[pp.int.general] Some parting thoughts

[Jeremy Morton]

Glenn Kerbein wrote:
> All,
> 	I am stepping down as co-administrator of the US Pirate Party. I had a
> falling out with the new administration (Ryan, Bethany, et al.);
> surmounting issues were just straws that eventually broke the camel's
> back. My tenure will be completed by the end of the month.
> 	Over the time that I've been here, talking with the other parties,
> Andrew, etc. I have some thoughts.
> 	First and foremost: Unlike a majority of our counterparts, our body's
> structure is unique. Here in the States, a non-profit corporation
> [501c3] grants donors the ability to deduct a monetary amount from their
> income taxes. We, however, are registered through the tax authority (the
> IRS) as a Political Action Committee [PAC, or 527], which have
> tax-exempt status. 501c3 corporations are strictly prohibited from doing
> any lobbying or work with political parties and are forbidden from
> endorsing a candidate.Along with these tax exemptions comes great
> responsibility: each entity must provide arduous effort to not incite
> nor infer any illicit acts; this includes filesharing.

Perhaps, although much political change has indeed come from people 
carrying out illicit acts, (I'll refrain from referring to the cliched 
certain black woman refusing to give up her bus seat for a white person ;-)

> 	Many of our European counterparts want to outright deny any intelligent
> reasoning why filesharing should become licit, nor how to compensate for
> it.

I don't know where you get that ridiculous idea from, but I see plenty 
of intelligent reasoning going on amongst the various Pirate Parties. 
Of course some supporters may want to 'just legalize it' and not take 
part in the debate for why filesharing should be legal, but that doesn't 
mean the parties as a whole don't bother to justify their positions.

> Simply saying "go ahead and do it, we can't stop you" only
> exacerbates the issue. It leads to litigation like the PRO-IP Act, the
> PIRATE Act, ACTA, any a slurry of other campaigns the entertainment
> industry launches. In conclusion: we have significantly more trenchant
> platforms to pursue than to vindicate illicit filesharers.

No, unfortunately litigation like that is led to by some very rich 
people having the power to bribe US politicians to pass the laws they 
want, in the name of lobbying.  The US political system needs fixing there.

And honestly, what other more trenchant platforms do we have to pursue? 
  We even gave ourselves the name that the copyright cartel uses to 
describe those who fileshare, an implicit acknowledgement that we are 
'pirates', support digital 'piracy' being legal, and that that's one of 
our main platforms.

> 	Secondly, the direction that a few of the PPs have been going may not
> be in the best of interests. I've spoken to numerous news outlets and
> had many stories printed with my name in them. Only two stood out - one
> on Ars Technica by Nate Anderson and the other on CrunchGear by Nicholas
> Deleon [the latter being my favorite]. The others seem to have the
> predisposition to link our name to a peach-colored website. I've said on
> several occasions (and above) that we were not created to vindicate
> filesharers, nor indemnify anyone in the employ of said website. The

Unless I've misinterpreted this, I think your arguments are out of step 
with the goals of the Pirate Party movement.  I think filesharers should 
be vindicated, and their filesharing legal.  So do the other pirates 
I've spoken to.  I don't really see what you stand for.

Best regards,
Jeremy Morton (Jez)