[pp.int.general] Sorting out communication (was Re: constituting pirate-property )

[Amelia Andersdotter]

I'm sorry for the rather late replies here:

On 14/06/07, Andrew Norton <andrew.norton at pirate-party.us> wrote:
> The subject of 'terms definition' is something that I've had on the PPUS
> agenda since early March at least. I was hoping to get together with
> people/groups like the EFF, LEssig, and even an offer to the MPAA/RIAA
>

This is a likely PPUS setup for discussing such terms. They're US
people, so US responsibility. The term definition at hand may also
only be applicable to the US. I will explain:

> Of cours, the bigger thing is not the WHAT, but the WHO. Who will make
> these terms definitions? [...] It comes a lot better from a unified international
> group, than an individual country.

True enough.

> Therein lies a problem. Right now, we don't really
> have an 'international group' per se.

That's because we're working within our respective systems to change
those systems. Between themselves, the systems we work within vary a
lot between the different countries.

I would like to reference to the Fourth and Fifth International, which
*were* international movements. On the positive side for *them*,
*they* are planning to _overthrow_ the system, not change it.
(http://www.fifthinternational.org/)

In Sweden we've said we only wish to change certain things, and we
certainly do not aspire to become the ruling class. That makes
international coordination of politics very difficult, since each
pirate party start their quest for change from very different starting
points.

An international group could function mostly as a signature in very
specific situations, or for sharing news with one another, and for
getting support when times are hard. The actual reformist work would
have to be led by each country.

> I do however think its impact might have been better if it came from the
> international group,

FFII or FSF must have different affilials overseas and in Europe. How
have they managed to cross this political bridge and become unified. I
think we should probably look at other organisations and see how
they've arranged their movements.

> Instead it puts them out as being from the MPA - the international body.
>

That's because they're a global industry. We're a political movement
so it's harder for us to pull this off.

//amelia