|
|
|
Bunga
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
74 Posts |
 Posted - 01/13/2006 : 08:49:14
|
quote:
From http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=2791&date=20060103
A new political party focused on decriminalizing so-called Internet piracy and making copyrighted material free for all is planning to run in Sweden's next general elections, the head of the party said on Tuesday.
...
On the party web site, which went online on January 1, it states that its one campaign issue will be "abolishing intellectual property" and decriminalizing Internet file-sharing.
The move comes just seven months after Sweden passed a law banning the sharing of copyrighted material on the Internet without payment of royalties, in a bid to crack down on free downloading of music, films and computer games.
The new law shows that "politicians exist in a world that has almost no connection with today's in many ways technology fixated youth," Falkvinge said.
"Anyone who grew up in the 70s or later is used to living on the Net ... Technology has completely undermined the need for a whole class of businesses that previously distributed information, since people can suddenly get hold of the information themselves," he said.
The party homepage is https://www.piratpartiet.se/.
I am not sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing. Browsing their site (which is in Swedish) I see that they demand the removal of all forms of intellectual proprty laws, inculding copyright, patents, trademarking and some other forms which I have no idea how to translate into English.
If they can get properly organised in time, the party stands a fair chance of passing the 4% bar in the next nationwide election in september.
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2006 : 09:15:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bunga
quote:
From http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=2791&date=20060103
A new political party focused on decriminalizing so-called Internet piracy and making copyrighted material free for all is planning to run in Sweden's next general elections, the head of the party said on Tuesday.
...
On the party web site, which went online on January 1, it states that its one campaign issue will be "abolishing intellectual property" and decriminalizing Internet file-sharing.
The move comes just seven months after Sweden passed a law banning the sharing of copyrighted material on the Internet without payment of royalties, in a bid to crack down on free downloading of music, films and computer games.
The new law shows that "politicians exist in a world that has almost no connection with today's in many ways technology fixated youth," Falkvinge said.
"Anyone who grew up in the 70s or later is used to living on the Net ... Technology has completely undermined the need for a whole class of businesses that previously distributed information, since people can suddenly get hold of the information themselves," he said.
The party homepage is https://www.piratpartiet.se/.
I am not sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing. Browsing their site (which is in Swedish) I see that they demand the removal of all forms of intellectual proprty laws, inculding copyright, patents, trademarking and some other forms which I have no idea how to translate into English.
If they can get properly organised in time, the party stands a fair chance of passing the 4% bar in the next nationwide election in september.
I doubt they'll get it. The digital artists will certainly be... dismayed by this. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
 |
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2006 : 09:43:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bunga...
I am not sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing.
Well let me set you straight. It's a bad thing. When I produce a work of art, literature, instructional material, or other "intellectual property", I have invested no less time and effort into that endeavor than I would have if I had manufactured a tangible, solid product.
Anyone who thinks so little of other people's work, intellectual or physical, that they believe it has no value, should just be willing to live without the benefits of that work. If they think it should be theirs for the taking, they might as well be robbing gas stations or embezzling from their employers.
Do you suppose those people who support the theft of music, films, and video games would complain if they walked out in the morning and found that someone had stolen their car? Do you suppose they'd complain if they came home from work and found someone else had moved into their house? They worked hard. They paid for the house. Someone else doesn't think their work has any value. Thanks for the house.
There would be a way it could be turned into a good thing, for me anyway. If the supporters of that political party, or the citizens of Sweden, or really any other group of people on Earth would pay me tens of million dollars for my first original copy of most any intellectual property created by me, I'll be happy to sign over the publication rights to them.quote:
I am not sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing.
It's a good thing for the lazy asses who support thievery. It's a bad thing for anyone who understands the value of hard work. And on a personal note, I would certainly question the moral integrity of anyone who even finds this to be a dilemma.
|
|
|
|
Bunga
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
74 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2006 : 10:03:45 [Permalink]
|
If you were to steal my car, I would hate it. If I stole your music or art, no doubt you would hate it too.
But copying is not theft. When I download "Hit me baby one more time.mp3" (I want to make it clear that this is hypothetical, I have never ever downloaded that file, nor will I) I am not stealing anything. The person I download from still has his copy. The record company still has their copy. Ms. Spears still has her copy. How is it theft?
Oh right. I am not paying anyone for the use of the music. After all, using something without paying for it must be theft, right?
So every time I listen to that song on the radio, I am stealing it. Every time it plays on my TV, I am stealing it. Every time I sit on a park bench I am stealing the bench. Or not. |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2006 : 10:33:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bunga
If you were to steal my car, I would hate it. If I stole your music or art, no doubt you would hate it too.
But copying is not theft. When I download "Hit me baby one more time.mp3" (I want to make it clear that this is hypothetical, I have never ever downloaded that file, nor will I) I am not stealing anything. The person I download from still has his copy. The record company still has their copy. Ms. Spears still has her copy. How is it theft?
Oh right. I am not paying anyone for the use of the music. After all, using something without paying for it must be theft, right?
So every time I listen to that song on the radio, I am stealing it. Every time it plays on my TV, I am stealing it. Every time I sit on a park bench I am stealing the bench. Or not.
Yes. But if someone steals the piece of artwork I've spent months working with, and start selling prints of what I did, and takes credit for all those hours I've spent in it, is that right? |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
Bunga
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
74 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2006 : 11:17:22 [Permalink]
|
| If he steals your artwork he has stolen your artwork and should be punished for theft. If he has copied you artwork and sells it claiming it is his work he should be punished for... I think the term is fraud. If he has copied your artwork but gives you full credit for it I can't see anything wrong with selling prints of it. Under current legislation, it falls under intellectual property infringment. If the Pirate Party gets their way, the first two scenarios would still be illegal, but the term intellectual property infrignment would be meaningless. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2006 : 12:03:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bunga
If he steals your artwork he has stolen your artwork and should be punished for theft. If he has copied you artwork and sells it claiming it is his work he should be punished for... I think the term is fraud. If he has copied your artwork but gives you full credit for it I can't see anything wrong with selling prints of it. Under current legislation, it falls under intellectual property infringment. If the Pirate Party gets their way, the first two scenarios would still be illegal, but the term intellectual property infrignment would be meaningless.
And that's the fucked up part of it. Even though they give her full credit for the artwork, the prints are being sold for profit from the sweat of her brow. That is wrong.
I will admit to downloading music. The problem comes in when you compare paintings with music. Specifically obscure music which is no longer available or in print. If these songs were available in the open market, I would buy them. They are not available on the open market. Paintings and prints of paintings are available on the open market. It is also implied that paintings can be readily copied or images taken of them and prints made as long as the notation clearly indicates that it is a print or reproduction and the proper royalties are paid to the artist (if applicable).
In the matter of music downloading, the music is taken but not in exchange for any commodity. The equivalent action to a painting would be taking a picture of the original, making prints, and then distributing them free of charge to others. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2006 : 12:19:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bunga...
If he steals your artwork he has stolen your artwork and should be punished for theft. If he has copied you artwork and sells it claiming it is his work he should be punished for... I think the term is fraud. If he has copied your artwork but gives you full credit for it I can't see anything wrong with selling prints of it. Under current legislation, it falls under intellectual property infringment. If the Pirate Party gets their way, the first two scenarios would still be illegal, but the term intellectual property infrignment would be meaningless.
Apparently you don't value the investment that others make when creating works of art. Here's what is wrong with it. If he copies my work, gives me full credit for it, and sells those copies, he is profiting by stealing my work. He didn't do the work, I did, yet he's making money from it. That's theft. I don't do my work in order to give it away. And in the cases where I do choose to give it away, that is strictly up to me. If you take others' work without their permission, giving them credit doesn't change the fact that they didn't give you permission. If you think it's acceptable then you have the moral integrity of a burglar or car thief. Period.
|
|
|
|
Bunga
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
74 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2006 : 12:23:21 [Permalink]
|
| Do you mean that when any individual A profits from individual B's work without paying individual B for said work, individual A is doing something morally wrong? |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2006 : 12:58:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bunga...
Do you mean that when any individual A profits from individual B's work without paying individual B for said work, individual A is doing something morally wrong?
I thought I did make it clear, but I'll try again. I invest my time and effort into creating a work of art, or literature, or an instruction manual, or into designing a part for a car, or producing a piece of music, or authoring some software, or any such endeavor. Now someone else who didn't invest the time and effort into that creation makes copies of it and sells them without my permission. That person is a thief. Or maybe they make copies of it and give them away for free, reducing the number of copies I otherwise might have benefited from selling. That person is a thief.
So one more time, if one finds it acceptable to steal the work of others, he has the moral integrity of a thief. If it's okay with someone for people to steal the work of others in one regard, "intellectual property" for example, but think it's wrong to steal the fruits of another's work in another regard, their automobile for example, then that person is a hypocrite. Theft is theft. Picking and choosing which types of theft are okay or not is only a way to rationalize one's lack of moral integrity.
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2006 : 13:00:18 [Permalink]
|
| Downloading copyrighted music is not "accessing information." |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2006 : 13:55:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bunga
So every time I listen to that song on the radio, I am stealing it. Every time it plays on my TV, I am stealing it. Every time I sit on a park bench I am stealing the bench. Or not.
TV and radio pay for the content they broadcast. They earn back money by selling advertising time. TV and radio might seem "free" to you, but it is in fact a business model where the artists get paid for their effort.
When you download a copy of a song or movie, it is stealing because the makers of that content don't get paid.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 01/13/2006 13:56:03 |
|
|
|
Bunga
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
74 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2006 : 13:58:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
That person is a thief.
Not according to the law, nor according to the majority of the population's sense of morality.
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
TV and radio pay for the content they broadcast. They earn back money by selling advertising time. TV and radio might seem "free" to you, but it is in fact a business model where the artists get paid for their effort.
When you download a copy of a song or movie, it is stealing because the makers of that content don't get paid.
Yes they do. Ever since the new tax which was instituted on hard drives, CDs, floppies, DVDs, MDs and any and all other forms of digital and analog media storage, which goes to pay the owners of the music license via STIM (Svenska Tonsättares Internationella Musikbyrå). |
| Edited by - Bunga on 01/13/2006 14:04:45 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2006 : 14:04:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bunga
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
That person is a thief.
Not according to the law...
Yes, according to the law, or this new political party wouldn't be demanding the removal of copywrite laws.quote:
...nor according to the majority of the population's sense of morality.
Yes, according to most people's sense of morality. In fact, the only one in this thread who don't seem to "get" that this is the same as stealing is you. Don't make the mistake of assuming a majority of people agree with you. You are in the minority.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 01/13/2006 14:04:58 |
|
|
|
Bunga
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
74 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2006 : 14:07:35 [Permalink]
|
| No; they are intellectual property infringers, and are brought up on charges of intellectual property infringment; not theft. The two are not the same. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2006 : 14:11:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bunga
No; they are intellectual property infringers, and are brought up on charges of intellectual property infringment; not theft. The two are not the same.
Right, and embezzlers are brought up on charges of embezzlement, which is a type of theft in the same way copywrite infringment is a type of theft.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
