The Pirate Party UK Launches its 2010 Election Manifesto
22nd March 2010 21:00 | by Andrew Robinson
After a huge amount of work by our policy groups, policy group leaders, our manifesto co-ordinator, by the web team who built voting software, and most of all by the members of the party who put forward the proposals and voted democratically on every point, I am very proud to announce that our 2010 general election manifesto is now ready.
At the end of this long process, we have produced a document that I think we can be proud of, and here it is:
The 2010 Election Manifesto of the Pirate Party UK
The Pirate Party is a new type of political party.
A party that talks about issues the other parties ignore.
A party free from corruption and expenses scandals, free from lobbyists and party whips.
A party that admits it doesn't always have all the answers, and is willing to listen.
A party that wants to give you more rights not burden you with any more taxes.
Our manifesto covers 3 main areas: copyright and patent law; privacy law; and freedom of speech.
Copyright and Patents
Our copyright law is hopelessly out of date. The Pirate Party wants a fair and balanced copyright law that is suitable for the 21st century.
Copyright should give artists the right to be the only people making money from their work, but that needs to be balanced with 'fair use' rights for the public. We will legalise use of copyright works where no money changes hands, which will give the public new rights;
- A new right to format shift (for example, buy a CD then copy it to an iPod - which is currently illegal);
- A new right to time shift (record a TV programme for watching later) and
- A new right to share files (which provides free advertising that is essential for less-well-known artists).
Counterfeiting, and profiting directly from other people's work without paying them, will remain illegal.
When copyright was first introduced, the government decided it should protect new works for 14 years. Ever since then, lobbyists have spent huge sums of money buying longer and longer extensions to copyright. Currently copyright carries on for more than 70 years after the author of a work dies. We want to speak up for the majority of people who believe that taking money from lobbyists in return for biased laws is wrong. We believe that in this fast moving world, 10 years of copyright protection is long enough. Shorter copyright will encourage artists to keep on creating new work, will allow new art forms (such as mash-ups) and will stop big businesses from constantly reselling content we have already paid for. Our 10 year copyright length will include a renewal after 5 years (allowing works that the creator is no longer interested in to fall into the public domain after 5 years). An exception will be made for software, where a 5 year term will apply to closed source software, and a 10 year term to open source, in recognition of the extra rights given to the public by open source licences. We will remove the loophole in copyright law that allows 'restarting the clock' by simply moving content to a new format, or making a small change to it.
We also recognise the need to warn the public about Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) technology. We believe the public needs to be protected from products that can be remotely turned off by the manufacturer, or products that 'phone home' and would therefore stop working if the manufacturer went bankrupt, or that are 'region coded'. We will therefore introduce a mandatory warning label on products that include DRM which will warn purchasers of the defects built into these products. We also pledge not to introduce any new blank media taxes.
We believe that patents exist to reward the inventors of truly outstanding ideas, not to allow big businesses to stifle competition with an ever-growing tide of trivial, incomprehensible, overreaching patents. We will stop the abuse of patent law by raising the bar on how innovative an idea has to be before it can be patented, and by prohibiting patents on software, business methods, concepts, colours and smells. We will require a working model to be provided to the patent office before a patent is granted, and we will strictly enforce the current rule that patents are invalid if they are "obvious to someone skilled in the art". We will allow more competition in the manufacture of patented devices by introducing a system of compulsory patent licensing, and we will provide exemptions to patent law for non-commercial use, personal study and academic research.
Pharmaceutical patents are a major problem for the world. We need to strike a better balance between the need to pay for drug research, and the need to end the postcode lottery that UK citizens suffer when patented drugs are too expensive for the NHS. We need to tackle the problem of preventable deaths in the third world caused by high price of patented drugs. We will achieve this by abolishing drug patents, which will reduce drug costs drastically, since all drugs will become generic. This will save the NHS a massive amount of money, and part of that saving will be used to subsidise drug research. The pharmaceutical industry currently spends around 15% of its patent drug income on research; we will replace that with subsidies to the value of 20%, increasing research budgets, while still saving the NHS money. This policy of making all drugs generic will create a massive opportunity for industry to make profits, employ more people, and save lives by encouraging the manufacture of newly generic drugs in this country for sale to the third world.
Government copyrights are increasingly becoming a problem for society, with data such as maps and postcodes being jealously protected by government departments. We will introduce a new right of access to government funded data, requiring the release of all maps, statistics and so on that have been paid for by the taxpayer in open formats, under a Creative Commons or similar licence, giving the public access to research that they have already paid for. An exception will be made for cases that genuinely have national security or privacy concerns. This will include the output of the BBC, which is funded by the licence paying public and should therefore belong to the licence paying public. We will amend the BBC's charter to prevent the BBC from using DRM technology, and to require the BBC to release all their content under a Creative Commons licence. We pledge to maintain and expand the current list of important national events that cannot be exclusively broadcast pay TV services, and we pledge to put into action the government's existing but widely ignored Open Source Action Plan, which would encourage the use of free software in the public sector, saving money, and making the UK less reliant on foreign software suppliers.
Privacy
We believe privacy of the individual should be upheld at all times. We feel citizens should have the right to private and confidential communication; and therefore we will forbid third parties from intercepting or monitoring communication traffic (i.e. telephone calls, post, internet traffic, emails), and require specific warrants to be issued by a court before the police are allowed to monitor traffic. We will give the public a new right to encrypt their private data.
We strongly oppose compulsory ID cards, and pledge that we will never introduce them. The proposed National Identity Register will be regulated so that it can only contain trivial information, and data required by a particular government department must be held by that department only. We will introduce a new right to compensation for people affected by government data loss.
We will introduce stronger data protection laws, requiring companies that hold personal information to give consumers more information about their rights, to apply a reasonable level of security to data, and to be clear about their policies on data retention and amendment. We will introduce a new right to apply to a court for compensation where data protection laws have been broken. We will increase the penalties for any breaches of data protection laws, and we will allow the courts to apply these penalties to both the individuals and companies responsible.
We pledge a full review of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) 2000. We will introduce strong new laws prohibiting the abuse of RIPA powers, and introduce criminal liability for breaking them. We will insist that searches of personal property should only be done with reasonable suspicion of a serious, criminal offence, and that any non-trivial, targeted surveillance requires a warrant.
We will introduce laws on the acceptable use of CCTV. While we recognise the benefits of CCTV, it should not be considered a replacement for police officers on the beat, and it must not be used as an excuse for unrestricted spying on the public. We will introduce a public database, maintained by the Information Commissioner, listing the location and number of cameras, and the contact details for the relevant data controller, and we will ensure camera systems are visible to the people they are watching.
We want clearer guidelines and restrictions on the use of DNA records by authorities, to ensure samples are only be taken voluntarily or when there are reasonable grounds to suspect the individual of having committed a serious offence, to ensure they are promptly destroyed if the individual is acquitted or not charged with a criminal offence, to ensure samples are only held for the length of time where there is a reasonable suspicion that the suspect has committed a crime, and to ensure we follow European law on removal of DNA records.
We pledge increased government transparency and accountability. We will introduce a new right for constituents to force a by-election in the event of a loss of confidence in their MP. We will require minutes of all meetings of officials on government business to be accessible through freedom of information requests, that all international treaties be passed through the UK parliament as a standard bill, requiring the full approval of both houses, and that all available information that could be released through a freedom of information request should be made public by default.
We believe that MPs must be held to a higher standard of accountability than unelected citizens. To prevent abuses of their position, such as the redaction of expenses information, their right to privacy will be secondary to the public right to hold them to account for their actions.
Freedom of Speech
We believe that the Internet is instrumental to freedom of speech. We pledge to legislate in favour of net neutrality. We pledge that we will not allow government censorship of the internet for anything but the most extreme reasons (such as military secrets or images of child abuse).
We will solve the problem of false and misleading advertising of internet speeds by giving customers a new right to pay only for the fraction of the claimed broadband speed that the provider actually delivers, so if you sign up for an 8Mb/s connection and only receive 2Mb/s, you would only have to pay a quarter of the agreed price. We will ensure the provision of rural broadband by extending the current universal service provision requirement for telephones to include broadband access.
We will ensure that the UK has as a foreign policy objective the human right of freedom to communicate, and will encourage wider adoption of the encryption and anonymisation technologies that ensure this right.
We recognise the value of whistleblowers to society, and we will defend the right of citizens to expose illegal practices in the workplace and elsewhere, and we will introduce a new legal right to be a whistleblower that will ensure that exposing corrupt or illegal activities will take precedence over contract law and copyright law.
We believe the right to photograph events and buildings in public is important to prevent our society becoming a police state. We will enshrine in law a new right for photographers and filmmakers to go about their business without persecution under anti-terror laws.
We will encourage libraries and museums to digitise their content, and make it available online wherever possible. This applies especially to unique items (for example if a library has the only known copy of a book).
We want better computing education in schools. We will encourage the adoption of open source software in schools, so that children won't be reliant in the future on buying a particular software package from a particular company. Schools should emphasize understanding of computers, including programming for those pupils with an interest or aptitude for it, and they should provide lessons for pupils on the safe use of the internet.
We believe libel law should not be used to smother free speech. We pledge to reform libel law so it serves its intended purpose, by implementing the recommendations of the Libel Reform Campaign
We will promote the inclusion of accessibility features, subtitles, audio descriptions etc for the disabled, by clarifying the current legal position on accessibility with respect to broadcast material, websites, and material available on the internet, to as far as reasonably possible, make content accessible for disabled people, which is especially important in the public sector. We will also introduce a new right for disabled people to demand an unrestricted version of DRM protected content where that is necessary to allow them to access it.
In all other political matters, Pirate Party Candidates are encouraged to listen to their constituents, and make their own minds up, without the intervention of party whips, or political lobbyists.
Short form manifesto
We will give the public the following new rights:
- The right to share files provided no money changes hands.
- The right to format shift and time shift data.
- The right of access to government funded data.
- The right to compensation for government data loss.
- The right to safely encrypt private data.
- The right to apply to a court for compensation where data protection laws have been broken.
- The right for constituents to force a by-election.
- The right to pay only for the fraction of the claimed broadband speed that an ISP actually delivers.
- The right to be a whistleblower.
- The right for photographers and filmmakers to go about their business without persecution under anti-terror laws.
- The right for disabled people to demand an unrestricted version of DRM protected content where that is necessary to allow them to access it.
We will reform outdated laws:
- We will abolish drug patents, replacing them with subsidies.
- We will reduce the length of copyright to 10 years.
- We will provide exemptions to patent law for non-commercial use, personal study and academic research.
- We will introduce system of compulsory patent licensing
- We will reform libel law.
- We will prohibit the abuse of RIPA powers.
- We will remove loopholes in copyright and patent law.
We will protect the public from abuses of new technology:
- We will forbid third parties from intercepting or monitoring communication traffic
- We will introduce a mandatory warning label on products that include DRM.
- We will introduce laws on the acceptable use of CCTV and DNA samples.
- We will legislate in favour of net neutrality.
- We will introduce stronger data protection laws
- We will not allow government censorship of the internet
- We will put into action the government's Open Source Action Plan.
- We will require the BBC to release all their content under a Creative Commons licence.
- We will prevent the BBC from using DRM technology.
- We will ensure better computing education in schools.
Download the Manifesto
40 comments
press release has been dugg.
A big Thank You to everyone who has worked on this.
cc wrote: Brilliant!
A big Thank You to everyone who has worked on this.
And from me.
thanks goes to masterchief for linking me
Similar to the first post, but this line stood out in particular:
We will ensure that the UK has as a foreign policy objective the human right of freedom to communicate,
Probably should stick an "of" in there somewhere, probably straight after "objective".
Who proof read it? Does the party need a proof reader?
**Edit** I cannot open the "Print Ready" version of the manifesto, it looks like it is corrupt.
Sorry to be a grammar nazi but there are small grammatical errors all over that, I normally wouldn't say anything but if this is our 'official' manifesto it should at least be grammatically correct, it does not show us in a very professional light. I do however agree with (and I voted upon) the majority of it.
Who proof read it? Does the party need a proof reader?
Are you volunteering?
This was worked on for a while. It got to the point where it was more important to publish something than to make sure that it was perfect. "The best is the enemy of the good enough," etc.
Other parties have paid staff to do this kind of thing. We have volunteers who have jobs they need to do to pay the rent as well as the things they do for the party. It would be nice if people were kind enough to say, "Oh look, there appears to be a problem, how can I help?" rather than, "You dare let something slip? You all are unprofessional morons! I hate you! I hate your dog!"
If you can compile a list of the things that are bugging you or that you think are grammatical errors, I can decide if I agree with you and forward the corrections to the relevant people.
I'll post a list as soon as I've got the morning server checks out of the way.
Again, Bravo!
**Edit**
Have announced the release (http://posthominid.com), not much alone, but if anyone with a blog or some sort of website can do the same then maybe we can get a good buzz. Twitter it, Facebook it, 'whatever else the kids are doing these days' it.
Another news link
We need to tackle the problem of preventable deaths in the third world caused by the high price of patented drugs.
We need to tackle the problem of preventable deaths in the third world caused by high price of patented drugs.
We pledge to maintain and expand the current list of important national events that cannot be exclusively broadcast on pay TV services
We pledge to maintain and expand the current list of important national events that cannot be exclusively broadcast pay TV services
to ensure samples are only taken voluntarily or when there are reasonable grounds to suspect the individual of having committed a serious offence
to ensure samples are only be taken voluntarily or when there are reasonable grounds to suspect the individual of having committed a serious offence
We recognise the value of whistleblowers to society, and we will defend the right of citizens to expose illegal practices in the workplace and elsewhere, and we will introduce a new legal right to be a whistleblower that will ensure that exposing corrupt or illegal activities will take precedence over contract law and copyright law.
We recognise the value of whistleblowers to society, and we will defend the right of citizens to expose illegal practices in the workplace and elsewhere. We will introduce a new legal right to be a whistleblower that will ensure that exposing corrupt or illegal activities will take precedence over contract law and copyright law.
We will promote the inclusion of accessibility features (subtitles, audio descriptions etc.) for the disabled
We will promote the inclusion of accessibility features, subtitles, audio descriptions etc for the disabled
The right to apply to a court for compensation when data protection laws have been broken.
The right to apply to a court for compensation where data protection laws have been broken.
The right for disabled people to demand an unrestricted version of DRM protected content if that is necessary for them to be able to access it.
The right for disabled people to demand an unrestricted version of DRM protected content where that is necessary to allow them to access it.
We will introduce a system of compulsory patent licensing.
We will introduce system of compulsory patent licensing
We will forbid third parties from intercepting or monitoring communication traffic.
We will forbid third parties from intercepting or monitoring communication traffic
We will introduce stronger data protection laws.
We will introduce stronger data protection laws
We will not allow government censorship of the internet.
We will not allow government censorship of the internet
I don't like
being stuck between the bit about gov data and the bit about the BBC but I can't see a way to fix it without reworking the entire paragraph and I don't want to risk changing the inflection with clumsy editing!
An exception will be made for cases that genuinely have national security or privacy concerns.
Another news link
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/356644/pira ... -legalised
http://newsblog.thecmuwebsite.com/post/ ... terms.aspx
Did anyone think to read the law before asking for it to be changed?
tufty wrote: there is already a provision dealing with time shifting
It's not a very good provision though. The copy has to be made in domestic premises, so no loading your iPod with media while you're at work or commuting. Also you can't communicate it to the public, so no playing your music at the park or at the beach (except through headphones), or playing it with a group of friends at the coffee shop.
tufty wrote: Did anyone think to read the law before asking for it to be changed?
The 2010 manifesto is a huge leap forward from where the party was at just a week ago. For sure, it can be fine-tuned over time.
There's a similar situation where the manifesto calls for academic use to be exempt from patent laws, but it already is exempt. Unlike copyrights, the information disclosed in patents is explicitly made free. It's just the exploitation of the information in patents which is controlled.
tufty wrote: Another one: can anyone provide examples of any colours or smells patented in the UK? I see the issues about computer programs and business methods, but where did the other ones come from?
ibm blue and any number of perfumes you care to imagine - i'd assume at least.
scuzzmonkey wrote: ibm blue and any number of perfumes you care to imagine - i'd assume at least.
Anyone here know the difference between a patent and a trade mark? I'll refrain from using the old saying about using the word "assume" for now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark
Trademark's just like a product name or company name. There are provision for non-competing sectors, e.g churchill cigars and churchill insurance.
A patent is more of an idea. There is some trademark abuse, not as bad as patents.
tufty wrote:scuzzmonkey wrote: ibm blue and any number of perfumes you care to imagine - i'd assume at least.
Anyone here know the difference between a patent and a trade mark? I'll refrain from using the old saying about using the word "assume" for now.
apologies then, I did say I was only assuming and not that I knew though - hehe
google aggregate of all reports about this.
I'm well aware thats the PPUK's flagship policy, but with no other policies to back that primary policy up, well.
The green party has never done particularly well with just campaigning for the planet.
And we sort of need the planet to live, and people still dont care.
"listen to your constituents" is a good line, but you can only listen once youre in.
murries wrote: A good start, but keep in mind, you need more policies than just "copyright law".
I'm well aware thats the PPUK's flagship policy, but with no other policies to back that primary policy up, well.
The green party has never done particularly well with just campaigning for the planet.
And we sort of need the planet to live, and people still dont care.
"listen to your constituents" is a good line, but you can only listen once youre in.
Hi murries,
As a candidate, I don't want to bullshit my constituents into thinking I'm going to resolve all of the problems we have in Britain today, I and the Pirate Party UK will focus on the set issues in our manifesto and when they are resolved we will set new issues/policies.
I certainly disagree with your comment that you can only listen once you're in. I am answering questions from constituents and talking to constituents when time permits me to, and this is in the run up to the election. I will also continue to do so after the election, whether I am elected or not. I will because it will stand me in good stead for the next election (sooner than you think under a hung parliament) and the europeans in 2014.
Regards,
Graeme Lambert
We will reform outdated laws:
* We will reduce the length of copyright to 10 years.
I agree with most of your policies except for this one. With all your policies regard fair use etc, why do you need to reduce the length of copyright across the board to 10 years? A lot of the time an author does not see any income from his works until many years after releasing them. Reducing the length this much will also make it difficult to get any income from earlier releases.
I'd like to see your reasoning for this reduction.
noruwejin wrote: I'd like to see your reasoning for this reduction.
I'll just direct you to this excellent blog post by Glyn Moody that says, amongst other things:
Indeed, speaking as an author, I know that practically all my income from writing comes within the first couple of years; after that, it's dribs and drabs. If my copyright were cut down to even five years, it would make only a marginal difference to my total remuneration.
Now, clearly I'm not JK Rowling, but the point is, neither are 99.99999% of authors: I know from talking to other run-of-the mill writers that the same holds for them, too. So in practical terms, reducing the copyright term would have little effect on the money that most creators earned as result.
I personally agree with you (to some extent), and think that 10 years is too simple to be a good solution (as is the 150 years solution currently in law). I expect once the upcoming election is over, the party will resume the debate on copyright policies.
noruwejin wrote: A lot of the time an author does not see any income from his works until many years after releasing them.
My understanding is that this is usually due to the contract with the publisher (whereby all the "expenses" come from the author's profits, not the publisher's). From the authors I have talked to, most make nearly all their sales in the first few months (which is why books get released as hardbacks, then a few months later in softback to get another boost). The same applies to film and music - I'm not sure about TV, but then TV is quite a weird example.
When I wrote "author" I was referring not just to authors of books, but also music, lyrics, software and so on.
Whilst I agree with some of the things that are mentioned about the 5+5 and 10+5 solutions, I am not sure if a one size fits all approach will work. However, if its made easy to extend the copyright like samgower mentions in the post cc linked to, that could be a good solution. I do think 15 years minimum would be a decent length of copyright on most things. It would allow the author an income for a good length of time, whilst still allowing the content to be used by public before its too outdated. I fully support an policy that allows ANY content to be used in non-profit ways as long as there are no loop holes.
Point being; A steady income from something a person created earlier in his life might allow him to focus on new/other projects in the future.
I also agree with software having a shorter copyright, as it would open up more opportunities in the development of technology. Same goes for medical patents. Shortening the copyright in these areas will speed up development. I don't believe that is the case for creative works however.
I don't agree with this either:
cc wrote: for instance, super-stars like Bono depend on their older content to support their luxurious lifestyles, so they'll keep renewing copyright indefinitely to get every penny they can squeeze out of it
Bono would be in his complete right to extend it as long as he wanted, as he is the creator of the content.
I don't like any of the ideas of the government making money from copyright, more power in the hands of the government, especially in creative and development areas, is not going to be good for anything.
It's also worth to consider what exactly the author has created. If the author has created a universe (I.e Star Wars / LOTR), would the initial copyright cover the universe, or just the book? Could others write new books using the universe without the agreement of the author as soon as the copyright ended? Etc.
As I mentioned before, medical patents should have a very short copyright/patent length, as it staggers potential future development that could save people.
TL;DR
I am in favor of 15 years as a minimum for copyright, but with the possibility of extensions if the author/composer/creator/whatever relies on the copyright for income. Saying that, I don't think a one size fits all approach will work, and different areas of creation will require different length of copyright. Moral rights should also extend for longer than the 15years.
noruwejin wrote: When I wrote "author" I was referring not just to authors of books, but also music, lyrics, software and so on.
We usually refer to them as "creators" and keep "authors" for people who write books.
Whilst I agree with some of the things that are mentioned about the 5+5 and 10+5 solutions, I am not sure if a one size fits all approach will work. However, if its made easy to extend the copyright like samgower mentions in the post cc linked to, that could be a good solution. I do think 15 years minimum would be a decent length of copyright on most things. It would allow the author an income for a good length of time, whilst still allowing the content to be used by public before its too outdated. I fully support an policy that allows ANY content to be used in non-profit ways as long as there are no loop holes.
Point being; A steady income from something a person created earlier in his life might allow him to focus on new/other projects in the future.
I also agree with software having a shorter copyright, as it would open up more opportunities in the development of technology. Same goes for medical patents. Shortening the copyright in these areas will speed up development.
Agreed.
I don't believe that is the case for creative works however.
...
Bono would be in his complete right to extend it as long as he wanted, as he is the creator of the content.
Here we are getting back to the philosophy behind the very existence of copyright.
A creation is the property (in the literal sense) of the creator as long as it is kept secret from the world.
At publication of the work, the government provides an exclusive copying right to reward the creator -- which is meant to be an opportunity (not really a right!) to profit from the work for a limited time.
Notice that this was always meant to be a tradeoff: by publishing, the creation passes into the hands of the people, but law prevents them from copying or selling it. The tradeoff is that when the copyright expires the work will be used to enrich the public domain.
Of course, this has been distorted beyond recognition, as we have gradually extended copyrights so creators receive eternal protection, at the expense of losing the public domain -- in other words, copyright was never meant to create people like Bono, and his hold over a published work is supposed to be limited.
I don't like any of the ideas of the government making money from copyright, more power in the hands of the government, especially in creative and development areas, is not going to be good for anything.
I see nothing wrong with the government taxing creators to extend government protection beyond the first 15 (or whatever initial duration is granted) years. The question is, how should the tax rate be calculated, and in what percentage must it increase to reasonably balance the gain to the creator with the loss to the people? Note, by "government" I mean "the people who make roads and stuff", not money-grubbing politicians or anything.
It's also worth to consider what exactly the author has created. If the author has created a universe (I.e Star Wars / LOTR), would the initial copyright cover the universe, or just the book? Could others write new books using the universe without the agreement of the author as soon as the copyright ended? Etc.
In law, "universes" are handled by trademarks. We want to reform copyrights, but keep trademarks as they are. That is, a book can go out of copyright, however a trademark (e.g. characters like R2D2 or Frodo) will still be controlled by the original creators. Also notice that we make a clear distinction between for-profit and not-for-profit usage of copyrighted material.
---------
Why is this discussion taking place on the Blog?? Why do we not allow non-members to contribute to the policy discussions??
noruwejin wrote: Point being; A steady income from something a person created earlier in his life might allow him to focus on new/other projects in the future.
I also agree with software having a shorter copyright, as it would open up more opportunities in the development of technology. Same goes for medical patents. Shortening the copyright in these areas will speed up development. I don't believe that is the case for creative works however.
I don't agree with this either:
cc wrote:
for instance, super-stars like Bono depend on their older content to support their luxurious lifestyles, so they'll keep renewing copyright indefinitely to get every penny they can squeeze out of it
Bono would be in his complete right to extend it as long as he wanted, as he is the creator of the content.
Why do you put so much more value on an artistic work created by someone like Bono than on software?
Would it be wrong to turn your argument on it's head and say that it would encourage artists to produce more songs/books/movies by restricting the amount of time they are allowed to profit from their work, but to allow software developers to have a steady income to develop new software by extending their copyright?
Neither argument seems to be fair on the party that is having it's copyright duration reduced yet you seem to place much more value on what is essentially mass entertainment than on technological innovation without giving any reason for such a bias.
Medical patents are nothing to do with copyright.
noruwejin wrote: It's also worth to consider what exactly the author has created. If the author has created a universe (I.e Star Wars / LOTR), would the initial copyright cover the universe, or just the book? Could others write new books using the universe without the agreement of the author as soon as the copyright ended? Etc.
The universe of Star Wars is protected as a Trademark, the stories written by George Lucas that take place in that universe are protected by copyright. If you copy his work it's a breach of copyright, if you write a story that takes place in his universe you are using his brand name and would most likely be prosecuted for trademark infringement.
noruwejin wrote: I am in favor of 15 years as a minimum for copyright, but with the possibility of extensions if the author/composer/creator/whatever relies on the copyright for income.
This brings back an argument we have had on these forums before, how do you place a value on an artistic creation? Personally I don't see why somebody who creates a song or a book should enjoy a lifelong income from their work, why are they to be placed on a pedestal above, for example, a heart surgeon who has, through a lot of skill and many years of hard work attained the ability to prolong the life of his patients. Does the surgeon not deserve to be paid repeatedly for each year each of his patients survive? I know it's not possible to do this but it does piss me off when "artists" are treated as deserving semi-deities of more value to our society than others who work much harder for a fraction of the rewards.

Andrew Robinson
John Barron
Philip Hunt