Technology Swedish Left Party Wants to Legalize Piracy

[The Helper]

This Sunday, the Swedish Left Party voted in favor of a motion calling for the legalization of sharing copyrighted files for personal use. The party, which currently holds 22 seats in the Swedish parliament, sees piracy as something positive, much like public libraries.

At the party’s congress this weekend, party members had to vote on a motion that would legalize the uploading and downloading of copyrighted material for personal use, as long as it is not for commercial purposes.

“To many of us in the Left Party, file sharing is something positive in the same obvious way that public libraries are,” the motion read, going on to describe the general opinion on file sharing in Sweden.

In addition, the motion stated that the various measures taken for trying to stop file sharing, such as big brother-like surveillance, or arbitrary sentences against individuals, are unacceptable.

Swedish Left Party Wants to Legalize Piracy * TorrentFreak

This Sunday, the Swedish Left Party voted in favor of a motion calling for the legalization of sharing copyrighted files for personal use. The party, which currently holds 22 seats in the Swedish parliament, sees piracy as something positive, much like public libraries.

torrentfreak.com

 

[Kelv]

There is no way that digital media could be successfully leagally pirated. It's not like picking up a book at the library. The library has to buy every book that recieves, or it takes in donations, but books have to be traded, nobody can have the same copy of the book at the same time. Digital media can be copied and then it has no value. It seems like a lot of people on these forums enjoy piracy. But it cheats the economies of the people who are giving you entertainment. It really annoys me how people will pirate programs like Photoshop and they don't even care that people like my uncle work all the time to develop programs, and they need the money to keep on making it better. I know that todays world is harder because the economy isn't doing so well but you shouldn't try and screw the guys that are also trying to live in this economy.

 

[WastedSavior]

There is no way that digital media could be successfully leagally pirated. It's not like picking up a book at the library. The library has to buy every book that recieves, or it takes in donations, but books have to be traded, nobody can have the same copy of the book at the same time. Digital media can be copied and then it has no value. It seems like a lot of people on these forums enjoy piracy. But it cheats the economies of the people who are giving you entertainment. It really annoys me how people will pirate programs like Photoshop and they don't even care that people like my uncle work all the time to develop programs, and they need the money to keep on making it better. I know that todays world is harder because the economy isn't doing so well but you shouldn't try and screw the guys that are also trying to live in this economy.

Videos - Trust me, these people make enough money, They make millions of dollars from the movie theatres and merchandise alone. They dont need or deserve the profits from selling DVD's.

Programs - I've yet to see a company go out of business because they couldn't sell their shit for obscene amounts of money. The people who develop these things rarely live in poverty.

Video Games - This one i can agree with on a certain level.
1. These people work long and hard to entertain you, and being a mapper i can appreciate how long and hard they really work.
2. on the other hand, there are old games that are no longer in production, that i feel are fair game.. If they are no longer making it, it's hard to buy it, so why not let it go into the public domain?

Music - If you really like a band you'll probably want to go to a live concert, and lemme tell you.. that isn't chump change. They make more in 2 hours then you'll make in a year of working.

 

[Darthfett]

They belong to the owners.

Even our public libraries have to hold up somehow. We pay late fees, and taxes to be able to check out books.

It really is not fair to put different things into categories. Each person had to go through a lot to be able to put their product on the market.

Videos - You have to pay for Actors, and you have to go through the developing time, with your own money. It takes an investment, and you have to be good to sell the movie.

Programs - The ones for obscene amounts of money are the ones which are new, innovative, and took a new idea. Not everyone can come up with a new idea, and you only get one every once in a while. These take a whole team of people to create, and the raised prices are really to pay for what they have already spent their time creating.

Video Games - Yep, they take a lot of production time, and a large team of workers. Plus, like movies, you have to make a good one to be able to sell it. How many games have you seen at EB Games and how many do you actually own?

Music - They had to spend a lot of time practicing to be able to perform. They also have to pay for the travelling expenses, managers, and other behind the scenes people. I have two uncles who are both in the music business (managers and such), and they are not at their homes very much. They usually spend around 2 months on tour, a week at home. All the time.

This will not pass.

 

[Seb!]

Video Games - This one i can agree with on a certain level.
1. These people work long and hard to entertain you, and being a mapper i can appreciate how long and hard they really work.
2. on the other hand, there are old games that are no longer in production, that i feel are fair game.. If they are no longer making it, it's hard to buy it, so why not let it go into the public domain?

That's pretty hypocritical considering video game production is no different than movie production in that people work long, hard hours to finish them. You only sympathize more with video game makers because you map.

 

[w00t22]

That's pretty hypocritical considering video game production is no different than movie production in that people work long, hard hours to finish them. You only sympathize more with video game makers because you map.

yea, game makers get paid poorly, but so do people on movie sets not directors/actors etc, but the other things like camera men and stuff

 

[sqrage]

Music - If you really like a band you'll probably want to go to a live concert, and lemme tell you.. that isn't chump change. They make more in 2 hours then you'll make in a year of working.

Unless you're solely talking about main stream bands with $100+ shows, you are terribly misguided. Most bands these days can barely afford their basic necessities from the money they make from touring. Don't forget that the money they make is split 3 to 6 ways within each band that plays, depending on how many people are in their band. And this is after they pay their managers, booking staff, etc.

However, I do still support piracy of music because most bands that aren't on a major label get robbed of nearly every cent of record sales anyway. And the ones on major labels do make enough money from touring.

 

[WastedSavior]

That's pretty hypocritical considering video game production is no different than movie production in that people work long, hard hours to finish them. You only sympathize more with video game makers because you map.

Shrek 2
Total US Gross: $437,212,000

Pirates of the Caribbean
Total US Gross: $423,416,000

The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King
Total US Gross: $377,019,252

This is the money they got ONLY from theaters, This does not include commercials, action figures, and dvd's.

According to the US Department of Labor: Bureau of Labor Statistics
There are: 70,000 people currently employed in production and directing.

Assuming over 200 people worked on the production of Shrek 2, if everyone received equal portions of the revenue they'd each get over 2 million dollars.
But they don't, these people get a fixed income completely irrelevant to the success or failure of the movie. which i can assure is quite a bit less then 2 million dollars a piece.

The people who make all the money are the producers, and often the actors.
An actor makes more in 6 weeks of shooting then a coal miner makes in 2 years.

Do the math and tell me they deserve it.

 

[sqrage]

>>This does not include commercials

Why would they profit from commercials?

They pay for them...

 

[WastedSavior]

Unless you're solely talking about main stream bands with $100+ shows, you are terribly misguided. Most bands these days can barely afford their basic necessities from the money they make from touring. Don't forget that the money they make is split 3 to 6 ways within each band that plays, depending on how many people are in their band. And this is after they pay their managers, booking staff, etc.

However, I do still support piracy of music because most bands that aren't on a major label get robbed of nearly every cent of record sales anyway. And the ones on major labels do make enough money from touring.

Yes, i thought it was fairly obvious that i was referring to main stream bands.

>>This does not include commercials

Why would they profit from commercials?

They pay for them...

Out of that entire thing this is the only thing you can dispute? lol, i was implying that movie stars often use their publicity to get a considerable amount of money from endorsements. As well, like im sure you've seen from the latest Indiana Jones movie.. The producers also have endorsement deals through fast food services and other cheap gimmicks.

 

[sqrage]

Out of that entire thing this is the only thing you can dispute?

I wasn't trying to dispute. I was just pointing that out, I agree with what you said on movies, but now I see what you meant by commercials.

 

[Darthfett]

You listed three of the best movies out there as examples. What you should be looking for examples of are films that didn't receive awards.

A coal miner didn't have to go to college, or do anything special to get the job. The producers of movie have no money to start with, and they had to go through college, and spend the entire time filming on their own money. That includes paying for themselves, as well as the salary of every person that doesn't get payed based on how much the movie makes. That's a heck of a lot of extra money to have.

Lets get some realistic examples, use the average salary of a man who finished college, and isn't in a dead end job.

 

[TheDamien]

I agree with the public library metaphor. No one has been fined for reading a book at a library instead of buying it at a store.

 

[WastedSavior]

You listed three of the best movies out there as examples. What you should be looking for examples of are films that didn't receive awards.

How about:
The Mighty Ducks:
$50.752000

Dennis the menace:
$51.271000

These (not requiring a huge production team) had about 90 people. Whats the math on this one?
about 600,000 a peice (if divided equally, which of coarse its not)

A coal miner didn't have to go to college, or do anything special to get the job. The producers of movie have no money to start with, and they had to go through college, and spend the entire time filming on their own money. That includes paying for themselves, as well as the salary of every person that doesn't get payed based on how much the movie makes. That's a heck of a lot of extra money to have.

Lets get some realistic examples, use the average salary of a man who finished college, and isn't in a dead end job.

Coal miners put their lives on the line, often ending their career dead or dying (From black lung). They make on average 60,000 a year, where as a teacher makes around 27,000. Do you honestly believe an actor deserves 2-6 million per movie?

You seem to be combining producers, script writers, and directors all into one person.

The script writer takes it to a producer, if the producer likes it, he buys the script and gives it to a director, who brings it to life on the big screen.

The script writer gets a nice chunk of money, the director makes about the same, and the producer more then not gets a massive return on his investment. All the while the production team makes about the same money as working any other college level job.

If you pirate a movie, your not screwing over the hard workers, your screwing over the producer.

 

[esb]

Everyone's whining about the 'workers' not getting paid for their work, acting, programming, etc. and getting ripped off. How come no one ever says a thing for cheap labor? Those 'Made In China' shirts could be considered piracy, as they payed really cheap and sell really high (compared to cost needed to make)

 

[Darthfett]

I agree with the public library metaphor. No one has been fined for reading a book at a library instead of buying it at a store.

Books from the library have to be returned after a certain amount of time, only one person can have them at a time.

That would be like letting someone listen to a song. The examples are too different, and do not work.

Piracy is the equivalent of replicating the book. An exact duplicate of it, and then putting it on your own shelves. You didn't pay for the book, but now you have your own copy of it, that you can listen to at any time. This means that the author suffers because you didn't have to pay for that book.

Making a free library of music online that lets anyone only LISTEN to it (the equivalent of letting someone borrow a book to read) is not possible, however. People will still be able to steal the music, and the company will have to take the blame for not being able to protect the music from pirates.

@WastedSavior -- Who actually pays for the production of the movie? If it's the producer:

The producer has to buy the script, as well as pay the director. It's an investment. Then, the actors have to be paid, as well as the cameramen. Then, he/she has to pay for the props.

Here's what's really being discussed: Person A makes something cool, that can be copied. Person B buys it from Person A, makes copies, and gives them to his friends. He doesn't think it is wrong to give it to his friends, because he is just sharing. The problem is, friends give it to friends, who in turn give it to more friends. Pretty soon, everyone has it that wants it, and Person A is out of luck.

It's taking somebody's piece of art, and not paying. It's stealing.

@esb -- People are paying for the shirts, they're not making copies of them and giving them to their friends.

 

[WastedSavior]

@WastedSavior -- Who actually pays for the production of the movie? If it's the producer:

The producer has to buy the script, as well as pay the director. It's an investment. Then, the actors have to be paid, as well as the cameramen. Then, he/she has to pay for the props.

Here's what's really being discussed: Person A makes something cool, that can be copied. Person B buys it from Person A, makes copies, and gives them to his friends. He doesn't think it is wrong to give it to his friends, because he is just sharing. The problem is, friends give it to friends, who in turn give it to more friends. Pretty soon, everyone has it that wants it, and Person A is out of luck.

It's taking somebody's piece of art, and not paying. It's stealing.

People will never stop going to the movies, it's more then just the movie.. its an atmosphere, it's a date, it's a box of candies, or popcorn, it's one huge ass screen and amazing surround sound.

This sort of piracy does not put you on the streets. It's merely an equalizer.. The production team and actors get what they deserve, and the producer cashes in on his investment from all the theatre revenue. Piracy merely cuts out all the extra income the producer would get from DVD sales.

I'd like to take this moment to state that i DO NOT pirate music, videos, games, or programs.​

I merely feel that the piracy is the result of an economic imbalance.

I don't believe these people deserve all the money they make, when people who work much harder don't even make a fraction of what they do.

 

[esb]

>People are paying for the shirts, they're not making copies of them and giving them to their friends.

Not talking about the buyers, i'm talking about the companies that hire these workers in outside countries and pay them little to no money.
It's technically the same.

Sure you can't copy shirts, but costs little to make.
You copy files, but still pay internet, and had to pay for the computer.

 

[TheDamien]

Books from the library have to be returned after a certain amount of time, only one person can have them at a time.

This is merely a physical constraint (and will become less of one as libraries are digitalized).

That would be like letting someone listen to a song. The examples are too different, and do not work.

[...]

This is fairly irrelevant in my view. The mechanic is the same in that you are getting access to information (I use this term in the sense of "data") that you might otherwise have to pay for. The authors, publishers, record companies etc aren't actually losing anything in either example.

 

[Seb!]

Shrek 2
Total US Gross: $437,212,000

Pirates of the Caribbean
Total US Gross: $423,416,000

The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King
Total US Gross: $377,019,252

This is the money they got ONLY from theaters, This does not include commercials, action figures, and dvd's.

According to the US Department of Labor: Bureau of Labor Statistics
There are: 70,000 people currently employed in production and directing.

Assuming over 200 people worked on the production of Shrek 2, if everyone received equal portions of the revenue they'd each get over 2 million dollars.
But they don't, these people get a fixed income completely irrelevant to the success or failure of the movie. which i can assure is quite a bit less then 2 million dollars a piece.

The people who make all the money are the producers, and often the actors.
An actor makes more in 6 weeks of shooting then a coal miner makes in 2 years.

Do the math and tell me they deserve it.

First of all, those movies are terrible examples and really don't have anything to do with the VAST majority of most movies. Second, a large portion of the movie crew makes around 30,000 dollars annually. They do the same work and get payed the same as a video game maker, why should they lose profits because of the money that other people are making in their business? Video game makers are fewer per game.