Should I join the Pirate Party of New Zealand?

Forums › Off topic › Should I join the Pirate Party of New Zealand?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

29753 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#461043 20-Apr-2011 19:19

[So now here comes big content telling us that not only are we not allowed to share what identifies us but to do so will label us as "pirates", criminals, ]

So if you car and stereo and TV and computer are stolen, maybe they are just being shared for a while? Whats the difference between these assets and a movie DVd, music CD etc? All of these items are bought, paid for, then they are yours.

From what you have stated, you are supporting theft?

pajamian

17 posts

Geek

#461114 20-Apr-2011 22:28

tdgeek: So if you car and stereo and TV and computer are stolen, maybe they are just being shared for a while? Whats the difference between these assets and a movie DVd, music CD etc? All of these items are bought, paid for, then they are yours.

Oh, come now. Do you honestly mean to tell me you can't tell the difference between sharing and stealing? Has the big media rhetoric really been ingrained into you that well?

If I go on vacation to France, take a photo of the Eiffel Tower, and send copies of that to all my friends have I just stolen the Eiffel Tower?

If I take a video of Old Faithful erupting, have I just stolen one of the Unites States' national monuments?

...and yet, somehow, if I'm making a copy of a piece of music that touches me so that I can share it with my friends, that's stealing? In none of these cases have I deprived the original "owner" of anything (usually not even some theoretical "profit" that he may have gotten from selling the music, in spite of what the record companies want you to believe).

You honestly think this tired old argument convinces anyone (except maybe you)? You're going to have to do a lot better than that.

tdgeek

29753 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#461117 20-Apr-2011 22:37

This old argument is your justification for stealing.

Photos of Old Faithful are free for you to take and share. Downloading a pirate copy of media that is sold is not for you to steal and share, you know that.

I could say that you are unaware of the profits that the owner gets and how they get that. Its called royalties as an FYI. But if you feel that your justification makes it ok for you, thats fine.

No need to reply

richms

28199 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#461119 20-Apr-2011 22:46

The problem is they are not single issue, they have tacked on all this other stuff. eg the DRM part. IMO, DRM is essential to the provision of services that people actually want in the form of subscriptions etc, and to say that applying DRM goes against the reason for copyright is absurd.

Also they are anti software patents, which is another disagreement I have with their core policies. IMO they are too closely alligned with freetards views.

Richard rich.ms

nakedmolerat

4629 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#461120 20-Apr-2011 22:47

pajamian:
This law that was recently passed under urgency has been passed in order for New Zealand to begin to come into compliance with a new trade agreement with the US known as the "Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement" (TPPA).

Go look this up on google, it is ACTA on steroids. So now our sovereignty as a nation is being threatened by big content industries from overseas as well.

i dont think anyone here on geekzone has mentioned TPPA. you are one of the few people who knew this. i am impressed. go pirate party! arrrr!!

Ragnor

8223 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#461123 20-Apr-2011 22:49

By definition copyright infringement is not theft, two different laws.

Ragnor

8223 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#461124 20-Apr-2011 22:51

richms: The problem is they are not single issue, they have tacked on all this other stuff. eg the DRM part. IMO, DRM is essential to the provision of services that people actually want in the form of subscriptions etc, and to say that applying DRM goes against the reason for copyright is absurd.

Also they are anti software patents, which is another disagreement I have with their core policies. IMO they are too closely alligned with freetards views.

You are pro software patent's seriously?

If only early mathematicians had patented mathematical concepts, their children's children could still be raking in royalties today and it would have promoted so much innovation.

/sarcasm

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

richms

28199 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#461135 20-Apr-2011 23:01

Ragnor:

You are pro software patent's seriously?

If only early mathematicians had patented mathematical concepts, their children's children could still be raking in royalties today and it would have promoted so much innovation.

/sarcasm

Yes, just not the absurdity that they are so easy to get for random things. If you make a new video compression standard etc I think you should get rewarded by people that use it.

As for things like one click ordering or most of what apple get patents on, like for user interfaces etc, no thats not what a patent should cover, those are designs so should be a registered design.

Richard rich.ms

gzt

17160 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#461141 20-Apr-2011 23:26

pajamian:

The pirate party has coherent talking points on patent and copyright reach and length, but IMHO the privacy position needs to directly relate to copyright to be as coherent and effective.

Interesting that you should mention that. On the one hand we are being attacked for being a "single issue" party, and on the other hand we are attacked because we have other issues that don't necessarily tie into that "single issue" that everyone seems to think we are all about. The fact is that the Pirate Party is about so much more than just getting free stuff.

Interesting that you think I was attacking you? I thought my post in whole was on the fairly supportive.

pajamian: [...] an offense that in our view should not even be illegal to begin with [...]

From the rest of your post I gather that the 'offence' you refer to above is the sharing of copyright material, and most likely music, videos, and movies.

So, what exactly are you proposing in that regard? Specific changes to the way copyright works to protect sharing or the specific kinds of sharing you identify? It doesn't look like it.

Your website talks about reducing copyright to 15 years, but if you enacted that policy it would do nothing to change the 'illegal' status you refer to.

pajamian

17 posts

Geek

#461145 20-Apr-2011 23:37

gzt: Interesting that you think I was attacking you? I thought my post in whole was on the fairly supportive.

Sorry, you're right, it was.

So, what exactly are you proposing in that regard? Specific changes to the way copyright works to protect sharing or the specific kinds of sharing you identify? It doesn't look like it.

Your website talks about reducing copyright to 15 years, but if you enacted that policy it would do nothing to change the 'illegal' status you refer to.

Both, actually. The general copyright term is way too long and prevents further innovation being built on top of works long past the time necessary to make a reasonable profit on the copyright. Also we believe that copyright should not apply to personal copying, but only to commercial copying, so that file-sharing would actually be legal. See the section on "Copyright Reach".

gzt

17160 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#461146 20-Apr-2011 23:39

Ok, I found your Philosophical Position on Copyright page:

Our Policy:

Set copyright term to 10 years from publication

Allow non-commercial use, copying, and conveying of copyrighted works

Disallow the use of 'Digital Rights Management' on copyrighted works

Set patent term to 10 years

Exclude intangible inventions from patent cover

Require warrants for intercepting electronic messages

That is very clear.

pajamian

17 posts

Geek

#461148 20-Apr-2011 23:47

richms: The problem is they are not single issue, they have tacked on all this other stuff. eg the DRM part. IMO, DRM is essential to the provision of services that people actually want in the form of subscriptions etc, and to say that applying DRM goes against the reason for copyright is absurd.

I honestly don't see how you justify that DRM is essential to subscription services, etc. Surely these services can distribute content that is not DRM laden and I really fail to see why DRM even helps them much at all and often times hurts these services due to DRM restricting their audience to those who have access to the specific hardware or software required to play the content. Also there have been some extremely poorly implemented DRM schemes in the past, with almost 100% certainty it either does not work (DVD encryption) or is so draconian that it makes unauthorized changes to system components and can negatively affect the security of systems it is installed in (SONY rootkit fiasco). Also DRM fails to take into account fair use provisions in the law where people are specifically allowed to make copies for certain educational, satirical, research, etc, uses. And when copyright does finally expire on the work and it enters the public domain, DRM does not allow the work to be used to the better benefit of society. Copyright is a false monopoly granted with the intent that it will help to foster creativity and innovation, and any component designed specifically to limit further creativity and innovation should not be allowed for copyrighted material. If a company wants to protect their works with DRM then they should not be allowed to rely on copyright to protect them as well.

Also they are anti software patents, which is another disagreement I have with their core policies. IMO they are too closely alligned with freetards views.

Don't get me started on software patents here. That is another whole can of worms.

...and really, "freetards"? That is just childish name calling. Can we not have a reasoned discussion without resorting to this?

richms

28199 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#461150 21-Apr-2011 00:25

If there is no DRM in a subscription service then people will be able to keep using the content they have licensed after they stop paying, they will be able to share the tracks with non subscribers and there is nothing stopping them just joining for a month, getting all they want and then canceling it.

The encryption just needs to work well enough to inform people that what they are doing is not within the license they have the goods under, That is why I have a problem with the use of the words "effective" in the DMCA since that opens up the argument that once it can be cracked easily (as is the case with DVD stuff) that you can violate your license without penalty.

The fair use thing is an issue, but IMO that is better tackled by allowing limited generation of a non DRM version that is all that is needed for the use in question, which should be able to be audited by the rightsowners for correct use of it.

What IMO does need to happen is that a clear difference between sale and license gets established, as right now you have people "buying" tracks off things like iTunes etc when they are not purchasing, they are licensing it for specific playback situations.

Richard rich.ms

bnapi

92 posts

Master Geek
Inactive user

#461151 21-Apr-2011 00:27

The pirate party is against the DIA internet filter right? You believe in uncensored internet?

pajamian

17 posts

Geek

#461152 21-Apr-2011 00:29

bnapi: The pirate party is against the DIA internet filter right? You believe in uncensored internet?

Correct.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6