Pirate Party wins seats in European Parliament

[Mr Bean]

Can't wait for the Daily Show take on this

Sweden's Pirate Party has won entry to the European Parliament in Brussels in elections held Sunday.

The Pirate Party gained 7 percent of the Swedish votes and secured at least one of the 18 seats that Sweden holds in the parliament.

Rick Falkvinge, founder of Sweden's Pirate Party
(Credit: Carl Johan Rehbinder)

"Citizens have understood that it's time to pull the fist out of the pocket and that you can make a difference," Rick Falkvinge, leader and founder of the party, told the Swedish daily Svenska Dagbladet, after the result of the elections were revealed. "We don't accept to be bugged by the government. People start to understand that the government is not always good."

The Pirate Party is focused on three main goals: "to fundamentally reform copyright law, get rid of the patent system, and ensure that citizens' rights to privacy are respected."

The party was founded in 2006, and that year gained only 0.63 percent of the votes in Swedish parliamentary elections. But since then it has attracted members during the debate on several controversial laws that authorize monitoring of electronic communications and that make it easier to police file sharing on the Internet.

It is now Sweden's third biggest party by membership. Its ranks swelled when four men were sentenced to prison in the high-profile Pirate Bay case in April. People use Web sites like The Pirate Bay to transfer movies and music, a practice that has drawn the ire--and the lawyers--of Hollywood studios and the recording industry.

The Pirate Party is not formally connected with The Pirate Bay, but has officially expressed support for the Web site.

The party wants all noncommercial copying to be free and file sharing to be encouraged. The copyright system, it argues, is out of whack--rather than encouraging the spread of culture, the system now imposes severe restrictions.

The European elections attracted 43.8 percent of the Swedish voters, which is on par with the European average.

Apart from the Pirate Party, which became the fifth biggest party in the elections in Sweden, the Greens were the big winners gaining 10.9 percent resulting in a fourth position and two seats in the parliament.

It's too soon to get anything but CNET reports on this but I can't wait for the to see what the mainstream media makes of the fact that Filesharers got a legitimate seat on the European Parliament. Even if he Parliament is not a grand over-arching body that can dictate to other countries with the Pirates having a seat on this group raises the possibilty of further Swedish gains and the fact they also nearly got a German seat means this could go somewhere. I don't see them taking European politics but it could be a sign of a possible serious shakeup as far as IP laws go.

[Big Orange]

IP in its current form is overweening and counterproductive anyway. I mean you get madness like this:

Copyright Laws Severely Limit Availability of Music
By Joel Rose

Archivists and collectors have long lamented the lack of access to older recordings. So the Library of Congress commissioned a team to find out just how many are out of print. The report -- released in August -- suggests that over 70 percent of American music recorded before 1965 is not legally available in the United States.

Sam Brylawski, an archivist at the University of California Santa Barbara, and the former head of the recorded sound division at the Library of Congress worked on the study.

"The recording industry is a business, and their business is to sell records," Brylawski says. "And when the esoteric material loses its favor with the public, they have no responsibility to keep those in print. So recordings fall out of print, and they stay out of print."

But it's not just economics that keep older recordings out of print. It's also a matter of copyright. Sound recordings made after 1972 are protected by federal law. Recordings made before that were covered by state and common law copyright. These laws do not have expiration dates. The Library of Congress study found that 84 percent of recordings from before 1965 cannot be reissued without permission from the copyright holder, which is usually the original record label.

Some music lovers continue to take matters into their own hands by sharing MP3 downloads of forgotten LPs and 45s across the Internet, and on Web sites devoted exclusively to old music.

"There are a lot of good performances that are going to essentially go unheard," says record collector Max McMillan, who runs one of these "sharity" sites, VinylOrphanage.com. "Unless I happen to stumble across it in a thrift store, and encode it, put it on my Web site, more than likely you're not going to hear it at all."

Link

If you don't do anything with something, you don't deserve to have it. Why cause wanton cultural vandalism to cut a few corners?

[The Yosemite Bear]

yeah, I have a very simular view, as a blues/jazz fan, who is the son of a blues/jazz fan.

I love Sun & Chess records, I love child ballads, I also love old murder ballads & pirate or outlaw songs.

[Ryan Thunder]

I hear that single-issue parties are often successful and productive.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

It's actually pretty retarded, since most of Sweden's left-wing parties support file-sharing anyway, and the Pirate Party has no platform beyond it.

[Pablo Sanchez]

It's actually pretty retarded, since most of Sweden's left-wing parties support file-sharing anyway, and the Pirate Party has no platform beyond it.

One of the functions of single-issue parties is to bring that issue to the attention of mainstream parties; their life cycle ends either with the adoption of their platform by larger parties, or by being legislated out of existence by the success of their platform. If the Pirate Party does nothing more significant than convincing the leftist Swedish parties to support filesharing and copyright reform, that means they've been successful.

[Eleas]

It's actually pretty retarded, since most of Sweden's left-wing parties support file-sharing anyway, and the Pirate Party has no platform beyond it.

Not really. You're suffering under the same misconception as the thread starter, in that PP are viewed as an outgrowth of Piratebay. Piratpartiet don't define themselves as being filesharers, and their ties to PirateBay are tenuous at best. Hell, on the same grounds we can tie TPB to borderline criminal groups if we care to.

The discussion on privacy and the Internet is one that has been discussed numerous times in Sweden over the years, largely due to official and borderline covert attempts by the government at registering dissidents and monitoring data traffic. The Piratpartiet platform has its root in matters like the IB Affair way back in the seventies, and the recent Ipred law only inflamed that sentiment. It's not merely a "nudge nudge wink wink" way of providing support for PirateBay.

Incidentally, I voted MP on this one. No matter what I think about them on the energy question, MP has the most generally sympathetic outlook, and even if their influence would be negligible, they'd still do their level best to shake up the staid foundations of that bloated carcass we call the EU.

[Julhelm]

I think a lot of the PP support stems from the dp of the FRA legislation and then IPRED. That sort of shit is bound to piss people off here - especially when the excuse is "lol terrorism".

[Darth Hoth]

Not really. You're suffering under the same misconception as the thread starter, in that PP are viewed as an outgrowth of Piratebay. Piratpartiet don't define themselves as being filesharers, and their ties to PirateBay are tenuous at best. Hell, on the same grounds we can tie TPB to borderline criminal groups if we care to.

The discussion on privacy and the Internet is one that has been discussed numerous times in Sweden over the years, largely due to official and borderline covert attempts by the government at registering dissidents and monitoring data traffic. The Piratpartiet platform has its root in matters like the IB Affair way back in the seventies, and the recent Ipred law only inflamed that sentiment. It's not merely a "nudge nudge wink wink" way of providing support for PirateBay.

Please. They call themselves the "[Software] Pirate Party" and want to legalise software piracy. You cannot "define yourself" as a software pirate more clearly than that. The "personal integrity" bullshit is just a smokescreen to give them a veneer of acceptability.

[White Haven]

The name got your attention, didn't it? There are a million and seventeen parties with 'Liberal' 'Democratic' 'Freedom' 'National' and whatever in the name. You could set up a drinking game for one of those words and die from alcohol poisoning before you left Europe. Bitching that they named themselves that is juvenile at best; the name gets people talking about them, which is a hell of a lot more than some generically-named 'Electronic Freedom Party' would have managed.

[Eleas]

Please. They call themselves the "[Software] Pirate Party" and want to legalise software piracy. You cannot "define yourself" as a software pirate more clearly than that. The "personal integrity" bullshit is just a smokescreen to give them a veneer of acceptability.

Don't be stupid, Hoth. I offered my arguments, and the best you can offer in refutation is that "they define themselves as pirates, so they don't care about anything else, and this means they're there solely to support PirateBay!"? Spare me the histrionics, please. It's perfectly obvious that all the people who voted for PP are in disagreement with copyright law, and that PP chose their name not because they couldn't help themselves, but because they were making a point: that the current definition of piracy as handed down by cartels is broken. Conclusions beyond that should be supported by logic, which you have failed to offer.

Not only that, but this is a grassroots movement, numbnuts. I don't know how much contact you have with politicians, but the vast majority over here (we're talking 98 percent) are not salaried as you would understand the term. Yet they campaign anyway, surprisingly many to the exclusion of the majority of their spare time. Why do they do this? Why, ideological conviction. You would obviously repeat the baseless notion that "politician" in Sweden means a white fiftysomething fatcat behind a podium trying to get a bigger slice of the pie, but that's simply not borne out by statistics. The average politician in Sweden is a campaigner and a debater devoting her money and time toward campaigning; this is a matter of public record.

To spell it out: in order to grow as PP have done, especially among people now in their thirties, the party line must by necessity be transparent. There can be no "veneer", as you so quaintly put it, because in a grassroots party still under construction, the concept of an inner circle with a differing agenda is pretty much a fantasy. In such a party, the members (these NEW members) decide the policy, and what made PP acceptable for many was that they had a platform beyond filesharing and copyright. As Julhelm said, people here remember FRA. Older people also remember other attempts at curtailing freedoms in the same vein. And I'm not sure you can point to many people who don't object to the fact that behind all the officious rhetoric, the latest large antipirate measures were hatchet jobs of dubious legality.

That is not to say a lot of people don't voice their support for PP solely due to TPB and their desire to keep on filesharing, and I'm sure PP receives their support with open arms, but that's not the issue. The issue is whether the PP are cunningly pulling the wool over the unknowing public by pretending they (by which you presumably mean all their adherents) actually believe in the principles they espouse, or whether PP consists of normal, non-magical humans. The answer is, of course, that they couldn't be. No, they sent their representatives to the EU in order to set up a new TPB server, and not at all because right-wing extremism is on the march in Europe, and questions of privacy and personal integrity are really fucking important in light of that.

But you know what? I did make a shameful mistake in my last post. Being tired, I assumed that if I wrote something clearly enough, people would read it through before launching into a rebuttal. An easy oversight on my part, I know.

[Darth Hoth]

Don't be stupid, Hoth. I offered my arguments, and the best you can offer in refutation is that "they define themselves as pirates, so they don't care about anything else, and this means they're there solely to support PirateBay!"? Spare me the histrionics, please. It's perfectly obvious that all the people who voted for PP are in disagreement with copyright law, and that PP chose their name not because they couldn't help themselves, but because they were making a point: that the current definition of piracy as handed down by cartels is broken. Conclusions beyond that should be supported by logic, which you have failed to offer.

Ah, so then you have dropped the claim that they do not self-identify as pirates (or what was the euphemism you were using, "file-sharers")? And I never mentioned The Pirate Bay.

To spell it out: in order to grow as PP have done, especially among people now in their thirties, the party line must by necessity be transparent. There can be no "veneer", as you so quaintly put it, because in a grassroots party still under construction, the concept of an inner circle with a differing agenda is pretty much a fantasy. In such a party, the members (these NEW members) decide the policy, and what made PP acceptable for many was that they had a platform beyond filesharing and copyright.

Except, of course, that all these new "grassroot" members have little to do with the central adinistration. Supposedly they have tens of thousands of members, but their regional party congresses draw only a dozen or so people? To me, that is an indicator that they are not firmly grounded in internal democracy. When all you have to do to be a member is fill your name in a form on their homepage, with no further obligations, entering is probably easier than spending time.

And of course, "veneer" refers as much to the image they want to present to the establishment and media as to their internal image. If the "pirate" voters that I am familiar with are at all representative, there appears to be agreement among the voters that the right to free-for-all software piracy is indeed their main number. This is of course anecdotal evidence, and so would not be admissible, but if one compares the speeches and letters-to-the-editor they send in with what their election workers on the ground are talking about, the message appears clear that the integrity issues are officially portrayed as more important than they are really considered. One might also look at the demographic that supports them, which is overwhelmingly young men, rather than older people who would remember and protest against the IB or similar things.

That is not to say a lot of people don't voice their support for PP solely due to TPB and their desire to keep on filesharing, and I'm sure PP receives their support with open arms, but that's not the issue. The issue is whether the PP are cunningly pulling the wool over the unknowing public by pretending they (by which you presumably mean all their adherents) actually believe in the principles they espouse, or whether PP consists of normal, non-magical humans. The answer is, of course, that they couldn't be.

Of course they believe in them, since the arguments for "privacy on the Internet" can be used against any proposed workable means of enforcing intellectual property rights. When they overlap so conveniently, of course one would support both. And the opposition to Ipred was hardly the popular rebellion you seem to consider it. Did you not read the Dagens Nyheter's article on how the entire movement was cunningly coordinated by top PR consultants? I can probably dig up the article for you, if not.

No, they sent their representatives to the EU in order to set up a new TPB server, and not at all because right-wing extremism is on the march in Europe, and questions of privacy and personal integrity are really fucking important in light of that.

Because some anti-Gypsy Hungarian party received a few seats in the European Parliament, or an Islam critic moves ahead in Holland? That would sound like a storm in a glass of water to me, much like the media here proclaim doom and gloom every time the Swedish Democrats almost (but not quite!) manage to take a mandate in a national election.

[Darth Hoth]

Ghetto edit: The reference to Ipred and the blog movement opposing it, above, would rather concern the so-called FRA law, of course. Sorry that I mixed them up, I too am apparently a little tired.

The article I referred to is here. (Swedish-language source).

[Eleas]

Ah, so then you have dropped the claim that they do not self-identify as pirates (or what was the euphemism you were using, "file-sharers")? And I never mentioned The Pirate Bay.

No, I mentioned TPB, and you disputed what I wrote. Nevertheless, you have qualified your statement now, so the point is taken.

The claim I made was that they did not self-identify as file-sharers/pirates (which is by no means a synonymous term) is completely valid. Mere disagreement with copyright laws as they are does not brand you a software pirate - actual action is required.

Except, of course, that all these new "grassroot" members have little to do with the central adinistration. Supposedly they have tens of thousands of members, but their regional party congresses draw only a dozen or so people? To me, that is an indicator that they are not firmly grounded in internal democracy. When all you have to do to be a member is fill your name in a form on their homepage, with no further obligations, entering is probably easier than spending time.

Except they have aggressively campaigned, and for that, you need people out there. Lots of them. This is what politics in Sweden looks like. The constituents are one thing, but they won't come unless you gather up functionaries who will be interested in the proceedings.

And of course, "veneer" refers as much to the image they want to present to the establishment and media as to their internal image. If the "pirate" voters that I am familiar with are at all representative, there appears to be agreement among the voters that the right to free-for-all software piracy is indeed their main number. This is of course anecdotal evidence, and so would not be admissible, but if one compares the speeches and letters-to-the-editor they send in with what their election workers on the ground are talking about, the message appears clear that the integrity issues are officially portrayed as more important than they are really considered.

You're right about it being anecdotal evidence, as would be that of my acquaintances (many of whom chose PP against their usual MO precisely due to these integrity issues) if I cared to state them as proof. However, we seem to have different experiences with what kind of people actually vote PP.

As for the rest, you make a lot of sweeping statements, but offer little in the way of links and proof (except for the DN article, which was appreciated).

One might also look at the demographic that supports them, which is overwhelmingly young men, rather than older people who would remember and protest against the IB or similar things.

You don't have to be old to see trends. I was referring not to people who would remember IB as a discrete event, but the many more people who would gather up the breadcrumb trail and point toward systemic efforts at control over information. Besides which, I see what you did there. Blithe mention of "similar things" would imply that they were a few blunders that happened long ago, disguising the fact that I plainly referred to events occurring in a broad spectrum of time. IB. FRA. PUL. IPred. Antipiratbyrån. Lagen om yttrandefrihet. Lagen om tryckfrihet. Wax or wane, all these are well-known instances of a process that continues to this day. Chopping it up and attacking it piecemeal isn't going to win you any points.

Of course they believe in them, since the arguments for "privacy on the Internet" can be used against any proposed workable means of enforcing intellectual property rights. When they overlap so conveniently, of course one would support both. And the opposition to Ipred was hardly the popular rebellion you seem to consider it. Did you not read the Dagens Nyheter's article on how the entire movement was cunningly coordinated by top PR consultants? I can probably dig up the article for you, if not.

Glancing through it, it doesn't really help your case, I'm afraid. The fact that the Pirate Party and PR consultants galvanized the majority into actually demonstrating largely involved shaking them out of their apathy. The sentiment was already there, or a fledgling party like PP would have had nothing in the way of resources enough to spark the demonstrations (unless you seriously want to propose that the Internet providers of Sweden have resources enough to overshadow what the record companies bring to the table against them). No change of that magnitude in public opinion can be completely spontaneous. So what?

EDIT: In actual fact, the article seems to imply the only thing odd about it all was the speed at which the action spread. All of which only reinforces my impression that a lot of people out there were already primed for the message, and only had to be told they actually had a right to express their dissatisfaction.

Because some anti-Gypsy Hungarian party received a few seats in the European Parliament, or an Islam critic moves ahead in Holland? That would sound like a storm in a glass of water to me, much like the media here proclaim doom and gloom every time the Swedish Democrats almost (but not quite!) manage to take a mandate in a national election.

If you cannot perceive how 9/11, Iraq and Afghanistan have caused a huge upsurge in anti-Islamic and pro-right sentiments during this decade, then that is your misfortune. I'm not a trained psychologist, however, so I can't comment as to the cause, but it's probably something you'd want to get looked at. Suffice to say that Europe isn't a closed system these days, and the Western world and media is today more excitable than ever. Even if they can't stem the tide, it nevertheless falls to people who actually care enough to look at what's happening in matters of rhetoric, war, religion and, yes, integrity, to try to make a difference.