I still want to know what he did during those 18 months when he went from zero to hero. How did he utilize the people who volunteered to help him, and how did a two-line manifesto turn into a civil-rights ethos that galvanized a sizable percentage of the young, at least in Europe? What does it really mean to have 2 seats; what kind of power is that, and what have these people actually accomplished? What kind of resistance, aside from being pilloried in the tabloids, was encountered how was it handled, and what has the party done to improve its public image?

And though not at all related to the focus of the TEDx Talk, I want to know what is the party doing to reach skeptical moderates, those for whom a more general, multi-issue party like Labour feels like a better fit? This is essentially what they’re up against in the USA, where there are two major, powerful parties with generally opposite positions on a plethora of issues, and little room for a single-issue party or even an ‘independent’ except perhaps at the lowest levels…does the Pirate Party have a position on abortion? the war against terrorism? capital gains taxes? If not, how can they be viable to anyone other than, well, people who only care about being able to pirate? And then there’s the problem of perception; who but pirates would vote for a Pirate?

If someone feels, at a fundamental level, that using copyright to hold works for ransom is both morally right and a natural right, then they’re not going to align with a party which in name and message, even if disguised as pro-privacy, seems to be all about subverting that gut feeling of entitlement they have. Is the party going to try to win some of these people over and address their fears? Is there room for compromise when it comes to copyright reform?

Not it is not, stop spreading disinformation. The only part of for instance the UK copyright law that deals with possession of copies, as in any crimes related to a private person owning and possessing the physical copy, is section 23, secondary infringement, and for a private person to own and have a copy in his possession is not considered an infringement, regardless of if any infringement took place earlier during the manufacturing, distributing or selling of the copy. The following acts however are:

> “Secondary infringement: possessing or dealing with infringing copy.

an article which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe is, an infringing copy of the work.”

Non of the above is relevant for a private person owning and having a copy in his possession, regardless of where that copy originated from. It is simply not a crime, which is what i have stated from the beginning. If you believe that there is any line of text in the CD&P1988 that claims that it based on earlier infringements is illegal for a private person to simply possess a copy in his home on a harddrive, as in owning it, please let me know which section that would be found in, and i will help you to properly read and understand it.

> It is not. It’s the act of manufacturing, distributing and selling the copies, or information which can be used to manufacture a copy, which constitutes an infringement. Possessing a copy, as in owning physical property, does not constitute an infringement in itself, unless you have in your possession with specific intent to use it to commit a later infringement. But simply owning the copy with no intent of committing an infringement, as in people having copies at home for personal use, or as in cyberlockers storing it on their harddrives, with no knowledge of that distributing it would constitute an infringement, does not constitute an infringement.

That might be the case where you live, but where you live isn’t every jurisdictional in the world. In the UK, US, Australia, and Ireland, at least, possession of an infringing copy is very much an infringement. I’m just saying, be careful how you advice people on matters of law. Even a qualified lawyer is barely qualified to advise on law, given how many and how complex and wide reaching they are.

> It is not. The Pirate party does not commit or encourage any piracy. Only individuals can do that, and the above discussion was about an individual. The fact that you can go after an individual who commits copyright infringements does not mean that you can go after the party in itself, although you could argue semantically that they do that, if they go after them just for being members of the party.

That didn’t stop the US government and partner countries going after megaupload & co. Application of law is more to do with political will than what the law actually says. Has been since just about forever. And with the number and scope of laws enacted these days, it’s virtually impossible to not break one of them. So if you sufficiently piss off someone with sufficient influence and power, they will screw you.

It is not. It’s the act of manufacturing, distributing and selling the copies, or information which can be used to manufacture a copy, which constitutes an infringement. Possessing a copy, as in owning physical property, does not constitute an infringement in itself, unless you have in your possession with specific intent to use it to commit a later infringement. But simply owning the copy with no intent of committing an infringement, as in people having copies at home for personal use, or as in cyberlockers storing it on their harddrives, with no knowledge of that distributing it would constitute an infringement, does not constitute an infringement.

> “While (ab?)using the law to go after the pirate party for ‘piracy’ is entirely possible..”

It is not. The Pirate party does not commit or encourage any piracy. Only individuals can do that, and the above discussion was about an individual. The fact that you can go after an individual who commits copyright infringements does not mean that you can go after the party in itself, although you could argue semantically that they do that, if they go after them just for being members of the party.

But an otherwise excellent post. You’re bang on, too. While (ab?)using the law to go after the pirate party for ‘piracy’ is entirely possible, it would also be regarded as a political attack.