All donations are most welcome. Running an election campaign isn’t cheap, and we still do it without getting paychecks.

http://www.piratpartiet.se/donate/

*books flight to Sweden and says bye to loved ones*

“here’s a bit more to life then just internet freedom”

It’s not “just internet freedom”, pal, it’s just freedom, which is a bit broader term. And when you don’t have freedom, there’s nothing to life that matters.

I don’t know what it would take but have heard that it wouldn’t be difficult to do.

They could even sell domain names to help support it.

*why is torrentfreak saying that I’m posting too quiclky when I didn’t even post yet?

You only get one chance in life to change something fundamental in society and now is that one chance.
We now have a weakspot in the system. They greatly underestimated peoples resolve and how utterly superior we are on the stage that is internet. They can not win on the internet. Here, we create our own news sources, our own laws and our own communities and societies. They can’t win on the internet as it is now, so they will do everything to try to limit and controle the internet. We can all agree, left or right, that this is a fight worth fighting.
Let’s all throw our selfes at the cracks in the system and use this one chance to do something worthwhile.

IRONY ALERT! CODE RED!

Where can foreigners donate money to help? Can’t we have an article about what people from other countries can do to help the Swedish Pirate Party?

Hollywood sure is manipulating and corrupting the other Swedish parties we should counter that by supporting those that are our friends.

Having a seat means you get recognized and, most importantly, FUNDED!!!!!!!!!!!

If you think people are willing constantly lobby for P2P issues while not getting reimbursed for their time, well, think again.

And no, this is not irony due to artists not being paid, and at “Bob”, and all others: Read the god damn arguments PRO culture flatrate being both legitimate and necessary if technology and social change has made the per-piece sale model obsolote.

Wake the f**k up to the 21st century and get with it.

As for the whining about flatrates:
We’re not shelling out pay per view per minute but subscribe per month, so why should we pay per minute of music etc etc?

I’m sure that the best for the society is a monthly payment which give to the user the opportunity for downloading and using all programs, musics, videos, clips, books available in the internet (business that are in the project). The money would be shared in weighted average way.

Las adhesiones se han multiplicado tras la condena a The Pirate Bay. Con 44.000 militantes, el Partido Pirata ya tiene más miembros que el partido de Centro, hasta hoy la tercera formación política con más militantes en Suecia….

I am going to vote for the Pirate Party for they actually have a valid mandate to vote for and I doubt they’ll be worse than the current batch in other aspects of running a country.

CHANGES NEED TO COME!

Doing it the way Rick suggests is not really out of the ordinary. Of course, him being in a position where he can actually accomplish that is extremely unlikely. Winning seats in the Swedish parliament will be much harder than doing so in the European Parliament.

Aaaarrrrgggghhhh! ,, vote for the Swedish Pirate Party! ,, and send the scurvy dogs to the plank! ,, Aaaarrrrgggghhhh!

Good. If you can’t sell your content without the industry putting a proverbial gun to the heads of consumers, then your work can’t stand on its own merits.

I’m sorry that you can’t survive without progress being held back for you, but that’s just too bad. Progress is tired of waiting.

@ Anonymous
“they ARE a new breed of communists!”

LOL. So?

I’d rather say liberalists…

they didn’t “beat” communism, heavens no…they ARE a new breed of communists!

so many choices and just one vote..

http://young-alumni.com/lolgallery/data/media/2/1239604013584.jpg

TROLL MY ASS.
ass.

It’s not about the rights of a small group of people it’s about the freedoms of an entire planet.

If the levels of the content go down(if it possible to be more low) so be it.

People are so greedy that I doubt it will stop people from making films or content they just will do it to sell others things instead(aggregated value).

The DVD is dead, hardware lockdown is dead, channel distribuition deals are dead. I don’t see how one will be able to control those things in the future.

Maybe people start making movies with a button on the side that will let you see what the people are using and let you buy the same clothes and furniture LoL

Pretty good for a single issue party that was only founded 3 years ago.

Everyone, who releases an artwork of theirs (lets call it copyrighted work), and then decides to make it public (by giving permission/license to broadcast it by public reception TV or radio for all audience – and I say PUBLIC here INTENTIONALLY!), and *THEN* thinks (s)he can use current copyright law to weed out subsequent public Internet *sharing* of such a work, is an idiot with capital I. You, who try to achieve such a goal, please realise that you are basically fighting an Quijote fight: to restrict people from copying such information, you’d have to gain total control over ALL their real life behaviour, not just an Internet, and in turn restrict their very basic human rights, such as a right for freedom of expression, by censoring all their inputs/outputs. In a pinch: you may eventually succeed in scaring off people for sharing publicised commercial artworks over the Internet, but they will always find another way, be it a mobile HDD frequently changing hands, non-Internet networks, VPN transport, you name it. There is simply *NO WAY* to control anything, that once went public, from spreading further, becouse again, you’d have to monitor/censor all behaviour of human being.
Now, I have intentionally said artwork thas has been made PUBLIC once, since this kind of artwork wont earn big money anymore (consider that whole population already had a chance to record such a work on their PVR), SO: WHY TO *EVER* RESTRICT SHARING OF (NO MATTER WHETHER COMMERCIAL OR NOT) WORKS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE RELAYED TO PUBLIC BY THE AUTHORS DECISION? And guess what: the copyright law in most countries knows this by ‘artwork made public’, yet it still imposes a restriction on sharing by granting its rights owner protection for ‘right for communication of the work’.
This is *EXACTLY* one of more points where current copyright law needs to be redefined to reflect current reality of widespread sharing and information technologies.
Also consider that really, for people, ‘sharing will always mean carying’, no matter the cartels propaganda. GNU movement (in the software world) is a beautiful example where such a revolution has already started.
It is not simply possible to take away from most of the people what they take for granted for a decade, and call them criminals, giving equal sign between this and pirate. Criminalising vast majority of young population just becouse of its “infringing” upon IP law means only one thing: the IP law needs to change.

Why to chase poor people for sharing such kind of works, when it cant be effectively stopped? Moreover, why to chase your own customers (consider how many people will *BUY* stuff they like once they have first seen as the illegal copy)? Realise finally that from any potential customers PoV, it is only fair to first see/hear the artwork completely before one can judge whether (s)he likes it or not, and *THEN*, based on this finding, making their decision whether to buy such artwork or not!
“I wont buy becouse I have it already downloaded” wont apply in this very case, as again, the work has been relayed to public by authors decision, and as such, everyone could have it recorded from TV or radio…
And, should there be any compensation demand from authors in case of sharing such works among people (becouse they wouldnt buy a DVD worth few cents), it could be very well done by some kind of NON!-compulsory minimum levy, that could, given its tiny value, well be part of monthly flat rate access payment that even no ISP customer would ever notice (they dont know where their money they pay for connectivity go, anyway).

And for those that object that big commercial businesses (such as those united under MPAA, RIAA etc.) need gears to to “protect” their assets by punishing ordinary people for IP infringement becouse they allegedly ‘lose money’: this is a total fud. Why? Well, by watching something, it simply DOES NOT MEAN I’D BUY IT. Period. I may do so, but then again, I may decide not to, becouse quite frankly, I may not like it. So any calculation of loss based on this is pure speculation and as such should be outlawed as an argument in front of jury.

I must always laugh at someones opinion that ‘big businesses need to be protected by strenghtening copyright becouse of their value’. Go watch one of the lectures of prof. Lawrence Lessig “How creativity is being strangled by the law”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Q25-S7jzgs
, particularly the part referring to ‘ASCAP’ and their fate. Isnt there parallel to the current entertainment cartels trying to essentially ‘commercialise all your entertainment time’?

The practice of taking poor people to court and drain them for huge statutory damages just becouse of sharing (note, IP address is NOT NECESSARILY person!) a copyrighted work and thus infringing on IP law, should have never happen: it will only scare people, but wont change their mind.
Indeed, cartels may have short-time profit from this and it appears to be their ‘sue them all’ objective, but this will only create rage and hatred in heads of young people, it wont persuade them otherwise.

*Sigh*.

Now, since I write from Czechia: the czech Pirate Party started just few weeks back, as a direct consequence of unfair judging upon TPB. It almost immediately attracted around 2400 members, so a new party has born. This itself is a *huge* success. Few (perhaps stupid?) people such as Mr. Hlavac from czech’s BSA have complained that “noone should have a right for interfering in author’s rights”. Indeed this concern is a nonsense, lol. He doesnt seem to get that law is always created as a compromise agreement, at least in a democracy.
And law itself is an arbitrary rule, it does not imply it will always be optimal. The only undeniable author’s rights are 1. authorship, and 2. right to decide about FIRST publication of the work. The rest are property rights that MAY change.

Troll-season again?

STFU!