[Ayes]

Why are we here?

To make change, to have input into our democracy, and to get word out there about internet issues that affect the people that they may not know about.

This is why it is really important to say that

"Access to information is the right of all Canadians" as part of our manifesto.

We need to engage people by showing them that we hope to achieve things, and we need to base our platform entirely around logic and understanding.

We have to heavily talk about the benefits of file sharing, and explain how the people who are against it are exclusively media moguls. Show that information spreading benefits everyone, and that current laws look to serve the few instead of the many.

We need to criticise the other parties for not starting discussion about these ideas, and passing regulation basically behind closed doors. There has been no public input into c-32, and I bet if we weighed the evidence and made our stance known, we could influence the way the public thinks about this.

We cannot be a half-assed pirate party, we toe the line too much out of fear that people won't vote for us if we say ______ or people won't vote for us because someone said _________ on the forums.

But we have to admit we probably won't win anything, and the most we can hope to do is bring the issues to light so opposing parties have to deal with it.

So we do this now by running a fiercer campaign, obviously with certain amounts of discretion, but we need to show that the platform is based on truisms and is completely beneficial to society. And we can't be afraid to criticise those who prevent this kind of discussion from taking place. It's not conspiracy theory to say that these laws are backed by big media financiers. This needs to make a blip on the publics radar!

Or we play it safe, play it cool. and have a fairly low key campaign just to get a single seat, and then have that single person bring light to the issues with his new power. This seems unlikely to me, but I guess there are certain ridings that would be easier to get into than others.

I'm basically just ranting here, but I want to hear what you guys think of this kind of thing.

[Concerned Citizen]

Sounds good...

If we constantly fear XYZ then we will never do ABC. Fortune favors the bold. The existing parties are far too afraid and cowardly to do anything that will set them apart from the other parties. You end up effectively having 4 parties that are virtually identical (Conservatives, Liberals, NDP and Bloc). They are the old established parties, they cannot afford to break the mold because if they do they will lose their place in the political hierarchy.

Right now we are (more or less) a blank slate. We can make our own mold. We do cannot and should not follow the footsteps of the previous parties just because these molds have proven successful for them.

Step 1) Break the Mold
Step 2) Get Elected
Step 3) Change the World

[Jay Frank]

[Sean Hunt]

I don't think putting that in the manifesto is a good idea. Not because I don't agree with it, and certainly not because I don't want the Party to take that position generally, but because it contradicts one of our major platform points, which is the right to privacy. Privacy, by its nature, involves the restriction of access to information by others.

If we could expand the sentence, or also include the right to privacy (with the implied statement that the two rights would need to be balanced), then I would definitely support it.

[Ayes]

If we could expand the sentence, or also include the right to privacy (with the implied statement that the two rights would need to be balanced), then I would definitely support it.

I am down for this, I am also down to consider alternative methods of 'laying down the law'

[Concerned Citizen]

I don't think putting that in the manifesto is a good idea. Not because I don't agree with it, and certainly not because I don't want the Party to take that position generally, but because it contradicts one of our major platform points, which is the right to privacy. Privacy, by its nature, involves the restriction of access to information by others.

If we could expand the sentence, or also include the right to privacy (with the implied statement that the two rights would need to be balanced), then I would definitely support it.

Or we could make the distinction between generally public information and personal information. We're for freedom of public information and privacy or maybe we should call it 'Security' of personal information.

[JasonCarr]

We're for freedom of public information and privacy or maybe we should call it 'Security' of personal information.

Good point. Media is created for the purpose of being public. It is entirely possible to argue for the free exchange for media while protecting the privacy rights of individuals. In fact it would seem that it is easier to protect the privacy of individuals when you have freedom of information then when you have the opposite. It is when you have laws against things like file sharing that you have to infringe privacy rights to enforce them.

[cpt_chris]

i completely agree. there is a sense of moderation with our policies and i'm not entirely pleased with it. the swedes laid down some tough policies and are sticking to it. between our watered down ideals and the compromises we'll make to please the other parties nothing much can get done. our government already considers copyright reformists 'radical extremists' so let's present ourselves.

We're for freedom of public information and privacy or maybe we should call it 'Security' of personal information.

excellent. apply this to business: whether you're for patents or not, any company should be able to keep a trade secret. but if they do release their methods or these methods are apparent to the public, there should be no limits on its reproduction and improvement by nearly any person or company. anything else is a burden on technological advancement.

[Nuitari]

It depends, some of it we do have to keep for legal reasons too.

[Concerned Citizen]

It depends, some of it we do have to keep for legal reasons too.

Suggesting you will do something if elected and have the power to do so is something we can do. We can say that we support file sharing and the like but do not condone people breaking the law to do so. We want to change the law to make it legal.

[Nuitari]

I have no problem with filesharing being in our platform, in fact I'm even proposing it.
I'll also fight for net neutrality because without it, filesharing can be rendered moot.
I'll even fight for privacy cause the government doesn't need to know what you're sharing.

I won't however publish a how to guide to bittorrent, or where/how to find particular files. People can simply google it.

[Ayes]

I won't however publish a how to guide to bittorrent, or where/how to find particular files. People can simply google it.

Oh absolutely, we shouldn't be breaking the law if we want to run for office. But we should be saying unabashedly that we think that filesharing is beneficial, adds a social element to gaining knowledge and sharing information, and that it's in the best interests of the people.

& We should support the people that share files. It would be cool if we could find someone to do legal work pro-bono to represent victims of prosecution in the future, if C-32 passes. If we extend our reach, we could likely find people willing to do that.

[Mike Bleskie]

I'll jump on the bandwagon. My opposition has been on that point, that we can't use currently-"illegal" tactics to achieve our goals. My opposition has also been on the point that we still need to give those other artists, i.e. the ones demanding protectionist policies, a way for them to earn their livelyhood. I'd like to see what we can offer those people. However, if we can guarantee that we can do this without actually breaking any current laws, I'd like to see file-sharing rightfully legitimized.

[Concerned Citizen]

I'll jump on the bandwagon. My opposition has been on that point, that we can't use currently-"illegal" tactics to achieve our goals. My opposition has also been on the point that we still need to give those other artists, i.e. the ones demanding protectionist policies, a way for them to earn their livelyhood. I'd like to see what we can offer those people. However, if we can guarantee that we can do this without actually breaking any current laws, I'd like to see file-sharing rightfully legitimized.

What if chair makers demand protectionist policies? What if they want to charge not only the owner of the chair but everyone who ever rests their rear on their chair. What happens when they demand all chairs everywhere have a 'chair tax' associated with them because people could use them to sit on? Then when all this is done they start taxing beds because they could be used to sit on as well?

This is an example of what is happening now framed into a more 'silly' frame of reference. Musicians and Artists (not all of them mind you) are currently getting paid for everyone who buys their music or listens to it (theoretically). They also have effectively a tax on things that could be used to listen to music on called the Blank Media Levy. Now they want to start taxing internet connections because they can be used to download music illegally. No other profession in the world gets these level of benefits and we should potentially (rightly) argue that the creative arts should not get them either. But not before we have the studies and numbers to support it.