said by LuisRodg :

And their true intentions are good. imo.

said by amigo_boy :

Naming a political party "pirate" is just plain dumb. A lot of people (like myself) may be persuaded (or already believe) the social *gift* to artists and publishers known as "copyright" has swung too far in favor of them at the expense of society (reduction of "fair use," non-existant "public domain"). Using terms like "pirate" as if it's legitimate won't help persuade anyone.

said by cdru :

history has shown us that when a government (or a society) swings too far to one side, there is often an extreme the other way to try to counteract it.

said by funchords :

I am in 100% agreement with those that say that the "Pirate Party" name accomplishes one or both of the following:

- Implicitly tells its members to ignore the law

- Implicitly tells the public (would-be supporters or detractors) that whatever revisions to law it makes won't matter anyway

The only way they could hope to be less successful would be to rename the group to NAMBLA.

That said, I 100% agree with amigo_boy who quite concisely said, "the social *gift* to artists and publishers known as 'copyright' has swung too far in favor of them at the expense of society (reduction of 'fair use,' non-existant 'public domain')."

The 55 MPH speed limit turned most American drivers into scofflaws. The ridiculous excesses of our copyright laws have likewise turned us into pirates. AND BEFORE YOU DENY IT:

- have you ever organized an event where the song "Happy Birthday to You!" was sung? Unless you paid ASCAP a fee based on the number of chairs in the hall, then you have violated the copyright of the lyricist (the tune, however, is in the Public Domain). And even though only the lyrics are under copyright, the fee you pay is the same.

- have you ever recorded yourself singing the song, perhaps in a Voice Mail message to your mom? Unless you got a mechanical recording license from the Sunny Company, you again have violated copyright.

- ever cut out a newspaper or magazine article, and either passed it on or posted it in public? Unless you were licensed to do so by the publisher, then you're no better than the millions of movie, song, or software-swappers being vilified by the RIAA/MPAA/BSA.

- ever get a tattoo? If it was someone else's drawing first, and it wasn't licensed to you or the artist you employed, then welcome to the Pirate Party. Your old pal Mickey wants his money. Mickey -- a few circles and lines on paper drawn in 1928 -- turns out to be more relevant than Walt (now dead 40 years). The copyright expires when Mickey turns 95, not when Walt became worm-food.

And do not put a lot of trust in the Fair Use doctrine. Fair Use is a defense to an infringement, it is not a license. This means that you first have to infringe on the copyright, get your butt taken to court, and a judge has to apply four or five subjective factors. To help understand how important this distinction of "defense" versus "license" is, understand that insanity is a defense to homicide. Whether it's a question of a tattoo or a mass murder, in order to use a defense to an act, you first have to admit to committing the act.

The US Constitution specifically assigned the job of setting copyright law to Congress. The first law granted an author or artist 14 years to be the exclusive seller of his expressions. If requested and granted, this exclusive period could be extended another 14 years.

After many extensions to the periods first established by Congress -- Mickey Mouse and all of his buddies has protection for another 15 or more years. He was supposed to become Public Domain in 2003, but lobbiests convinced Congress that 75 years of exclusive licensing rights was not enough time to ensure dead Walt enough time to make a living based on his artistic skills.

Any bets on whether they'll want another extension sometime before the year 2023?

said by funchords :

I am in 100% agreement with those that say that the "Pirate Party" name accomplishes one or both of the following:

- Implicitly tells its members to ignore the law

Right...

- Implicitly tells the public (would-be supporters or detractors) that whatever revisions to law it makes won't matter anyway

Right...

The only way they could hope to be less successful would be to rename the group to NAMBLA.

Right...

That said, I 100% agree with amigo_boy who quite concisely said, "the social *gift* to artists and publishers known as 'copyright' has swung too far in favor of them at the expense of society (reduction of 'fair use,' non-existant 'public domain')."

Fair use is NOT using an entire song or movie. Fair Use has a test generally meaning "not for money", not full use of the work, the nature of the copyrighted work, and the effect of using the copyrighted work. Fair Use is mainly meant for commentary on current works.

The 55 MPH speed limit turned most American drivers into scofflaws. The ridiculous excesses of our copyright laws have likewise turned us into pirates. AND BEFORE YOU DENY IT:

- have you ever organized an event where the song "Happy Birthday to You!" was sung? Unless you paid ASCAP a fee based on the number of chairs in the hall, then you have violated the copyright of the lyricist (the tune, however, is in the Public Domain). And even though only the lyrics are under copyright, the fee you pay is the same.

- have you ever recorded yourself singing the song, perhaps in a Voice Mail message to your mom? Unless you got a mechanical recording license from the Sunny Company, you again have violated copyright.

See Fair Use Above - that would not be a violation

- ever cut out a newspaper or magazine article, and either passed it on or posted it in public? Unless you were licensed to do so by the publisher, then you're no better than the millions of movie, song, or software-swappers being vilified by the RIAA/MPAA/BSA.

You can quote an article but not use the whole thing. Passing it to a few friends is okay but posting it on your website or all over a city wouldn't be.

- ever get a tattoo? If it was someone else's drawing first, and it wasn't licensed to you or the artist you employed, then welcome to the Pirate Party. Your old pal Mickey wants his money. Mickey -- a few circles and lines on paper drawn in 1928 -- turns out to be more relevant than Walt (now dead 40 years). The copyright expires when Mickey turns 95, not when Walt became worm-food.

Tattoo? I would agree a brand name, like Mickey, should continue till they stop using it. But, getting a Mickey tattoo is not going to bring the wrath of Disney.

And do not put a lot of trust in the Fair Use doctrine. Fair Use is a defense to an infringement, it is not a license. This means that you first have to infringe on the copyright, get your butt taken to court, and a judge has to apply four or five subjective factors. To help understand how important this distinction of "defense" versus "license" is, understand that insanity is a defense to homicide. Whether it's a question of a tattoo or a mass murder, in order to use a defense to an act, you first have to admit to committing the act.

Fair Use really means a commentary on a copyrighted work not using the whole thing. In private, if you copy your DVD or CD and even change it, the DMCA says no, but, as long as private, I doubt they are coming after you. Now if you put it online for download, good luck getting sued.

The US Constitution specifically assigned the job of setting copyright law to Congress. The first law granted an author or artist 14 years to be the exclusive seller of his expressions. If requested and granted, this exclusive period could be extended another 14 years.

After many extensions to the periods first established by Congress -- Mickey Mouse and all of his buddies has protection for another 15 or more years. He was supposed to become Public Domain in 2003, but lobbiests convinced Congress that 75 years of exclusive licensing rights was not enough time to ensure dead Walt enough time to make a living based on his artistic skills.

Any bets on whether they'll want another extension sometime before the year 2023?

Mickey Mouse might have become public domain but the movies would not be (since they keep copyrighting the movie on rerelease). Hate to tell you this, but a lot of laws, mostly the DMCA, were created to deter stealing so really pirating music recordings, movies, etc. started it in the first place. Now, even Google might find some legal trouble with its digital library except they steer you to buy it.