[nailer]

I still haven't seen anything from Rick (and I've asked him directly on Twitter before) about how privacy and freedom equate with software piracy, if at all.

If they don't, then perhaps "the Pirate Party' is a bad name?

I support the government not reading my email, I support people being able to donate money to whistleblowing organizations, but I don't support nicking a free copy of someone's app.

Rick if you answered here that would be awesome.

[belorn]

Beyond waiting for Rick to give you a direct answer himself, let me give you the standard answer given elsewhere. If piracy, be that software sharing or music or video or painting or anything else that is included in the term information sharing; If that shall be enforced, the laws needed to do so are intrinsic privacy and freedom hostile.

You may not have a private data storage utility, because those can be used to share illegal information (Mega upload).

You may not have common carry principal, or private communication, because ISP need to prevent the sharing of illegal information (mutiple laws regardin ISP and ISP piracy prevention).

You may not have encryption, because those can be used to share illegal information (copyright vs Tor/Freenet discussion).

You may not have a open wifi and help a neighbour, because those might be used in the sharing of illegal information (openwifi and IP-address equal a person discussion).

You may not have the keys to your own bought phone or knowing what code runs on it, because you might install illegal acquired software (mobile phone drm).

You may not remove malware from your computer, because it wont be able to see if you install illegal acquired software (PC drm like sony rootkit).

You may not upload video to youtube if you don't agree to it being sent to and scanned by a central copyright body that review the material and have ad's being forcefully included if they want (Youtube policy and practice).

You may not provide provide internet connection to a other human being without first spying and recording any traffic sent (data retention and other similar laws)

You may not have privacy and freedom at universities, libraries and school, places previous know for freedom of thought and expression, because they pro-active spy and record any actions on the network to protect themselves. (common education constitution practice)

Maybe I missed some, as i will will have to think for a bit more. Others might be able to add to the list. All above listed items are current fights or lost fights caused by copyright enforcement laws and practices.

[jkn]

Nice list, thanks. I would add some more fundamental issues:

You may not do what you want with the software you bought (EULA terms, DRM protected by DMCA anti-circumvention clauses).

You may not freely share books, songs, software, etc. with your friends or people in need.

You may not freely engage in a creative process that builds on existing works, as all creative processes do (copyright, patents).

(These are paraphrases of the software freedoms defined by the GNU project: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html)

Piracy is also not limited to information content:

You may not freely produce and distribute life-saving medicines to those in need (patents).

[nailer]

Hi there, you've written a very long answer which touched on some important issues.

But, like Rick, you have not actually answered the question.

Perhaps you're saying the term 'pirate' is used in jest, as a defense of those who equate liberty with piracy. Maybe not. I'm not sure.

All you've done is mention other issues that come from badly enforced copyright law. I am aware of those issues, I mentioned a few of them in my original post.

So again:

Do you support using other people's creative endeavors without their permission?

[tripzilch]

> Do you support using other people's creative endeavors without their permission?

Wrong question.

Current international copyright laws already allow this for all except a few very specific interpretations of the words "using" and "permission".

Add to that the European Pirate Parties are pushing for copyright reform making that question and any potential answer to it pretty meaningless.

If you think that is avoiding the issue, then you severely underestimate the complexity of the matter of intellectual property rights in the 21st century.

[Falkvinge]

I have seen that several have responded already, but for a column-length (i.e. digestable but still long enough to present the case) explanation, this is one of my key and first writeups:

http://torrentfreak.com/do-you-prefer-copyright-or-the-right...

Cheers, Rick

[reinhardt]

"No public cost or new tax is involved. All the infrastructure is already in place. The technology has been developed, and the tools are deployed: all we have to do is lift the ban on using them."

Nice. Now I'd love to read a followup that discusses how to address the tragedy of the commons problem that such a lift of the ban would clearly lead to.

[nitrogen]

I thunk one could start by arguing that the benefits of universal access to the sum total of human knowledge and creative expression to date, combined with the surge in derived/remixed/mashed-up works, would outweigh the short term reduction in new works while society figures out a new way to encourage creation.

[eCa]

> If they don't, then perhaps "the Pirate Party' is a bad name?

By that token, oughtn't "The Republicans" win every election in a republic? And does "The Democrats" view republicans as non-democratic?

This is only half in jest.