What makes a pirate?

In an election year in both Sweden and Britain it's interesting to understand - what is a pirate anyway? Or more to the point - what does the Pirate Party stand for?  And that's just the question that Michael Davies has put on his blog with an open letter to Andrew Robinson, leader of the Pirate Party.  He asks a number of pertinent questions, on politics and pirates, on copyright and patents and on the importance of the rights that copyright enforcement increasingly infringes.

The entry has seen promises from both Andrew and Piratpartiet leader Rick Falkvinge to answer in more depth - responses I look forward to reading.  In the meantime, on The Pirate Party Forum, JohnB has given a long and full answer of his own...    and maybe, in the fullness of time I might try and add my view on these questions here...

Put simply...  the internet has brought huge changes in how we communicate - and equally huge changes in the possibilities to track and monitor our everyday lives.  How society decides to use or constrain these forces, for better or worse, is an intensely political question and one which demands focus and attention by us, the populace - otherwise other interests in industry, law enforcement and in government will do what they can get away with.  They will do what they can - not what they should.

If you want it any other way you need to make your voice heard.

Shouting louder, means shouting in unison.... 

Welcome on board.....

Standards of justice - rights, wrongs and copyright infringement

Non-commercial copying of copyrighted maerial is a long established practice - covering everything from sharing recipes, photo copying course notes and taping material from the TV or radio.  What has changed in recent years is not that it happens - rather, that technology has made it easier to do -while at the same time technology makes it practical in many instances to see that it is happening.

What is legal - and how infringement is addressed - differ in different countries.  In Britain (as I understand it) it's still an infringement of copyright to copy your LPs onto tape - or your CDs onto your media server. As for making a compilation from your records collection to give to your girlfriend....  Hots coals and the lash await...

Enforcement is the proof of the pudding - putting individuals in the firing line for having shared copyrighted material.

This week has seen two interesting court cases in Sweden.  First a court in Södertorn decided that Telia Sonera were obliged to hand over details of who runs the Torrent search engine SweTorrents to Antipiratbyrån - a lobby and enforcement organisation for the media industry.  The judgement included in it's rationale both that SweTorrents had a large number of copyright works uploaded onto the site - and that  the site has been used to download material.  

Now it's hard for me to comment on whether providing a search engine counts as abetting copyright infringement under the letter of the current law....  but those aren't legal judgements - they are matters of fact.  It's a search engine.. there are no files on the site to download - and nor can you upload to the site...  so if that's the basis of the judgement it's a pretty dodgy one.  No surprise then that Rick Falkvinge pulls it apart in an article that argues that information politics and it's importance for economic development are too important to leave media industry lobbyists to set the agenda.

Another judgement came this week - this one from the Swedish High Court - saying that broadband operator Portlane is not required to shut off access for a tracker site, Opentorrent.   Here they stated 
"För att medverka till upphovsrättsintrång krävs mer av en mellanhand "än tillhandahållande av en internetaccess".
namely:
" in order to contribute to copyright infringement an intermediary needs to do more than provide an internet access".

This judgement is interesting to contrast with the the current proposals in the UK's proposed Digital Economy Bill which will put specific responsibilities onto operators for policing copyright.  And notwithstanding the lack of technical knowledge shown in the first case - both cases show considerably more interest in the individuals rights and a just process than we see in the UKs current legal and political arena .

Piratpartiet and The Pirate Party -  Working for copyright reform.

Have a Big Brother Christmas...

Today's the day...  It's finally happening.....   

Today is the day that FRA get connected in to cables carrying ALL Swedens cross border e-traffic and the Swedish state gets to monitor anything they fancy from traffic passing through the kingdom (though the king I don't think gets much say in things).  Since bits aren't all that fussy which route they take that's just as much an issue for the rest of humanity as it is for the few million herring eaters out here on the continental fringe - in fact they are intending to primarily focus on monitoring international traffic not sourced from Sweden.

So...  Happy Christmas..  Big Brother Sweden is giving all of us a big slice of state surveillance to chew on.  Pour another glass of glögg and...  Skål!

Still Big Brother does have a sense of humour....   check out this at Techbelly...
Merry fucking Xmas, Love Big Brother

Piratpartiet & The Pirate Party -  Putting privacy first.

Tips on living under Surveillance: Stockholm Edition....

I've blogged about it before but just today I thought Swedish readers might find themselves in need of advice on how to communicate securely in repressive environments. 

Actually.. it's not just - or not even Sweden - that is under surveillance now that parliament here has for the second time given the thumbs up for the FRA to tap all traffic passing Swedish borders.  It's enough to piss you off....  Whatever happened to principles?

Piratpartiet & The Pirate Party -  Defending your privacy

Piracy & Telecoms - taking the fight to Europe

I confess I've not seen it mentioned in the British press - but Swedish bloggers - at least the piratical ones - are all aware that the Telecom package is going for it's third round with negotiations between the elected parliament and the unelected council of ministers.

Amongst the things that's up for debate is the provisions of amendment 138 that would ensure that no-one can be disconnected from the internet without it first going to court. For some reason the council of ministers don't really want to sign up for this and have proposed an alternative wording -which leaves it open to each country to decide whether you get a judicial hearing in advance - or get to object after the event. The difference in wording is subtle but the difference in meaning is huge. Innocent until proven guilty becomes guilty until proven innocent...   which simply put, ain't good enough.

On top of that the provisions of the bill as is will permit ISPs to filter content and restrict users or traffic types - carving up net neutrality just as the FCC are laying out guidelines to protect it in the US.

Piratpartiet's MEP Christian Engström is among those joining the negotiations from the parliamentary side - It's great to see Christian in the thick of it so soon, working to keeping justice and integrity on the rails - and it's nice to know my vote went to a good home....  Just a bit of bugger that he needs to...

Links:  Christian Engström, HAX on the parliamentary delegates, ..and read the truly excellent analysis by Monica Horten of the University of Westminster, Communications and Media Research Institute (CAMRI)

What price art?

Imagine you went into a clothes store and bought a designer jacket..
..And when you get to the till they ask you what you are going to use it for...
"I want it for a play I'm staging..."
"Ahhhh" they say... "We have a special price for jackets for use in the theatre". .. And you need it so you reluctantly pay the extra....

Your play goes ahead and someone at the shop notices that a fine designer jacket is pretty central to the plot and pretty soon after you get a bill from the shop for a hefty wedge more. "But, I paid for the jacket you say" - " Yes, you did, but you never said it was important to the play. You can't use this jacket as an important prop unless you pay us more..."
"But we already paid extra to use it in the theatre.... We're not going to pay you again!"
"Oh yes you are... See you in court!"

You'd laugh wouldn't you? But right now a music company is suing Stockholm Stadsteater for using the "Sounds of Silence". the theatre have paid the performing rights fees they should - but since the music plays an important role in the play the rights owners want more.

To me it smacks of opportunistic exploitation... Wanting your cake and eating it. it's a symptom of the monopolistic rights granted under copyright law - and in this instance it's a leech sucking at the creativity of the playwrite and actors creating something new from something that really ought by now to be part of our shared cultural heritage.. (How many theatres get grants from the public purse to make ends meet?)

Copyright exists to encourage creativity... If that's not what it's doing it has no role today - at least not in it's current form.

No surprise then that Piratpartiet is working for copyright reform
..