Pirate Party UK

[ImprobableJoe]

You're very good at giving vague, abstract advice. Of course! "Tech savy individuals" will appear from the ether and record my album for me. Of course some people, who own the equipment, will record their friends for free. That happens. But when is this equipment ever up to the standards of a professional recording studio? Seldom. It's not a viable solution compared to having the money and time to record properly or (in my case) do it all myself on a Mac.

What, you don't have the $20,000 for a relatively basic Pro-Tools set-up? :lol:

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

Session work? Sorry not familiar with that term.

Supplying musical expertise to someone else who, for example, can't play rocking guitar. A lot of musicians start out that way.

As far as I am aware. The communally build studio's take on the form of schools. The teachers or the new artists who pooled money together to build a studio. These studio's get quiet a bit of money from teaching people how each sector of the music business works. A lot of the people you see in the UK these days at music festival come from these music schools. They can rent out there studio and quiet low costs. They were on the BBC's "Britians increasing creative industry and innovation week" section a few months ago. I am looking for the links to one of these communes now and will post it as soon as I get the link.

Your description sounds remarkably similar to how things operate at the moment, with the only difference being that it's some kind of artistic commune. It still requires people to pay money for a service offered, and I don't see how that makes it different from the problem I have, or had - paying for recording time. These tech savvy individuals of yours STILL want money, so how does this solve anything?

Since music is not a major industry in the UK, the numbers are quiet low.

It's pretty big, actually.

Okay so are you proposing a international registration system, or a kind of GNU policy for there work? As you have taken the middle ground here which makes it difficult to create a legal format for. How do you intend to regulate this choice of the artist? (Thats my main interest at this point, because f you go into the guts of it, patents are the primary concern of the PP, followed by privacy and then by copyright. I have so far stuck to the monetary value which is mainly attached to copyright)

The ground I have taken is how the current industry operates - creating music for money. I'm not occupying any middle ground, I'm content with things staying as they are.

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

This is kind of what I am getting at. The current economic criss has drawn a line in the sand and shown us that excessive greed can create these economic bubbles. Why is it okay for us now to tell CEO's of Banks they are not allowed to have ridiculous bonuses for doing essentially nothing most of the time and we let producers and distribution companies do the same?

I don't think you can appropriate the current economic climate to support your own views. People do and always will like money, especially money earnt directly from something they created. There's a great satisfaction in it. Most artists are not going to relinquish their music as a result.

My basic logic is as follows. If governments are suppose to do what is best for the people and enforcing a no copyright law insures more jobs. Would it not be logical to enforce a law that reduces the benefits of these individuals while everyone else benefits. (The core of socialism)

It creates more jobs when no more are needed, since the current system works and would be working a lot better if people like the PP didn't keep illegally downloading music all the goddamn time. Would it not be logical to enforce a law that prosecutes digital thieves and prevents copyright theft rather than simply giving in and removing the problem by ALLOWING people to take everything for free?

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

Do you feel the BBC should produce more entertainment media (ie. Movies, soups and ect)? Or do you feel that a government based broadcast system should focus on improving general knowledge?

What I feel really is immaterial, as I would be unable to avoid bias. There's plenty of everything to be found, and it's not as if the BBC is the pinnacle of television.

I would like to hear your opinion on weather you feel a entertainment distribution network that is geared towards educating the public is better than one totally focused on profits from entertainment and why you think your choice is better?

It's not totally focused on profits from entertainment. It's focused on profits from everything. There's educational stuff and entertainment stuff and everything in between. The BBC HAS to appease all markets otherwise they lose money and cease to function.

You are clearly biased towards educational programs and documentaries, and that's great. But that doesn't mean it's RIGHT, or that what you perceive as good television is by any means unquestionable. Ironically, the reaction of people like you to fine educational programmes is creating just as much profit as programs about Jade Goody, because the programs are made TO MAKE MONEY. But I imagine you view the profit created from educational viewing as more worthy than that from fluff.

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

What, you don't have the $20,000 for a relatively basic Pro-Tools set-up? :lol:

I'm hoping a tech savvy individual will install one on my Mac tonight, as I sleep, and then leave a record contract under my pillow.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I'm hoping a tech savvy individual will install one on my Mac tonight, as I sleep, and then leave a record contract under my pillow.

I guess you're hoping she's a tech savvy bikini model, and she'll crawl into bed with you in a nightie made of money? As long as you're dreaming...

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

I guess you're hoping she's a tech savvy bikini model, and she'll crawl into bed with you in a nightie made of money? As long as you're dreaming...

I think either of our suggestions is more likely than tsunamie's spontaneous shift in human nature.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I think either of our suggestions is more likely than tsunamie's spontaneous shift in human nature.

I think he planned on his party forcing it on us... using soldiers working for free, because the Pirate Party doesn't pay for ANYTHING!! :lol:

 

[Tsunamie]

I don't think you can appropriate the current economic climate to support your own views. People do and always will like money, especially money earnt directly from something they created. There's a great satisfaction in it. Most artists are not going to relinquish their music as a result.

Here your simply justifying a culture for greed. How does that help when we know that to much greed hurts many people? Do you expect the factory workers or farmers to continue to produce things you "NEED" or that the economy can continue down the same path? We already know American "want" culture has now devalued it's own currency. It pretty much gets all it's goods from imports. What happens after China gets it's way and the international community decides to change from using $ to an universal currency or a world bank that handles transaction between nations? How will the west survive if the service industry that can be easily replicated in other nations after a bit of time is no longer required?

It creates more jobs when no more are needed, since the current system works and would be working a lot better if people like the PP didn't keep illegally downloading music all the goddamn time. Would it not be logical to enforce a law that prosecutes digital thieves and prevents copyright theft rather than simply giving in and removing the problem by ALLOWING people to take everything for free?

No it doesn't. Thats the joke about this. We know this because of the projects Californian local government put forwards.

http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/?PAGEID=145

Here is the catch, the projected increase of most jobs between 2007-2009 was for technology. Not media. In this time, media distribution groups posted record amount of money being spent on movie and music production. This is in a state that was centered it's biggest growth around media production.

I argue that the number of jobs hypothetically modeled using current figures for the industry, when copyright exists, verse the number of jobs when copyright does not exist show that you get more jobs.

You don't even have to go into the detail of actual job numbers. You can just list off the industries that would be effected by a requirement to have a high capacity network in every nation and you can extrapolate the figures from there.

Art is a part of culture, it is not culture itself. Art was never meant to be used to propel a group of people into power. Technology does, and the valuation of art above technology for financial gain is something that create an innate flaw in the current economic model. Ergo why almost every 1st world nation is having to put so much money into education for jobs in science, technology and so on.

And here is another thing. THE PP ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DO ANYTHING ILLEGAL. They are political party and held accountable for there actions. The name Pirate Party comes from the "the Pirate Bay" where the people who run "the Pirate Bay" don't download or share files themselves. They have a search engine that scoured the net for tracker information. They are forcing the issue of piracy on the wonderments that keep ignoring it. They are pointing out the flaws in he methods used to locate and prosecute down loaders. They also trying to pick a fight the the distribution companies that seem to be increase the length, and reach of what copyright effects. Which causes the problem with free speech and personal privacy.

 

[Tsunamie]

You are clearly biased towards educational programs and documentaries, and that's great. But that doesn't mean it's RIGHT, or that what you perceive as good television is by any means unquestionable. Ironically, the reaction of people like you to fine educational programmes is creating just as much profit as programs about Jade Goody, because the programs are made TO MAKE MONEY. But I imagine you view the profit created from educational viewing as more worthy than that from fluff.

actually the BBC don't make any money. They aren't allowed. They are a public service paid for by a TV silence which is pretty much a tax.

Also since I see that a moderator who has pretty much biased by his own personal gain on the subject kind of insulting me with someone who has been proven to make factually incorrect statements which have been shown to be proven wrong and arrogant. I think I will drop this thread since my ideal's are seen as to idealistic and that human nature is something we can not over come.

I guess we should all go back to beating the girl we like over the head with a stick and taking her back to our cave.

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

Here your simply justifying a culture for greed. How does that help when we know that to much greed hurts many people? Do you expect the factory workers or farmers to continue to produce things you "NEED" or that the economy can continue down the same path? We already know American "want" culture has now devalued it's own currency. It pretty much gets all it's goods from imports. What happens after China gets it's way and the international community decides to change from using $ to an universal currency or a world bank that handles transaction between nations? How will the west survive if the service industry that can be easily replicated in other nations after a bit of time is no longer required?

I think the question here is, why do you think the pirate part is justified in removing the rights of individuals against their will purely because of their personal worldview.

And here is another thing. THE PP ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DO ANYTHING ILLEGAL. They are political party and held accountable for there actions. The name Pirate Party comes from the "the Pirate Bay" where the people who run "the Pirate Bay" don't download or share files themselves.

No, I'm sure they're not allowed to do anything legal, but if they have their way then something which previous WAS illegal becomes legal and they all get loads of shit for free.

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

Also since I see that a moderator who has pretty much biased by his own personal gain on the subject kind of insulting me with someone who has been proven to make factually incorrect statements which have been shown to be proven wrong and arrogant. I think I will drop this thread since my ideal's are seen as to idealistic and that human nature is something we can not over come.

How am I insulting you? I'm disagreeing with you. I don't see your model working for a variety of reasons, and I don't think it's right for a variety of reasons. Your notion of musical communes was revealed to simply be identical to the current system, with people paying for services, and you've not got back to me on that.

Human nature is definitely not something you should seek to change because you personally don't like it.

I guess we should all go back to beating the girl we like over the head with a stick and taking her back to our cave.

Eh? Please, tell me - how the hell does that relate to anything anybody has been saying?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Eh? Please, tell me - how the hell does that relate to anything anybody has been saying?

Of course it makes no goddamned sense! The whole thing is built on greed and immaturity, and everything deeper than "I should get things without paying for them" is post-hoc rationalization. Because of that, none of it holds together if you actually look at it logically.

Maybe he's equating "not getting free shit" with "being abusive towards women"? Earlier, "not getting free shit" was compared to racial discrimination, so I might not be that far off. And I think that's the part that pisses me off the most about this whole thing. We both know that this is just about selfish, immature people wanting to get music, movies, and software without having to pay for it. These things are luxury items, nice to have but ultimately both unnecessary to survival and available for free to a limited extent.

Where I get angry is when the "gimme something for nothing" crowd tries to paint their selfishness as a civil rights issue. That's just bullshit. Stealing the creative works of others is not a "free speech" issue, because they aren't trying to use their own "speech" freely, they are trying to steal the words of other people. Comparing it to Rosa Parks and the civil disobedience of the American South during the 1950s and 1960s is an insult to people who were fighting for equality and sometimes for their very lives. They weren't fighting and dying to download copyrighted movies without getting into trouble, and to compare the two things is just another sign of the ethical bankruptcy of these "Pirate Party" thugs.

 

[Digitised]

Just to add my thoughts here...
Copyright and patent laws are one of the only reasons why scientists, inventors, artists etc produce, research and create new things.
Patents, lisences and protection laws are at the core of technological innovation and are responsible for huge leaps in technological progress.

Without any state backed, legal intellectual ownership over their creation, there is no earning potential for innovators. They simply may as well not bother creating that cure for cancer because they can use their time earn money elsewhere and enjoy their life. Protection laws guarantee that they can at least within their own market territories, have a period of time whereby they can recoup costs and be rewarded for their creative efforts.


If you decide to fight patents and copyrights then you will not end up with a utopian society free of greed and corruption. You will stagnate progress, and where inventions do surface you will end up with rich firms quickly copying and dominating markets with lower prices until the competion is eradicated. This will create more monopolies, since the small producers cannot compete with the lower overheads of the already large producers. They will then produce the new good and exert their role of single producer to price gouge their market.

Your view of this issue is horribly misguided, I am a second year economics student on hiatus due to family troubles, and i have studied many units regarding technological progress and industrial economics. There is no way that piracy increases sales, if this were empiracally true then firms would be taking advantage of this phenonenom to increase their profits.


Digital media is notoriously difficult to protect due to the internet, in much the same way word of mouth can spread the information from books, journals and newspapers etc. It essentially becomes public domain the moment its released at retail, since there is no real difficulty in getting a song from a friend in the same way i can ask him what the front page story is in the daily news.

So the market needs to change to reflect this shift in technology, many movie and TV companies are testing the concept of freely distributing films on their website, but it forces the viewer to watch advertising at intervals in the viewing. A small price to pay to recieve a film or show legally.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Just to add my thoughts here...
Copyright and patent laws are one of the only reasons why scientists, inventors, artists etc produce, research and create new things.
Patents, lisences and protection laws are at the core of technological innovation and are responsible for huge leaps in technological progress.

Without any state backed, legal intellectual ownership over their creation, there is no earning potential for innovators. They simply may as well not bother creating that cure for cancer because they can use their time earn money elsewhere and enjoy their life. Protection laws guarantee that they can at least within their own market territories, have a period of time whereby they can recoup costs and be rewarded for their creative efforts.

They might even be willing to save the world for free, or at least for cheap. But who is going to pay for the laboratories, and electric bills, and rent, and all the million other things that go into creating innovation? You can't cure cancer with a $700 PC and some free space in your garage. Who is going to fund a series of animal and then human double-blind studies, if there is ZERO chance of even recouping their investment, let alone making a profit? I'd love to save the whole world, and might even be willing to do it for cheap, but if I starve to death first why would I bother?

If you decide to fight patents and copyrights then you will not end up with a utopian society free of greed and corruption. You will stagnate progress, and where inventions do surface you will end up with rich firms quickly copying and dominating markets with lower prices until the competion is eradicated. This will create more monopolies, since the small producers cannot compete with the lower overheads of the already large producers. They will then produce the new good and exert their role of single producer to price gouge their market.

Your view of this issue is horribly misguided, I am a second year economics student on hiatus due to family troubles, and i have studied many units regarding technological progress and industrial economics. There is no way that piracy increases sales, if this were empiracally true then firms would be taking advantage of this phenonenom to increase their profits.

Yeah, but all that is common sense. Sure, piracy can potentially help some people, in some isolated instances, but on the whole it is a giant fail. BTW, I'm not sure if I'm more sorry for your family troubles, or for your course of study... economics is HARD.

Digital media is notoriously difficult to protect due to the internet, in much the same way word of mouth can spread the information from books, journals and newspapers etc. It essentially becomes public domain the moment its released at retail, since there is no real difficulty in getting a song from a friend in the same way i can ask him what the front page story is in the daily news.

So the market needs to change to reflect this shift in technology, many movie and TV companies are testing the concept of freely distributing films on their website, but it forces the viewer to watch advertising at intervals in the viewing. A small price to pay to recieve a film or show legally.

Right... but it is up to the people who own the product to decide whether or not to give it away. It is not up to some douche-nozzle "Pirate Party" to decide for them... is it?

 

[Aught3]

They might even be willing to save the world for free, or at least for cheap. But who is going to pay for the laboratories, and electric bills, and rent, and all the million other things that go into creating innovation? You can't cure cancer with a $700 PC and some free space in your garage. Who is going to fund a series of animal and then human double-blind studies, if there is ZERO chance of even recouping their investment, let alone making a profit?

It seems to be the government i.e. taxes that will pay for the research. I'm not entirely convinced that this a good idea given that government control over something tends to make it less efficient - yet the argument is that it will make it cheaper.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

It seems to be the government i.e. taxes that will pay for the research. I'm not entirely convinced that this a good idea given that government control over something tends to make it less efficient - yet the argument is that it will make it cheaper.

Government control doesn't make things less efficient by definition. Assume that government control creates triple efficiency compared to private industry... where is the money supposed to come from? No corporations means no corporate taxes, massive unemployment, lower sales tax revenues, foreclosures and car repossessions from unemployment that cause loss of property tax revenues, which leads to school closures... if you eliminate profits, you cut the legs out from under the economy and get disaster, not utopia.

I'm sure someone could claim that you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet, but this is more like dropping a nuke on the henhouse.

 

[COMMUNIST FLISK]

our government dont help anything when they control it, just create tons and tons of paperwork and extra beurocrasy, reduces the efficiency of everything.... im looking at YOU police force.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

our government dont help anything when they control it, just create tons and tons of paperwork and extra beurocrasy, reduces the efficiency of everything.... im looking at YOU police force.

That's just not true... but whatever makes you feel better.

 

[Möbiµs]

YARRRR!!!!

Sorry for not being active, but I've had lots of school work lately and won't be done until a week or so. But here's a positive update for all you pirates out there!

The Swedish European election votes have just been counted and the PP has received a total of 7.1%!

http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-party-wins-and-enters-the-european-parliament-090607/

This means that we will have at least one mandate in Brussels. In Germany they got 0,7%, which means no representatives, but total voters were presumably 100.000-200.000! It bodes good for us pirates!