|
08 Jun 09 - 05:02 AM (#2651127) Subject: BS: Legalised file sharing?? From: Richard Bridge From a blog I subscribe to... "The results of the European elections are out and the IPKat learns from today's Guardian that the Swedish Pirate Party ("Piratpartiet", their party logo is depicted on the left), which, inter alia, wants to legalise internet file-sharing and intends to overhaul copyright and patent laws, won one of Sweden's 18 seats in the European parliament. Stockholm News has more details and reports that with final results from 98% of the Swedish election districts counted, the Pirate Party secured 7.1% of votes. AFP cites one of the party's candidates, Anna Troberg, who told Swedish television on Sunday "Privacy issues and civil liberties are important to people and they demonstrated that clearly when they voted today." The BBC gives us further background information on the Pirate Party's political agenda. It appears that the Pirate Party campaigns for free access to the internet and intends to reform copyright law and the patent system. Interestingly, the party's membership figures rocketed (tripled within a week) after the recent controversial Pirate Bay ruling by a Swedish court concerning online file sharing (see the IPKat's posts here and here), even though the Pirate Bay file-sharing website has no links with the political party. The BBC further cites Rickard Falkvinge, leader of the party, who said last night: "We are writing history and we are securing civil liberties in Sweden, Europe and the world." The IPKat is politically impartial and also not quite certain what the Pirate Party's exact plans and suggestions are ("The Pirate Party wants to fundamentally reform copyright law, get rid of the patent system, and ensure that citizens' rights to privacy are respected"; see the party's website here), but this Kat is nonetheless intrigued how the Pirate Bay decision appears to have influenced Swedish voters." |
|
09 Jun 09 - 05:47 PM (#2652635) Subject: RE: BS: Legalised file sharing?? From: Richard Bridge Well, interesting. I created the much sought after thread that goes straight off the bottom - yes it did, and it was on a controversial subject that I would have thought close to the hearts of many here. |
|
09 Jun 09 - 06:16 PM (#2652662) Subject: RE: BS: Legalised file sharing?? From: Bee-dubya-ell Ask Joe to move the thread upstairs and it will probably get more responses. Sharing of music files is definitely an "above the line" topic. |
|
09 Jun 09 - 06:56 PM (#2652690) Subject: RE: BS: Legalised file sharing?? From: Bill D It's not unimportant... it's just that it's quite a minority view and that Swedish group is being pretty silly about it. |
|
10 Jun 09 - 03:42 PM (#2653392) Subject: RE: BS: Legalised file sharing?? From: Paul Burke File sharing is legal. Breach of copyright is not. It's not dreadfully clear why copyright is a matter for criminal rather than civil law. It's also not dreadfully clear why the inventor of a new drug, who might have invested tens of millions to develop it, gets 25 years protection, while a song or story writer, who might have spent a few months writing it, is protected for many decades. It's also not very clear, unless one suspects that governments can be influenced by the throwing of very large amounts of money at a few influential individuals, why the state should care very much about the travails of the entertainment industry when they clearly care so little about the manufacturing industries. |
|
10 Jun 09 - 04:10 PM (#2653417) Subject: RE: BS: Legalised file sharing?? From: Richard Bridge Copyright is the subject of both civil and criminal law. I am interested by both your other comments. Artistic and musical endeavour, moreover, gives rise to powerful personal gratifications that scientific research (and trade marks) do not, so one might assert that creation was its own reward. |