Pirate Party appeal to artists

[azrael]

Only if people retain their copyright, artists are free to push their works into the public domain if they wish. But clearly they don't wish to, so it's your intention to force them to. Is that not correct?

The 'force' part of this question is interesting. When copyrights are extended what is happening is that something that would have been owned by the public is forcibly being taken away from them. yet it generally doesn't get describe din that way. As soon as there is talk about reducing copyright, there is talk of trying to take something away from the initial creators.

The forcible removing of ownership has already happened. Society has been stolen from for the benefit of the few. The rich few who spend that money ensuring that the theft keeps on happening, and increasing the volume of theft by extending copyright terms.

I want to reduce the theft that copyright laws facilitate. We do that easily be reducing copyright terms.

[PeterBrett]

In order to enforce copyright, you have to monitor people's private communications. OK, so you say that's to do with how copyright is enforced, so what's your solution, just don't enforce copyright? Cool.

Fair Use, a simple fair use amendment will allow you to email your friend the file as described in your link. In fact something which is perfectly fine under the current laws if you don't use an absurd interpretation.

Factually incorrect; there is no doctrine of fair use in British law. But don't worry, it's a common misunderstanding.

[aramoro]

You make some interesting points azrael. The Grey album could have very easily been produced if Jay-Z and The Beatles has pushed their works into the public domain, but they didn't. But that aside a simple fair use change allows mash-ups to exist for non-commercial ends, that seems reasonable and doesn't support the notion we need to radically reform copyright.

For those in the music industry more interested in art, creativity, recognition, and contributing to our shared culture, there is nothing to fear from our policies. If you want to make your own 'Grey Album', vote for us. If you want to continue seeing most of your profits go to unimaginative executives that work hard to sue your fans, keep on living in the dark ages.

I disagree that they have nothing to fear from your changes, as your colleague said, he wants to see artists paid less as they are clearly paid too much. So you're threatening their livelyhood to an extent, as your guys said. But if they do truly have nothing to fear then they could simply release all their music into the public domain right now. Nothing to stop them. Yes some of them will have to wait for the end of restrictive contracts but then they can. But something is stopping them so it's obviously not as clear cut as all that.

My perspective of the current copyright laws is that they 'steal' from society.

I'm curious to know how you justify this. Not giving you something is stealing from you? That is a very very generous interpretation of theft. Theft is taking something from someone with an intention to permanently deprive them of it, but it has to be theirs in the first place. Someone writes a book it is their book, they own it, they are not stealing from you by not giving it to you for free. That just doesn't make logical sense.

I want to reduce the theft that copyright laws facilitate. We do that easily be reducing copyright terms.

So to reduce murder rates all we need to do is get rid of that antiquated law right? (Puerile I know but I couldn't resist)

[aramoro]

Factually incorrect; there is no doctrine of fair use in British law. But don't worry, it's a common misunderstanding.

Right and wrong, there is no 'fair use', it's called Fair Dealing, but doesn't go far enough I don't think but that's an aside. But as I'm sure you know I wasn't referring to fair use but rather to violate a Copyright licence in the UK it has to be shown to be either commercial or to the prejudice of the copyright holder. There's a lot of interpretation to be done in UK but this instance has come up in case law and show to be not prejudicial enough to the copyright holder to count as an infringement.

[plooterman]

how would you appeal to these people – I don’t think we are going to appeal to most top artists, for the reasons you state.

how important to the UK culturally are artists do you think? As for musicians, they are important culturally. But I don’t think some top names are so much more important to culture than someone who plays at the local pub.

Neil Gaimen is a famous author, you must know that. Why ? I’d never heard of him before.

musicians will still do gigs, big tours will still rake in huge amounts of cash and still be promoted heavily - personally I wouldn’t have problem with that. It's copyright I have a problem with.

These are just my thoughts and the reasons why I am a member.
But it looks very unlikely that I could change your mind on any of these issues.

[PeterBrett]

Factually incorrect; there is no doctrine of fair use in British law. But don't worry, it's a common misunderstanding.

Right and wrong, there is no 'fair use', it's called Fair Dealing, but doesn't go far enough I don't think but that's an aside. But as I'm sure you know I wasn't referring to fair use but rather to violate a Copyright licence in the UK it has to be shown to be either commercial or to the prejudice of the copyright holder.

Dubious. Most people (including, I might add, British film and record industries, as well as PPUK and ORG) read the Copyrights, Patents and Designs Act as treating all unlicensed copying that does not fall within the very narrow bounds of "fair dealing" as tortious. I'm not aware of any case law that suggests an exception for private or non-commercial copying — are you aware of any such cases?

[aramoro]

Neil Gaimen is a famous author, you must know that. Why ? I’d never heard of him before.

Well he is, he wrote Stardust and thing like that? Sandman?

musicians will still do gigs, big tours will still rake in huge amounts of cash and still be promoted heavily - personally I wouldn’t have problem with that. It's copyright I have a problem with.

I kinda guess I want to know why you have a problem with copyright. You don't seem to care about the whole inspiring artists angle, just the fact things are copyrighted preventing you from copying them. If that is your ideal then great but just trying to get an idea of what the pirate party stands for fundamentally without any rhetoric. I mean obviously you'll know how the pirate party are perceived by the public at large so I'm keen to see how that differs from how it is.

These are just my thoughts and the reasons why I am a member.
But it looks very unlikely that I could change your mind on any of these issues.

My personal viewpoints are of little relevance to why I'm asking the questions.

[aramoro]

Dubious. Most people (including, I might add, British film and record industries, as well as PPUK and ORG) read the Copyrights, Patents and Designs Act as treating all unlicensed copying that does not fall within the very narrow bounds of "fair dealing" as tortious. I'm not aware of any case law that suggests an exception for private or non-commercial copying — are you aware of any such cases?

It is a tight spot of the current law which should be clarified in favour of of broader fair use.

Personally I don't know the cases, it came up in conversation I was having with my Copyright and Patents lawyer, it's obviously not criminally illegal as that is fairly well defined. But I don't want to get into an internet 'well yes my lawyer said' argument so I shall ask him next time I see him what the deal is.

And no I don't work in the music or publishing industry.

[PeterBrett]

Dubious. Most people (including, I might add, British film and record industries, as well as PPUK and ORG) read the Copyrights, Patents and Designs Act as treating all unlicensed copying that does not fall within the very narrow bounds of "fair dealing" as tortious. I'm not aware of any case law that suggests an exception for private or non-commercial copying — are you aware of any such cases?

It is a tight spot of the current law which should be clarified in favour of of broader fair use.

I certainly couldn't agree more. However, the currently-ongoing Hargreaves Review of copyright law in the UK has already made it clear that a less strict fair use doctrine is not on the table as a possible outcome.

Personally I don't know the cases, it came up in conversation I was having with my Copyright and Patents lawyer, it's obviously not criminally illegal as that is fairly well defined. But I don't want to get into an internet 'well yes my lawyer said' argument so I shall ask him next time I see him what the deal is.

Good idea — it's always best to get a solid legal opinion on these things. And yes, there is a distinction between criminal copyright infringement and infringement as a civil tort — but even being sued in civil court can easily cost you thousands in fees and potentially tens of thousands in damages!

[aramoro]

I certainly couldn't agree more. However, the currently-ongoing Hargreaves Review of copyright law in the UK has already made it clear that a less strict fair use doctrine is not on the table as a possible outcome.

The Hargreaves Review will be interesting as it is looking into fair use and it's implications in the UK, with respect to the differences between UK and US law. It will be interesting reading to see what they say on the topic.

Personally I don't know the cases, it came up in conversation I was having with my Copyright and Patents lawyer, it's obviously not criminally illegal as that is fairly well defined. But I don't want to get into an internet 'well yes my lawyer said' argument so I shall ask him next time I see him what the deal is.

Good idea — it's always best to get a solid legal opinion on these things. And yes, there is a distinction between criminal copyright infringement and infringement as a civil tort — but even being sued in civil court can easily cost you thousands in fees and potentially tens of thousands in damages!

I remember our conversation dealt solely with civil matters as the criminal ones are pretty done and dusted. There was a bunch of reasons but for the life of me I can't remember the details enough to make a reasonable statement. I'm reasonably happy to email about files to friends though. But with that in mind i'll retract my point and concede to Peter that it is technically punishable in civil court.

[scuzzmonkey]

Fair Use, a simple fair use amendment will allow you to email your friend the file as described in your link. In fact something which is perfectly fine under the current laws if you don't use an absurd interpretation.

erm - no, it isn't.

[PeterBrett]

I certainly couldn't agree more. However, the currently-ongoing Hargreaves Review of copyright law in the UK has already made it clear that a less strict fair use doctrine is not on the table as a possible outcome.

The Hargreaves Review will be interesting as it is looking into fair use and it's implications in the UK, with respect to the differences between UK and US law. It will be interesting reading to see what they say on the topic.

What part of "fair use doctrine is not on the table" do you not understand?

The concept of fair use cannot be implemented in the UK as it lies outside of the scope of Article 5 of the EU Information Society Directive, and even if it could it would be an unpopular solution as a result of the amount of litigation it would generate. But, as the Prime Minister has raised the fair use question, the Hargreaves Review must make recommendations on what could be done in place of fair use to better drive innovation.

http://copyright4education.blogspot.com ... it-to.html

I'm reasonably happy to email about files to friends though.

Yep, you're (quite likely) committing a civil tort right there. Current UK copyright law is unconscionable.

[aramoro]

What part of "fair use doctrine is not on the table" do you not understand?

It is actually being discussed in the review, there will be recommendations on it so it'll be interesting to know what they say. I do understand what you mean by not on the table. If you read the stated aims of the review you'll see

The benefits of “fair use” exceptions to copyright and how these might be achieved in the UK;

That's as clear as it get that's they WILL be looking at fair use. The Hargreaves blog is a pretty interesting read. Was The Pirate Parties Call for Evidence turned down or refused for some reason?

I'm reasonably happy to email about files to friends though.

Yep, you're (quite likely) committing a civil tort right there. Current UK copyright law is unconscionable.

Possibly, luckily I have a lawyer and I can always sue him for poor advice

[PeterBrett]

The Hargreaves blog is a pretty interesting read. Was The Pirate Parties Call for Evidence turned down or refused for some reason?

As I understand it, we didn't get our submission in in time due to lack of manpower to prepare it. A common problem that we have.

[lhsi]

So artists can and are already working in the new way that you suggest. So why do we need the change except to force other to follow your model? If your model is so good the free market will bring about the change you're talking about.

Since when did a free market exist?

I think the only time I can remember hearing the term free market, it is on US websites talking about the US (usually the government and why they shouldn't regulate anything). Copyright is probably one of the most far reaching and restrictive forms of government regulation that I can think of.

how would you appeal to these people – I don’t think we are going to appeal to most top artists, for the reasons you state.

musicians will still do gigs, big tours will still rake in huge amounts of cash and still be promoted heavily - personally I wouldn’t have problem with that. It's copyright I have a problem with.

I don't think there exists a political party that appeals to everyone. It would be foolish to have "must appeal to everyone" as a goal for any political party. In general, peoples view are incredibly varied, so it would be hard, if not impossible to appeal to everyone.

People will still buy CD's/books etc., even if it is possible to get them for free elsewhere. For example, you can buy books of works by Shakespeare. 'Special edition' CDs and DVDs are released and people buy them, even if they already have it. Some people just like to collect things.

My perspective of the current copyright laws is that they 'steal' from society.

I'm curious to know how you justify this. Not giving you something is stealing from you? That is a very very generous interpretation of theft. Theft is taking something from someone with an intention to permanently deprive them of it, but it has to be theirs in the first place. Someone writes a book it is their book, they own it, they are not stealing from you by not giving it to you for free. That just doesn't make logical sense.

There's a difference between something that is tangible and something that is intangible. If you produce one book, you have one physical book, which is tangible. The words within the book are intangible (as in they can be held within someone's memory and don't have to exist somewhere in the physical world). Copyright exists to control the use of these intangible entities. It is, in effect controlling ideas; continuing your book example, you had the idea to put some words together in a certain order. By showing someone the book, you are sharing these ideas, but then expecting them to not tell anyone about your ideas, unless you say otherwise.

Based on this premise (copyright controls ideas), it seems strange that some ideas can be covered by copyright and some can't. Words put together to form a book are covered by copyright, bricks put together to form a house are not; the builder is paid once for his work, yet a book writer writes something once and expects to (and currently does) get paid for years afterwards.

And considering the current digital age, a large proportion of items covered by copyright can be in a digital format which, with various levels of abstraction in between, is just a string of numbers (well, electrical charges that represent numbers), yet these are covered by copyright, even though math generally isn't.

I remember watching one show (an entertainment one I believe, so take this with a grain of salt), that said that quite a lot of the films that are popular, or often shown around Xmas are ones that are in the public domain, largely because broadcasting companies don't have to pay royalties on them. If the length of copyright just gets longer and longer, rather than shorter, fewer and fewer things will enter the public domain, to be used freely. This restricts the level of culture that people have available to them. With the fast pace society is developing, years later when something enters the public domain, it will be irrelevant. Say someone wrote a book about life 100 years ago, a lot of it wouldn't make sense to me as it would be so far away from my current view of the world, due to how it is being shaped by culture. Say that film about Facebook comes into the public domain in a century, will it still be relevant then? Will people still care? Will Facebook, let along the internet in its present form still exist?

Society today seems to go along with something new for a very short period of time before discarding it and going with something new. That means there is going to be a huge amount of things covered by copyright that hardly anyone cares about any more, because they are more interested in what is currently popular.

[azrael]

My perspective of the current copyright laws is that they 'steal' from society.

I'm curious to know how you justify this. Not giving you something is stealing from you? That is a very very generous interpretation of theft. Theft is taking something from someone with an intention to permanently deprive them of it, but it has to be theirs in the first place. Someone writes a book it is their book, they own it, they are not stealing from you by not giving it to you for free. That just doesn't make logical sense.

I want to reduce the theft that copyright laws facilitate. We do that easily be reducing copyright terms.

So to reduce murder rates all we need to do is get rid of that antiquated law right? (Puerile I know but I couldn't resist)

Well making murder legal is one way to stop the crime or murder from happening. However it is a rather clear social rule that killing other people is generally unacceptable. Killing people has been frowned on by most of the rest of society (except in certain cases) for a very very very VERY long time. Copyright however is a fairly recent (by comparison) invention. The very creation of copyright law, and every alteration that extends the duration, changes the very nature of those works that get copyrighted. Those creations were once free to all, and then suddenly were not. If theft is taking something from someone with an intention to deprive them of it (yes, skipping the permanently part for now) - then copyright laws ARE theft. Let's add your 'permanently' word back in. If copyright terms get continuously extended so as they never ever lapse, that IS a permanent deprivation, so still classifies as theft.

So yes. I do regard it as theft, far more so than when copyright holders label as 'theft' or 'stealing' when their copyrights are infringed.

[aramoro]

I really don't think using terms like 'Theft' help your cause towards more general people. The Music Industry accuse you of theft , you accuse them of theft right back. Everyone turns off because it's just another pointless spat. Trying to use emotive language like 'They're stealing our culture' is not only disingenuous but makes you sound like a zealot. Your point gets lost in all the noise and pointless zealotry.

Any reasonable point you have can be dismissed by the government and industry because you're using overly emotive language so they can just say 'Well he's clearly just a loon' and the public on the face of it would agree.

If you feel your points are strong and well thought out, do not cloud them with inappropriate terms, and what ever you do, do not quote or link to Rickard Falkvinge. He's fine for your internal discussion but not for anything else.

[azrael]

I really don't think using terms like 'Theft' help your cause towards more general people. The Music Industry accuse you of theft , you accuse them of theft right back. Everyone turns off because it's just another pointless spat. Trying to use emotive language like 'They're stealing our culture' is not only disingenuous but makes you sound like a zealot. Your point gets lost in all the noise and pointless zealotry.

'Theft' is a very emotive term, I agree. You are right that the music/etc industry accuse copyright infringers of theft, which is exactly why I phrased my comments the way I did. If you are of the perspective that copyright has gotten out of control, and I am, and if you are of the view that copyright durations deprive society, and I am, and if you think the result is a theft of culture from society, and I do, then it is appropriate for me to label it as theft. Will it turn some people off, quite probably. Will it give a new perspective to some other people on who is stealing from whom? I hope so.

Is it disingenuous of me? No. I sincerely hold that belief. If you think I am disingenuous then I'd like if possible to assure you that I mean it! I will however accept that it makes me sound like a zealot - and as this Party's policies (which I fully endorse) are far milder than I would go personally advocate I suppose I do hold views more extreme than the average of the Party and so calling me a zealot is completely accurate. Just please call me an ingenuous (sincere rather than naive pls ) one.

Any reasonable point you have can be dismissed by the government and industry because you're using overly emotive language so they can just say 'Well he's clearly just a loon' and the public on the face of it would agree.

I am happy for the government to call me a loon and dismiss these views. I'm far more concerned with getting the Party message out to voters and tapping in to what we hope are the changing views of (parts of) society.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

Clearly not everyone who gets initially ignored eventually wins. But if we do reflect a changing mood in society then governments will either take our views more seriously or they will lose (politicians are smart enough, mostly, to work hard at avoiding the latter).

If you feel your points are strong and well thought out, do not cloud them with inappropriate terms, and what ever you do, do not quote or link to Rickard Falkvinge. He's fine for your internal discussion but not for anything else.

If I do not get my views across as accurately as I would like to, then yes, there is room for improvement. I may disagree with you over what is or isn't appropriate, but if you think my wording is inappropriate then either it is or I have failed to persuade you - either of which is a failure on my part.
I see no issue with quoting or linking to Falkvinge. If I agree with something he says and he is able to say it in a better way than I am, I'm happy to steal^H^H^H^H^Hcopy. I'm also perfectly happy to disagree and object to anything he says that I don't disagree with. Personally if I was privately advocating and agreeing with things he said, and publicly hiding or distancing myself from the same I would feel disingenuous and two-faced. Falkvinge, at this year's PPUK conference, described those of us in the Party as being politicians ... while I feel far from being one I guess he is actually right. The jaded part of me thinks that most politicians inevitably become a little two faced (obligatory yet tongue in cheek dig at 'other' politicians), and I certainly have no desire to become a disappointment to myself in that way any time soon.
Finally, before this become too spammy, thank you for continuing to engage and question. It is so much more difficult than preaching to the converted, but ultimately so much more productive in so many ways and I very much appreciate your time and willingness to investigate and dig into our policies and beliefs here and in other threads.

[aramoro]

I say disingenuous simply because you know it's not theft, not by the definition of theft. What the music industry does is accuse people of stealing but people can see that it's not. By doing the same thing as the music industry couching your points in the same terms (and I sincerely don't mean to be uncharitable here) it sounds more like children fighting in the play ground 'He Stole it' - 'No he stole it first'. Now whilst being the bigger man does not always work trying to play the industry at their own game doesn't seem like a good tactic. But each to his own. The party need passionate followers like yourself to drive it forwards.

Personally I recognise the need for reform in the area of copyright and so on. I guess what I'm more interested in is the brass tacks, the actual things you want to do and not the platitudes and ideologies behind them. You have a lot of rhetoric in your Manifesto but very little in the way of plans of action. Why you want to change something is important, but once we're past that we need to know what you're actually going to change and how does it benefit people in real terms. (whilst simultaneously avoiding the label of 'I Just want free things')

The problem with Rickard Falkvinge is he states things with absolute certainty which don't stand up to critical examination. I can understand that if you are already aligned with his views they make a lot of sense. Things like Swarm Economy, the what? Let me check my economics....what is that exactly? It's just something he's made up. There's no substance to the policy and nothing but conjecture from an engineering college dropout. Now don't get me wrong I am not saying his policy is right or wrong, it just has nothing to it. Aligning the party closely with him will link you good or bad with basically anything he says. I guess it's a question of perception more than anything else.

[PeterBrett]

It's just something he's made up.

Absolutely. But everything starts out as "just something [someone] made up", surely? It's an interesting idea, and although I am fairly sceptical of it I'm going to give it the benefit of the doubt until I see some more in-depth analysis.

There's no substance to the policy and nothing but conjecture from an engineering college dropout.

Attacking the speaker rather than the speech just makes you look silly. An argument ad hominem does not help your case. Perhaps you would like to rephrase?

Now don't get me wrong I am not saying his policy is right or wrong, it just has nothing to it. Aligning the party closely with him will link you good or bad with basically anything he says. I guess it's a question of perception more than anything else.

First you say, "it's just something he's made up" and that it is "nothing but conjecture", and then you claim not to hold an opinion on whether he is correct? My perception is that you've already made up your mind and that you're paying lip-service to objectivity.

Like it or not, Rick is a founding member of the Pirate movement, and has a lot of valuable experience to share. We would be foolish — reckless, even — to disregard everything he says simply because he occasionally likes to throw unusual ideas at the wall to see if they stick. If PPUK agrees with him, we say so, and when we don't agree with him, we make that clear too. I hope that anyone, including you, would be able to distinguish between respecting someone and "aligning... closely" with them.

I very much appreciate your time and willingness to investigate and dig into our policies and beliefs here and in other threads.

Indeed.