact is that the DRMed files wouldn't be there if they weren't supported by software.

Re:Software? (1)

jZnat (793348) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745543)

I would guess that Apple would need to remove the DRM bits from their software they distribute with Mac OS X (namely the DRM crap in QuickTime). Microsoft, on the other hand, would have to rewrite Vista again in order to appease our DRM-hating overlords.

Re:Software? (2, Interesting)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745407)

but Apple only provides DRM-free versions of their operating system.

Really? Apple sells a version of OS X that I can run under vmware? I guess the osx86 project [osx86project.org] can shut down now.

Re:Software? (1)

tehmorph (844326) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745059)

Let's hope so. How about hardware, too? I can see that being a nice way to turn Norway into a haven for the computer underworld in the not-too-distant future.

Re:Software? (5, Informative)

Kjella (173770) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745291)

The actual resolution is quite more general, it uses the word "åndsverk" which can be translated pretty much to "copyrightable work". E.g. our copyright law is called "åndsverkloven".

Their english translation:
"Ban DRM: The Liberal Party states that anyone who has bought the right to use a product needs a technologically neutral way of using it. This means that distributors can not control how citizens wish to play back legally bought digital music. The Liberal Party wants to prohibit technical limitations on consumers' legal rights to freely use and distribute information and culture, collectively known as DRM. In cases where a ban on DRM would be outside Norwegian jurisdiction, products that use DRM technology need to clearly specify their scope of use before they are sold."

Trying to stay very literal:
"Ban against DRM: The Liberal Party is of the opinion that all that have bought the right to use a copyrightable work must have technology-neutral opportunities to use that copyrightable work as one wants. This means that producers and deliverers of technology can not control how citizens for example should play back the music that they have bought. The Liberal Party will therefore prohibit socalled DRM (Digital Rights Management), which are technical limitations to limit the consumers' legal right to freely copy and use information and culture. In those cases where a ban is outside Norwegian jurisdiction, products that contain DRM technlogy shall be clearly marked."

Worse English, but it preserves a little more of the meaning.

Technological neutrality (1)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745545)

Does this mean that software bought to run on a Windows PC should also run on a Mac, Linux PC, whatever?

Re:Software? (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745319)

If DRM is outlawed so the operating systems' protective features won't even have to kick in, does it really matter practically?

I mean, a copy of Vista playing mp3's or DVD's from Pirate Bay won't begin starting up its DRM junk.

Re:Software? (3, Funny)

3vi1 (544505) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745555)

Damn... When I started to read your post, I thought for sure it was going to say: "If DRM is outlawed, only outlaws will have DRM".

What? (5, Insightful)

gravesb (967413) | more than 7 years ago | (#18744985)

The political process working for the people?

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18744999)

Yep, working for the people who want to get stuff for free.

Now the people who aren't going to get paid for their work... that's a different matter entirely.

Re:What? (5, Interesting)

pv2b (231846) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745085)

Yep, working for the people who want to get stuff for free.

Now the people who aren't going to get paid for their work... that's a different matter entirely.
This mentality is behind a lot of misconceptions when it comes to pirate politics.

As Pirates (I am a member of the Swedish Pirate Party) we believe there is no inherent right in getting paid for copies. We do however believe in a right to charge for performing a work.

If artists who are out to make money stop producing due to copyright reform -- good riddance. There'll still be plenty of music and culture left, just as there has always been.

To take one example, in the Music Industry, even the big labels don't see recorded music as a product any more -- but rather as advertising for other events and products.

The fact is that technology for unlimited copying is here -- and the laws preventing private exploitation of this technology are outdated and counterproductive. With new technologies, people and products are made redundant. This happens all the time -- today nobody sees the sharp decline in sales and production of horse-whips after the widespread adoption of the automobile as a bad thing for example.

Re:What? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18745131)

Except that:
1. Music isn't the only thing that can be copyrighted. Movies can't exactly be performed live and neither can software.
2. Since the invention of the printing press there has been technology for nearly unlimited copying save for a small cost for the actual copy. The xerox allowed for private individuals to make copies. Copyrights exist exactly for this reason, saying technology makes it pointless means you don't know the first thing about them.

Re:What? (4, Insightful)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745189)

Movies can't exactly be performed live and neither can software.

Movies will still survive through private patronage or government subsidies. A number of important films that are acclaimed as triumphs of cinema were not expected to generate any profit, but the auteur was able to secure funding by people who appreciated his vision. And as for software, the point of the OP remains. People might not necessarily be paid for the duplication of software, but they may nonetheless be paid for its creation. Look at Google sponsoring Free Software projects.

Re:What? (0, Troll)

LaughingCoder (914424) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745251)

Government subsidized movies. Oh boy! I bet those will be entertaining (/sarcasm).

Re:What? (5, Insightful)

emilv (847905) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745275)

A big part of the Swedish movie industry is funded by the government.

Re:What? (4, Informative)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745335)

Government subsidized movies. Oh boy! I bet those will be entertaining (/sarcasm).

A number of European countries have the government subsidizing the arts. However, the government doesn't keep too much track of how the money is spent. Just look at IRCAM in France, a multi-million dollar music and acoustics research laboratory, generously funded by the French state, but whose musical output is entirely free of restraints. Similarly, much of Ingmar Bergman's films were made with state subsidies, and that didn't stop them from being considered masterpieces from film buffs and critics.

Re:What? (3, Insightful)

Khaed (544779) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745281)

Movies will still survive through private patronage or government subsidies

Please God, no. The last thing I want is for the government to be paying for movies to get made. There are a lot of movies made that absolutely fucking suck and I don't want tax dollars going towards subsidizing that. Or music, or books. I don't like it when the government bails out farmers or airlines, either.

If the government pays for movies to get made, not only are you paying for the movies you like, but you're paying for every movie that you think stinks. The idea of the next Gigli coming out of taxes is horrid. and I've seen the way governments run things, if the government made movies, most of them would be Gigli quality with a Waterworld budget.

Re:What? (4, Insightful)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745361)

Guess what, most European countries already have had governments subsidizing films for decades and decades, and the result has hardly been Gigli meets Waterworld. Try to remember that your country isn't the only one on Earth and that there are places out there where things are different.

Re:What? (1)

owlnation (858981) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745413)

Agreed, Governments need to stay out of any and all creative activities (creative accounting too, but that's wishful thinking....

But there are other possibilities. There's no reason movies can't be done as performances - Rocky Horror Show being one example. Movies can still make plenty of money as free downloads from sites with ads (text based please). And special edition collectors DVDs will still sell for movies at the thin end of the distribution tail.

(Note that under the proposed Norwegian system only the original producer has the right to make money from the product.)

Re:What? (1)

OECD (639690) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745469)

Movies will still survive through private patronage or government subsidies.

There's another option, one that we've already seen. Sell the 'bugs' on your show (those little ghosted images that are normally used for network ID.) Why advertise a network when you don't need one? Skip the network, get the advertisor to fund the project, and put his logo up in the bug's place. Then release it everywhere.

Fun part is, the more copies that are made, the more bang the advertisor gets for his buck. Later, you can sell bug-free DVDs for the hardcore fans.

This idea was brought up by an American scholar at an Aussie university, but I'm blanking on either name. I caught his speech on bittorrent a while back...

Re:What? (5, Insightful)

pv2b (231846) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745247)

Except that:
1. Music isn't the only thing that can be copyrighted. Movies can't exactly be performed live and neither can software.
2. Since the invention of the printing press there has been technology for nearly unlimited copying save for a small cost for the actual copy. The xerox allowed for private individuals to make copies. Copyrights exist exactly for this reason, saying technology makes it pointless means you don't know the first thing about them.


There's a big difference between the printing press, the xerox machine, and file sharing.

The printing press meant that organisations could suddenly print large numbers of copies of a single work. Production of copies wasn't the largest cost any more, it was the actual production of the content. Rightly, copyright was instated to prevent other bookprinters from profiteering off somebodyelses work. To this day, the Pirate Party does not condone or support copyright infringement for commercial gain.

The Xerox machine was a revolution in copying technology, but was very limited in its scope. It took considerable work to copy books with a xerox machine. It's self-regulating in that way. There wasn't really any pressure to update copyright laws because the societal impacts of the Xerox machine weren't nearly significant enough.

With file sharing and the Internet, suddenly anybody can make infinite copies at neglible cost of any information that can be stored digitally.

This is a *good thing*, and is a fact of life -- and the status quo can't be maintained through outdated legislation.

You make good points that making money off movies might be hard in the future, but the fact is that the big bucks in movies comes from movie theater tickets. The DVD sales are just extra cream on top, and those crappy cams and telecines you see on file sharing networks are definitely no substitute for the real thing.

Sure, DVD sales may diminish, but that's always been extra cream on top -- not the main bottom line.

Either way, if you start trying to charge for something that's more convenient than file sharing, they will come. It worked for All Of MP3 (shady non-compensation of artists aside), and it would work for the movie industry too. I for one would rather pay a few dollars to watch a movie in DVD-quality using streaming downloading (entirely possible with technology today) than having to wait a few hours to get it off bittorrent. Instead, the content industry has made their own "legitimate download" services more cumbersome than the illegal alternative, and it'll be their undoing.

Re:What? (1)

turbidostato (878842) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745523)

This article hides a very strong misconception. Maybe Norway is the first European country "...to legalise sharing of any copyrighted material for non-commercial use", but that's only because in most Europe cultural copyrighted material (everything but software, that is) is *already* -and always has been, free to be copied for non-commercial use.

Certainly the Pirate Party wants to go beyond this (since they want to include *all* copyrighted material, not only cultural, and they want to include mass media reproduction for free too, as long as it's not made for-profit), but remember that Europe is no USA: here the "private copy" has always been legal.

"Copyrights exist exactly for this reason"

Copyrights exist because the king wanting to retain control of intelectual production as he had about real state properties (the copy-right meant just exactly that: the king giving an impressor the right to print copies of a book -and being paid for such copies). So in its very foundations copyright is as anti-democrat as it can be.

Re:What? (2, Insightful)

Khaed (544779) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745205)

So how exactly is an author supposed to get paid for writing a book? In the case of books, the only performance is the initial writing.

There's already not much money in writing, unless you're named King or your initials are JKR.

It takes a long time to write, for example, a good fantasy or sci-fi novel. Yet they could be reproduced costless digitally.

Books are generally written by a single person, so it would take a very long time to write a book and work full time (which can be seen in the cases of authors who have to do that), which reduces the number of books a person can write in a lifetime.

How about, and this is really revolutionary, if you want to enjoy someone's work, you kick some money their way so they can continue to produce the things you enjoy?

Basically, you just don't want to pay for stuff because it can be copied cheaply/freely.

Not impossible, just different. (4, Interesting)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745269)

There are business models that can allow for the production of books without DRM or copyright, but they're different than the systems we're used to. You can write and publish serials, rather than books, and use the free publicity that copying gives you to your advantage: tell your audience that if you don't get paid x, the next installment won't be released. There are a few authors (notably, Steven King) who have experimented with approaches like this (although his was slightly different). Writing in such an environment is less of a solitary activity, where the writer closets him or herself away and returns after some time with a book to hawk, than an interactive one, where the writer needs to constantly maintain the relationship with his benefactors.

In truth, there probably wouldn't be as many books written, but I'm not sure that's necessarily bad per se; I think our current system encourages the overproduction of many forms of "art" basically on speculation, far more than the market really demands and is willing to pay for, which is why there are so many out-of-work artists of various stripes, e.g. authors who have written books that nobody wants to buy. An approach that resulted in nothing being written without a market for it would result in less pages produced annually, but it would lead to only the stuff that people were actually willing to pay for getting written.

Re:Not impossible, just different. (2, Interesting)

Khaed (544779) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745373)

Paper books don't have DRM. I'm not arguing defending DRM in ANY way, and I hope no one took my comment that way. I think DRM is insulting and a waste of everyone's time.

I've read my share of crappy published books, that much is true, but it's one of the markets where publishers are less inclined to take risk publishing a crap book, because profits are so low. With the possible exception of self-help and diet books, which, like that stupid cheese moving book, are inexplicably popular.

I just don't think eliminating copyright completely is the right path. That's not to say I think the current system is perfect; I'd be fine with a ten-year-from-publication limit. Or even five. Of course, at this point anything is better than "99 years after the author kicks it." And I think software patents are stifling. But for entertainment, I can see the need for copyright and a monopoly on distribution.

Re:What? (1)

pv2b (231846) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745285)

Exactly. So if you expect to get paid, don't go writing a book. The starving author is a staple stereotype of today's society, and it isn't because evil pirates are going around xeroxing his book.

Making money on books is *hard*, even today, and that hasn't stopped people from writing books.

So what is it that drives these people to write, even though they almost certainly won't get paid? Probably not copyright.

Creativity needs outlets, and they'll always exist. Why do you think there's so much great free stuff on the Internet? Free software, free music, entertaining webcomics, and even the occasional interesting blog. I've even read a few books published on the Internet.

Re:What? (1)

Khaed (544779) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745305)

Except I'd rather the authors I like not have to write in their spare time and on lunch breaks. I'd rather they get paid to write, and then have more time to write their books. From a purely consumer standpoint, the idea of less quality books irks the snot out of me. I read voraciously. I don't mind paying for books.

And there's also a lot of crap free stuff on the internet. People who would never normally be given an outlet, and I have to wade through them.

Re:What? (2, Interesting)

pv2b (231846) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745379)

Except I'd rather the authors I like not have to write in their spare time and on lunch breaks. I'd rather they get paid to write, and then have more time to write their books. From a purely consumer standpoint, the idea of less quality books irks the snot out of me. I read voraciously. I don't mind paying for books.

And there's also a lot of crap free stuff on the internet. People who would never normally be given an outlet, and I have to wade through them.
True. 99% of everyting is crap. That includes the 99% of crap that get submitted to publishers on a regular basis.

How do you propose we pay these aspiring big-name writers?

The fact of the matter -- the problem of the starving author is here, not beceause of copyright law, but despite it.

If you have a solution to solve it, great. Let's hear it, but it certainly doesn't have anything to do with copyright law.

Finally, let me point out that neither Venstre nor the Swedish Pirate Party is proposing a complete abolition of copyright -- we just want to make it clear that it should only cover *commercial* exploitation of a work.

Hardcopies of books will still sell, maybe even more if they're freely available on the net before purchase. I can count several books (of a technical nature) that I have purchased of hardcopies, even though the entire contents of the book was (legally even) available for free on the Internet. This is still not a solution to the starving author problem, but still...

Re:What? (1)

Khaed (544779) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745415)

Points taken. I don't think we completely agree, but I don't think we're as far from it as I did when I started my first reply.

I have no problem at all with severely pulling back the current ridiculousness of the "IP" laws. Most of those are designed to protect stupid business models, and there's absolutely no reason for "author's life plus 99 years."

Re:What? (1)

pv2b (231846) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745481)

Great! Imagine how boring the world would be if everybody were identical of opinion. So I'm glad we can agree to disagree, and even agree to some point. :-)

Re:What? (1)

Khaed (544779) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745493)

Yeah, but just remember, my ideas are mine until 99 years after I die.

Re:What? (1)

NoData (9132) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745531)

Except I'd rather the authors I like not have to write in their spare time and on lunch breaks. I'd rather they get paid to write, and then have more time to write their books.


If you feel strongly about it, perhaps you should consider patronage [wikipedia.org] . It's a model that supported generations of artists before the advent of modern copyright.

Really, the modern music/publishing businesses are twisted forms of patronages. Arstists/authors receive advances from publishers/distributors who recoup their losses by profiteering on the sales of low-marginal-cost duplicates, the rights to which they feverishly guard (as we have seen). The artists lose ownership of their creative product in the bargain, and generally get the shaft in compensation as well.

How about a system where other, more benevolently interested parties (like philanthropists, governments, civic groups, non-profits, or even corporations!) sponsor artistic work? This happens already (especially in the visual and performance arts which are less easily duplicable), but maybe it should be the norm not the exception.

Re:What? (1)

turbidostato (878842) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745605)

"Except I'd rather the authors I like not have to write in their spare time and on lunch breaks."

Well, then *you* still can pay for their books; or directly subsidize your favorite authors, or whatever.

Even if you don't pay for new books -heck, even if you restrained yourself from reading anything published past 1900, I don't think you will find scarcity of good literature on your whole life.

Re:What? (1)

emilv (847905) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745401)

I don't know about you, but I have never read a book on a computer screen, nor have I had the time to print it out (I wouldn't want to read from thos printouts anyway. A book is much better).

I know this is sort of a bad argument when there's digital paper under development. But then again, there will always be ways to earn money from what people want. You can sell it beforehand and tell your customers that it won't be any new book if they don't pay you. You can sell merchandising (I've seen a few web comics earning their living this way), or you could just trust me when I say that books won't go away any day soon.

Re:What? (1)

Khaed (544779) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745441)

Oh, I know they won't.

Not until reading digitally is much easier on the eyes.

However, I'll always like actually holding the book. I don't know why that is, but it only seems to apply to books.

Re:What? (1)

turbidostato (878842) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745575)

"So how exactly is an author supposed to get paid for writing a book?"

So why exactly has anyone to pay anything for a book nobody asked for?

By the way, nobody seems to care so much about nobody making profit out of selling fresh water in the streets anymore.

Re:What? (1)

bhirsch (785803) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745223)

Then can you explain why companies holding intellectual property try to prevent its theft? They pay money to create something that can easily be copied, why should they not have exclusive rights on its distribution? Why should you have a right to such intellectual property for free? Just because you want it and claim that protecting it is as outdated as a horse whip?

Re:What? (5, Insightful)

pv2b (231846) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745325)

Then can you explain why companies holding intellectual property try to prevent its theft? They pay money to create something that can easily be copied, why should they not have exclusive rights on its distribution?
If you actually go back and examine the logic of that statement it borders on the absurd.

Are you seriously suggesting that if a company has a poor business model it's anybodies fault but their own?

The companies holding intellectual property do just that, *hold* it. They're not on anybodys side but their own, in fact, I could argue that they're damaging to society.

I see no reason to continue to support this "industry" based on reinforced outdated legislation. Do you really it's a good idea for a single company to have rights of redistribution to something that's so trivial to redistribute, that millions of people around the world are doing it without even batting an eyelid?

We don't need the companies help to redistribute things any more. If they don't like it, they're welcome to take their profits, close up shop, and pull out. Culture will find its way without them, even better than before they arrived.

Re:What? (1)

bhirsch (785803) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745557)

If a company creates something, they do have a certain right (in the liberal market economic sense) to do whatever the hell they want with it regardless of how poor their business model is. The opining of the Norwegian Pirate Party does not negate this. If you are going to argue that laws to protect copyright are outdated because technology to more easily subvert them has been invented, why not argue that the advent of the firearm should mark the end of murder laws?

These anti-IP arguments essentially break down to the same knee jerk pro-communism arguments that were very prominent 50 years ago. Socializing goods/services for the purposes of making them "free" to the people who want them has rarely demonstrated anything but disaster for those goods/services. Forcing companies to relinquish ownership of goods (even if technology has made them intangible) will have side effects that go far beyond sticking it to the very rich and getting stuff for free.

(And btw, if you don't like copyright laws, please don't complain the next time someone turns something licensed under the GPL into a closed source product.)

Re:What? (1)

paulmer2003 (922657) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745535)

The fact is that technology for unlimited copying is here -- and the laws preventing private exploitation of this technology are outdated and counterproductive. With new technologies, people and products are made redundant. This happens all the time -- today nobody sees the sharp decline in sales and production of horse-whips after the widespread adoption of the automobile as a bad thing for example.
Except for the people who made the horse-whips, :)

Re:What? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18745619)

"As Pirates (I am a member of the Swedish Pirate Party) we believe there is no inherent right in getting paid for copies. We do however believe in a right to charge for performing a work."

Yeah, and as a guy who actually PRODUCES digital work, may I point out that I don't believe that YOU, sir, have an inherent right to take my work, which takes me a huge amount of time to create, redistribute it, and not pay me for work that I created. (And here's a thought, dumbshit: how the fuck do I "perform" my 3D computer graphics work live? How does a programmer "perform" writing an application in front of you? Guess once the original "performance," i.e., the act of creation, is finished, you think it's fair game to simply copy it as many times as you want and redistribute it?)

"If artists who are out to make money stop producing due to copyright reform -- good riddance. There'll still be plenty of music and culture left, just as there has always been."

Spoken like someone who either a.) doesn't produce anything of any redeeming artistic value, or b.) deems their actual artistic output to be worthless. In the latter case, if you feel so poorly about the quality of your own work, not only would I probably not buy it, I probably wouldn't even bother with it if it were free.

"To take one example, in the Music Industry, even the big labels don't see recorded music as a product any more -- but rather as advertising for other events and products."

Irrelevant, and a bullshit rationalization.

"The fact is that technology for unlimited copying is here -- and the laws preventing private exploitation of this technology are outdated and counterproductive. With new technologies, people and products are made redundant. This happens all the time -- today nobody sees the sharp decline in sales and production of horse-whips after the widespread adoption of the automobile as a bad thing for example."

I love how these Eurotrash kids who probably want the Almighty Socialist State to provide them with Cradle-to-Grave Everything would undoubtedly get pissed off as hell if some group of people actually took THEIR benefits, without contributing anything to the commonweal. Hey Mr. Pirate -- whatever happened to the amazing socialist concept of people actually being PAID for their LABOR? Or are you actually advocating "heartless capitalism," where the fruit of someone's labor is simply taken from them, and they're "exploited?" Help us out here, dude. Or is it okay to rip off working artists if "the masses" are doing it?

I'm tired of morons rationalizing stealing. Artists work to create this stuff, and it's not fucking FREE, just because you can copy it perfectly and redistribute it to your slacker, living-on-the-dole buddies without getting caught.

And yeah, I know I'm gonna get modded as a troll or flamebait (assuming that the mods actually let my message through at all) but Jesus Christ, this Swedish Pirate guy is a tool.

Re:What? (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745349)

Why aren't they going to get paid?

Because people stop purchasing their music just because P2P exist and is used?
Well, in that case, Britney Spears ought to be living on the streets by now, right?

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18745433)

Britney Spears might as well be living on the street. Have you seen the way she's been living her life recently?

Re:What? (2, Informative)

EyelessFade (618151) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745019)

Looks like I have to vote Venstere [wikipedia.org] and Sponheim [wikipedia.org] next election year :)

Re:What? (1)

Marcion (876801) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745149)

It is all that Salmon they eat, makes them smarter and ahead of us lot.

Re:What? (4, Informative)

Kjella (173770) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745169)

Wait until they actually do it first. They're not in government at the moment, and there's a small thing parties that get into power tend to do, I call it a 180 turn. They only have something like 6% of the votes, so even if they still want to, it could die in coalition talks. And beyond that, through the EEC agreement we're bound to implement EU directives like the EUCD, which noone thought was a good idea really. Good sign? Yes. But it's a looooong way from becoming reality.

Near-exact copy of a Swedish Piratpartiet document (4, Interesting)

pv2b (231846) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745005)

Interestingly enough, this is an almost word-for-word translation of the Swedish Pirate Party's declaration of principles.

The Swedish Pirate Party didn't explicitly permit this copying, except for declaring their pages to be "No Copyright". I guess Venstre practice what they preach, and the Swedish Pirate Party has also come out with a statement saying that they welcome this act of copying. :-)

More information about this (in Swedish) from Piratpartiet can be found here [piratpartiet.se] .

Re:Near-exact copy of a Swedish Piratpartiet docum (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745297)

Yeah, but the subtle details that differ is where I like the Norwegian suggestion more. I still believe copyrights are important, and using samples commercially should of course make one have to pay for it IMO. Personally, I feel the Swedish PP is a bit too radical even for me, although on a philosophical level, maybe they do know better. *shrug* It's really hard to tell for me, because the society they suggest is so radically different.

Re:Near-exact copy of a Swedish Piratpartiet docum (1)

pv2b (231846) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745471)

The Society the Swedish Pirate Party is proposing is hardly radical nor different. We just want laws to match the current information society that is already developing.

The society where these singing muppets on Youtube [youtube.com] is technically illegal because the copyright owner has most probably not explicitly permitted Youtube to share that particular piece of video.

But does the presence of this clip and hundreds like it diminish our society? No! It improves it! I feel the world is a much better place now I know that singing muppets are only a few clicks away. :-) Not to mention all the derivative works...

Translation (2, Informative)

Arker (91948) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745429)

My translation, done quickly just now, so errors are possible:

The Norwegian Liberal Party, equivalent to the Swedish Liberal Peoples Party, today took the program of the Pirate party and made it their own.

At the ongoing national convention a pronouncement was adopted unanimously, which excepting that it has fewer details is a direct translation of the essentials of the program of the Pirate Party with regard to cultural ecology, with further wording from the subheadings of the program. Intention to "encourage all non-commercial collecting, enjoyment, processing and dissemination of culture" - also the Pirate policy. The only part of the Pirate policy the Norwegian Liberals are not adopting is the repeal of the cassette tax.

The Norwegian Liberal Party sits in the opposition in Norway with 5.9% of the 2005 vote.

The Pirate Party welcomes the copying.

Get ready (4, Funny)

tehwebguy (860335) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745011)

WTO complaint in 3..

2..

Re:Get ready (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18745039)

I can't stress enough how perfect your sig is for that post.

Br For those reading this far in the future, his current sig is "--lol pwned".

Re:Get ready (3, Insightful)

mmcuh (1088773) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745369)

WTO complaint? About a program of a political party in a member state? That hasn't been implemented in any way? From a party in opposition? Not to say that the lobbyists and noise-makers will not lobby and make noise to make sure that no other mainstream parties follow Venstre, but I doubt the WTO will have anything to say about it any time soon.

I say go for it. (1)

Bongo Bill (853669) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745031)

This will prove an interesting test case, and demonstrate once and for all the results of unrestricted file sharing.

tyranny of the majority (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18745067)

A similar argument should be made that IP rights to pharmeceuticals should be overturned, so that any company should be allowed to produce knock offs of drugs.

That would certainly bring down prices for consumers quite a bit... for existing drugs. However, it would disincent pharmeceutical companies to make the mammouth R&D investments needed to discover new ones.

Re:tyranny of the majority (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18745171)

Seriously, current pharma companies are not the people who get research done. It might very well "disincent" them if they couldn't get cushy 20-year monopolies to make their abysmal brute-force mouse-liquidizing drug search methods break even. But patent monopolies simply enable them to work hard instead of smart. If they didn't have the crutch of patent monopolies, they'd have to >gasp investigate and learn things, working smarter to produce designed drugs. Just as linux would only get stronger if microsoft lost its copyright monopoly "incentive" for windoze and decided to quit, so would actual intelligent open, scientific drug research only get stronger if the evil bastard pharma companies of today quit.

Re:tyranny of the majority (1)

ResidntGeek (772730) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745215)

they'd have to >gasp investigate and learn things, working smarter to produce designed drugs.
And in the meantime, people would DIE.

Maybe they wouldn't. Maybe you're right, maybe drugs would be produced faster that way. Would you be willing to risk your life? How abou your mother's life? Or your arthritic grandfather, would you be willing to risk increasing his pain, just to make their research methods more scientifically pleasing?

Re:tyranny of the majority (5, Informative)

Arker (91948) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745261)

Would you be willing to risk your life, your mothers life, your arthritic grandfathers pain, just to ensure the profits of the big pharma companies?

Well, you're doing it now, and you have no choice.

Re:tyranny of the majority (4, Interesting)

pv2b (231846) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745173)

A similar argument should be made that IP rights to pharmeceuticals should be overturned, so that any company should be allowed to produce knock offs of drugs.
Yes!

In fact, the Swedish Pirate Party (of which I am a member) uses the pharmaceutical industry as an example of an area where patents are harmful.

The pharmaceutical industry today spends more money on advertising than on R&D, and also receives a very large bulk of its funding through government grants and other subsidies.

Getting rid of the patent system would be a big win for society at large. Maybe then we'd get more drugs for things like AIDS and not as many drugs for erectile disfunction. :-)

Speaking of AIDS drugs, a lot of people in the third world can't afford AIDS treatment because of the artificially inflated drug prices due to patents. Are pharmaceutical patents really worth their cost in human lives?

No -- let the governments continue to fund pharmaceutical research -- maybe more than before, and get rid of patents. It's better for everybody in the long run, except for Big Pharma.

Re:tyranny of the majority (3, Insightful)

ZombieRoboNinja (905329) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745267)

Hey, great idea! Let's put the politicians in charge of ALL medical research! I'm sure the Bush administration would do a swell job allocating money to promising areas like stem cell research, birth control methods, the morning after pill (that they improperly kept the FDA from approving for over-the-counter), etc.

Re:tyranny of the majority (1)

pv2b (231846) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745511)

Good point. But I distrust the government to allocate funding just as much as I distrust Big Pharma. :-)

In Europe, government funding of organisations for the advancement of arts has worked relatively well in the past, I see no reason for it to work in the future for pharmaceutical development, as long as it's not politicised.

Re:tyranny of the majority (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18745513)

Developing a brand new drug is incredibly expensive [medicalnewstoday.com] , involving many rounds of clinical trials and government reviews. The fact that drug companies spend a lot on advertising has nothing to do with their huge fixed investment required to research and test the drug and getting it approved for production. Maybe some of the R&D can be outsourced to places like India and China, and I'm sure some of it has, but in the end you need substantial numbers of incredibly bright scientists with advanced degrees willing to work for many years on what is essentially a gamble, something that may turn out to be almost a complete waste of time. And you need to conduct many rounds of those expensive trials (and sometimes you still end up with a disaster like Vioxx).

And no, financially it's not an easy business [sfgate.com] to run either.

Re:tyranny of the majority (1)

pv2b (231846) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745577)

Yes. Yes. That's all well and good. But patents aren't the only source of income for pharmaceutical companies to create R&D. There are other methods of funding pharmaceutical development that are already in place -- such as government grants, and research done in academia, that don't involve artificially inflated prices on the newest drugs.

Re:tyranny of the majority (1)

pv2b (231846) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745607)

I meant to paste a link into my reply above, but somehow I must have lost it before it got lost. Oops.

Anyway, I suggest you read the Swedish Pirate Party's stance on the position of pharmaceutical patents. [piratpartiet.se] It's a much more eloquent document than I could hope to reproduce in a slashdot comment at this hour. :-)

Re:tyranny of the majority (5, Insightful)

KonoWatakushi (910213) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745207)

A similar argument should be made that IP rights to pharmeceuticals should be overturned, so that any company should be allowed to produce knock offs of drugs.
Agreed.

That would certainly bring down prices for consumers quite a bit... for existing drugs. However, it would disincent pharmeceutical companies to make the mammouth R&D investments needed to discover new ones.
What mammoth R&D investments? At best, this would would kill the mammoth advertising expenditures, which arguably should not exist in the first place. Most of the (minimal) investment is in researching replacements for existing high-margin drugs, which are dissimilar enough to avoid patents but functionally identical.

In any case, these companies most certainly don't have our health or best interests in mind. Investment in medicine should be driven by need rather than profit, and the existing system is clearly a massive failure.

Re:tyranny of the majority (5, Insightful)

Ajehals (947354) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745221)

See, I don't get this argument. Ignoring any principals and/or pro-anti patentability stances, are you suggesting that if the pharmaceutical companies didn't get the huge amount of protection they get the would simply close up shop? they would go from making less money, to making *no money*?. As I understand it pharmaceutical companies benefit from all sorts of things they don't pay for, from R&D at universities, through to government subsidies. They make a huge amount of money, making less, or having to collaborate wouldn't be a bad thing for the users of their products. And anyway, what use is a treatment for a disease you have if you cant afford it?

Oh, and what about the fact that some drug companies research and development aims are geared toward high value markets (dieting and beauty for example, which can be addressed through other means) rather than areas that would help large sections of the population with actual illness (where a drug may be the only option)? The market forces involved force company's to do what is best for their bottom lines, most of the time, Not what is best for society as a whole. With a shift of our IP related legislation, maybe that would change.
 

Re:tyranny of the majority (1)

Gibbs-Duhem (1058152) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745497)

I would point out that it is necessary for political elements to have extreme views in order to enact substantial change. It's a matter of good negotiating -- if you come in saying that all you want is to limit copyrights to 10 years, and patents to 4 years, you'll get 30 years and 12 years. Those impractical people suggesting that patents be abolished entirely (which I admit I have a personal stake in, as I'm a research scientist and one of my few routes to making it big is coming up with a really awesome idea) need to exist in order to make limiting patents to four years sound reasonable and middle-ground (though from my experience, 4 years really isn't even enough time to bring most things to market, 7 years is more reasonable in cases of non-software stuff). The middle ground perpetually shifts, according to the fraction of people on each extreme. Simply watch those around you and you will see it to be true. The majority of us don't like conflict, our views are a mere reflection of the views of those we respect, except for those things which we have personally invested ourselves in. I doubt very much that more than a handful of people here have personally invested themselves beyond lip service to the cause of limiting copyright and patents. How many people who complain to the end of time on here have even called their congressman (or whatever the appropriate legislator would be for your country)? The only time I've contacted my legislator about technology policy was when Quinn was under fire for endorsing ODF, and that was more out of indignation that the legislature thought it knew better than the technology director for the state of Massachusetts. I am personally invested in only a few things, as are most of you. The rest of my opinions on the world, are, by and large, a synthesis of the opinions of those around me. The extremists on either side shape that opinion, coloured by my trust of the source, and my own partiality towards libertarianism.

To be honest (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18745075)

Who cares about Norway? They didn't even try to resist Hitler. I believe Nords, not Jews, were involved in the Holocaust.

Re:To be honest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18745127)

Kenya! Kenya, Kenya, Kenya....

UberBan (1)

j00r0m4nc3r (959816) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745099)

At first I thought it said they wanted to ban:

DRM technology
free sampling of other artists' material
shortening the life span of copyright

Couldn't quite grok that..

How dare those communists... (4, Insightful)

heretic108 (454817) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745123)

...refuse to close the barn door, and make those fraudulent claims that the horse has already bolted!

Anyone in their right mind can see the horse clearly inside its stall within the barn, lazily chomping out of its nose-bag. If you can't see it, your vision must be impaired - get to your nearest RIAA office and book in for the next available seminar.

I'm sure there must have been a lot of ferry operators put out when the Channel Tunnel opened up to connect road traffic between the UK and France. But in that case, the ferry operators didn't have any significant pull with government, so the tunnel went ahead.

To borrow Russel Crowe's line from Master and Commander, we have to choose the 'lesser of two weevils':
  1. Widspread infringement of intellectual property
  2. Increasing concentration of intellectual property amongst an elite oligopoly which is working to mutate the intellectual property regulations into a force which increasingly represses expression, invention and communication and squashes competition

Re:How dare those communists... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18745193)

Increasing concentration of IP?
How can something that's not limited and has no barrier to entry like ideas be concentrated we can all create new ideas or stories or photos or videos we just choose not to because it's too hard. We would rather just get it from someone else. Also I don't see how making something that is intended for non comcomercial use like most all IP to be free to that use.

Re:How dare those communists... (1)

Supreme_101 (996722) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745195)

Europe only screamed holland for me. i think i might just move to norway and make day-trips to amsterdam since ill have a lot of spare change from not buying software :D

In Europe liberal means capitalist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18745277)

For the sake of principle:

In Europe the word liberal roughly translates to capitalist. In other words Venstre is a right wing party.

Re:In Europe liberal means capitalist (1)

hr.wien (986516) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745601)

Seeing as though "venstre" means "left", I think you might be wrong there Bob. :)

Re:In Europe liberal means capitalist (1)

perkr (626584) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745603)

In other words Venstre is a right wing party.

No they are not. They are socialists.

Giving away other people's barn. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18745133)

"The party wants to legalise sharing of any copyrighted material for non-commercial use."

And just how much of that copyrighted content originated from Norway?

Re:Giving away other people's barn. (1)

Marcion (876801) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745179)

Lene Marlin is fantastic, worth it just for that.

Re:Giving away other people's barn. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18745501)

Eh? Anyway the point is that it's easy to be magnanimous with other people's property. I'd be more impressed with Norway's proposal if it also applied to their copyrighted material as well (assuming they have any to speak of).

Anyone remember the Vikings? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18745183)



Anyone remember the Vikings? Here comes da Judge! Only, no one will care because, well, because they are from Norway. hahahahaha

Re: Content From Norway (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745569)

Lasse Gjertsen!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzqumbhfxRo [youtube.com]

"If you want to download the audio from this video, go to
http://www11.nrk.no/urort/user/?id=36781 [www11.nrk.no]
It's a norwegian page where I uploaded some of my music. (Lytt = Listen to, Last ned = Download)"

That's the guy who doesn't exactly know how to play any instrument, but uses mix editing like the old amiga samplers used to do. The funny part is he does a lot of it from his camcorder, so watching the jerky images on top of surprisingly clean soundtracks is funny.

P.s. All the corporations fake their "location" anyway, so we'll just borrow their trick and funnel things through a Norwegian distribution center. (Think about it - is an American Singer managed by a German label American or German content?)

Wish we had medium size political parties (3, Interesting)

MaizeMan (1076255) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745167)

From the wikipedia article (assuming it hasn't been to horrible vandalized by my fellow slashdotters yet) I'm not sure if I would describe this as a MAJOR political party with maybe one twentieth of the norwegian vote. Still a bigger organization that the Swedish Pirate Party, perhaps this is a positive sign of things to come. Makes me wish we had political parties somewhere between the the wacko fringe (Green, Reform, etc) that no one takes seriously and the big two which both seem to owe too much to the **AA to ever consider taking a position like this one.

Re:Wish we had medium size political parties (3, Informative)

Chandon Seldon (43083) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745409)

The United States system prevents there being more than two serious parties. European countries tend to use proportional representation to solve the problem. In the United States, that doesn't work because our congresmen represent geographic areas - but the problem could be signficiantly reduced if we used a voting system like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_Voting [wikipedia.org] or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method [wikipedia.org] that didn't severely punish third party votes strategically.

Another potential tactic would be to promote subparties. The final elections are solidly locked down to Democrat or Republican, but the actual Democrat/Republican primaries are much more open - an organized "branch" of a major party could probably get their candidate nominated with an effort that is possible to achieve.

I wonder (0, Offtopic)

AlphaLop (930759) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745225)

what Norway's immigration policy is. I am retiring and living on a catamaran in about 10 years and I was thinking about leaving the USA anyway if it does not stop becoming so politically and religiously insane over here.

Re:I wonder (1)

owlnation (858981) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745337)

what Norway's immigration policy is. I am retiring and living on a catamaran in about 10 years and I was thinking about leaving the USA anyway if it does not stop becoming so politically and religiously insane over here.
So, in other words, you're pining for the fjords?

Get off my lawn! (1)

Sodki (621717) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745265)

Damn kids with their non-commercial file sharing and anti-DRM legislation.

Get over here! (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745279)

Seriously, we need this party in Sweden like... Now! :-)

We have the Pirate Party, but it would be awesome for a party to stand behind a clear language like this.

Wow, even shortened copyright times from the currently ridiculous ones? And pay to use samples commercially?

One's mind boggles!

and there was much rejoicing... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18745339)

from all teh faggot linux fucktards who are too cheap to pay for anything. they're too busy sucking them dicks.

Holy mother of cow !!! (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745393)

I had heard that scandinavian countries were generally on the edge of liberal & humanist & progressive thoughts and policies, but, doh, this just hit the jackpot. Its like some dream becoming real.

Don't hold your breath! (1)

Gonoff (88518) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745423)

I can's answer for the USA but in Europe, we have had Youth Sections of major political parties coming out with sensible ideas for years.

Then the old farts in the "grown up" sections deny that they would ever do such a wicked thing.

For example, we have all heard for years that banning certain recreational drugs should be dropped. Everybody knows that this would be a good thing. Then the 50something year old hypocrites put down their cigars and whisky and prevent it!

Re:Don't hold your breath! (1)

pv2b (231846) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745537)

Except this actually *has* made it from the youth section to the main party. That's why this is a big story.

Youth sections holding opinions like this (albeit less well-defined) is nothing new. It's a joke among us in the Swedish Pirate Party that we actually have 8 youth sections. Our own, and one for every single major political power currently represented in parliament. :-)

Re:Don't hold your breath! (1)

rundgren (550942) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745581)

Coincidentally the very same youth party that proposed this resolution, last year voted that the ban on soft drugs should only be maintained if they could be proven harmful.

5.9%.... (2, Informative)

gnud (934243) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745489)

Well, the liberal party in Norway is the smallest of the mainstream parties. In the latest election (2005) they got 5.9% of the votes.
The next party down the line is the Workers Communist Party =)

Election results from 1906 and onwards can (of course) be found on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venstre_(Norway)#Elec tion_results.2C_parliamentary_elections_1906-2005 [wikipedia.org]

Terrorist State (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18745499)

How long before Norway is declared a terrorist state?

Good on ya, Norway (1)

burySCO (723695) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745517)

Meanwhile, Canada's Bush-Lite government about to adopt US DMCA laws :'(. I'm ashamed to be Canadian today.

Before we all start jumping up and down... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18745533)

Please note that this is a suggestion from "Unge Venstre".
"Unge / Ung [partyname]" Is a name for a party's younger support members, an organization whose task it is to recruit (young) new members, and give them a taste of politics.
Its pretty popular in Northern Europe for political parties to have support groups like that, where political discussions are made in a lighter tone and focused on youth problems.
Also, the "young-party"-ies are not as serious as the "main" parties, and you can often hear of them suggesting leagialization of marihuana, prostitution, higher speed limits and so on, without any of that being taken seriously.

And also, the party Venstre got 6.0% of the votes in the last election. But hardy anything spectacular, im affraid.

Hardly a mandate (0, Redundant)

Gavin86 (856684) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745585)

Doing just simple preliminary research on the party shows that the Norwegian Left have received only 5.9% of the vote in the Norwegian parliamentary election of 2005 [wikipedia.org] , which amounts to just 10 seats of a 169 seat parliament.

Fun idea, but keep dreaming...

Way to break the GPL (Unintended consequences) (1)

CustomDesigned (250089) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745611)

If this comes to pass, companies can distribute closed source products based on GPL software - as long as they are free as in beer. Imagine the possibilities. This idea is solving the wrong problem. The root problem is not copyright law, it is the monopoly old style record labels still hold over music distribution - and all the artists that have signed their life away in the (perhaps justified) belief that it was the only way they would ever be able "do" music.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...