[pp.int.general] Some parting thoughts

[Glenn Kerbein]

Jeremy Morton wrote:
> 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 ;-)
> 
Civil disobedience is one thing. Endorsing that you should download
Kayne West's latest album is another.
In before "Imma let you finish".
>>     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.
> 
I won't name names, as that would only incite further flamewars. I know
of two parties that do this sort of thing. Luckily, the PPUK is not one
of them.
>> 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.
> 
That's one vast and overbroad statement, sir. Not necessarily incorrect,
but also not wholly correct.
> 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.
> 
Maybe you need a history lesson: we should pursue what ostensibly
amounts to the treading upon people's rights. The US PATRIOT Act is,
well, a popular and obvious target. We need to examine and deduce what
is wrong with copyright: not what is wrong with filesharing. Why is the
Grey Album disallowed and why does this run abet to our cultural past?
[I know the answer to both, but I won't elaborate].

>>     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.
Maybe. Maybe not. Perhaps you should re-read my argument.
> 
> Best regards,
> Jeremy Morton (Jez)
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general

-- 
Glenn "Channel6" Kerbein
United States Pirate Party
"Burn, Hollywood, Burn"
http://www.pirate-party.us/