Detailed response from RMS on the draft copyright policy

[JohnB]

Due to the concern about the impact of reform on copyleft, and on open-source software, I emailed the draft policy (when it was published to PPUK) to Richard Stallman and asked for his comments. I have just received a detailed reply, which I post below for your review. The main quote is RMS response, he indented the elements of the draft he was commented on/I've translated that to subquotation here.

The official aim of the copyright system has always been to find a balance in order to promote culture being created and spread.

I'm glad you have avoided the pitfall of "balancing authors' interests
with the public's interest".

In a free market, vendors wishing to sell products crippled by digital restrictions (DRM) should be allowed to do so, however any such product must be clearly labelled as containing DRM, and similarly companies must be equally free to sell products that circumvent DRM.

That may be adequate for cases when one company implements DRM by
itself. However, the big instances of DRM are implemented by
conspiracies of companies. I think that DRM conspiracies should be
criminalized just like price-fixing conspiracies.

Copyright imposes a limited-term monopoly on the work (a public bad), in order to provide an incentive for people to create works (a public good). Copyright is only a good bargain for society when the public good outweighs the public bad. Unfortunately today the bargain has become unbalanced: the term of copyright is far too long, and laws imposing DRM prevent the creation of innovative new business models.

In contrast to the introduction, this takes a purely economic stance
(comparing the benefit with the cost). I suggest that the importance
of the freedom to share should be mentioned separately here as a
non-economic issue that must not be suppressed by mere economics.

Likewise, the harm of DRM goes far beyond the matter of new or old
business models.

A patent is an officially sanctioned monopoly on a (supposedly) useful idea. Like copyrights, patents impose a limited-term monopoly on the work (a public bad), in order to provide an incentive for people to create works (a public good). 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.

Same problem here: it discards the ethical stance of the first section
and adopts a purely economic stance.

Trademarks are primarily useful as consumer protection devices. We feel trademarks mostly work fine today, and do not suggest any changes here.

I basically agree, but why mention trademark law here? There must be
hundreds of laws that you don't criticize, and you don't mention them.

Could this be the influence of the pseudo-concept of "intellectual
property"? The idea that anywhere you talk about copyright law, you
should also talk about all the other "intellectual property" laws too?
The statement denounces that term (which I find very gratifying), but
its infuence may still be at work unnoticed.

Here's an idea. If you move that statement about trademarks to just
AFTER the paragraph which denounces that term, it could become an
example of rejecting the generalization which "intellectual property"
invites, and treating each of these laws on its own merits.

I have no other criticisms -- in substance, it looks good.

[samgower]

I agree with RMS that the ethics should take a front seat in the party's policies, but the economic arguments are valid and persuasive, and should certainly be kept. The question, I think, is how we present them. Perhaps there should be a separate section, or even another document focused on an economic analysis of the policy.

[epriezka]

I agree with RMS that the ethics should take a front seat in the party's policies, but the economic arguments are valid and persuasive, and should certainly be kept. The question, I think, is how we present them. Perhaps there should be a separate section, or even another document focused on an economic analysis of the policy.

It's a shame we didn't have a single economist volunteer to join the economist's expert group. The thinking was to have a group of people with the knowledge to credibly make arguments about the positive economic benefits of the party's policy and/or to review any policy proposals and give a relatively informed view on whether they would benefit the economy.

[peterh]

Personally, I am with RMS on taking the freedom angle rather than the economic angle.

I would imagine that most people who have joined so far believe in the platform first and foremost on the question of freedom, and have constructed economic arguments to persuade others. I think it might be better to be true to ourselves, and honest about what we believe and why.

[EdmundRW]

I liked the economic arguments - they add a lot of weight by making the the document work on our opponent's terms. I think the ethical arguments are all implicit. It would be a shame to dilute the document with ethical arguments beyond some sort of preamble.

I absolutely agree with RMS about the trademarks -that it should be moved nearer to the start to illustrate the point about Intellectual Property.

DRM = price fixing is also a very good point

[peterh]

Why on Earth would we want to argue on our opponents terms? I can't think of any situation in which allowing the other side to frame the debate can end well. Arguing the economic benefits implicitly says that the government/content lobby economic case is valid enough to merit a response.

Economics is secondary; it is about ethics, about culture, and about freedom. The government wants to stifle those things, not for any real economic benefit, but to line the pockets of a small section of society that has the ear of people like Mandelson.

[bones]

Why on Earth would we want to argue on our opponents terms? I can't think of any situation in which allowing the other side to frame the debate can end well. Arguing the economic benefits implicitly says that the government/content lobby economic case is valid enough to merit a response.

Economics is secondary; it is about ethics, about culture, and about freedom. The government wants to stifle those things, not for any real economic benefit, but to line the pockets of a small section of society that has the ear of people like Mandelson.

Well put sir! I agree completely.

[epriezka]

Economics is secondary; it is about ethics, about culture, and about freedom.

I agree with you but only up to a point. Ethics is not separate from economics. Our choices about ethics and freedom are intimately linked to our wealth. A poorer society can make fewer choices than a richer one. For example, with wealth comes choices about who gets what medical care, or how much education people receive, or when people are allowed to retire, or the quality of life for people who are unable to work. Wealth enables freedoms. Wealth makes it possible to make new ethical choices An argument that says something should be done because it is ethical, and that you can ignore the economic consequences, is a backhanded way of saying you don't want to consider the wider ethical dimensions of changes to the economy.

[peterh]

I agree with you but only up to a point. Ethics is not separate from economics. Our choices about ethics and freedom are intimately linked to our wealth. A poorer society can make fewer choices than a richer one. For example, with wealth comes choices about who gets what medical care, or how much education people receive, or when people are allowed to retire, or the quality of life for people who are unable to work. Wealth enables freedoms. Wealth makes it possible to make new ethical choices.

However, there are multiple routes to having a wealthy society, and they are differentiable by ethics. Nobody is arguing that the content companies could make money from stringent copyright laws, and that this might even add to the GDP of the country - but that doesn't make it either ethically or economically sound in itself because there are ways to grow the economy without pandering to that kind of interest.

An argument that says something should be done because it is ethical, and that you can ignore the economic consequences, is a backhanded way of saying you don't want to consider the wider ethical dimensions of changes to the economy.

I can confidently say that there is no risk of copyright reform plunging us into economic chaos, because even if the entire content sector vanished overnight we would still have a first world economy and all that entails.

[epriezka]

I can confidently say that there is no risk of copyright reform plunging us into economic chaos, because even if the entire content sector vanished overnight we would still have a first world economy and all that entails.

It's not your confidence I'm worried about. I'm more worried about winning votes from people who are not so easily persuaded that 'the entire content sector vanishing overnight' won't have any disadvantages for them or people they care about.

[peterh]

We are not saying it would, quite the opposite. However, saying that there is an economic argument to be made because the wealth of society is at stake is clearly untrue.

[epriezka]

We are not saying it would, quite the opposite. However, saying that there is an economic argument to be made because the wealth of society is at stake is clearly untrue.

Clearly untrue? Even if you don't agree with the argument, not everyone sees the truth as you do.

[WilliamFS]

It's a shame we didn't have a single economist volunteer to join the economist's expert group ...

I can confidently say that there is no risk of copyright reform plunging us into economic chaos...

The strong arguments that have convinced us to adhere to PPUK values are about a call for a general direction of change. These are our best arguments and are likely to continue to be the ones that will bring people over to our side.

Now, if in spite of that we have to add specific, almost techincal detail, to our proposals, then we need to have backup arguments for the implications of those specific proposals. We cannot just make specific proposals for the enjoyment that debating and voting on them gives us, and regardless of their actual impact on the real world if implemented.

Amogst us, who already agree on PPUK values, the actual implications of our policies may seem all quite minor compared to the benefits they will bring. But for the people whose wages depend on the industries we will disrupt, they are not so secondary. In order to make a political proposal seriously, we have to be able to respond in some sensible way to questions about their implications. To express just our personal confidence in that we will not plunge into economic caos is nowhere near good enough.

I refer back to the think tank proposal, and specifically to the business sustainablitiy section I suggested it should have. These are issues that we need tackled by people who think through such things for a living (ie, economists) -- not just by the optimistic enthousiasm of our supporters.

I have suggested we settle for a minimal manifesto focusing on the stronger arguments we already have and sketching the strictly necessary details indicating some reservation: "this is being studied/considered". I think that such a manifesto would be the sensible thing to do considering our competences and limitations as a group a this point.

--

[peterh]

We are not saying it would, quite the opposite. However, saying that there is an economic argument to be made because the wealth of society is at stake is clearly untrue.

Clearly untrue? Even if you don't agree with the argument, not everyone sees the truth as you do.

Yes, clearly untrue:

http://digitalbritainforum.org.uk/repor ... r-content/

The creative industries are a significant source of employment and national wealth creation, as well as almost uniquely delivering cultural and social benefits. They contribute 6.4% of GVA and have grown by an average of 4% over the past decade compared to 3% for the economy as a whole.

You are talking about society not being able to make choices regarding health care as an economic consequence of copyright reform, but when talking about a sector that is 6.4% of GVA that is clearly nonsense; we have lost that kind of productivity during the recession and the NHS is still very much there.

[epriezka]

We are not saying it would, quite the opposite. However, saying that there is an economic argument to be made because the wealth of society is at stake is clearly untrue.

Clearly untrue? Even if you don't agree with the argument, not everyone sees the truth as you do.

Yes, clearly untrue:

http://digitalbritainforum.org.uk/repor ... r-content/

The creative industries are a significant source of employment and national wealth creation, as well as almost uniquely delivering cultural and social benefits. They contribute 6.4% of GVA and have grown by an average of 4% over the past decade compared to 3% for the economy as a whole.

You are talking about society not being able to make choices regarding health care as an economic consequence of copyright reform, but when talking about a sector that is 6.4% of GVA that is clearly nonsense; we have lost that kind of productivity during the recession and the NHS is still very much there.

I don't know, peterh. You seem pretty strident. It doesn't seem that odd, to me, to point out things like the fact that the NHS has a finite budget and that the amount the NHS can spend is hence related to the overall wealth of our society. A poorer society doesn't mean you have to scrap the NHS, but it does implies either cutbacks on the NHS or cutbacks elsewhere, and these choices have an ethical dimension. So whilst you are very clear about how the world works, and are happy to lambast the nonsense of other people, I'd be happier if the party had some more robust and detailed analysis of the impact on the economy of the kinds of changes we propose. I'm not so comfortable with the suggestion that we can lose a large chunk of national GDP and there will be no consequences.

I think the argument is particularly odd because there is evidence that IPR reform would stimulate the economy, but it is worth determining what the party's standard line is on the economic impact of reform, and using that as a baseline for arguing the merits of our proposals. Furthermore, I see danger in arguing between one possible policy and another possible policy, if none of us have any meaningful analysis of how they would differently impact the economy.

[peterh]

I don't know, peterh. You seem pretty strident. It doesn't seem that odd, to me, to point out things like the fact that the NHS has a finite budget and that the amount the NHS can spend is hence related to the overall wealth of our society. A poorer society doesn't mean you have to scrap the NHS, but it does implies either cutbacks on the NHS or cutbacks elsewhere, and these choices have an ethical dimension. So whilst you are very clear about how the world works, and are happy to lambast the nonsense of other people, I'd be happier if the party had some more robust and detailed analysis of the impact on the economy of the kinds of changes we propose. I'm not so comfortable with the suggestion that we can lose a large chunk of national GDP and there will be no consequences.

But I never suggested that, you were the one hinting that decisions regarding copyright law would have ramifications for the quality of life of the entire nation. I was merely refuting that.

Losting 6.4% of GVA would be bad, but not toss our society into the third world. And it represents the absolute, worst case scenario that almost certainly cannot happen regardless of what is done to copyright law. Fact is, even with almost unchecked file sharing, people are still buying music.

I think the argument is particularly odd because there is evidence that IPR reform would stimulate the economy, but it is worth determining what the party's standard line is on the economic impact of reform, and using that as a baseline for arguing the merits of our proposals. Furthermore, I see danger in arguing between one possible policy and another possible policy, if none of us have any meaningful analysis of how they would differently impact the economy.

What if it is possible to make larger gains in GDP by rigidly enforcing copyrights, monitoring all internet traffic, and throwing the book at violators? Would you leave the party?

The problem is, money can be made from crushing citizens (I dislike referring to people as consumers). Ethical arguments must precede economic ones, always.

[epriezka]

What if it is possible to make larger gains in GDP by rigidly enforcing copyrights, monitoring all internet traffic, and throwing the book at violators? Would you leave the party?

Oh, peterh, why does every argument need to be so black-and-white?

I don't think reforming copyright will result in a significant reduction in GDP. However, as you ask the question, if there was a really solid economic argument that said rigid copyright would double the nation's GDP, then yes, I would find that persuasive, despite your economics-or-ethics dichotomy. If the nation could be twice as rich, then that would have all sorts of benefits like improved healthcare and improved quality of life and many other things we should care about as human beings. That would outweigh some of the disadvantages of rigid copyright, just like if you asked me would I spend a day in jail for a million pounds, I would say yes, because I'd rather like a million pounds and the discomfort of a temporary loss of liberty would be small in comparison, even though I care a lot about my liberty.

If I understand your point of view, then you are saying no amount of change to the GDP should have any influence on an ethical decision. That rather reminds me of those 'every human life is priceless' comments that you hear people say sometimes - and then you discover how little money is spent on digging up landmines in Cambodia because people don't really think every human life is priceless and in fact people spend far more on pizzas and beer and Sky TV and other things that bring them selfish pleasure. Which is not to say that people are wrong, but that few people really live the principles that you seem to have. If you have those principles, good for you. But if you think we shouldn't bother with proper economic analysis (as opposed to silly hypothetical arguments like the one I created above) then I don't agree, because the goal of a political party is to win votes, not to persuade people to conform to an unattainable ideal of how people should think and behave.

[epriezka]

Apologies - I feel like my post above is encouraging a drift away from the original topic. This is to get it back on track.

I respect rms for wanting to mention ethics as well as economics in formulating a policy. My main observation is that arguments about economics are not based on principle or judgment in the way that arguments about ethics are. In other words, we can forecast the economic impact of decisions, and I would like to build real economic forecasts into our arguments. That will present voters with a more reasoned and rational basis for making decisions that have both ethical and economic consequences. So far, I do not get the impression that economic forecasts have played much part in policy deliberation.

[peterh]

What if it is possible to make larger gains in GDP by rigidly enforcing copyrights, monitoring all internet traffic, and throwing the book at violators? Would you leave the party?

Oh, peterh, why does every argument need to be so black-and-white?

You were the one who seemed to be suggesting the primacy of economic considerations, unless I misunderstood you. That is fairly black and white.

I don't think reforming copyright will result in a significant reduction in GDP. However, as you ask the question, if there was a really solid economic argument that said rigid copyright would double the nation's GDP, then yes, I would find that persuasive, despite your economics-or-ethics dichotomy. If the nation could be twice as rich, then that would have all sorts of benefits like improved healthcare and improved quality of life and many other things we should care about as human beings. That would outweigh some of the disadvantages of rigid copyright, just like if you asked me would I spend a day in jail for a million pounds, I would say yes, because I'd rather like a million pounds and the discomfort of a temporary loss of liberty would be small in comparison, even though I care a lot about my liberty.

That is a fairly extreme example to take, when the amount of money at stake is only 6.4% of GVA.

If I understand your point of view, then you are saying no amount of change to the GDP should have any influence on an ethical decision. That rather reminds me of those 'every human life is priceless' comments that you hear people say sometimes - and then you discover how little money is spent on digging up landmines in Cambodia because people don't really think every human life is priceless and in fact people spend far more on pizzas and beer and Sky TV and other things that bring them selfish pleasure. Which is not to say that people are wrong, but that few people really live the principles that you seem to have. If you have those principles, good for you. But if you think we shouldn't bother with proper economic analysis (as opposed to silly hypothetical arguments like the one I created above) then I don't agree, because the goal of a political party is to win votes, not to persuade people to conform to an unattainable ideal of how people should think and behave.

I am not trying to persuade people to conform to an ideal, I am trying to stop the government from making them conform to an ideal, i.e. that of the well behaved little consumer.

[epriezka]

What if it is possible to make larger gains in GDP by rigidly enforcing copyrights, monitoring all internet traffic, and throwing the book at violators? Would you leave the party?

Oh, peterh, why does every argument need to be so black-and-white?

You were the one who seemed to be suggesting the primacy of economic considerations, unless I misunderstood you. That is fairly black and white.

Well, I originally said:

I agree with you but only up to a point. Ethics is not separate from economics. Our choices about ethics and freedom are intimately linked to our wealth. A poorer society can make fewer choices than a richer one. For example, with wealth comes choices about who gets what medical care, or how much education people receive, or when people are allowed to retire, or the quality of life for people who are unable to work. Wealth enables freedoms. Wealth makes it possible to make new ethical choices An argument that says something should be done because it is ethical, and that you can ignore the economic consequences, is a backhanded way of saying you don't want to consider the wider ethical dimensions of changes to the economy.

After you said:

Economics is secondary; it is about ethics, about culture, and about freedom.

In other words, I argued that you could not say economics is secondary to ethics, or that ethics is secondary to economics, because ethics and economics are inter-dependent. I don't think you can say I made an argument for 'the primacy of economic considerations' (or for the opposite) because I was arguing against the idea of there being an inherent ranking order in the importance of economics and ethics. In short, I don't like the idea of a general rule that says one is more important than the other, however people would be inclined to rank them in practice. Hence why I came up with examples where there was a small ethical 'price' versus a large economic 'gain', to illustrate that people do not tend to be absolutists in practice, even if they are inclined to endorse absolutist statements like 'all human life is priceless'.