not

lepsie v: http://burundi.sk/dusan/carrythatweight/images/5/51/Pzi.esej.research.txt

rick falkvinge, oscon 2007 (o’reilly conf, portland OR), lecture, founder of swedish pirate party
http://blip.tv/file/318885/
=
main point v debate ci filesharing je dobry pre ekonomiku: copyright = commercial monopoly
copyright today has crapped into our private communications (it is illegal for me to send music in email to you guys)
if copyright is to be enforced in the digital age that means it [interferes] with our emails.
=> that means that every single piece of private communication has to be monitored by law enforcement and by corporate interest groups guarding copyright to watch for the copyright infringements.
it gets worse:
corporates lobby for ISP for being liable for what their users do.
=> that threatens the ‘common carrier principle’ that messenger is never responsible for the content of the message
= both are centuries old principles of how our democracy works
lady justice has a trouble:
on one end: income for luxury consumption; on another end: 2 principles of our democracy.
=> tiez ak je kazdy email kontrolovany, tak whistleblower protection is gone.
=> if you know you’re monitored you tend to put restraint on yourself.
a ked nemas moznost formulovat svoje myslienky privatne, you lose your identity (ktora je vytvarana v private exchange bwn you and your friends).
= you need privacy, you need a postal secret
corps nas chcu presvedcit o tom ze to je otazka profitu (a udrzania monopolov), no pritom je to otazka zakladnych ludskych prav.
summary of pirate party:
copyright has nothing to do @ my private communication; lifetime+70 yrs is ridiculous as a copyright term for commercial use;
DRM is evil; patents are even more evil (ranging from useless to immoral to diabolical);
privacy is good; dual process(?) is good; and transparent government is even better;
we also safeguard the right of attribution for the copyright very strongly
other parties when realised are loosing votes to PP came to them and ask to have things explained.
norska liberalna strana dokonca skopirovala cely ich stance on copyright
vo svedsku su dve silne strany,
we play ‘who wants to be the prime minister’, the price for that would be the IP rights reform

Until recently, two main parties@Eur: a right-of-centre party (Christian Democrat, liberal-conservative, people’s) and a left-of-centre party (socialist, social-democratic); then smaller parties (ecologists, communists).
There is now one predominant centrist party that stands for global capitalism, usually with a liberal cultural agenda (for example, tolerance towards abortion, gay rights, religious and ethnic minorities). Opposing this party is an increasingly strong anti-immigrant populist party which, on its fringes, is accompanied by overtly racist neofascist groups.
PL (Tusk’s christdem lib conserv Civic Platform 42% vs Kaczynski’s national conserv Christian Law & Justice 32, 10/07),
NL (Rutte’s cons lib VVD 21% vs Wilders’ right populist PVV 16 vs Cohen’s socdem PvdA 20, 7/10),
NO (Stoltenberg’s socdem Labour 32% vs Jensen’s populist lib Progress 22 vs Solberg’s lib cons Conservative 14, 9/05) – ale lava vlada,
SW (Sahlin’s SocDem 31% vs Reinfeldt’s lib conserv Moderate Party 31, potom daleko nic, 9/10),
HU (Orban’s conserv christdem national Fidesz 53% vs Vona’s radical nationalist Jobbik 17 vs Mesterhazy’s socdem MSZP 17, potom len pod 10, 4/10)

we are entering a new epoch in which crisis – or, rather, a kind of economic state of emergency, with its attendant need for all sorts of austerity measures (cutting benefits, diminishing health and education services, making jobs more temporary) is permanent. Crisis is becoming a way of life.
After 1990 we entered a new era in which the predominant form of the exercise of state power became a depoliticised expert administration and the co-ordination of interests. The only way to introduce passion into this kind of politics, the only way to actively mobilise people, is through fear: the fear of immigrants, the fear of crime, the fear of godless sexual depravity, the fear of the excessive state (with its burden of high taxation and control), the fear of ecological catastrophe, as well as the fear of harassment (political correctness is the exemplary liberal form of the politics of fear).

What is increasingly emerging as the central human right in late-capitalist societies is the right not to be harassed, which is the right to be kept at a safe distance from others.

The contemporary redefinition of politics as the art of expert administration as politics without politics? This leads us to today’s tolerant liberal multiculturalism as an experience of the Other deprived of its Otherness – the decaffeinated Other.

After righteously rejecting direct populist racism as “unreasonable” and unacceptable for our democratic standards, they endorse “reasonably” racist protective measures: “We grant ourselves permission to applaud African and east European sportsmen, Asian doctors, Indian software programmers. We don’t want to kill anyone, we don’t want to organise any pogrom. But we also think that the best way to hinder the always unpredictable violent anti-immigrant defensive measures is to organise a reasonable anti-immigrant protection.” barbarism with a human face. It reveals the regression from the Christian love of one’s neighbour back to the pagan privileging of our tribe versus the barbarian Other.