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?