Module 9: Activism: Difference between revisions
| [unchecked revision] | [unchecked revision] |
(→50px|Case Study: Skeleton) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
Sweden’s Pirate Party grew from a think tank into a “virtue party” and is poised to gain a foothold in its national legislature after this year’s elections. | Sweden’s Pirate Party grew from a think tank into a “virtue party” and is poised to gain a foothold in its national legislature after this year’s elections. | ||
== Challenged Law == | === Challenged Law === | ||
On July 1, 2005, the Swedish Parliament amended its copyright law to comply with a European Union directive requiring all member nations to ban downloads of copyrighted material absent the rights-holder’s consent. Before the end of the year, a Swedish court doled out the country’s first conviction for illegal downloading, accompanied by a sixteen thousand kronor fine (USD $2000). | On July 1, 2005, the Swedish Parliament amended its copyright law to comply with a European Union directive requiring all member nations to ban downloads of copyrighted material absent the rights-holder’s consent. Before the end of the year, a Swedish court doled out the country’s first conviction for illegal downloading, accompanied by a sixteen thousand kronor fine (USD $2000). | ||
== Local Factors == | === Local Factors === | ||
The new anti-downloading regime was particularly susceptible to reactionary counter-mobilization in Sweden. U.S. business interests had wielded trade sanctions to effect the change via a supranational body that did not account for local sociolegal norms. The new law therefore lacked legitimacy in Sweden. Early adoption of high speed broadband, entrenched attitudes against absolutist property rights, and a self-styled think tank named Piratebyran (or “Piracy Bureau”) that was publically contesting Copyright protection since 2003 all encouraged the Swedes to fight back. On New Years Day of 2006, just months after the first filesharing prosecution, an IT entrepreneur named Rickard Falkvinge released an online press statement about the formation of Piratpartiet, the Swedish Pirate Party. | The new anti-downloading regime was particularly susceptible to reactionary counter-mobilization in Sweden. U.S. business interests had wielded trade sanctions to effect the change via a supranational body that did not account for local sociolegal norms. The new law therefore lacked legitimacy in Sweden. Early adoption of high speed broadband, entrenched attitudes against absolutist property rights, and a self-styled think tank named Piratebyran (or “Piracy Bureau”) that was publically contesting Copyright protection since 2003 all encouraged the Swedes to fight back. On New Years Day of 2006, just months after the first filesharing prosecution, an IT entrepreneur named Rickard Falkvinge released an online press statement about the formation of Piratpartiet, the Swedish Pirate Party. | ||
== The Process == | === The Process === | ||
Neither Falkvinge nor his co-founders had any parliamentary experience when they made the decision to start a political party. | Neither Falkvinge nor his co-founders had any parliamentary experience when they made the decision to start a political party. | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
2006: .63% | 2006: .63% | ||
== The Tipping Point == | === The Tipping Point === | ||
== Mobilization == | === Mobilization === | ||
== Present Day == | === Present Day === | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
Revision as of 08:21, 14 January 2010
Learning objective
Case Study
Sweden’s Pirate Party grew from a think tank into a “virtue party” and is poised to gain a foothold in its national legislature after this year’s elections.
Challenged Law
On July 1, 2005, the Swedish Parliament amended its copyright law to comply with a European Union directive requiring all member nations to ban downloads of copyrighted material absent the rights-holder’s consent. Before the end of the year, a Swedish court doled out the country’s first conviction for illegal downloading, accompanied by a sixteen thousand kronor fine (USD $2000).
Local Factors
The new anti-downloading regime was particularly susceptible to reactionary counter-mobilization in Sweden. U.S. business interests had wielded trade sanctions to effect the change via a supranational body that did not account for local sociolegal norms. The new law therefore lacked legitimacy in Sweden. Early adoption of high speed broadband, entrenched attitudes against absolutist property rights, and a self-styled think tank named Piratebyran (or “Piracy Bureau”) that was publically contesting Copyright protection since 2003 all encouraged the Swedes to fight back. On New Years Day of 2006, just months after the first filesharing prosecution, an IT entrepreneur named Rickard Falkvinge released an online press statement about the formation of Piratpartiet, the Swedish Pirate Party.
The Process
Neither Falkvinge nor his co-founders had any parliamentary experience when they made the decision to start a political party.
2006: .63%
The Tipping Point
Mobilization
Present Day
Lesson
Back to the case study
Additional resources
Assignment and discussion questions
Assignment
Discussion Question(s)
Contributors
This module was created by Dmitriy Tishyevich. It was then edited by a team including Sebastian Diaz, William Fisher, Urs Gasser, Adam Holland, Kimberley Isbell, Colin Maclay, Andrew Moshirnia, and Chris Peterson.
Course Materials:
- Module 1: Copyright and the Public Domain
- Module 2: The International Framework
- Module 3: The Scope of Copyright Law
- Module 4: Rights, Exceptions, and Limitations
- Module 5: Managing Rights
- Module 6: Creative Approaches and Alternatives
- Module 7: Enforcement
- Module 8: Traditional Knowledge
- Module 9: Activism
- Glossary