Visa fullständig version : Historiska paraller i stälnings tagande

Jonas Norrby
2006-06-06, 10:24
Min Svenska är skrivtligt (inget problem med at lässa språket) inte så bra så resten kommer jag at skriva på Engelska .

The central theme is that we oppose the enslavement of culture by laws. The aim of the law of copyright and patents (c/p) has been to give a person the right to have a time limited monopoly in which the person has the chance to recupe expenses and possibly make a profit. The present attitude of the owners (often not the creator) of c/p's is that they have a right to make a profit and possibly even a right to some of our income.

This basically forms a hidden tax along with the real tax levied on blank CD/DVD's. Historically there has been many protest against taxes which have no ground other then to impose an artificial power base with which to extort money from the population.

The most famous example of this is the Salt tax opposition of Ghandi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_Satyagraha) the basis of this tax was that the English said it was against the law to only allow the British colonial rule to produce and sell salt and anyone breaking this law was a criminal.

The parralel between our opposition to the enslavement of culture and the oposition of the enslavement of salt is possibly something which can be used as an illustrative example of our opposition to the present laws.

I wonder what the rest of you think of this parrallel and if any other interesting historical parrallels are known?

Jonas Norrby

Nicklas W Bjurman
2006-06-06, 10:57
The parallel has been dicsussed in the past and at that time the conclusion was that people probably didn't know about the salt tax and Ghandi's opposition against such. But yes it is a good anology.

2006-06-06, 11:57
Minor "correction" there are very few people that have not heard about Ghandi.. But just because most have heard of him doesn't mean that they know exactly what he was protesting against or what his struggle meant :)

Jonas Norrby
2006-06-06, 13:39
Still the principles of the party show many correspondences to Ghandi, so the qiestion can be whether it might not be a good basis for some satiric cartoons for flyers. There is nothing wrong with reminding people with the past and linking to 'role models'.

Another thread on this forum deals with some possible problem associated with the colour of the part t-shirts and such. Nobody would make that link if you had ghandi on it.

A possibility for a cartoon could be Ghandi being arrested by 20 RIAA cops for sitting next to a persoon listing to music on his MP3 player while both are resting below a mango tree. (Hisotical parrallels)

But this could al be a repetion of what has already been discussed so I do wonder where the previous thread on this is and such. For although few know what Ghandi did the image of him could evoke a discussion which is the main object we want to achieve I would think.

2006-06-06, 17:39
You make good and solid point there. Historical references is something we have used actually (Ghandi have been one of them). Jesus for instance one of the first sharers (he broke the bread and feed a whole crowd and so on and so forth)

The discusion today is no different from when ppl learned how to read for instance... It's a new thing and it's here to stay the reason we're having the argument is the "old folk" (no we also have old people in this party that just happens to be very reasonable and just so happens to understand this aswell) just isn't willing to adapt to this (mainly because they probably will loose money and control)

Hope I made some sence.. Long time since I wrote stuff in english and I tend to confuse more than inform :P

Jonas Norrby
2006-06-06, 18:03
First of feel free to respond in Swedish I can read it perfectly (or at least I have had no problem with it sofar on this forum).

There are as everyone can see some solid historical figures whom could be used as examples and I think this is a point we should make since it widens the discussion into the central theme of one of culture.

Ghandi, Galileo (from Ricks speech) or any other figure for that matter (I would be a bit carefull with Religeous figures since some people are quickly offended), are means by which a person can be forced to ask the question of the legitimacy of the link. This would start a discussion. Also it would be a method of removing the discussion from the FUD (Fear Uncertainity Doubt) used by our esteemd ;) opponents.

You don't have to have a person know about the salt march of Ghandi to use his name as an opener. And using Galileo is just such a move whereby the goal is to highlight the fact that it is a clash of culture and these clashes have never ever in history been won by a party through domination attempts since free will cannot be dominated only surpressed.

Why not gather information on important historical events and persons who are fit as role models and then explaining the link first to ourselves and then the general public. We have threads on how to way lay the FUD from industry. Why not use historical role models, which the discussion partner can check up on for themsleves, to illustrate and strengthen our argument. By showing that our sources truely are independent in both ideology and fact as opposed to our opponents whose track record in unbiased research is rather poor.

But on the last note can anyone tell me where I can find the previous discussion about this topic mentioned in the first reply to my originel post.


Jonas Norrby

2006-06-06, 18:30
Hade vi inte en affisch med Ghandi? (Som jag dock aldrig tror att vi använde.)

*Letar*. Redigerar inlägget så fort jag hittat...

Edit: Sådärja. Jag visste det! :-)


Tror vi aldrig använde det eftersom vi tyckte den var för obskyr, plus att bilden kanske är upphovsrättsskyddad. Den som vill kan gärna gräva i gamla forumtrådar... :)

Henrik Rydberg
2006-06-07, 13:08
Tjänar mänskligheten på fildelning?

Vem förlorar på fildelning?

I en demokrati (definerat som lika fördelad makt) så skulle verksamheter som mänskligheten tjänar på inte förbjudas.

Men med hjälp av politisk korruption (ett utryck för girighet) så kan verksamheter som mänskligheten tjänar på förbjudas av en maktelit på grund av att någon förlorar pengar.

Om man föreslår 100% marginalskatt för inkomster över 10 000 000kr/år så kommer "folk" klaga över att deras äganderätt inte respekteras. När hemlösa fryser ijäl säger man oftas ingenting. Om man föreslår vilkorslös inkomstgaranti så får man till svar: varför skulle folk jobba om de fick betalt ändå?

Girighet, kan man verkligen bygga ett välmående samhälle på girighet?