Lowery Pirate Rant Will Tell You That Julia Reda MEP Is A Nazi?

Lowery published an article recently in which he said some strange things. Very strange things.

David Lowery, a musician, and an industry activist recently published a quite controversial article in which he targeted Julia Reda MEP.

David titled his piece “Why is it Every Time We Turn Over a Pirate Rock White Nationalists, Nazi’s and Bigots Scurry Out”.

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out what David Lowery is trying to insinuate here.

Basically, Lowery is suggesting that Julia Reda MEP’s complaints about copyright restrictions on works such as Anne Frank’s Diary aren’t genuine.

And that they are based on an ugly far-right agenda.

Copyrights And The Never Ending Debate.

The online community along with law enforcement authorities have debated over copyright since eternity.

Most of the time this debate boils down to two things,

  • What are copyrights
  • And how should authorities and copyright holder groups enforce those copyrights

Needless to say, most of the times, the debate is more than what one would call polarizing.

In other words, there is a staunch support on both sides of the argument.

And then there is the fact that both sides have objectors who don’t want to listen to a different point of view.

Of course, that only leads us to a place where the debate is unlikely to end soon if ever.

As a result of such a situation, the media has seen various heated battles over what copyrights are and how should authorities impose them.

AS mentioned before, the battle between two the groups doesn’t give off any indication that it won’t last for another decade or so.

There are those Pro-copyright bodies and then there are those against copyright bodies.

The Pro-copyright bodies have little else to do than to accuse pirates of online theft.

In turn, pirates accuse pro-copyright bodies of harboring monopolistic tendencies.

There is no doubt about the fact that both points of view are extreme.

And that takes the community to another very unpleasant place.

Both parties do not look like they will budge an inch from their claims.

And that is why we have seen these words becoming staples of this much-prolonged battle of words.

The only problem with such a situation is that, both sides are harming themselves by consistently saying the same things over and over again without giving a second thought to what the opposition has to say.

Consequently, both sides of the argument have lost their message’s original impact.

Lowery feels pirates are basically Nazis


Because to desensitization.

People, in general, and on both sides of the argument simply do not want to discuss anything.

Neither do they know the actual significance of their own message.

They are just there to debate.

Not to listen to the other side’s view and make progress.

All of this makes it difficult for the community to come to an agreement about copyrights and their enforcement.

The Change That Is Coming. Slowly

A couple of days ago, the staunch pro-copyright activist and a musician, David Lowery, put out an article in a publication which further poured a ton of fuel to the copyright debate fire.

AS mentioned before, the headline of the article alone played a huge part in raising tensions.

In other words, David Lowery wasted little time in going straight for his opponent’s jugular.


He asked a simple question, which came in the form of a headline for his article.

That isn’t to say that the contents of his article didn’t address the same topic with the same venom.

The headline essentially stated that why was it that every time people turned over a pirate rock, Nazi’s along with White Nationalists and Bigots scurried out?

Needless to say, the headline alone is sufficient for anyone to figure out what the article would address in its actual body.

But here is the thing:
Lowery’s opening and perhaps only gambit in his published article, that The Trichordist published, is:

Anyone with half a brain doesn’t have to scratch below even the surface of the piracy and torrent world in order to discover entities and people who aligned themselves with the before-mentioned extremist groups.

In any case, let’s discuss the contents of the article that Lowery published a couple of days ago.

Basically Lowery asked via his article that he didn’t understand why every time people dug a little deeper into the torrenting movement and pro-piracy movement, they found disturbing things.

Disturbing things like what?

Disturbing things like, key figures of the community associated with groups such as,

  • White nationalists
  • Real Nazis
  • Other types of bigots
  • Nazi memorabilia collectors

Moreover, Lowery also asked the question of why did other people like,

  • Journalists
  • Academics
  • Politicians

didn’t do more to expose these people instead of praising them?

Lowery also presented some “proofs” in order to strengthen this article

Lowery did not hang back in expressing his thoughts about pirates and Julia Reda

If you read Lowery’s article a bit more carefully you would find out that he does go to great lengths to prove his point.

And we have to give him credit for that too.

The Camper Van Beethoven musician does dig up some interesting facts in his article.

Facts such as,

  • Carl Lundstrom, a former Pirate Bay financier, who had some legitimately unsavory and weird neo-fascist views.

While no one is going to doubt some of the things Lowery brought up in his article, there are some problems.

One of those problems is the timing of the article.

If Lowery really cared about the issues that he discussed in his article, he would have written it ten years ago.

Not now.

The Pirate Bay has operated on the web for a good part of the last decade.

Why didn’t Lowery publish articles on a regular basis on how The Pirate Bay destroyed content creators?

Of course, that fact didn’t and perhaps will not stop Lowery from painting The Pirate Bay with that famous extremist brush.

Peter Sunde made a comment on the issue way back in 2007 and said that they called such a situation as guilt by association.

For those who don’t know, Peter Sunde is the co-founder of the hugely popular site The Pirate Bay.

He said that Lundstrom owned one of the company’s previous internet service providers.

And that internet service provider had clients such as,

  • Save the Children Foundation
  • The Red Cross

Moreover, he explained, the internet service provider provided the company with cheap bandwidth.


Because one of the employees at The Pirate Bay had worked there before.

What’s more? He also said that one of the owners did indeed have a reputation for unconventional political opinions.

However, he said, that did not make the company in any shape or form associated with those views.

The company simply did not have anything to do with an employee’s political views.

In other words, the company does not keep track of what political views someone may or may not have.

Lowery would have done better if he had done some actual research.

By now you should now that Lowery’s article dealt with The Pirate Bay quite extensively.

With that said, it actually failed to include the above-mentioned explanation.

Nevertheless, it seems like Lowery didn’t seem to care either way.

He moved straight to a newer target.


We’re talking about Megaupload.

And the founder of Megaupload Kim Dotcom.

Everybody knows Kim Dotcom.

Kim DOtcom is the owner of a signed copy (which is extremely rare) of Hitler’s autobiographical manifesto.

Don’t search the internet for the name of that manifesto.


Because we’ll give it to you right here.

It is called:

“Mein Kampf”.

Or “My Struggle”, in English.

It is also true that various media reports published the fact that Kim once also wore a helmet.

Nobody considers pirates as role models. But that doesn’t mean they are Nazis

But not just any helmet.

He wore a German World War II helmet.

But perhaps we shouldn’t fault Kim Dotcom on that.


Because he is the founder of Megaupload.

Not a historian.

And if Prince Harry can make the same mistake (in 2005), then so can Kim Dotcom.

Kim Dotcom Response on Allegations

In a response to Kim’s historical allegations, he made a comment some time ago.

In the comment, Kim Dotcom said that he had actually bought memorabilia from Stalin, Hitler, and Churchill.

He also said that he would like to make that absolutely clear.

IN other words, he did not buy the Nazi ideology.

In fact, Kim said, he went against everything that the Nazis did back in the day.

Lowery’s Next Target.

So first Lowery targeted The Pirate Bay.

Then he went after Kim Dotcom.

After Kim, Lowery turned his guns to Julia Reda, the German Pirate Party member.

Julia Reda, who is a member of the European Parliament made some interesting comments on the issue.

In the past Reda has made her intentions, or mission in her words, very clear:

She wants to deal with the overreaching copyright law in the region.

Understandably, such missions statements provide her detractors with an easy target to hit.

With that said, even if Julia Reda made such statement, does that turn her into a,

  • White Nationalist?
  • Nazi?
  • Bigot?

According to some, yes.

That would actually make here one of the things we have mentioned above.

Lowery And His Work On Julia Reda

It seems like even though Lowery missed out on some other critical points on The Pirate Bay or Kim Dotcom, he did to proper research on Julia Reda.

In other words, Lowery highlighted in his article the comments that Julia Reda made just last year.

Back then, Julia Reda complained about the nagging copyright situation that had developed around a diary that Anne Frank wrote.

For those who don’t know, Anne Frank’s’ diary talked about the details about the horrors that people witnessed while living in countries that enemies occupied during the World War II.

Now, it is another fact that Anne Frank died in the year 1945.

What does that mean from a legal standpoint?

That mean, her book elevated directly into the public domain in Netherlands last year on January 1st, 2016.

That date is around 70 years after Anne Frank’s death.

People involved in such projects made sure to have a copy of her work available at Wikisource.

Wikisource is a digital library that contains free texts.

Wikimedia Foundation maintains the digital library known as Wikisource.

Moreover, Wikimedia Foundation also operates the popular online encyclopedia Wikipedia.

Anne Franke Work Went Offline

In the month of February just last year, Anne Frank’s diary went offline.

In other words, it became unavailable.


Because of United States copyright law.

The copyright law in the United States of America clearly dictates and actually protects individual works for a period of 95 years from the date of the work’s official publication.

The Legal Counsel for the Wikimedia Foundation, Jacob Rogers also made an interesting comment on the unavailability.of Anne’s work.

He said that they took the action purely for legal reasons.

Legal reasons such as to comply with the United States of America’s DMCA or Digital Millennium Copyright Act.


Because the Wikimedia Foundation believes that the diary still came under US copyright laws.

And under those laws, they had to protect Anne’s work as it was currently written.

Lowery, of course, doesn’t really know all this stuff

It is hard to believe that Lowery would have done the proper background research on the topic.

And that shows in his piece.

Basically, he ignores the above-mentioned background altogether.


No one knows for sure.

But the reasons are very obvious if one thinks about them a bit more carefully.

Lowery conveniently ignores all of the above-mentioned background information in order to just one thing:

Paint Julia Reda as a person who engages in some form of far-right agenda.

Moreover, Lowery even went to the length of using Reda’s nationality in order to support his point of view.

Lowery mentioned in his article that he didn’t really know what to make of Julia.

Except to mention that Julia, a German politician, should actually go ahead and find something else other than Anne Frank’s diary.

Moreover, he said, Julia Reda did not have to use Anne Frank Foundation as a relevant example of a worthy work that everybody should come together for and make available for free in the public domain.

But Lowery didn’t end there.

He also accused Reda of encouraging online users on Twitter to go ahead and pirate the book.

Lowery said, she did that in order to damage the cause of anti-Semitism movements.

But that is not all.

Lowery also accused Julia of somehow depriving people of Jewish descent of money.

In his article, Lowery wrote that the Anne Frank Foundation would use all the sales of Anne Frank book to fight and make progress against anti-Semitism.

Additionally, he wrote, it looked bad for any member of parliament, German or no German.

Towards the end of his article, Lowery wrote that maybe Julia had the same point all along.

In other words, she wanted to defund and damage the Anne Frank Foundation.

He further mentioned that he read somewhere on Twitter that some mystery group controlled all the major copyright producing media conglomerates.

Lowery then moved forward from Julia Reda

After “dealing” with Julia Reda, Lowery moved to other “important” topics to discuss.

In his closing remarks, Lowery talked about “fight for the future”.

He stated Fight For The Future lacked sufficient racial diversity.

And that caused Fight For The Future to stumble right into the middle of a copyright dispute that involved a famous speech by Martin Luther King.

To read the full article click here.


Zohair A. Zohair is currently a content crafter at Security Gladiators and has been involved in the technology industry for more than a decade. He is an engineer by training and, naturally, likes to help people solve their tech related problems. When he is not writing, he can usually be found practicing his free-kicks in the ground beside his house.
Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.