Thank you for taking the time to formulate such a long and thoughtful response!
The history of piracy in offline and online environments is contested. In the case of the Pirate Party, it is clear that the name is assumed from the large copyright holder industries that intended to make cultural sharing online look like something bad in the 1990s. But we have also historians like Markus Reddiker or Adrian Johns ("Piracy: The Intellectual Property Wars from Gutenberg to Gates") who argue that "pirate" traditionally have been terms used by those in power to denote those without power engaging in activities that distort the balances of powers between those with power.
Being a "pirate" on the internet is an identity with which people can sympathise. I am a pirate, my friends also. Europeans have traditionally been exceptionally good at innovating ways to pirate each other, and there's so many different types of Europeans that conditions for piracy are extremely good. It's a shame for our continent that we are trying to ban this fine tradition which has led to scientific, cultural, philosophical and industrial prominence in the past. Of course that brings the argument down to slightly regionalist tones, but the same could surely apply in other parts of the world now that the latency in communication is so good.
Being an "internet" is not. You can't identify with the "internet" for reasons outlined in my original post. As a brand, it's slightly more useless and slightly less rebellious :-)
As for the commercial piracy, there's been plenty of work done on commercial piracy business models in particularly developing countries. Even the United States for a long time engaged in what would now be considered "piracy" by not signing the Berne Convention and thereby enabling themselves to run local publishing industries in spite of the desire of European publishing houses. Even now, a battle is being fought between European cheese and wine manufacturers and American cheese and wine manufacturers about what cheeses and wines should be named. American-Italian cheese manufacturer Auricchio commented as follows in AP: "You cannot stop the spreading of culture, especially in the global economy." I remind Jimmy Wales that Auricchio is a super-big cheese manufacturer whose very wealthy despite making use of the Italian GI "Parmesan" without appropriate permission under Italian law. Is that wrong? I think not.
A media economy study by Joe Karaganis sponsored by the Canadian government provides further insights on commercial piracy in emerging economies.
It's important for those of us who care about the internet, and I know we both care about approximately the same issues, not to fall victim to hurtful rhetoric by recording labels and to allow them to formulate the space within which we hold our discussions about the future.
Calling us Pirates is a way of taking back the problem formulation initiative. Kim Dotcom, as you rightfully point out, would be successful under any trademark - he is the trademark, not the "internet party" or the "pirate party". Kim Dotcom is a trademark in itself. But calling us pirates means that we have a chance to define our own identity and our own problems, in a way which also explicitly rejects the problem formulation by media conglomerates.
Thank you for taking the time to formulate such a long and thoughtful response!
The history of piracy in offline and online environments is contested. In the case of the Pirate Party, it is clear that the name is assumed from the large copyright holder industries that intended to make cultural sharing online look like something bad in the 1990s. But we have also historians like Markus Reddiker or Adrian Johns ("Piracy: The Intellectual Property Wars from Gutenberg to Gates") who argue that "pirate" traditionally have been terms used by those in power to denote those without power engaging in activities that distort the balances of powers between those with power.
Being a "pirate" on the internet is an identity with which people can sympathise. I am a pirate, my friends also. Europeans have traditionally been exceptionally good at innovating ways to pirate each other, and there's so many different types of Europeans that conditions for piracy are extremely good. It's a shame for our continent that we are trying to ban this fine tradition which has led to scientific, cultural, philosophical and industrial prominence in the past. Of course that brings the argument down to slightly regionalist tones, but the same could surely apply in other parts of the world now that the latency in communication is so good.
Being an "internet" is not. You can't identify with the "internet" for reasons outlined in my original post. As a brand, it's slightly more useless and slightly less rebellious :-)
As for the commercial piracy, there's been plenty of work done on commercial piracy business models in particularly developing countries. Even the United States for a long time engaged in what would now be considered "piracy" by not signing the Berne Convention and thereby enabling themselves to run local publishing industries in spite of the desire of European publishing houses. Even now, a battle is being fought between European cheese and wine manufacturers and American cheese and wine manufacturers about what cheeses and wines should be named. American-Italian cheese manufacturer Auricchio commented as follows in AP: "You cannot stop the spreading of culture, especially in the global economy." I remind Jimmy Wales that Auricchio is a super-big cheese manufacturer whose very wealthy despite making use of the Italian GI "Parmesan" without appropriate permission under Italian law. Is that wrong? I think not.
A media economy study by Joe Karaganis sponsored by the Canadian government provides further insights on commercial piracy in emerging economies.
It's important for those of us who care about the internet, and I know we both care about approximately the same issues, not to fall victim to hurtful rhetoric by recording labels and to allow them to formulate the space within which we hold our discussions about the future.
Calling us Pirates is a way of taking back the problem formulation initiative. Kim Dotcom, as you rightfully point out, would be successful under any trademark - he is the trademark, not the "internet party" or the "pirate party". Kim Dotcom is a trademark in itself. But calling us pirates means that we have a chance to define our own identity and our own problems, in a way which also explicitly rejects the problem formulation by media conglomerates.