http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-party...iament-090607/
Woot, might only be the first steps on the road to legal torrents, but it's a biggy!
http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-party...iament-090607/
Woot, might only be the first steps on the road to legal torrents, but it's a biggy!
Holy crap, that is awesome on so many levels.
I love that statement.The older politicians have taken apart young peoples’ lifestyle, bit by bit. We do not accept that the authorities’ mass-surveillance."
Pirate party?
What an odd name you wouldn't really expect in politics :D
Ever see a ninja party in politics? Nope!
Cause Pirates are win.
lolz. I love how they couch their policies in shit like "PROTECTING CONSUMER FREEDOMS" when it's obvious to anyone with an ounce of sense that all they and their supporters really want is to not have to bother paying for stuff.
Indeed - hence why I initially thought they were part of Pirate Bay, though wouldn't be surprised if they were considering they're both Swedish...Originally Posted by troublemaker1111
Edit - Scratch that, there ARE some members in Pirate Bay that are part of this party...
Fuck em, I don't condone to piracy. To hell with this party.
Only people who support them are twats wanting things for free who spew 'fatcat' crap. These idiots are only paving the way to a more restricted internet.
This is what... the 2nd time... I agree with you? =p
I don't think the same rules should apply to software as physical objects.
If I build a PC and sell it, I only get that money once. If I record a song, why should I get to sell it forever? I think it is a flawed system. You just have to look at who the rich people seem to be, music, movie, software, they all have huge profit margins because once you create it, selling it again only takes a new CD/DVD or hell download service these days. Yeah there are wealthy object makers, but in that case it tends to be the business that are rich, it's hard for individuals inventors to make huge profits because of the amount of money big companies can spend on R&D.
I just can't help but think a better system could be created. But I guess any system I would want would hugely reduce the amount of money actors/musicians etc would make so it would never be allowed to happen.
Regardless of what you think, physical or not it is still software copyrighted by the owner and therefore your views of it are last century [as in turn of the 20th century], and simply put - very narrow minded.
Why should someone spend weeks composing a song, or programming a software, just to have some ass pirate it?
And don't give me the mumbo jumbo of 'big companies' - regardless of the backgrounds or publication of the music / software / whatever, people will still pirate it. Software developed by 1 person or few are often stuck up onto pirate bay and such sites, with key gens alongside them - these indy software are often not backed up by 'big companies', hence it being 'independent'... so whats your defence on piracy of these instances?!
People say to 'try it out' - guess what? Lots of these software come with a full-evaluation trial, and yet people STILL pirate them.
I'll find you a nice quote:
Carry on with piracy and you can guarantee a very restricted future of the internet.If you want to complain that big media companies have too much control, then stop buying their stuff. Don't copy it illegally, just don't buy it -- boycott it all, and either spend the time to learn to make the music, videos and art you enjoy, or buy from independent artists. If you want to "tear down the (big media) establishment," do so with becoming a bonafide patron of "garage band" artists and declare your independence from the RIAA, MPAA and similar groups.
Nice debate of it here: LINK
Everything you just stated is why the Music Industry is going down the shiter. All they care about is money.
I agree that artists need to be compensated for their works, but until record labels figure out that they need to turn to a subscription or service based marketing scheme they will continue to lose millions.
I know how the system currently works, don't take me for an idiot. I know all about intellectual property rights, and I just don't think it should apply passed physical objects. Designing an object takes a lot of money, and manufacturing it to sell. Each item takes money, and it's fair to add a small markup on each so the development costs are recouped over several years.
In software terms, yes money is spent on development, but the recoup goes far beyond that very quickly. Yes small indy developers might have a much smaller base and each loss of a sale hurts them more, but from my experience most of them aim their products are businesses rather than consumers, businesses generally don't use pirated software. Song writers are different because they do aim at consumers, however I believe they could make money from other means anyway, advertising deals and the like. The problem is they expect to get rich from it, instead of hoping for a decent lifestyle. If they settled for small advertising deals with loyal stores they would most likely live fine and be able to give away their music.
As for big companies, did you actually read my post carefully? I was talking about big manufacturing companies not media companies.
My ideas aren't last century. Frankly they are the polar opposite! These issues are new things, we haven't had this type of pirates long enough for it to be old, lol. I think you are the ones living in the past by treating design and software the same. If you saw a cool wood sculpture that you liked the look of, and had the skill to produce it yourself, would you really be told you couldn't make it because it's copyrighted? Even copyrighted designs are kind of silly to me, but I guess it means companies are willing to spend money of development. I guess I don't like copyright in general, but it might just be a necessary evil. I just hate people instantly passing it off as being wrong purely because it's illegal, that to me is being narrow minded.
As for a very restricted future of the internet? If ISPs do decide to clamp down on it big time, I can see intranets starting to pop up more. People seem to think the internet is unique and it couldn't be cloned, they are very wrong. Many companies/governments/institutions already use private intranets to keep their files off the internet while having the long range access that sort of network provides. Granted we might end up having to go back to 56k/s speeds, but I can see many people accepting that in the long run. And if it really takes off I'd bet new ISPs would pop up offering access to these new internet anyway.
Do you realise how much it costs to make a modern album or film?
I'm gonna go with a lot.
And, that is awesome.
Pirate Party. :D
I like that they're against internet surveillance. I'm also glad they're pushing the music industry to lower their prices because I believe the industry has taken too much profit for some years (album prices used to be 30 bucks where I live). But in the end, it's not a party that promotes privacy but a party that promotes piracy.
For albums it costs about 1million less then it used to. Yet the labels still put you on a huge contract, and in turn screw you over. Steve Albini (The guy who produced Nirvana's, "In Utero") put this out explaining why he hates the Record Labels.
These are exact figures of a real band he produced.
http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
Long read, but totally worth it.
Yeah, labels are dicks. But the idea that a musician or director should have zero control over his/her own product is just ridiculous. It's theirs, they made it, it belongs to them.
Stewart Lee does a good bit on intellectual property:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YE9Kthyaco&NR=1
I sell you a computer, you decide to give it to someone else. Should I have the right to tell you that you can't do that and the other person should buy a new computer off me instead. Granted it's more complicated with software because copying is possible, but that imo just goes to show the same sort of rules shouldn't apply.
If their goals are accomplished, the worldwide economy will crash.
I don't get your angle. You say that the rules that apply to software should not apply to physical products, but you support your argument with an analogy based on the latter? It seems to me you think the same rules should apply, but they currently don't.
Anyway, the difference between your two scenarios is that if I give somebody a computer, I no longer have that computer. To apply it to music, if I have a CD and I give it to somebody else, I no longer have that CD. Furthermore, the CD and the computer were at least purchased in the first place. If I understand TPP's policies correctly they would completely remove any need for the consumer to pay for music, films or software at any point.
I disagree, but i do think major movie/music/software companies will hold out of releasing things to the public in "protest" if the Pirate Party gets their way. Overall i support the whole anti copyright, but at the same time it would suck to be a programmer working for hours at a time then see some douche download your work that you put long hours into for free.
There are 2 sides to this debate and i dont think either is right.
Reply With Quote