Monday, June 8th 2009

Pirate Party Elected to EU Parliament

The Pirate Party silenced skeptics, gathering enough votes in the European Union elections this year, to make it to the Parliament from Sweden. This serves as a huge victory to the party whose ideology revolves around fighting harsh and archaic copyright laws and enforcement agencies, that it finds incompatible with the digital age we live in. The party secured 7.1 percent of the 99.9 percent districts' votes counted, which guarantees at least one of the 18 or 20 seats Sweden contributes to the EU Parliament. Sweden has 20 seats, but until the Lisbon treaty passes only 18 with voting rights. In this case, the party might secure 2 seats.

Rick Falkvinge, leader of the party, in a statement to TorrentFreak said “Together, we have today changed the landscape of European politics. No matter how this night ends, we have changed it.” National and International press gathered in Stockholm, where the party celebrates its landmark victory. “This feels wonderful. The citizens have understood it’s time to make a difference. The older politicians have taken apart young peoples’ lifestyle, bit by bit. We do not accept that the authorities’ mass-surveillance,” Falkvinge added.
The voter turnout for the elections was 43 percent. Nearly 200,000 people voted for The Pirate Party, way up from its performance in the 2006 Swedish national elections, where it secured 34,918 votes. With their presence in the EU Parliament, the party wants to fight the abuses of power and copyright laws at the hands of the entertainment industries, and make those activities illegal instead. On the other hand they hope to legalize file-sharing for personal (non-commercial) use.Source: TorrentFreak
Add your own comment

268 Comments on Pirate Party Elected to EU Parliament

#1
farlex85
Error said:
Hello everybody :)
This is one great step towards a more democratic Europe. The idea is great and the only ones who probably won't benefit from the Pirate Party's ideas are the big companies (who already made tons of money, even with the piracy at hand).

For instance: if you're a musician that makes quality music and have ideas about making money from it ... you always can do some concerts/parties, sell vinyls/cds, promoting your work via sharing it freely on the web - i can bet you won't be having any problems :)

Let the creativity be the deciding factor ... not money.
I think most have adjusted to this way of doing things in the music world, there as always are some still straggling, and of course they are the ones w/ the most to lose (record companies). Some artists now release albums free of their own volition. Most money is made through touring or commercial licensing. Like I said before, I think this is fantastic for the music industry, much more freedom for the artists and far more diversity for the listening masses. It's spectacular.

The other industries are a bit more difficult. The movie industry needs to lower their prices I think, they are attempting to jack things up too high. They are adjusting though w/ netflix and such streaming, and the new $1 movieboxes here in the US, but they still need a bit better overall prices to avoid piracy. Gaming is tougher, again lower prices will help, but they need more adjustment than any of the the other industries IMO. Almost ironic considering they are the most tech of the bunch.....
Posted on Reply
#2
Yukikaze
DanTheBanjoman said:
Agreed, every MP3 downloaded damages the artist for at least $100K.
I'd love to see any proof for anything remotely like this claim.

Assuming one downloaded MP3 means one less album sold (And I am giving you the benefit of the doubt there) - Even then we're talking about pennies for the artist himself.

Piracy is wrong, no doubt there, but this claim of yours is completely baseless.
Posted on Reply
#3
ShogoXT
Yukikaze said:
I'd love to see any proof for anything remotely like this claim.

Assuming one downloaded MP3 means one less album sold (And I am giving you the benefit of the doubt there) - Even then we're talking about pennies for the artist himself.

Piracy is wrong, no doubt there, but this claim of yours is completely baseless.
I think he was being sarcastic.
Posted on Reply
#4
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
Referring to illegally downloading a .mp3 file, which could be legally done for ~$5 on gayTunes, and then being sued for thousands of dollars for doing so.
Posted on Reply
#5
Yukikaze
ShogoXT said:
I think he was being sarcastic.
On second reading, I think you're right. :banghead:

I should stop reading forums while I code. Never leads to the right conclusions.

Sorry everyone...
Posted on Reply
#6
ShogoXT
Same here. Morning at work doesnt help my convey my opinion well.
Posted on Reply
#7
mtosev
DanTheBanjoman said:
Agreed, every MP3 downloaded damages the artist for at least $100K. At least we have politicians with half a brain who want to prevent these retarded American lawsuits to exist in the EU. Of course making everything legal is a bit too much.
Their other (2) ideas are a lot more serious/realistic though. Namely altering the (pharmaceutical) patenting system and protecting our privacy instead giving it up to America's fear of terrorists and whatnot. Considering plenty of politicians believe in fairy tales anyway and base their view of the world on that I don't see the Pirate Party as something bad.
thx DAN you made me laguht again. :wtf::D
Posted on Reply
#8
ShadowFold
Meh I don't feel like arguing. I just think stealing something that someone has made is wrong. How are they gonna make more music/games if they get no money from making it? Are they just suppose to just give it out for free and make another one? In a perfect world maybe, but not the messed up we all live in.
Posted on Reply
#9
farlex85
ShadowFold said:
Meh I don't feel like arguing. I just think stealing something that someone has made is wrong. How are they gonna make more music/games if they get no money from making it? Are they just suppose to just give it out for free and make another one? In a perfect world maybe, but not the messed up we all live in.
Right and wrong aside (really personal morality on theft doesn't need to play a part here), there still needs to be workable solutions for companies to receive compensation for works without invading the privacy of the consumers. Much work needs to be done in this, and simply suing isn't going to help things. Like it or not the technology has required adjustment, and adjustments need to be made. Hopefully this party will be able to work towards that goal.
Posted on Reply
#10
mdm-adph
TheMailMan78 said:
Great one small step for pirates, One giant fall for artists. WTF is wrong with the EU for allowing this. To hell with these people.
Come on, be honest. Stealing is bad, but it's not like record companies (one example) are "looking out" for artists -- they're looking out for profits.

How much was it out of the sale of every $20 CD that an artist got in the end? $1? $2?
Posted on Reply
#11
Breathless
Hey Guys,

I am an artist as well, and personally I would like nothing more than for people to hear my music on a grand scale, passing it around and giving copies to all their friends and family. I want it to be heard because of the message, and my purpose, not solely for making money.

Please have a listen to my new song "Food For Thought". Please listen to the lyrics, don't just breeze through it. Also, please pass it around! Thanks!


http://www.fileden.com/getfile.php?file_path=http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/6/8/2470210/Food%20For%20Thought.mp3

I did every aspect of this song (rapping, production, everything) except for the beatboxing.

Breathless
Posted on Reply
#12
WhiteLotus
You do realise guys that even though the ARTISTS themselves don't get much, the RECORD COMPANIES do. How are record companies going to sign people up when they have no money to pay them? What are they going to pay them with, salt? The record industry gets new artists out there.

Consider that.
Posted on Reply
#13
farlex85
WhiteLotus said:
You do realise guys that even though the ARTISTS themselves don't get much, the RECORD COMPANIES do. How are record companies going to sign people up when they have no money to pay them? What are they going to pay them with, salt? The record industry gets new artists out there.

Consider that.
The main reason the record companies were needed before is b/c printed mediums were needed to distribute music (vinyl, cds, ect). This is expensive, and one needs a big company to do it and promote it. Now all you need is an internet connection to accomplish the same task. Just look above, 10 years ago Breathless would have had to stand on the concert passing out singles or hope to get a record contract if he/she wanted to go national or international. Now all that's needed is a quick upload and everyone in the world can hear it. There can of course still be advantages of record companies, such as pooling recourses, advertising, and touring advantages, but they are not needed to get the music out there, and the industry is better served by their new found lack of power. They would of course disagree.....
Posted on Reply
#14
lemonadesoda
Fact 1.

Did you know that artist typically get paid less than 8% of the sale price of the CD/mp3. Think about where the other 92% is going before you scream about maintaining the status quo in the music distribution industry.

Fact 2.
ShadowFold said:
Meh I don't feel like arguing. I just think stealing something that someone has made is wrong. How are they gonna make more music/games if they get no money from making it? Are they just suppose to just give it out for free and make another one? In a perfect world maybe, but not the messed up we all live in.
Think about it the other way... perhaps music artists are being stolen from by the music industry. 92%. And often the contracts with the artists include cost subtractions, like they get 8% only AFTER all marketing and promotion has been paid.

The artist, especially inexperienced ones, get locked into contracts that last a lifetime. The get "legally" stolen from for all the music they write or perform.

Fact 3.
Most people that argue against the methods and contracts of the various collection agencies such as ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, RIAA etc... DONT argue against copyright, per se, but about how it should be fairly managed, and if someone does breach copyright, the penalty should be equal to the injury and not 1000x more, like all this RIAA nonsense in the US.

Fact 4.
The music industry is attempting to go down the "licensing" route, just like software. You will not own music you buy, but have the right to listen to it a number of times. That is known to be the next step of what they want to implement. First DRM control, then number of plays control. Just like the same way you pay per minute for using the phone, or per GB for using the internet, or per burger that you eat, so you will pay per minute for listening to music

This method of distribution is equally valid. Although I for one dont want it. Imagine buying a chair or a bed and you were only allowed to sit down do many times before you had to pay again!

Fact 5.
Consumer rights and civil rights are being constantly eroded. Any party that STANDS against that wins my favour. So long as they stay ethical.
Posted on Reply
#15
mikek75
WhiteLotus said:




and UKIP - same party different colours.
Erm, no they aren't, get your facts straight and read their policies. They are for the withdrawl from the EU which is in no way facist.:shadedshu
Posted on Reply
#16
WhiteLotus
mikek75 said:
Erm, no they aren't, get your facts straight and read their policies. They are for the withdrawl from the EU which is in no way facist.:shadedshu
That's why i got my UKIP and BNP fliers through the letter box wrapped in a nice blue elastic band.

And no they aren't the same, ones just openly racist the other isn't.

farlex85 said:
The main reason the record companies were needed before is b/c printed mediums were needed to distribute music (vinyl, cds, ect). This is expensive, and one needs a big company to do it and promote it. Now all you need is an internet connection to accomplish the same task. Just look above, 10 years ago Breathless would have had to stand on the concert passing out singles or hope to get a record contract if he/she wanted to go national or international. Now all that's needed is a quick upload and everyone in the world can hear it. There can of course still be advantages of record companies, such as pooling recourses, advertising, and touring advantages, but they are not needed to get the music out there, and the industry is better served by their new found lack of power. They would of course disagree.....
And how are they going to find this new music on the interwebs? Artists need the companies to promote them.
Posted on Reply
#17
farlex85
WhiteLotus said:

And how are they going to find this new music on the interwebs? Artists need the companies to promote them.
Uhm, well how Breathless did right there. Or through myspace or various other internet tools, I'm not sure why I need to answer that. They don't need companies to promote them anymore, they need people to. Record companies can still aid in various aspects as I said, but their importance is greatly reduced, and hopefully this will lead to them having less power to take advantage of consumers and artists alike.
Posted on Reply
#18
ShogoXT
Thats what im saying. Barely any money is going to these artists anyways. The record companies are getting it all. Now they are getting pissy because of digital distribution and blame pirates for their sales. People dont want to buy their crappy expensive disks, they need to get with the program.

EDIT: Or better yet i wouldnt mind if some of those record companies just disappeared. Nobody wants/needs them anymore.
Posted on Reply
#19
Breathless
WhiteLotus said:
And how are they going to find this new music on the interwebs? Artists need the companies to promote them.
I think that if anyone decides/bothers to listen to my song they will see why I would likely not need a record company to promote my stuff. Good quality music with a good message that wasn't thrown together in a half hour, that actually took skill to make and is inspirational spreads like gangrene.
Posted on Reply
#20
mikek75
WhiteLotus said:
That's why i got my UKIP and BNP fliers through the letter box wrapped in a nice blue elastic band.

And no they aren't the same, ones just openly racist the other isn't.



And how are they going to find this new music on the interwebs? Artists need the companies to promote them.
Probably the person paid to deliver them being lazy, who knows. But they are not the same, not by a long way.
Posted on Reply
#21
TheMailMan78
Big Member
Ok the only argument I hear in this thread is yall think the record companies make to much. Thats not an argument. I think car dealers make to much. Should I steal their cars? No of course not. Artists not only need channels for distribution but a way of producing it. Who do you think pays for the studio time? You think thats free? There are so many variables to this its mind boggling.

Most artist are for organizations like the RIIA to protect their work. Intellectual property is in fact PROPERTY and its not something that can be protected by junk yard dogs or high fences. This is why the RIIA exists. To protect investments. So you bastards keep stealing and keep using semantics to sway the argument in your favor. The fact remains if you take something for sale and do not pay for it you are in fact a THEIF.

As for these Pirates being elected I have one word for you. Bush.
Posted on Reply
#22
DaMulta
My stars went supernova
Just proves that ninjas are not as cool as pirates!
Posted on Reply
#23
farlex85
TheMailMan78 said:
Ok the only argument I hear in this thread is yall think the record companies make to much. Thats not an argument. I think car dealers make to much. Should I steal their cars? No of course not. Artists not only need channels for distribution but a way of producing it. Who do you think pays for the studio time? You think thats free? There are so many variables to this its mind boggling.

Most artist are for organizations like the RIIA to protect their work. Intellectual property is in fact PROPERTY and its not something that can be protected by junk yard dogs or high fences. This is why the RIIA exists. To protect investments. So you bastards keep stealing and keep using semantics to sway the argument in your favor. The fact remains if you take something for sale and do not pay for it you are in fact a THEIF.

As for these Pirates being elected I have one word for you. Bush.
That isn't by a long shot the only argument being made, nor is your analogy comparable. One no longer needs a professional studio to make music, nor do you need a record company to buy studio time, but yes there are many variables. We can keep discussing the morality of it but IMO the real thing here is and I repeat

farlex85 said:
Right and wrong aside (really personal morality on theft doesn't need to play a part here), there still needs to be workable solutions for companies to receive compensation for works without invading the privacy of the consumers. Much work needs to be done in this, and simply suing isn't going to help things. Like it or not the technology has required adjustment, and adjustments need to be made. Hopefully this party will be able to work towards that goal.
Posted on Reply
#24
ShogoXT
Plus, the Pirate party isnt trying to destroy everything. They are just pushing for stronger privacy for us and possible copyright and patent reform.
Posted on Reply
#25
TheMailMan78
Big Member
farlex85 said:
That isn't by a long shot the only argument being made, nor is your analogy comparable. One no longer needs a professional studio to make music, nor do you need a record company to buy studio time, but yes there are many variables. We can keep discussing the morality of it but IMO the real thing here is and I repeat
Why is my analogy not comparable? Because cars are tangible? As for not needing a professional studio to create music fine. But file sharing networks (Pirate Bay) are not the answer. Paid distribution is the only viable answer.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment