Copyright Policy Working Group

From Pirate Party UK Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

The Copyright Policy Working Group was set up in July 2009. See forum posts here and here.

This page should be edited only by group members. Others are welcome to make their views heard on the talk page.

Contents

Members

Pirate Party Sweden

Policies and Principles

An alternative to pharmaceutical patents

Short, sweet, and simple, without unrelated topics or policies away from the core values.

We should not alienate potential supporters (individuals or organisations) by extending our policies into unrelated areas, which some UK Pirates would not be able to support, and while we may want to discuss future policy direction in much more detail, at this stage I suggest that we do not need to decide on all of the topics listed below, we can make official policy on the most important and the most useful for us at this point, and progress some of the finer detail in future, when people are actually looking at us and we have a real chance of influencing policy and changing legislation. --JohnB 21:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Topics for discussion

  • DRM/TPM. At the moment this is illegal to circumvent - changing this is in the draft manifesto
  • compulsory labelling on DRM'd products - requiring this is in the draft manifesto
    • Perhaps go the whole-hog and make DRM illegal? Vanders 18:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
      • It's an option. Discussion/forum comments please? --JohnB 23:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • format-shifting e.g. CD to cassette or MP3 player. Allowing this is in the draft manifesto
  • time-shifting e.g. recording TV programmes. This would go hand-in-hand with allowing format-shifting
  • Or maybe a blanket legalisation of non-commercial copying? This is in the draft manifesto, and choosing this policy automatically makes format-shifting and time-shifting for personal use legal, as well as allowing non-commercial file-sharing between private individuals, online or offline.
  • What constitutes commercial? If we have a policy of allowing non-commercial copying, including filesharing, will a website that provides indexing of shared files (e.g. of .torrent links), but makes money from advertising (e.g. Google, The Pirate Bay), be legal to operate? What about, for example, YouTube? We should be sure about this, and our candidates know to answer when questioned.
    • On the subject of indexing, should the mere act of indexing or linking to (I.e. distinct from hosting) copyright materials be legal, regardless of the sites commercial status? Vanders 18:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Indexing is really a subset of "contributory infringement" i.e. something that doesn't breach copyright itself by enables others to do so -- Cabalamat 16:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
      • It's difficult to see how indexing would be possible otherwise. Google, and the Pirate Bay, would be legal under this proposal, Youtube and the Video Bay might not be, unless they carry out takedowns according to law. --JohnB 23:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • What will be required for copyright monopoly privilege to be granted? Choices might be:
    • Automatic over any creative work (this is the current legislation)
    • When asserted by the creator/author/publisher (C) All rights reserved (date), or e.g. creative commons (CC) Some rights reserved, this was once the case? Advantage is that not every off-the-cuff comment would be copyrighted, and work produced for love without the expectation of profit would reach the public domain immediately, and people could not be threatened with copyright infringement for redistributing such things (e.g., republishing an email detailing shady practice by a person or organisation).
    • When registered by the creator/author/publisher with a statutory registration office and payment of a fee? Disadvantage is that it requires a quango which will inevitably have an interest in extending/strengthening copyright (same problem applies with collecting societies, they naturally always want to be bigger/more powerful and collect more money).
  • Duration of copyright? Several options:
    • Zero (abolish copyright). Not in the draft manifesto, and other Pirate parties are seeking copyright reform, rather than abolition. It may be that we believe the end of copyright is inevitable, abolition is a much more difficult proposition for our candidates to defend and still be taken seriously, however.
    • Sharply reduced copyright, e.g. to 5, 7 or 14 years. Much easier to argue for (and talk about the problems of long/permanent copyright monopoly), leaves existing commercial enterprises viable (though they still need to adapt, e.g. to file-sharing), and seems to be the favoured option for other Pirate Parties.
    • Allow extension of copyright? This was once the case, that copyright could be extended once if the work was still commercially valuable, otherwise it became public domain after the expiry of the first period. Disadvantage is that it leaves an opening for demands for 'just a bit more extension'...
  • What type of work should be covered by copyright? Current law has different rules, durations, etc for different types of work
    • E.g. books, recordings, downloads, films, software, etc
    • Crown copyright: Since Crown copyright is asserted by the government, over works that are publicly funded for public benefit, we should abolish Crown copyright? (Something like this is already the case in the USA, for works produced by the federal government?)
    • Performance rights? Radio play? Internet radio? Commercial, non-commercial?
    • Software: copyright is effectively infinite on software, as there isn't any old enough to be out of copyright, and 100-year old software may not be very useful. However, if copyright is reduced (e.g. programs 7 years old become public domain), what about DRM/EULAs, and source code? Cannot sensibly create derivative works for a program released without source code, cannot copy/redistribute properly if the program still checks license codes/license servers, but these are things that should be freely possible if the program is out of copyright...
  • Performance rights and collecting societies
    • What will be our view of, for example, the Performing Rights Society? And, what will Pirate Party proposed legislation say about collecting societies such as these?
    • Will organisations whose primary business isn't entertainment or hospitality e.g. not a pub or restaurant, but a car servicing garage, or a factory where the workers have a radio (or play purchased CDs etc that they provide), be exempt from the attention of collecting societies? This could be a populist plank, and good propaganda for us...
    • Will any organisation, have the option to play only out of copyright/public domain/CC-licensed work, or only work licensed directly with organisations other than the PRS (e.g. Jamendo, Magnatune), and therefore not deal with the PRS at all?
  • Moral rights/"droit d'auteur"
    • This is a concept more from the European rather than the Anglo-Saxon idea of copyright. Given that we propose to make copyright duration much shorter, do we need to do anything about moral rights of attribution? E.g. even if an author assigns the monopoly privilege to another, such as a corporation, should they retain a non-transferable moral right to be identified as the author? Further, should that moral right be indefinite, even after the expiry of copyright, so that an author could still demand attribution for works which have passed into the public domain?
  • Should we have a policy on open source software, e.g. encouraging its use by government
    • A closely related matter is open data formats, e.g. we could mandate that all government data be stored on them
      • This is something that I strongly support and want to see as a policy for PPUK, but it doesn't really fall into the remit of this working group does it? Vanders 16:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
      • It potentially is relevant to copyright, if information is in a closed/restricted format then what is the situation when copyright expires on that information? Maybe it can be copied... But the closed format could still be an obstacle, and for example could impede the creation of derivative works. --JohnB 18:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Perhaps you could have some form of scheme whereby data formats used to disseminate copyrighted works have to registered with a central authority, just as you do with copyrighted works & the British Library (Well...sort of). That strikes me as an awfully clumsy way to handle things though. I still think this isn't a Copyright issue per. se. Perhaps we should defer this one to Andy R. before we go any further? Vanders 21:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Effect of copyright reform on open source free software?
    • Something to consider... Copyright reform, as well as affecting commercial organisations, will have a big impact on open-source software, and software licensed under the General Public License. This gains its teeth from copyright, and the implication of a reduction in copyright duration to 5 or 7 years is that anyone, including commercial organisations, could take GPL software of more than that age, and incorporate it into commercial products the way that Apple have done with BSD. Once out of copyright, there is no need for anyone to agree to the GPL or comply with the terms. This isn't necessarily a bad thing (I can make a reasoned argument that it's actually healthy) however it may be an issue if the modified program is only available in closed/binary form after it leaves copyright. We should get an opinion from the Free Software Foundation and Richard Stallman --JohnB 17:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
      • RMS already has a very firm view on this: [1] My understanding has always been that RMS would be more than happy to see no copyright at all, and is happy to admit that the GPL would no longer be required if that was the case. Vanders 17:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Update - RMS has written specifically about Pirate Party policy [2]. In view of this I will be contacting the FSF to advise that we in the UK are presently discussing policy, and see what response we get. --JohnB 11:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Trademarks

Not much for us to say here, the draft manifesto already says it all from PPUK point of view? Provided that as trademarks are used for the purpose they were intended, clarity and honesty in business and trading, and not misused as a kind of 'copyright-lite' to restrict any use of a word/phrase/logo etc, even when referring to the company or product in question, perhaps in criticism, or if a word/phrase is being applied in common usage rather than in any business or commercial context.

Copyright

The following section from the draft manifesto:

When copyrights were originally created, they only regulated the right of a creator to be recognised as the creator. It has since been expanded to cover commercial copying of works and has limited the rights of private citizens and non-profit organisations. This shift of balance has prompted an unacceptable development for all of society. Economic and technological developments have given unjust advantages for a few large market players at the expense of consumers, creators and society at large.

needs to be rewritten, as the history is incorrect - copyrights began as government censorship regulated by the Stationer's Company (1557), and the first recognisably modern copyright law was the Statute of Anne (1709). At least it was that way in Britain, and I understand this country was the first to introduce a copyright law in this form. --JohnB 22:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

We should also look at this section, from PPUK Stance on current legislation:

Immaterial laws are a way to legislate material properties for immaterial values.

it's very unclear phrasing, better removed or restated more clearly.

I see this came from the detailed principles document of the Swedish party. However, it was part of a full paragraph, reading: Immaterial laws are a way to legislate material properties for immaterial values. Ideas, knowledge and information are by nature non-exclusive and their common value lies in their inherent ability to be shared and spread.

If we keep it, it really does need the second sentence to make sense. --JohnB 22:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Patents

Presumably we will also look at this in this group? The draft manifesto section on this area seems good and reads nicely, however.

The manifesto only seems to cover software & other "ideas" patents. Should Patents of physical devices be retained? If so, should the patentable term be reduced, as with Copyright? Should the patent holder have the right to extend the term of the patent? Should the original requirement to provide a working prototype of the physical device be re-instated? If Patents are retained in any form, should there be a public-review period to allow feedback of possible prior-art, or to challenge the application on the basis of patentability? Vanders 15:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, relevant to the patent area, which I think we want to take under our remit in this group, do we expect to still allow the ownership/licensing of a data format (e.g. MP3), or do we rather want to say that reverse engineering/independently creating a codec/interpreter/parser that can read a data format is legal? We may want to say more than just government data should use open formats, to say that no-one should be charging licensing for implementing the ability to read/write a data format. --JohnB 18:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

  • I think that would be difficult to handle that in legislation. By it's very nature a patent is publicly available, so how could one determine if an implementation was "independent" or not? Vanders 21:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    • If we propose to abolish patents, there is no legislation left to have difficulty with, nor a need to maintain a patent office (with an inevitable interest in its own existence). Anyone, commercial or not, could create software able to read/write a format, only thing they wouldn't be able to do would be to directly reuse/reengineer an existing implementation that was still in copyright. At least not until the copyright expired, which would not be that long under our proposals. I note that Swedish Pirate Policy is indeed to abolish patents, while we don't have to follow everything our European cousins do, if we propose to do anything substantially inconsistent with existing European pirate organisations I'll be looking for a well-reasoned justification of why we're doing that. --JohnB 17:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Then that would be the status quo. Right now there is nothing I am aware of that makes it illegal to implement or reverse engineer software in order to build an independent implementation that can interoperate. The only time that becomes a problem is if the original implementation is covered by patents, but as you say, if there were no software patents, that becomes a non-issue. Perhaps all that's really needed is to codify the right to reverse engineer & create an independent implementation into law more clearly? Vanders 17:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Patent theory

Theory behind hardware patents is that the inventor discloses physical implementation of the idea, so that it is not lost, and becomes available to the public for reimplementation within a reasonable time. This only works if the patent declaration is complete and sufficient enough for a practitioner skilled in the art to recreate according to the provided instructions.

Soft patents, method patents, idea patents, organism or pharmaceutical patents, Pirate parties in Europe generally oppose.

Hardware patents are arguable, there exists some historical evidence that patents of any kind are not helpful however, e.g. the Wright brothers achieved the first powered flight, and then spent decades in court protecting patents such as wing-warping for attitude control, rather than improving aircraft design, while the real innovations happened in France where these patents weren't applicable. Another possible example is steam engines, with Watt and Newcomen designs, competing patents and James Watt being occupied with lawsuits rather than designing a better steam engine, and combinations of good ideas being legally impossible due to patent restrictions, until they expired when power ratios suddenly jumped by orders of magnitude in a patent-free condition. Am I wrong? (citations useful, please edit in...) --JohnB 23:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Something that struck me tonight, as I watched "Dragons Den": a women, who was a single mother, had developed a fabulous device for pulling cables though a cavity wall (very common here in the UK) It was so good, *I* would have bought two. In fact, I wish it was available six months back when I needed to do exactly that! It was a great device, she had secured a patent on it, and she ended up securing a great investment from the Dragons. She was precisely the sort of person Patents were designed to help. We should bear people like her in mind. Vanders 00:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Trade secrets

Trade secrets have the advantage that if someone independently invents an idea, they may share it, benefit from it, and it becomes publicly known. The disadvantage is that a corporation may hide information necessary to innovation, in order to benefit from the monopoly, which reason is the argument for allowing hardware patent monopolies given full disclosure of the method. If the corporation or inventor is not immediately successful the knowledge may be lost to our society.

Disadvantage of trade secrets is that once lost, it's lost completely. On the other hand, if the secret is lost and redistributed there may well be no way of determining how or why the secret was lost, whether it was invented independently or discovered through espionage. Historical citations please? --JohnB 23:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Swedish pirate policy

Calls for the gradual abolition of all patents, beginning with soft patents, "ideas" patents, and pharmaceutical patents.

Retrieved from "http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/wiki/Copyright_Policy_Working_Group"
Personal tools
Pirate Party UK