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.