Sweden's Pirate Party secured a seat in the European Parliament after winning 7.1% of the Swedish vote, a major victory for a party dedicated to reforming copyright law, dismantling the patent system and preserving online privacy.

Despite its name, the Pirate Party is no joke. Founded in 2006 with the launch of its website, the Piratpartiet is now Sweden's third-largest in terms of membership (it's especially popular among the young and Web-savvy), and came in fifth place in the European Parliament elections behind the Social Democrats, Greens, Liberals and the Moderate Party.

According to the party's official website (which contains the following notice: No copyright, Piratpartiet, 1984 - ), the party platform is based on three planks:

-Reform of copyright law: "All non-commercial copying and use should be completely free. File sharing and p2p networking should be encouraged rather than criminalized. Culture and knowledge are good things, that increase in value the more they are shared. The Internet could become the greatest public library ever created."

Abolishing the Patent System: "Pharmaceutical patents kill people in third world countries every day. They hamper possibly life saving research by forcing scientists to lock up their findings pending patent application, instead of sharing them with the rest of the scientific community. The latest example of this is the bird flu virus, where not even the threat of a global pandemic can make research institutions forgo their chance to make a killing on patents."

Respect for the Right to Privacy: "Following the 9/11 event in the US, Europe has allowed itself to be swept along in a panic reaction to try to end all evil by increasing the level of surveillance and control over the entire population. We Europeans should know better. It is not twenty years since the fall of the Berlin Wall, and there are plenty of other horrific examples of surveillance-gone-wrong in Europe's modern history."

Posted by Jorgen Wouters at 11:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

As if a class-action lawsuit wasn't bad enough, it turns out the antics of our old friends at Webloyalty.com have aroused the attentions of the Senate Commerce Committee, according to the Washington Post blog Small Change. Last week, writes Post reporter Ylan Mui, the Commerce Committee sent a letter to Webloyalty seeking more information about its billing practices.

As we wrote earlier this year, Webloyalty made money from customers who (often unwittingly) paid monthly fees to the consumer discount clubs it operated, including Reservation Rewards, Shoppers Discounts & Rewards, Members Specials, Buyer Assurance, Distinctive Privileges, PC Protection Plus, Travel Values, Travel Values Plus, Classmates Rewards and Wallet Shield.

Consumers enrolled in these clubs by filling out an online rebate form on partner sites, which automatically triggered the transfer of personal credit card data from the partner sites to Webloyalty, making them paid subscribers of Webloyalty's services as well. Most—if not all—consumers never realized what they were signing up for until they started noticing recurring charges on their credit card bills.

In order to settle the class-action suit, Webloyalty and its fellow defendants agreed to a $10 million dollar settlement, but based on the comments of committee Chairman Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV, Webloyalty's problems may be far from over.

“The economy is hurting so many families today and we need to provide them as much relief as possible," committee Chairman Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.) said in a statement. "Thousands of American consumers have been complaining about these deceptive practices and asking for answers – and rightly so.”

Posted by Jorgen Wouters at 01:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

A reader sent us the following e-mail last week:

Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 8:46 PM
Subject: Help - Please
http://www.rbausa.com
Is the above company a legit health care provider?
Mike

While we can't say for sure if Real Benefits Association actually is a legitimate health care provider, we can say that we suggest looking elsewhere for health insurance.

Why? First off, the RBA's site fails the WebWatch smell test, due to the lack of a privacy policy. The site contained a number of other read flags as well, including a "Disclaimer" link takes you to a page with temporary text, an "In the News Link that leads to a blank 'coming soon' page and a "More About Company" link on the homepage that steers you to a dead page.

Secondly, we found two disturbing posts on Ripoff Report:

Real Benefits Association Misleading sales pitch cost me $65
I called the insurance company to express my concern about being lied to by the salesperson. I was told that this particular salesperson was no longer with the company. I cancellled my policy & was told that I will receive a refund of all but $65 of my payment (which was agreed upon on the phone). Bottom line: a misleading sales pitch cost me $65, & got some untruthful salespeson a nice comission. I would not recommend anyone buying insurance on line or on the phone. Get everything in writing before you pay a bill !
David
Cottondale, Alabama
U.S.A.

Real Benefits Association Unfulfilled promises and refusal to return processing fee
I am finished dealing with this company. Although I checked it before and saw nothing last time, as of today, there are 5 complaints with the NJ BBB and the company has an 'F' for non responsiveness. I agree with that assessment. Stay away from these people if you don't want to spend your hospital stay on the phone asking if you have coverage and hoping that they will deliver as promised and pay your hospital bills.
Maryland
Silver Spring, Maryland
U.S.A.

Thirdly, as the above complaint points out, the Better Business Bureau gives Real Benefits Association an F rating, which means: "We strongly question the company’s reliability for reasons such as that they have failed to respond to complaints, their advertising is grossly misleading, they are not in compliance with the law’s licensing or registration requirements, their complaints contain especially serious allegations, or the company’s industry is known for its fraudulent business practices."

Posted by Jorgen Wouters at 11:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (6)