Pirate Party UK

[Shapeshifter]

I work hard to compose and record good music. A live gig might last two hours with 15 songs or so. How long do you think it takes in a studio to record just ONE song? Ignoring the time spent writing and rehearsing it, of course. On good form, I can record one song in a day, from morning till night - but I have complete control over all the parts. Recording in a studio can take a long time. If you tot up the man-hours accumulated over the recording of a 10-track album and compare it to the length of a gig, you can probably see the difference.

Yeah makes sense.

It's a service offered by professionals, and if they want to give it away free then fine - often that's the best way to get started. But in the long run? No.

You're right. But I wonder where the big difference is to free software. There's also a huge amount of time spent on developing free software by people who all work a job to earn money. I guess there are some key differences, for example that a piece of software is usually started by only one or two people, but at some point a large number of people can join in and share the workload, while with music, you won't start writing a song and some lyrics, put them up for free and let others tweak them, record bits of it in a studio, or anything like that. Maybe the fact that free software is usually a community effort makes it much easier to be given away for free. Still, there's an intrinsic factor that makes people want to give their work away for free, which applies to very few people in the music industry, but many in software development.

Are you able to live from your average job, or are you struggling? If you'd be earning, say, 10'000 USD a month, would you consider giving some of your music away for free or would you insist on making more money?
Maybe this is another difference to free software: Much of the free software is nice to have but many people might not consider paying any money for it anyway, so it doesn't make much sense to even demand money for it, while with music, if you're "sellable", a record company will pay you for what you're doing.



edit: btw, what is it with people replying to their own posts multiple times instead of using the edit functionality? ...

 

[Otokogoroshi]

I haven't read this whole thread but it seems mostly to be people who don't fully understand why the DMCA and other copyright laws are bad.

I sure as shit hope no one is suggesting creative people should have zero control over their work. I'm a writer and that would irk me to say the least. However there is a big leap from taking a physical item vs. one that can be endlessly reproduced. Both are bad yes, but one can't be replaced and is missed. People who never buy the music are thieves but they aren't in the same boat as a shoplifter. They're several boats away at least. Unless they sell the pirated music or movie then they jump a boat ahead of the shoplifter.

Here is an example of the DMCA gone wrong

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/30/opinion/30LESS.html

Another:

http://news.cnet.com/2010-1028-978636.html

ZOMG nude characters in video games a big deal:

http://www.securityfocus.com/news/10466




Here is a list of other issues it causes.

http://www.eff.org/wp/unintended-consequences-seven-years-under-dmca




So NO this is hardly just about "I want mah free muzak!". It's far above and beyond that.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I haven't read this whole thread but it seems mostly to be people who don't fully understand why the DMCA and other copyright laws are bad.

We understand just fine, and we've given every indication that we understand just fine. The problem is that this thread isn't in support of the "Reform the DMCA Party" or the "Reform Copyright Law Party." We wouldn't be arguing against either of those parties.

This thread is about the "Pirate Party" and piracy is theft.

 

[richi1173]

Last I checked stores didn't refund games that had been opened, so the person who bought the game but dislikes it is supporting the makers of the product whether they like it or not.

Actually, if that happens, it will be the same situation consumers were in 1983 with Atari. Consumers bought Pac-Man and E.T. expecting good solid titles. What they got was a piece of crap. This was one of the major contributors to the video-game crash of 1983 that Atari never recovered from. The loss of consumer confidence in your product is a killer.

 

[Ozymandyus]

Honestly, you can sample games,software, etc to the point where you know if you will like it or not without buying anything. I can't think of ANYthing that I've bought in the last few years that wasn't reviewed 17000 times before I bought it, and I always knew if I was taking a chance of buying something I didn't like.

I'm interested in this idea that it's fine to pirate the really expensive business version of software too. People seem to think that it's totally fine to take it because its expensive. There are shitloads of cheaper versions - or free versions - out there... but you want the very best one that costs 1000 dollars.

A bunch of software engineers and artists at the cutting edge of their field worked their asses off to make the latest versions of expensive software. Why can we just take that software because they charge a lot of money for it? I don't get it. ESPECIALLY the people who take and use that expensive software and use it to make commercial products that compete directly with companies and individuals that spend the thousands of dollars to buy the software and play by the rules.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Honestly, you can sample games,software, etc to the point where you know if you will like it or not without buying anything. I can't think of ANYthing that I've bought in the last few years that wasn't reviewed 17000 times before I bought it, and I always knew if I was taking a chance of buying something I didn't like.

I'm interested in this idea that it's fine to pirate the really expensive business version of software too. People seem to think that it's totally fine to take it because its expensive. There are shitloads of cheaper versions - or free versions - out there... but you want the very best one that costs 1000 dollars.

A bunch of software engineers and artists at the cutting edge of their field worked their asses off to make the latest versions of expensive software. Why can we just take that software because they charge a lot of money for it? I don't get it. ESPECIALLY the people who take and use that expensive software and use it to make commercial products that compete directly with companies and individuals that spend the thousands of dollars to buy the software and play by the rules.

There's a basic assumption somewhere that we don't share in common with people who think piracy is acceptable. It goes deeper than the idea that they just reject the idea that piracy is theft, because almost everyone in this thread accepts in to some degree.

Is it just that people think it is OK when they do it, because they like themselves and think of themselves as being good and deserving people? Therefore, whatever they want should be available to them at no cost, no matter what?

 

[ahdkaw]

Well, that is a little different. When we recorded stuff onto tape as lads, it was generally one or two songs, not great quality, onto a fairly imperfect format that would fast degrade. The triumph of the internet and technology is that now you can get PERFECT versions of an entire album, or discography, within minutes, and then quickly put them onto all sorts of media for whatever use you see fit.

I wasn't going to return, but this has just shown me the hypocrisy of your argument. According to your statement above, it is okay to steal music as long as the QUALITY has been reduced. LOL.

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

I deserve recognition as much as anyone else for the work and effort I've put into something and I don't see why just anyone should have the right to take something I have used my talents to make and use it how they wish.

I apologise if this is out of context and I've missed the point.

It's completely in context and you haven't missed the point. I don't want idealistic non-artists deciding that my work as an artists is somehow theirs by default.

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

I wasn't going to return, but this has just shown me the hypocrisy of your argument. According to your statement above, it is okay to steal music as long as the QUALITY has been reduced. LOL.

No, what you've done is pick one small piece of my argument and take it out of context. I don't think it's ok to steal music - my point was that stealing music now pretty much means you don't need to buy it. Back when all we had were tape decks, I personally still went and bought the majority of the music I recorded. One person with a tape copy of an album can't copy it much. One person with high quality mp3s can send it again and again, there's no degradation.

Was there a huge outcry over people copying things to tape? It's been happening for decades and doesn't seem to have damaged the market. It's only now, with media being so easily theftable, copyable and sendable, that it makes some kind of difference. You can't compare the two eras because they're technologically different.

 

[COMMUNIST FLISK]

what are the actual statistics?

i mean are the record industrie's claims of "it will destroy cd sales!" justified?

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

what are the actual statistics?

i mean are the record industrie's claims of "it will destroy cd sales!" justified?

I worked in a Zavvis for a month and boy, people sure did buy CDs . . .

 

[Shapeshifter]

Are you able to live from your average job, or are you struggling? If you'd be earning, say, 10'000 USD a month, would you consider giving some of your music away for free or would you insist on making more money?

Th1sWasATriumph, I'd really be interested in an answer to the question I asked you (in this post from yesterday), quoted above. In addition to that, I've thought of another thing: You say recording takes a lot of time, which sure makes sense. What about the creative part of writing songs and music? Would you be more open to the idea of sharing just the notes and song text on the web for free (if there are any in written form)?

edit: Because it seems like producers of electronic music are more fond of giving it away for free, maybe because of the fact that they have no additional producing costs.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

what are the actual statistics?

i mean are the record industrie's claims of "it will destroy cd sales!" justified?

It doesn't really matter, does it? If they want to drive their industry into the ground, that's their choice.

 

[Tsunamie]

ImprobableJoe - Free speech arguments don't apply. You don't deserve to be giving things for free without permission. Period.

It does when you are effectively being censored. The level of copyright observability is that new concepts such as a name for a particularize group are not to some extent copyrighted. Imagine the cultural diversity in the fantasy genre of books and movies if the original concept of elves was copyrighted.

Notes and tones combinations all copyrighted for something someone did in the past. The Piracy argument is not the whole argument, Pirate Party stand for a lot. What you seem to think is that the pirate party is just about downloading a load of movies for free. So let me correct you on that front -

1> We wish to REFORM copyright to limit it's effective roll and it's licensing length. (To stop this monopoly bullshit where people are paid 1p to make one CD and then the distributors sell it on for ,£25 a disk)
U;ultimately abolish it completely to insure that this monopoly does not effect main media the way it currently does
2> Abolish Patent law.
3> Insure personal privacy is respected by the large distribution companies. Currently the American government and Several others are secretly trying to put a directive together concerning IP tracking technology. Which is a serious breach of free speech directives.
4> I could go on but I am kinda stapped for time. I am gone for a few days because of a wedding and I see 3 more pages of posts. Sighs lol!

I will have ever alternatively link you to a online web-page we are putting together that gives you facts and figures on how Copyright/patent laws hurt a nations economy as well as out line what is required for such laws to be enforced which breach other laws..

If you have a problem with technology or medical advances being trademarked, I think your best bet is to drop the "pirate" foolishness and push for government-sponsored research and development, the results of which would belong to the government and sold to the people at cost. There's even an argument to be made for shortening the amount of time that a patent or copyright can be enforced, in certain circumstances. If you're serious about reform and making beneficial changes, your best bet is to drop the label that associates a reasonable discussion of patent and copyright law with a bunch of spoiled criminals who want to steal music and movies for purely selfish reasons.

1> We see no issue with trademarking as thats related to a company branded and role.
2> If you look at the political parties manifesto. You would have already realized that our first request is that copyright limitations are put in place. Patents are more sinister and should be abolished as we have seen no good come from them for any nation that enforces them.
3> The name Pirate Party was created from the on going Pirate Bay Court case. This has spawned into a huge sub-culture and international co-ordination of this political movement. The name is non negotiable as it gives our party an example of a Nation interfering with another nations legal system. Not only that, it displays a level of tenacity the big media companies are willing to perform to corrupt governments of other nations.

As for someone being a criminal for downloading a movie with out paying for it. Under the current marketing model that would be the case. However as stated before, the strength of a nation's economy can be strengthened if we change that model. Not only would downloading be legal, however it would also increase the economies.

To conclude -

America and other nations will have to conform anyway. This socialist message is for there own benefit. The interests of one nation, does not justify a monopoly. IF nations interments do not understand the that are being used to regulation new technology don't work. Then they will suffer for there own stupidity.

The new models I have explained to you are already available and grown quiet quickly. So ultimately I am just telling people for there own good. Since this old way of doing things will ultimately fall apart given the conflict between personal freedom and personal gain.

Otokogoroshi, I love you. Thanks for the links.

It doesn't really matter, does it? If they want to drive their industry into the ground, that's their choice.

Now here's the socialist in me shouting at you. Why should an intire industry go down where a lot of people work but only a hand full of people gain massive amount of money for shaking a few hands here and there. Especially when more jobs can be generated by stopping people from having complete monopoly on an industry?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

It does when you are effectively being censored. The level of copyright observability is that new concepts such as a name for a particularize group are not to some extent copyrighted. Imagine the cultural diversity in the fantasy genre of books and movies if the original concept of elves was copyrighted.

Notes and tones combinations all copyrighted for something someone did in the past. The Piracy argument is not the whole argument, Pirate Party stand for a lot. What you seem to think is that the pirate party is just about downloading a load of movies for free. So let me correct you on that front -

1> We wish to REFORM copyright to limit it's effective roll and it's licensing length. (To stop this monopoly bullshit where people are paid 1p to make one CD and then the distributors sell it on for ,£25 a disk)
U;ultimately abolish it completely to insure that this monopoly does not effect main media the way it currently does
2> Abolish Patent law.
3> Insure personal privacy is respected by the large distribution companies. Currently the American government and Several others are secretly trying to put a directive together concerning IP tracking technology. Which is a serious breach of free speech directives.
4> I could go on but I am kinda stapped for time. I am gone for a few days because of a wedding and I see 3 more pages of posts. Sighs lol!

I will have ever alternatively link you to a online web-page we are putting together that gives you facts and figures on how Copyright/patent laws hurt a nations economy as well as out line what is required for such laws to be enforced which breach other laws.

1> We see no issue with trademarking as thats related to a company branded and role.
2> If you look at the political parties manifesto. You would have already realized that our first request is that copyright limitations are put in place. Patents are more sinister and should be abolished as we have seen no good come from them for any nation that enforces them.
3> The name Pirate Party was created from the on going Pirate Bay Court case. This has spawned into a huge sub-culture and international co-ordination of this political movement. The name is non negotiable as it gives our party an example of a Nation interfering with another nations legal system. Not only that, it displays a level of tenacity the big media companies are willing to perform to corrupt governments of other nations.

As for someone being a criminal for downloading a movie with out paying for it. Under the current marketing model that would be the case. However as stated before, the strength of a nation's economy can be strengthened if we change that model. Not only would downloading be legal, however it would also increase the economies.

To conclude -

America and other nations will have to conform anyway. This socialist message is for there own benefit. The interests of one nation, does not justify a monopoly. IF nations interments do not understand the that are being used to regulation new technology don't work. Then they will suffer for there own stupidity.

The new models I have explained to you are already available and grown quiet quickly. So ultimately I am just telling people for there own good. Since this old way of doing things will ultimately fall apart given the conflict between personal freedom and personal gain.

You're entire position is garbage. I appreciate you laying it out in such detail, thanks for that. I don't have that nagging feeling that I missed something.

What's really interesting is your declaration of a dictatorship based on stealing the work of other people. You plan on forcing everyone to conform to your "uncreative people get to steal from creative people" plans. The fact that you will never win is small comfort, because just knowing that you and your fellow thieves are conspiring together is bad enough.

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

Are you able to live from your average job, or are you struggling? If you'd be earning, say, 10'000 USD a month, would you consider giving some of your music away for free or would you insist on making more money?

If I was earning $10000 a month I would be spending it on recording, most likely. I don't think you can find the finite cutoff point beyond which altruism suddenly gestates, and in any case it's hypothetical - I don't earn much a month, and occasionally struggle, but overally it's ok. As I said, the best way to start is to sometimes give music away - that doesn't mean that it will always be free when or if you become successful.

You say recording takes a lot of time, which sure makes sense. What about the creative part of writing songs and music? Would you be more open to the idea of sharing just the notes and song text on the web for free (if there are any in written form)?

That happens anyway. People have been tabbing and transcribing music and lyrics for ages, and I don't see a problem with it - any sufficiently good musician can work a song out on their own anyway. The purpose of such transcription is so people can learn and cover songs - if people use it to plagiarise a copywrited song, that's a different story. People also find out or work out the approximate tones used by guitarists and make them available online. I doubt that's illegal - maybe I could copywrite my guitar tone, but everyone knows it's the player more than the sound.

 

[Tsunamie]

You're entire position is garbage. I appreciate you laying it out in such detail, thanks for that. I don't have that nagging feeling that I missed something.

What's really interesting is your declaration of a dictatorship based on stealing the work of other people. You plan on forcing everyone to conform to your "uncreative people get to steal from creative people" plans. The fact that you will never win is small comfort, because just knowing that you and your fellow thieves are conspiring together is bad enough.

LOL!

Do I have to point out ubuntu as an example? It may take a several more years but it will happen.

PS. the Pirate Party Sweden is growing in numbers in Sweden. They are already confirmed to get 2 seats in Brussels. PP Sweden are also putting people forward for the EU elections. So in short, to destroy the little conform you have seemed to gain from ignorance of facts. We are here, we are growing and we seem to be winning.

1> You tried to argue that free speech was not apart of copyright.- You failed.
2> You tried to argue that media distribution companies lost large sums of money, You failed
3> You tried to implicate that theft of intellectual material harmed the artists, You failed
4> You seem to be under the impression that we don't seem to be winning this fight, You failed
5> You seem to think the PP was just about stealing things from others when the message clearly states that the PP stand for the laws and registrations that prevent people from creating systems that tack advantage of others. - Your Epic FAIL!

Summary -

I laid out my point by point argument in the homes to educate you on every little thing these laws do that harm peoples lives.

Your response has been a singular argument with very little evidence. Which is that somehow you think that someones concepts are there own and that for others to have them they must pay some form of monetary value. Your last post shows your ignorance on this matter. (I wonder what would have happened to the start of human culture when one monkey told another they are not allowed to use the farming technical because it was another monkeys creation and everyone else that uses his idea must pay that monkey a banana each time they use it.)

Dictatorship? The whole system is about equality and the freedom of information. The system in place is a dictatorship. We are not forcing this system on anyone, I am just telling you that the proof is in the pudding and that if the government does not change now. They will suffer for it when more people lose jobs because of some stupid rich old man, that could not pull his head out of his ass.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

LOL!

Do I have to point out ubuntu as an example? It may take a several more years but it will happen.

PS. the Pirate Party Sweden is growing in numbers in Sweden. They are already confirmed to get 2 seats in Brussels. PP Sweden are also putting people forward for the EU elections. So in short, to destroy the little conform you have seemed to gain from ignorance of facts. We are here, we are growing and we seem to be winning.

1> You tried to argue that free speech was not apart of copyright.- You failed.
2> You tried to argue that media distribution companies lost large sums of money, You failed
3> You tried to implicate that theft of intellectual material harmed the artists, You failed
4> You seem to be under the impression that we don't seem to be winning this fight, You failed
5> You seem to think the PP was just about stealing things from others when the message clearly states that the PP stand for the laws and registrations that prevent people from creating systems that tack advantage of others. - Your Epic FAIL!

Summary -

I laid out my point by point argument in the homes to educate you on every little thing these laws do that harm peoples lives.

Your response has been a singular argument with very little evidence. Which is that somehow you think that someones concepts are there own and that for others to have them they must pay some form of monetary value. Your last post shows your ignorance on this matter. (I wonder what would have happened to the start of human culture when one monkey told another they are not allowed to use the farming technical because it was another monkeys creation and everyone else that uses his idea must pay that monkey a banana each time they use it.)

Dictatorship? The whole system is about equality and the freedom of information. The system in place is a dictatorship. We are not forcing this system on anyone, I am just telling you that the proof is in the pudding and that if the government does not change now. They will suffer for it when more people lose jobs because of some stupid rich old man, that could not pull his head out of his ass.

Nope... you're still talking about people who "can't" stealing from people who "can"... and as much as you want to dress it up as "for our own good" I see right through it. You claim that paying people for their work is "taking advantage" of you, which is bullshit. What's really interesting is that you've resorted to misrepresenting my arguments in order to further rationalize your criminal and unethical attitude, which is completely expected from someone who believes in theft as a political position.

You're a thief, taking from people without paying them. Your position is that not paying for creative work will benefit everyone, while ignoring the simple and obvious fact that without profit motive most creative work will simply cease to exist. It is not only unethical and immature, it is also illogical and short-sighted.

Anyways, I'm not responding to you again. I only choose to deal with honest people, folks with integrity and ethics. You are a thief, so i'm done with you.

 

[COMMUNIST FLISK]

You are a thief, so i'm done with you.

hyppocrite, your not exactly coming accross as a nice person yourself you know.

 

[Tsunamie]

Nope... you're still talking about people who "can't" stealing from people who "can"... and as much as you want to dress it up as "for our own good" I see right through it. You claim that paying people for their work is "taking advantage" of you, which is bullshit. What's really interesting is that you've resorted to misrepresenting my arguments in order to further rationalize your criminal and unethical attitude, which is completely expected from someone who believes in theft as a political position.

You're a thief, taking from people without paying them. Your position is that not paying for creative work will benefit everyone, while ignoring the simple and obvious fact that without profit motive most creative work will simply cease to exist. It is not only unethical and immature, it is also illogical and short-sighted.

Anyways, I'm not responding to you again. I only choose to deal with honest people, folks with integrity and ethics. You are a thief, so i'm done with you.

LOL -

1> As for the people who can't and the people who can. Thats utter bulshit given the fact that I have already demonstrated everyone can come up with these concepts and do. The copyright system kinda restricts who can use the words or concepts.
2> I have already demonstrated that the artists and creative people get paid for there work. So again your argument falls down.
3> It's not theft, thats kinda the funny thing about it. No actual theft has been performed. As demonstrated by the on going court case in Sweden. LOL!


As for misrepresentation. I think you have got the wrong way round.

" Your position is that not paying for creative work will benefit everyone, while ignoring the simple and obvious fact that without profit motive most creative work will simply cease to exist. It is not only unethical and immature, it is also illogical and short-sighted."

I have clearly stated to you several times the artists get paid. The people that do the work get paid. The people that use legal bullshit to get a monopoly on an entire industry are our targets. You would have kind of been informed quiet well of that if you had watched the video I linked you or read my point by point posts.