Copyright Policy Proposals

Discuss Pirate Party policy

Copyright Policy Proposals

Postby WilliamFS » Thu Oct 08, 2009 10:42 am

NOTE:
- This text has been reviewed in light of the results of the copyright duration polls carried out a few weeks ago.
- This is still a preliminary version and may be substantially edited (in aspects of language and presentation) for the final version of the manifesto -- I therefore ask members to focus on policy proposals primarely, rather than form.



Introduction
Copyright was created to benefit society by encouraging creation.
Copyright imposes a limited-term monopoly on works (which is against the public interest), in order to provide an incentive for people to create (which is in the public interest). Copyright is only ever a good bargain for society when the results of it which are in the public interest outweigh the compromises it requires against the public interest. Unfortunately, the bargain seems to have become unbalanced: the term of copyright is far too long, and laws imposing DRM prevent the creation of innovative new business models. The Pirate Party intends to redress the balance. To make cultural expressions and knowledge freer benefits the whole of society. Today’s copyright law is actively counter-productive to these purposes because it limits both the creation of, and access to, cultural expressions.
A patent is an officially sanctioned monopoly on a (supposedly) useful idea. Like copyrights, patents impose a limited-term monopoly on the work (which is against the public interest), in order to provide an incentive for people to create works (which is in the public interest). And like copyrights, the bargain has become unbalanced. Monopolies harm society, as they lead to price-hikes and large hidden costs for citizens. Large corporations diligently race to hold patents they can use against smaller competitors to prevent them from competing on equal terms. Monopolies do not to adjust prices and terms to the market, but rather raise prices and set lopsided terms on usage and licensing. We want to protect the public interest against damaging and unnecessary monopoly situations.


Copyrights and our culture
When copyrights were originally introduced, they regulated the right of a creator to be recognized as the creator and offered a time-limited monopoly with a relatively short duration, which used to be much less than life, after which the work became public domain. From the second half of the twentieth century onwards, and in recent years particularly, these monopolies have been extended. They now apply to a wide variety of works, for ever longer durations, and including more and more restrictions, reducing the public domain and our commonly shared heritage in ever decreasing circles.
Economic and technological developments have pushed copyright law way out of balance so that it gives unfair advantages for a few large market players at the expense of consumers, creators and society at large. Millions of classical songs, movies and books are held hostage in the vaults of huge media corporations, not wanted enough by their focus groups to re-publish but potentially too profitable to release. We want to free our cultural heritage and make them accessible to all, whenever that is possible and as soon as that is possible, before time withers away the celluloid of the old movie reels or other physical materials where this heritage is stored.

Ideas, knowledge and information are by nature non-exclusive and their common value lies in their inherent ability to be shared and spread.

We dispute claims that copyright is a necessary basis for cultural development. We point to the works of composers like Handel and Mendelssohn; to writers like Dickens and Shakespeare; and to the rise of free software as evidence that copyright is not a necessary foundation for artistic and technological advancement in any age.

We are concerned about the abuse of the language, particularly with regard to the word "property". We are suspicious of use of the phrase "intellectual property" to refer to copyright, patents and trademark as these things are legal constructs and not otherwise scarce. We agree with Richard Stallman's take on the phrase, that it "systematically distorts and confuses these issues, and its use was and is promoted by those who gain from this confusion."
Trademarks are primarily useful as consumer protection device. As such, we support the use of trademarks and do not suggest any changes in relation to them. We also support and do not propose changes to the right of attribution.
What we want to reform are commercial copyrights and patents. The basic notion of copyrights was always to find a fair balance between conflicting commercial interests. Today this balance is lost and needs to be regained. We say that copyrights need to be restored to their origins. Laws must be altered to regulate only commercial use and copying of protected works. To share copies, or otherwise spread or use works for non-profit uses, must never be illegal since such fair use benefits all of society.
We propose a reduction in duration of commercial copyright protection (the monopoly to create copies of a work for commercial purposes) to five years initially, with an option to register one extension for a further five years, resulting in a maximum of ten years counted from the publication of the work.

We want to create a fair and balanced copyright.

All non-commercial gathering, use, processing and distribution of culture shall be explicitly permitted, including format-shifting, time-shifting, and the making of backups.
Technologies limiting people's legal rights to copy and use information or culture, digital restrictions (DRM), if used, should display clear warnings to inform purchasers of this fact. Technologies which allow digital restrictions to be circumvented will equally be permitted.
Contractual agreements such as End User Licence Agreements (EULAs) implemented to prevent such legal distribution of information shall be declared null and void. Non-commercial distribution of published culture, information or knowledge – with the clear exception of personal data – must not be limited or punished. As a logical conclusion of this, we oppose blank media taxes.

We want to create a cultural commons.


Computer Software
Reducing copyright duration means that computer software will also begin to leave copyright, which is new in our experience since software has only recently begun to be created, and with present copyright durations would never become freely available while still being useful.

Effect on the General Public License
This will however place open source free software at a disadvantage to proprietary software, as once copyright has expired, the source code may be taken and incorporated into proprietary programs. However, it will not be possible to incorporate programs released without source code into free software, even when copyright has expired.

Limitation of EULAs
We will limit the effective duration of End User License Agreements for software, insofar as they are valid under existing legislation, to the period of copyright. After this point they will automatically become null and void.

Provision of source code
We will encourage distributors of programs to release source code, so that the program becomes entirely free to use or modify once their copyright expires. All software programs released with source code will automatically receive the full ten years of commercial copyright protection; programs released only as closed binaries, without source code, will receive a maximum of five years commercial protection, without the possibility of extension.

In this way, open software released with source code will be protected from being incorporated in closed work, without reciprocal provision of source code, for ten years; and proprietary vendors may equally benefit from the same period of commercial monopoly protection by choosing to release source code, or may forgo the additional five years if they choose to keep the source code secret.

Patents and private monopolies harm society
Patents have many damaging effects. Pharmaceutical patents are responsible for human deaths from diseases for which medication could have been afforded, research priorities are skewed, and patents cause unnecessarily high and rising cost of medicines in richer parts of the world.
Patents on life and genes, like patented crops, lead to unreasonable and harmful consequences. Software patents retard technological development and constitute a serious threat against small- and medium-sized businesses in the information technology sector.
Patents are said to encourage innovation by protecting inventors and investors in new inventions and manufacturing methods. In reality, patents are increasingly used by large corporations to hinder smaller companies from competing on equal terms. Instead of encouraging innovation, patents are being used as "mine fields" when waging war against others, often patents the owner has no plans on developing further themselves.
We believe patents can actively stifle innovation and the creation of new knowledge. Looking at all business areas that are not patentable it is clear that patents are frequently simply not needed - the market forces derived from being first-to-market are quite sufficient for fostering innovation. Corporations can compete fairly with natural advantages like innovative designs, customer benefits, pricing and quality, instead of with a state-awarded monopoly on knowledge, and not having to pay small armies of patent lawyers will free resources that can be used for creating real innovation and improve products at a faster rate, benefiting us all in the end.

We want to review patents, and gradually abolish most patents except where limited protection in exchange for disclosure of physical inventions or apparatus can be justified to support inventors.

Apart from abusing patents, large corporations attempt to create monopolies by other means. By keeping information on things like file formats and interfaces secret, they try to create vendor lock-in, thereby limiting competition with a blatant disregard for the value of a free and fair market. This practice leads directly to higher prices and a lower rate of innovation.

Private monopolies are generally harmful, therefore will be regulated and as limited as is possible and practical.

Public sector provision of information
Whenever the publicly funded sector produces information directly, that information must be made available in an open file format, under licensing which allows our citizens to use it without payment. For example, output produced by the BBC, and also Ordnance Survey maps fall within this requirement. All publicly funded academic research must be made available in Open Access journals.

Information procured at public expense should be available to all citizens.

Whenever the publicly funded sector procures information systems, open source software available free of cost will be the preferred licensing model, which procurement officers will be authorised to use without further ado. If proprietary software is required then authorisation and justification for why no existing open source program is suitable must be specified before the costs and restrictions of proprietary software are accepted.

Costs and restrictions of closed proprietary software and technology, for public use and benefit, will be restricted to the minimum necessary for the purpose required.

--
Image
User avatar
WilliamFS
Captain
 
Posts: 307
Joined: Tue May 26, 2009 6:53 pm

Re: Copyright Policy Proposals

Postby AndrewTindall » Thu Oct 08, 2009 12:53 pm

In regards to that last part about public provision - could we suggest that if any bespoke software is to be developed for public sector use, it must be released Open Source / Under GPL? This would address issues like the recent case of Royal Mail sending C&Ds to the company that developed a Postcode Search API without paying for a licence, despite society having already paid once for it via tax, which had a knock-on affect on other services such as JobCentrePlus.
Pirate turned Green.
User avatar
AndrewTindall
Space Pirate
 
Posts: 1127
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2009 1:25 am
Location: Aberystwyth

Re: Copyright Policy Proposals

Postby M2Ys4U » Thu Oct 08, 2009 2:29 pm

andrewtindall wrote:In regards to that last part about public provision - could we suggest that if any bespoke software is to be developed for public sector use, it must be released Open Source / Under GPL? This would address issues like the recent case of Royal Mail sending C&Ds to the company that developed a Postcode Search API without paying for a licence, despite society having already paid once for it via tax, which had a knock-on affect on other services such as JobCentrePlus.

The GPL is not often the best license to use. Specifying "any OSI-approved license" should be, IMHO, the best way forward.
Jack Allnutt - Deputy Campaigns Officer, Member of the Board of Governors and former RAO for North-West England
Tweet E-Mail
M2Ys4U
Deputy Campaigns Officer
 
Posts: 616
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 5:12 am
Location: Manchester

Re: Copyright Policy Proposals

Postby AndrewTindall » Thu Oct 08, 2009 2:55 pm

True. But you get what I was getting at.
Pirate turned Green.
User avatar
AndrewTindall
Space Pirate
 
Posts: 1127
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2009 1:25 am
Location: Aberystwyth

Re: Copyright Policy Proposals

Postby Andy_R » Thu Oct 08, 2009 4:11 pm

I think it may be very useful to try and boil the long text above down to just its proposals. As I understand it, the concrete proposals from the working group are (in essence):

1) Copyright to apply to commercial exploitation only.

2) Copyright duration to be reduced to 5 years for closed source software.

3) Copyright duration to be reduced to 10 years for open source software.

4) All other copyrights durations to be reduced to 5 years with an optional 5 year renewal.

5) A 'government health waring' on products containing DRM technology.

6) Voiding of EULAs that attempt to get round the above points.

7) No blank media taxes.

8) Abolition of 'most' patents.

9) Information procured at public expense should be available to all citizens.

10) Government to switch to open source software 'where practical'.
User avatar
Andy_R
Party Governor
 
Posts: 302
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 1:30 am
Location: Worcester

Re: Copyright Policy Proposals

Postby AndrewTindall » Thu Oct 08, 2009 5:21 pm

Ah. number 9 could be interpreted in such a way as to breach privacy, as tax information, terror suspect info, etc. would technically be "procured at public expense" and thus have to be made public. Although it would be nonsensical to conclude this was intended, ambiguity should be as far removed as reasonably possible.
Pirate turned Green.
User avatar
AndrewTindall
Space Pirate
 
Posts: 1127
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2009 1:25 am
Location: Aberystwyth

Re: Copyright Policy Proposals

Postby Monk » Fri Oct 09, 2009 12:33 pm

I would also like to add abolition of all patents. Mainly I'm interested in saving people's lives in the world of medicine, and ending software bizarreness where someone holds a patent on the instruction code I can run on my computer at home.
Monk
Cabin Kid
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 1:12 pm

Re: Copyright Policy Proposals

Postby VJ » Sat Oct 10, 2009 1:39 pm

andy_r wrote:I think it may be very useful to try and boil the long text above down to just its proposals. As I understand it, the concrete proposals from the working group are (in essence):

2) Copyright duration to be reduced to 5 years for closed source software.

3) Copyright duration to be reduced to 10 years for open source software.


There was a lot of opposition to treating FOSS in a special way here on the forums. I agree with all the policy proposals except these two. Can someone explain why FOSS should get separate, special, treatment? After all if I write a book and release it under a cc-by-sa licence I don't get this special extension despite contributing to free culture.

Indeed why are we treating software differently to other copyright at all?
~share & enjoy~
User avatar
VJ
Boatswain's Mate
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 3:35 pm

Re: Copyright Policy Proposals

Postby AndrewTindall » Sat Oct 10, 2009 2:15 pm

vj wrote:
andy_r wrote:I think it may be very useful to try and boil the long text above down to just its proposals. As I understand it, the concrete proposals from the working group are (in essence):

2) Copyright duration to be reduced to 5 years for closed source software.

3) Copyright duration to be reduced to 10 years for open source software.


There was a lot of opposition to treating FOSS in a special way here on the forums. I agree with all the policy proposals except these two. Can someone explain why FOSS should get separate, special, treatment? After all if I write a book and release it under a cc-by-sa licence I don't get this special extension despite contributing to free culture.

Indeed why are we treating software differently to other copyright at all?


I believe it to be related to the fact that many open source licences rely on copyright of at least 10 years to be workable, which is higher than we, and most pirate parties, are proposing as a baseline.
Pirate turned Green.
User avatar
AndrewTindall
Space Pirate
 
Posts: 1127
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2009 1:25 am
Location: Aberystwyth

Re: Copyright Policy Proposals

Postby VJ » Sat Oct 10, 2009 2:49 pm

andrewtindall wrote:
vj wrote:
andy_r wrote:I think it may be very useful to try and boil the long text above down to just its proposals. As I understand it, the concrete proposals from the working group are (in essence):

2) Copyright duration to be reduced to 5 years for closed source software.

3) Copyright duration to be reduced to 10 years for open source software.


There was a lot of opposition to treating FOSS in a special way here on the forums. I agree with all the policy proposals except these two. Can someone explain why FOSS should get separate, special, treatment? After all if I write a book and release it under a cc-by-sa licence I don't get this special extension despite contributing to free culture.

Indeed why are we treating software differently to other copyright at all?


I believe it to be related to the fact that many open source licences rely on copyright of at least 10 years to be workable, which is higher than we, and most pirate parties, are proposing as a baseline.

That explains the 10yr term for FOSS (effectively giving them their 5 yr extension for free) but why only 5 years for closed source software when every other medium gets 5+5?
~share & enjoy~
User avatar
VJ
Boatswain's Mate
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 3:35 pm

Re: Copyright Policy Proposals

Postby VJ » Mon Oct 12, 2009 12:54 pm

Thanks for the clarification john, I'm not 100% convinced (though more so than I was), so I'm going to play devil's advocate and pose some more questions. Not all reflect my opinion, but it's important to have answers for when we get asked these.

johnb wrote:let me perhaps add a couple of points to this, as clarification...
(some snips made for brevity, hope I didn't screw up the quoting too badly!)

vj wrote:There was a lot of opposition to treating FOSS in a special way here on the forums. I agree with all the policy proposals except these two. Can someone explain why FOSS should get separate, special, treatment? After all if I write a book and release it under a cc-by-sa licence I don't get this special extension despite contributing to free culture.


(1) To be very clear here:
FOSS is not getting separate, special treatment,...The special treatment is for software released with source code,

So we're treating OSS in a special way then. Even if we understand the differences between FOSS and OSS, to the general public this is a distinction without a difference. Especially if non-commercial copyright infringement is being legalized. This policy is effectively saying to commercial operators give your source to your FOSS competitors! i.e. What would stop the non-commercial Open office from using MS Office code once non-commercial infringement is legalized?

johnb wrote:(2) Why is software different?
Because when binary software is released, it is being released, but in a way it's also not being released, or only partially so, if source code is not provided. It is not the same as a book, music, or any other kind of work, and that presents a serious problem once the copyright expires, because the freedoms that would be available with any other kind of work (to reuse, redevelop, rework, etc) are not fully available without source code.

We have de-compilers for this very reason. It might be harder, but the people who actually want the source will be able to read it.

johnb wrote:
vj wrote:Indeed why are we treating software differently to other copyright at all?
andrewtindall wrote:I believe it to be related to the fact that many open source licences rely on copyright of at least 10 years to be workable, which is higher than we, and most pirate parties, are proposing as a baseline.

That explains the 10yr term for FOSS (effectively giving them their 5 yr extension for free) but why only 5 years for closed source software when every other medium gets 5+5?


There are two reasons I would point out as justification for that:
[snip]

(2) The other reason I can see is that if 10 years was possible for closed programs... Then FOSS (or any software released with source code, but especially FOSS) would be at a disadvantage

So are we are giving FOSS special treatment then?
johnb wrote:... so do we really want to give any more than 10 years to any kind of software?
5+5 (like everything else) isn't more than 10.
~share & enjoy~
User avatar
VJ
Boatswain's Mate
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 3:35 pm

Re: Copyright Policy Proposals

Postby VJ » Tue Oct 13, 2009 6:41 pm

I'm not going to carry out debating point by point because it's starting to become unproductive, however there is one point I'd like to pick up because I just happened to think of it today.
johnb wrote:it's all quite fiddly to think through, and as you also rightly point out, not that relevant to the "mass market" arguments about e.g. music, books, films, etc.

The problem here is computer games; very mass market so Software copyright will have to be easily explainable weather we like it or not. If the purpose of software is to "promote the useful arts" IMO shorter software copyrights (in relation to others) will have a detrimental effect on games. Companies won't release the source, they'll go back to releasing games on cartridges. Worse, the games they'll release will be crippled and IMO everyone will move to an EA sports model of releasing the same game every year, with only a couple of changes.

Example:
I bought Mario cart for my DS(phat) near it's release (2005), Nintendo are still selling the same game over 5 years on for the DSi(yes, I bought it). Had the above regime been in place the IMO (this is what I'd do if I was Nintendo and only had a 5yr term) the original game would have had fewer tracks and I'd have released Mario cart 2, Mario cart 3 etc. all exactly the same but different tracks. This would hurt the consumer as prices would remain the same so I'd have had to buy multiple games for the same content, no one would really benefit as all maro characters are trademarked, so my cheap knock-off would look like a cheap knock-off. Also I have no way of getting a cartridge other than by asking Nintendo. A 5+5 term gives Nintendo time to release a new platform, and make people buy the fully featured game + bonus retro tracks for the DS++ that finally stopped supporting original DS carts.
~share & enjoy~
User avatar
VJ
Boatswain's Mate
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 3:35 pm

Re: Copyright Policy Proposals

Postby scuzzmonkey » Thu Dec 03, 2009 5:49 pm

vj wrote:I'm not going to carry out debating point by point because it's starting to become unproductive, however there is one point I'd like to pick up because I just happened to think of it today.
johnb wrote:it's all quite fiddly to think through, and as you also rightly point out, not that relevant to the "mass market" arguments about e.g. music, books, films, etc.

The problem here is computer games; very mass market so Software copyright will have to be easily explainable weather we like it or not. If the purpose of software is to "promote the useful arts" IMO shorter software copyrights (in relation to others) will have a detrimental effect on games. Companies won't release the source, they'll go back to releasing games on cartridges. Worse, the games they'll release will be crippled and IMO everyone will move to an EA sports model of releasing the same game every year, with only a couple of changes.

Example:
I bought Mario cart for my DS(phat) near it's release (2005), Nintendo are still selling the same game over 5 years on for the DSi(yes, I bought it). Had the above regime been in place the IMO (this is what I'd do if I was Nintendo and only had a 5yr term) the original game would have had fewer tracks and I'd have released Mario cart 2, Mario cart 3 etc. all exactly the same but different tracks. This would hurt the consumer as prices would remain the same so I'd have had to buy multiple games for the same content, no one would really benefit as all maro characters are trademarked, so my cheap knock-off would look like a cheap knock-off. Also I have no way of getting a cartridge other than by asking Nintendo. A 5+5 term gives Nintendo time to release a new platform, and make people buy the fully featured game + bonus retro tracks for the DS++ that finally stopped supporting original DS carts.


exactly what I was thinking - but in the realm of MMO's rather than just general games.

Using WoW as an example - that was released (just) over 5 years ago, and with this suggestion the game would be destroyed due to Blizzard not being able to charge fees to access their servers => not hosting them => the game dying.

Honestly, I believe 5 years is far too short for pretty much everything, and really isn't going to win us much (if any) support from the creative industries that have products planned to be used over extended periods of time.

10 makes vastly more sense - especially in the realms of computers due to Moore's Law etc.
- Will Mac (@Scuzzmonkey)
- Governor (July 2010 - March 2012), PPUK
---
- "One of the most important things you learn from the internet is that there is no ‘them’ out there. It’s just an awful lot of ‘us’." - Douglas Adams
User avatar
scuzzmonkey
Space Pirate
 
Posts: 1338
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 4:38 pm
Location: Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK

Re: Copyright Policy Proposals - additional areas to consider

Postby martinbudden » Mon Dec 21, 2009 3:37 pm

I think the copyright reform proposals omit to address 5 important areas:

1) Fair use
2) How DRM can constrain fair use
3) Automatic copyright
4) Orphan works
5) Database right

I'll address these in turn:

1) Fair use. Many counties allow "fair use" of copyrighted material. That is there is a statutory right to copy material under copyright for certain recognised purposes. For example under US law:

"the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright."

Under UK law there is no fair use right. Under UK law there is a much more restricted "fair dealing" right.

I think any reform of UK copyright should legally enshrine fair use. As well as uses quoted above, fair use should include the indexing of copyright material for searching.

2) The Pirate Party's proposals for DRM are fairly weak, namely "digital restrictions (DRM), if used, should display clear warnings to inform purchasers of this fact. Technologies which allow digital restrictions to be circumvented will equally be permitted."

These proposals fail to recognise that DRM can constrain fair use. To give an example: under fair use a teacher could photocopy a poem from a book and distribute to their class. Consider the same poem in an electronic book with DRM - in principle the teacher has a fair use right to copy that poem and distribute it to their class, but if the book's DRM prevents copying then that fair use right has effectively been removed. It is not sufficient to say the the book should have DRM warnings and that circumvention technology should be legal. There is a further requirement that DRM technologies should not be allowed to interfere with fair use rights.

3) Currently under UK law an individual's work is automatically copyright as soon as it is manifest in some physical form (including electronic form). The author does not have to specify it is copyright - it is copyright by default. If the author wishes to place the work in the public domain, then they must explicitly do so (for example by using a creative commons license).

The situation should be reversed. Namely a work should by default be in the public domain and should only be copyright if the author explicitly makes it copyright.

4) The important topic of orphan works is not addressed by the Pirate Party manifesto. Although the problem of orphan works is reduced by a shorter copyright term, it is not eliminated. I've written about orphan works on my blog, see:

http://martinbudden.wordpress.com/2009/09/09/digital-britain-report-and-orphan-works/

In summary: provided a user makes a documented, good faith, diligent but unsuccessful search for the copyright holder of an orphan work, the user is free to use the work. (Of course the terms ‘diligent’ etc need to be defined, but that is a matter of legal detail.) The user is indemnified against prosecution. If the copyright holder resurfaces then they are entitled to a reasonable compensation for use of their work (again the precise legal meaning of ’reasonable compensation’ needs to be defined).

5) Database rights. In European law there is a "database right" - that is there are specific laws on the copying and distribution of information in computer databases over and above the copyright restrictions of the information in a database. For example there are restrictions on copying a database even if the database contains no information that is in itself copyright. Two important examples in the UK are the phone book and the postcode database.

Database rights restrict both the commercial and non-commercial use of non-copyright material. There are no database rights in the US. Database rights should be abolished.

In summary:

1) Fair use should be legally enshrined.
2) DRM should not be allowed to restrict fair use.
3) Works should be by default in the public domain and should only be copyright if the author explicitly asserts copyright.
4) Orphan works should be available for use after a diligent but unsuccessful search for the copyright holder. The copyright holder retains a right to reasonable compensation if they resurface.
5) Database rights should be abolished.
martinbudden
Sword Sharpener
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 4:58 am

Re: Copyright Policy Proposals

Postby PeterBrett » Mon Dec 21, 2009 4:12 pm

martinbudden wrote:3) Currently under UK law an individual's work is automatically copyright as soon as it is manifest in some physical form (including electronic form). The author does not have to specify it is copyright - it is copyright by default. If the author wishes to place the work in the public domain, then they must explicitly do so (for example by using a creative commons license).

The situation should be reversed. Namely a work should by default be in the public domain and should only be copyright if the author explicitly makes it copyright.


Can you please explain the justification for this? Why is this change needed if non-commercial copying is always permitted?

I don't see how automatic copyright is incompatible with PPUK policies -- indeed, automatic copyright supports exactly the sort of small-scale/independent creative work that we wish to promote, surely? :|
Board of Governors
"If you can do one thing every day towards raising the party's profile or making a material contribution to its activities, it'll make a difference. Let's do this."
User avatar
PeterBrett
Party Governor
 
Posts: 1258
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 1:40 pm
Location: Witney

Re: Copyright Policy Proposals

Postby martinbudden » Mon Dec 21, 2009 5:44 pm

peterbrett wrote:Can you please explain the justification for this? Why is this change needed if non-commercial copying is always permitted?

I don't see how automatic copyright is incompatible with PPUK policies -- indeed, automatic copyright supports exactly the sort of small-scale/independent creative work that we wish to promote, surely?:|


I'll answer your question with a question: why is a reduction in copyright length required if non-commercial copying is always required?

And I'll try and answer both questions.

The manifesto currently states;
Copyright imposes a limited-term monopoly on works (which is against the public interest), in order to provide an incentive for people to create (which is in the public interest). Copyright is only ever a good bargain for society when the results of it which are in the public interest outweigh the compromises it requires against the public interest. Unfortunately, the bargain seems to have become unbalanced: the term of copyright is far too long, and laws imposing DRM prevent the creation of innovative new business models. The Pirate Party intends to redress the balance.


So the Pirate Party recognises that monopolies are are against the pubic interest, and should only be granted if there is a corresponding public benefit (the incentive to create in the case of copyright).

If you agree with this, then surely you must also agree that the monopoly should be as short as possible and that granting an automatic monopoly is against the public interest. This automatic monopoly I am talking about is the automatic granting of copyright without requiring the author to assert that copyright.

Note that it's not difficult to assert copyright - the the author has to do is write (say) "Copyright Martin Budden, 2009" on their work. Note also copyright was not automatic in the UK until 1911, prior to that date authors were required to assert copyright.
martinbudden
Sword Sharpener
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 4:58 am

Re: Copyright Policy Proposals

Postby martinbudden » Mon Dec 21, 2009 5:55 pm

And for a practical reason see johnb's reply on the subject of the leaked Air Traffic Control tapes:

http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1133#p8781

It's certainly not in the public interest for copyright to stop a commercial news organisation from broadcasting an air traffic control recording pertaining to an aircraft crash.
martinbudden
Sword Sharpener
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 4:58 am

Re: Copyright Policy Proposals

Postby PeterBrett » Mon Dec 21, 2009 6:00 pm

martinbudden wrote:
peterbrett wrote:Can you please explain the justification for this? Why is this change needed if non-commercial copying is always permitted?

I don't see how automatic copyright is incompatible with PPUK policies -- indeed, automatic copyright supports exactly the sort of small-scale/independent creative work that we wish to promote, surely?:|


Note that it's not difficult to assert copyright - the the author has to do is write (say) "Copyright Martin Budden, 2009" on their work. Note also copyright was not automatic in the UK until 1911, prior to that date authors were required to assert copyright.


Oh, right. I thought you were proposing registration as a requirement.

How would you go about writing "Copyright (c) Martin Budden, 2009" on a .wav file?
Board of Governors
"If you can do one thing every day towards raising the party's profile or making a material contribution to its activities, it'll make a difference. Let's do this."
User avatar
PeterBrett
Party Governor
 
Posts: 1258
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 1:40 pm
Location: Witney

Re: Copyright Policy Proposals

Postby martinbudden » Mon Dec 21, 2009 6:17 pm

For a wav file you could just state "this file is copyright 2009 Martin Budden" at the begining of your recording.
martinbudden
Sword Sharpener
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 4:58 am

Re: Copyright Policy Proposals

Postby PeterBrett » Mon Dec 21, 2009 7:31 pm

martinbudden wrote:For a wav file you could just state "this file is copyright 2009 Martin Budden" at the begining of your recording.


And isn't the first thing that anyone does if they actually want to listen to your recording going to be to chop it off?

Automatic copyright makes everything a lot easier. Requiring explicit copyright assertion can only end in "He didn't state the claim properly," "Oh yes he did," "Oh no he didn't!" idiocy in court, IMHO.
Board of Governors
"If you can do one thing every day towards raising the party's profile or making a material contribution to its activities, it'll make a difference. Let's do this."
User avatar
PeterBrett
Party Governor
 
Posts: 1258
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 1:40 pm
Location: Witney

Next

Return to Policy Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron
X
We use cookies to provide you the best possible experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive all cookies on this website. If you would like to, you can change how your browser controls cookies at any time.
You can also view our Privacy Policy
I understand. Don't show me this message again.