[pp.int.general] Sorting out communication (was Re: constituting pirate-property )
andrew.norton at pirate-party.us
Thu Jun 14 04:50:44 CEST 2007
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 (even if they decline, we look SO much better because we offered) and if they accept, then, as the old saying goes, 'its better having them in the tent peeing out, then outside the tent peeing in.'
Of cours, the bigger thing is not the WHAT, but the WHO. Who will make these terms definitions? The individual parties, or the "International Pirate Party Group"? It comes a lot better from a unified international group, than an individual country. Therein lies a problem. Right now, we don't really have an 'international group' per se. We have this mailing list, there is the web site, and the wiki, but none of it coordinated. In the end, for last weeks press release for the conference, Forian and I had wondered who should be letterheaded - the international group, or the Austrian one. in the end, since he is the austrian one, and there is no international group structure to really put a name to it, thats who the release came from. I do however think its impact might have been better if it came from the international group, rather than the Austrian group, sent out by one of the American group (or at least a PPUS email address). Its the same reason that the MPAA generally doesn't put out press releases, certainly not concerning subjects outside the USA. Instead it puts them out as being from the MPA - the international body.
Secondly, we need more interaction, which we don't really have right now. Granted a lot went on with selected parties last weekend, but it needs to be ongoing. Things like press releases should be sent to this list, for instance, beforehand, so other parties can release related statements beforehand, or at least be able to easily reference them if asked at a time in the future - by reporters for instance. It will also help all of us to learn and enhance our ability to work effectively. United we stand, and all that felgercarb. Finally, those of us who sometimes have a reporter as a secret identity, or who dabble in it (as I do, badly) it means we can get a little jump start on writing a piece that may have a tad better spin on it. Similarly, if any of you have any news tips, don't hesitate to drop me an email/IM - dmcawanted at gmail.com or hit me up in IRC (K`Tetch)
Public relations, and spin, is the major factor when it comes to politics, and its something that doesnt come naturally to most people, except in small doses. Working together, we join those small pieces into a much greater whole, and weild it effectively and with precision and flair.
Thats my little speech for now, but seriously, we do need to sort out spokespeople and press people, even if just within the parties. It is what politics is all about. A politician should be able to explain to a man blind from birth not only what colour is, but to convince such a man that his favourite colour is whatever one the politican says it is. Unfortunatly, that is the scale of the job we have before us.
Pirate Party USA
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 00:42:52 +0200, Natsu <piratenatsu at gmail.com> wrote:
> I have had a look at your wiki. Again, though I like the original idea
> (substituting their terms for ours), I disagree with the solution.
> My main problem is that we attack intellectual property as a concept,
> because we think nothing intellectual can in truth be someone's
> As I said before, you can't own a melody as you'd own a car. The rights
> have over your car cannot be applied to products of the brain.
> If you use the very same word, "property", in "Pirate-property", you are
> keeping the concept of property applied to intellectual products. I think
> the flaw is there. If you say "property", you are still accepting their
> their ideas, and putting "pirate" before it only sounds like stealing.
> If, on the contrary, you refuse the very concept of traditional property
> intellectual products, everything becomes naturally free for use, as logic
> says it should be.
> However, we, in our proposal on copyright (we translated it to author's
> rights, the concept of copyright is again refused), we constantly defend
> author's rights.
> I hope that, whether you agree with us or not, you'll please take out and
> eliminate the term "property" of your proposal. It really helps them, not
> us, IMHO.
More information about the pp.international.general