This blog post shows why it is a big dangerous to respond at great length to a twitter remark - you've completely misunderstood my position and my argument, largely because on twitter it is difficult to explain in full.
1. I am not so much defending or supporting the name "Internet party" although it is clearly many times better than "Pirate party". But at the same time it is a silly objection to the name to suggest that it implies that the MPAA and fiber-optic cable providers should set its policies. That objection is simply a compete non-starter that will persuade no one.
A valid objection might be that it is less fun and less shocking that Pirate party. There's no doubt about that. But at least insofar as the New Zealand situation goes, I think it pretty clear that with Kim Dotcom as backer, there will be enough shock and fun to keep them in the media eye.
2. You write "For me, being a pirate means I take the view that politics and technology should conspire to create opportunities for individuals and their good relations with other individuals. I believe the internet is a fundamentally nice and useful place which we can use to make everyone happier and find new friends. Something akin to a tool for world peace, rather than mega-corp domination."
That is a nice expression of valuable sentiments, but it is not what the word "Pirate" means to most people. Real pirates (off the coast of Somalia for example) kidnap and kill people, ransoming ships and people for money. Historical pirates did the same. They were not defenders of "opportunities for individuals" nor were they fixed in a view that the world is a "fundamentally nice and useful place". Being a pirate was not about finding new friends, it was about what is rightly viewed as destructive criminal behavior.
It is because of those historical associations that copyright infractions have been labeled pirates. And there is or can be value in re-appropriating the word. But a political party's ambitions should be far beyond just changing the language around copyright law. And there is an opportunity here which is bigger than that.
"For me, being a pirate means..." is what I was thinking of when I called the name 'vain'. Success in politics is not determined by what you or I believe, it is determined by what millions of ordinary people believe. We have, as you say, "actual stances with respect to internet policy". We cannot, as you say, "avoid picking sides". But our actual stances and sides, our actual ideas, are compelling only to those who stop long enough to listen. The name "Pirate party" stops that dead in the tracks.
Most people think, and I think quite rightly, that wholesale commercial copyright violation whether done for the sake of underground DVD sales, subscription fees, or advertising revenue is wrong. The Pirate name means to most people that the core value of the party is to eliminate all copyright law completely, to make The Pirate Bay completely legal, and to deprive creative artists completely of their livelihood. If that's what you stand for, then yes, Pirate is a good name - but you won't get very far.
But if what you stand for is a radical upheaval to copyright law in line with modern technology... if what you stand for is a deeper understanding of the possibilities of the Internet and the fragility of the framework that makes openness, transparency, freedom of speech possible... if you what you stand for is the promotion of modern methods of citizen engagement to help make better decisions across the entire broad spectrum of issues facing us... then "Pirate" is a name which tends to keep you from your goals.
My point is not that we shouldn't offend the MPAA or Disney. My point is that people like you and me are not the norm. We are geeks and Internet policy wonks. We need to get my parents to listen to the message. We need to get people who are not geeks to listen to the message. We need people to understand that we don't stand for the complete destruction of all forms of "intellectual property" but for a radical re-examination of it in light of modern technologies.
This blog post shows why it is a big dangerous to respond at great length to a twitter remark - you've completely misunderstood my position and my argument, largely because on twitter it is difficult to explain in full.
1. I am not so much defending or supporting the name "Internet party" although it is clearly many times better than "Pirate party". But at the same time it is a silly objection to the name to suggest that it implies that the MPAA and fiber-optic cable providers should set its policies. That objection is simply a compete non-starter that will persuade no one.
A valid objection might be that it is less fun and less shocking that Pirate party. There's no doubt about that. But at least insofar as the New Zealand situation goes, I think it pretty clear that with Kim Dotcom as backer, there will be enough shock and fun to keep them in the media eye.
2. You write "For me, being a pirate means I take the view that politics and technology should conspire to create opportunities for individuals and their good relations with other individuals. I believe the internet is a fundamentally nice and useful place which we can use to make everyone happier and find new friends. Something akin to a tool for world peace, rather than mega-corp domination."
That is a nice expression of valuable sentiments, but it is not what the word "Pirate" means to most people. Real pirates (off the coast of Somalia for example) kidnap and kill people, ransoming ships and people for money. Historical pirates did the same. They were not defenders of "opportunities for individuals" nor were they fixed in a view that the world is a "fundamentally nice and useful place". Being a pirate was not about finding new friends, it was about what is rightly viewed as destructive criminal behavior.
It is because of those historical associations that copyright infractions have been labeled pirates. And there is or can be value in re-appropriating the word. But a political party's ambitions should be far beyond just changing the language around copyright law. And there is an opportunity here which is bigger than that.
"For me, being a pirate means..." is what I was thinking of when I called the name 'vain'. Success in politics is not determined by what you or I believe, it is determined by what millions of ordinary people believe. We have, as you say, "actual stances with respect to internet policy". We cannot, as you say, "avoid picking sides". But our actual stances and sides, our actual ideas, are compelling only to those who stop long enough to listen. The name "Pirate party" stops that dead in the tracks.
Most people think, and I think quite rightly, that wholesale commercial copyright violation whether done for the sake of underground DVD sales, subscription fees, or advertising revenue is wrong. The Pirate name means to most people that the core value of the party is to eliminate all copyright law completely, to make The Pirate Bay completely legal, and to deprive creative artists completely of their livelihood. If that's what you stand for, then yes, Pirate is a good name - but you won't get very far.
But if what you stand for is a radical upheaval to copyright law in line with modern technology... if what you stand for is a deeper understanding of the possibilities of the Internet and the fragility of the framework that makes openness, transparency, freedom of speech possible... if you what you stand for is the promotion of modern methods of citizen engagement to help make better decisions across the entire broad spectrum of issues facing us... then "Pirate" is a name which tends to keep you from your goals.
My point is not that we shouldn't offend the MPAA or Disney. My point is that people like you and me are not the norm. We are geeks and Internet policy wonks. We need to get my parents to listen to the message. We need to get people who are not geeks to listen to the message. We need people to understand that we don't stand for the complete destruction of all forms of "intellectual property" but for a radical re-examination of it in light of modern technologies.