Comments on: Germany’s ‘Pirate Party’ hopes for election surprise Beyond the World news headlines Wed, 16 Nov 2016 20:09:42 +0000 hourly 1 By: Anon Sun, 27 Sep 2009 13:47:43 +0000 Great, more arguments to dismiss:

Myth 1: Data and software are not real property

Software always has a physical existance. It starts on a computer. It ends up on a server for data transfer. It finally ends up on a disk, drive or computer memory.

At no point is data a non-physical media. There is always a tangiable physical part to data, which you can even hold in your hand if you feel like doing so.

So even if property rights don’t attach to copyright (which they do), even basic property rights could be said to apply over data and the way it is allowed to be used.

Myth 2. Copyright limits Prosperity

Your argument is that in order to increase prosperity, we should have the right to steal the property and private information of other people.

I won’t even bother addressing that argument.

By: Ahmad Moghrabi Sun, 27 Sep 2009 11:56:28 +0000 Its a new world happening under our own eyes. Old views would not help in understanding this modern world youth phenomenon.

By: Bernd Fri, 25 Sep 2009 16:49:53 +0000 Anon,

if even the artists do not get it anymore, it might be the time to adjust laws to the reality of the society: oine-lilly-allen-is-a-copyright-hypocrit e-090921/

Copyright is good thing. But the extension of copyright from physical media to nonphysical just went awfully wrong.


By: Toreon Fri, 25 Sep 2009 12:50:43 +0000 Wall Anon. You really are simple minded. There is only your way of thinking; every other way is just a lie.

Nobody denies your basic fact: Changes in the Copyright Laws is either increasing or limiting someones rights.

But what is in dispute, is the intepretation on what we should want to maximize total prosperity. And this question is not as easy as you put it.

The current legislation does not take into account that we increasingly live in a world, where the limitations of real property do not apply. In a knowledge society sharing means increasing the total prosperity. And wehn looking at cultural goods we need to weight in various incentives to decide an appropriate legislation.

This discussion needs an open mind, not a closed one like yours.

Stating – like it was a law of nature – that Intellectual Property is per se good, is a very limited view of the world. In general I believe that the mind is free and noboday should have ownership on thoughts. But I acknowledge the need for an incentive to professionally produce “ideas”, this is why patents and copyright are needed. Just not in the way they are currently interpreted.

By the way, reforming ther copyright law is the lowest of the six politic goals of the Pirate Party. So before you say something, you have no idea about, better keep quiet.

By: Anon Tue, 22 Sep 2009 07:27:05 +0000 Aw, jeez. Here we go.

This isn’t about helping artists get a fair share of profits. Or reforming copyright laws. Or modernising the structures of medium.

This is about facilitating the ability of people to steal private information (ie. copyrighted information) to which those people have no entitlement to have.

The act of filesharing is perfectly legal. The use of freeware is perfectly fine. But when you use filesharing in order to steal private information, you are a base criminal.

People steal because it benefits them, and because they think they can get away with it. That is what piracy essentially comes down to. And pirates know it very well, even as they try and justify it.

If artists wanted to make their data available to the public, they can put it on youtube or a website. So why don’t they? Oh, because they want to work with publishers to maximise their profit.

If you come up with an idea, you have rights over that creativity. Books, music and software all come under that rule. And that means you can exclude people who take your idea and use it without permission. Regardless of whether your idea is on paper or data.

Downloading stolen songs is no different to stealing it from a shop. The only difference is the lies we invent to try and convince ourselves we are not thieves. For some reason, people have a problem accepting it.

By: Bernd Eckenfels Mon, 21 Sep 2009 21:56:59 +0000 Guys, you are completely wrong here on many levels: the main points of the party are not the copyright law, it is only its founding reason. And we are not talkong about abandoning the copyright law, but about modernizing the structures around it. This is in order to allow producers (the artists) to make a better living of their work and not be locked in by contracts. It should also allow the ordinary man to be not terrorized by DRM.


By: dave Mon, 21 Sep 2009 17:48:10 +0000 What they need to do is expand the platform cover all goods and services – they would definitely represent a true shakeup then.

Copyright and trademark are for the most part a lie. by changing the definition of goods from some “private” bs to a common good, the pirate party is actually at the forefront of a serious movement…its definitely socialist in nature but not in the archaic Leninist/Stalinist sense. Italian philosopher Antonio Negri goes into this idea at great lengths.

By: zelrik Mon, 21 Sep 2009 13:08:38 +0000 @Anon
“Copyright and trademark are one of the oldest forms of property right set out in law and legislation.”

That’s right, it’s old, like death penalty is. But is it right? I dont think so. Legislation should adapt to society and not the other way around.

Btw, 80 Million americans use bittorent. So 80 Millions thieves hu?

Also stop being simple minded. The pirate party is not saying trivialities like “we should kill any form of copyright”. They want to reform, not kill.

By: Peter Mon, 21 Sep 2009 12:27:49 +0000 Would be great if they get their 5 pct. On the copyrights and stealing, must agree. If creators of content do not want their work copied, do not make it digital. It is just like any other property, if the owner does not lock it up, even the police will soon grow tired of protecting the ownership rights. The honor system never works.

By: Leeson Mon, 21 Sep 2009 10:17:59 +0000 Copyright is not the same as property right. In fact, it is the exact opposite i.e. an artificial limitation of ownership as it prevents people from doing what they want with their property. Also, the purpose of copyright is not to help artists make money as a goal in iteself, but to create an economic incentive to maximize available culture in society.

Now, does current copyright laws do this? Are they maximizing available culture, or is limiting it? Is enforcing copyright at all cost worth the gain? I would say that we have come to a point where the limitation effect is stronger than the maximizing effect and thus copyright has to be reworked to function in the 21st century.

Also, the “copying is stealing” argument is not only old and tired, it is also conceptually plain wrong. A copied file does not mean lost revenue. Easily proved by the fact that there is no net loss of spending on culture, rather the opposite. (Just as an example, Hollywood made the most money EVER in 2008).