Drafts talk:Manifesto Proposal

From Pirate Party UK Wiki

If you have a comment to make about a section of the manifesto proposal, do it on this page under the same heading as the section in the proposal. Create the heading if you need to. Headings in this page should be in the same order as on that page. -- Cabalamat 19:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Contents 1 Copyright and Patent Policies 1.1 Copyright to apply to commercial exploitation only. 1.2 We want all copyright durations to be reduced to a fairer length. 1.3 Patents 1.3.1 Pharma patents 1.3.2 Heading 1.4 All the BBC's output will be available online under a Creative Commons or similar licence. 2 Privacy Policies 2.1 We want a full review of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000; 2.2 DNA retention 2.3 We want increased government transparency and accountability 3 Freedom of Speech Policies 3.1 We believe that the Internet is instrumental to freedom of speech 3.2 Support for the development of technologies that will help people of all nations to gain or maintain their right to privacy and to freely exchange cultural ideas without commercial or governmental interference 3.3 We want better Computing education in schools

[edit] Copyright and Patent Policies

[edit] Copyright to apply to commercial exploitation only.

• Personally I don't think this can possibly work practically --Duke 23:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree --Cc 23:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I wrote a starting point for this; exempting private individuals not receiving reward is the clearest way to start. For reference it's worth reviewing here where Creative Commons were looking at the question; our policy is not dissimilar in practical effect from making the default situation equivalent to a CC BY-SA-NC licence (during the period of copyright) and BY (attribution-only) after copyright expiry, and they've put quite a bit of effort and thought into defining what "non-commercial" could or should mean, which we should learn from. --JohnB 13:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oh, not to forget, we may need to consider the transitional period when our proposals are being implemented. --Cc 23:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • International co-operation is also required as our current copyright is built into TRIPS, the EU and WIPO. --Duke 00:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] We want all copyright durations to be reduced to a fairer length.

• I agree and will add, for the record, that a 5 year copyright duration is unrealistic and will be ridiculed by our critics. --Cc 23:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I think you're right, our critics will ridicule us for this -- Cabalamat 19:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Indeed it is; the question is whether it is a suitable start from which to bargain. I think something around 10-20 is most likely. --Duke 00:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You're right, and reducing the term of copyright is not something that we'd be able to do in a hurry. How I see things going is that the order in which Pirate Parties will be able to achieve things is: (1) ensure that copyright law in non-commercial copying is in practice unenforceable and BitTorrent trackers can stay up, (2) make non-commercial copying de jure legal, since that would merely recognise existing pratice, and only after then (3) reduce the term of copyright. Bear in mind that there will probably be thriving Pirate Parties throughout Europe and that will make renegotiating these treaties a lot easier. -- Cabalamat 17:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Also, for "Copyright duration to be reduced to 10 years for open source software" do you think it may be appropriate to emphasize that by OSS we mean all software for which the source code has been made available? --Cc 00:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Er, that's not quite what Open Source means. But yes, you're right the finished document should explain terms that may be unfamiliar to people. -- Cabalamat 17:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Quite possibly, at least for those unfamiliar with the terms. --Duke 00:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Some of the comments on the first two points here do surprise me a little, in that regarding non-commercial exploitation I'd have said that not having that policy would be the impractical choice, as it's "de facto" the case now. With that and with the duration question, it seems to me as fundamental to pirate politics that we would want private individuals/non-commercial activity exempted from copyright, and that whatever duration we aim for it, it should be no longer than necessary, and based on evidence, research, and historical example, for what is sufficient incentive to encourage creativity without creating an entitlement for continuing control and revenue many years later. And we've certainly already proposed a longer duration than 5 years.

I wrote a few thoughts on both these; maybe it's just my opinion, and can be dismissed as such, however I don't really think so, it's just a paraphrase of underlying pirate principles going back to the birth of the movement, and on our front page from day one in the UK. If we don't all agree that to copy and share is a good thing, and that while copyright provides one possible mechanism for commercially rewarding creative effort, it also shouldn't be allowed to restrict freedom of speech and expression for individuals who are not acting commercially, and the sooner creative works can enter the public domain the more it enriches future creativity.

Why should a shorter rather than longer duration be ridiculous? It's certainly a choice that's up for debate, there's evidence already of UK pirates favouring shorter durations. So I'd turn the question round; rather than asking "why a short duration, justify that", I'd say "The natural state of affairs is to be able to copy and share, and any right to control that is a grant. Why should we do it in the first place, and if as a society we choose to grant it, why should it be long rather than short?".

Sorry, didn't sign the above at first --JohnB 19:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

5+5 was voted for as party policy. Whether or not it's sensible or realistic (on both counts I think not) it should be included in the manifesto unless there is another vote. The only alternative is to not have any specific figure and merely say that we want to 'radically reduce the duration of copyright', but that is open to just as much, if not more criticism (i.e. no real policies, just hot air, etc). --Samgower 13:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we should be looking at something like 10+5 if we're still going to retain copyright as it works now. Anything shorter and we might as well go the full way and propose the abolition of copyright (possibly to be replaced with a more open licence?). Anything in-between will just draw criticism from all sides. --AndrewTindall 21:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Patents

Section 1.5 on Patents needs stuff from here and here. i.e. hardware patents on physical inventions only, no software patents, and long-term reform of funding for drug research, replacing the present pharma patent system. The bit about "Small inventors" in the Patents section is dubious, by the way, it was suggested and the idea is nice but not necessarily fully thought through. --JohnB 12:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Update: I brought these in, summarised down to bullet points. A couple of them I'm not sure about practical reality of implementing (working model, compulsory licensing), the idea is nice however. Pharma patents needs a whole section to itself, we're proposing a replacement system for funding research --JohnB 14:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• • Personally I know very little about the patent system or what needs to be done with it, but it may be worth looking through the section of the Gowers Report (found here) on patents. Quite a lot of the recommendations deal with patents and I assume like most of them, they haven't been implemented. There's even one about making format-shifting for personal use legal by 2008... -Duke 13:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Pharma patents

I'm not sure about the %ages presently in the proposed voting options for the "follow the Swedish proposal", seems a bit tricky to get that right. Reading that proposal it seems like 15% is the proportion of revenues spent by pharma companies on research at present; it's estimated that following the abolition of patents that prices will drop by 70%, i.e. only costing 30%. Then the suggestion there is to top with 20% of the current spend directly put to research, resulting in halving the price of drugs and allocating more money (15% -> 20%) to research than at present.

So it needs to be expressed carefully to get it right, don't think it's quite there yet --JohnB 16:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• The present text that says an increase of 15% on the revenue that major drug companies currently spend on research if I'm reading the linked proposal lifted from Piratpartiet correctly should be reworded to read an increase on the 15% of revenue that major drug companies currently spend on research. Then I think it will be right --JohnB 21:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Heading

I suggest changing the heading of "Where patents don't promote innovation, or actively prevent it, we'll scrap them"; it was suggested that this isn't clear, and could be misread to mean that we support one or both of the things we said we'll scrap. I suggest instead: "We will scrap patents that don't promote innovation or that actively prevent it" --Samgower 21:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• I concur with the improved text, shorter is better. --JohnB 00:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] All the BBC's output will be available online under a Creative Commons or similar licence.

This is a risky one for us, if we get it wrong! and bearing in mind that BBC journalists will be reporting on us and won't be unbiased about it!

A reserved/least contentious option could be to go for something like BY-SA-NC? Then we'd be "eating our own dog-food" and sharing with the world BBC output on something similar to the basis that we're also applying to all copyrights within the UK (given non-commercial/individual exemption)... but at the same time BBC Worldwide etc could still sell commercial rights and commercially exploit BBC output in foreign countries. If we just made BBC output free/gratis to everyone in the world, not just UK license-payers, that would open us up to a big public and BBC criticism! --JohnB 14:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

As to what actual license is used "Creative Commons or similar" covers models where license-fee payers gret the content (without DRM & not only streaming) but where foreign broadcasters would still have to pay to broadcast BBC programmes.

I agree that we don't want to needlessly alienate journalists, but if explained correctly, this policy may actually help us in getting the BBC on our side. The BBC, because of the way it is funded, can reasonably put all its stuff on the net for people to watch. Sky, and other subscription-model services can't, because then no-one would pay for the subscription. An incoming Tory government may face pressure (e.g. from Murdoch) to privatise or part-privatise the Beeb, and if the Beeb could point to something that they can do with their current funding model, that they couldn't if they became just another subscription contetn service, it would make privatisation less likely. Furthermore, I suspect that subscription-funded content delivery models may be a long-term losing proposition, so if I worked for the BBC I'd be worried that I might lose my job if the BBC went down that route.

Furthermore, we can use the argument "TV licence payers have already paid to make the content, why should they have to pay again to get a copy?" which I think will play to people's sense of justice and be popular. -- Cabalamat 17:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

We should not be so specific as to determine the actual license they should use. Something like "the BBC should release all new programmes, and, in due course, all archived programmes, under a license that allows the free distribution and reuse of the programme by the UK public, free of 'Digital Rights Management'". --Samgower 13:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

How would this affect any sales of BBC content by the commercial venture: BBC Worldwide? --AndrewTindall 21:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Foreign commercial sales by the BBC should naturally continue to occur under the laws/copyright of that country? I also note PPUK policy applies in particular to non-commercial/private individuals, commercial activity (BBC or otherwise) remaining subject to (limited) copyright protection as now. --JohnB 00:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Privacy Policies

[edit] We want a full review of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000;

• The reason I used the word "guidelines" rather than "rules" in my initial draft policy was that the RIPA is a set of rules laying out how the powers should use. The problem with it is that in some cases they are appropriate to use, in others they are not. DNA sampling is a good case; sometimes, you might want the police to have the power to take a DNA sample of a suspect, but we've seen cases of police forces pulling over drivers "in case they had been drinking" just to get a DNA sample. - Duke 01:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] DNA retention

BBC report on European court ruling that "retaining indefinitely the DNA and fingerprint records of unconvicted suspects is unlawful... storage times for DNA profiles should vary according to the seriousness of the case." Goes back apparently to a "recommendation from the Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers, which was adopted in 1992, about the use and analysis of DNA", I haven't yet found details of that --JohnB 17:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Found it here --JohnB 17:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] We want increased government transparency and accountability

• One assumes that all meetings of officials on government business are already available through FoI requests; they just get denied through the various technicalities an exemptions in that. My original proposal was that they be published (which shouldn't be too hard, presumably they are already published internally) rather than just available on request (which leaves room for all sorts of wriggling out of it). - Duke 01:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Freedom of Speech Policies

[edit] We believe that the Internet is instrumental to freedom of speech

I disagree with the proposal "There should be no censorship. We don't want military, political or corporate interests to stifle free speech on the internet.". Do we really think there should be no controls on military secrets, on detailed instructions for making terrorist bombs, or on child porn? -- Cabalamat 19:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• Quite. I suggest something similar to what we say about privacy; We expect there should be no censorship apart from in exceptional circumstances (such as those listed above). --JohnB 19:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Military secrets are already covered by the official secrets act - the act of making such information available is illegal and the person who does so should be prosecuted. Regarding bomb making and other such information, be wary of starting down a very slippery slope of censorship. If people want to hurt other people they will find a way to do so with or without wikimunitions.org. If you do start banning material on the basis that it might be used by those who will misuse it you will eventually end up banning websites that provide instructions on how to make basic fertilizers. Any proposed reform of laws pertaining to the dissemination of child porn is a very tricky issue which you must be extremely careful with. 82.33.17.58 01:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Support for the development of technologies that will help people of all nations to gain or maintain their right to privacy and to freely exchange cultural ideas without commercial or governmental interference

I suggest: "The Pirate Party will support the development of technologies that will help people of all nations to gain or maintain their right to privacy and to freely exchange cultural ideas without commercial or governmental interference. These will include encryption and anonymisation technologies. For maximum take-up, ideally these capabilities will be available out-of-the-box with every PC sold. -- Cabalamat 16:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

If it's the Party that's supporting the development of these technologies, then we don't need to put it in our election manifesto. Furthermore, I think that mandating that every PC should have this technology is excessive (all browsers already support https, etc). I suggest wording along the lines of "the development of technologies that enable computer users to protect their privacy and freely exchange information must be unrestricted." --Samgower 13:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

If the Party is proposing to support the development of these technologies, then surely we should put it in our manifesto. After all, PPUK is proposing that the public sector (i) encourage such technologies (ii) adopt such technologies themselves (iii) fund the development of them where necessary. We're not proposing to write the code ourselves (though having said that, there's enough Pirates with an IT background that I bet we could). -- Cabalamat 18:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] We want better Computing education in schools

I suggest: "We will encourage the adoption of OSS in schools, so that children won't be reliant on buying a software package from a foreign firm if they want to use what they've learnt." -- Cabalamat 20:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Drop everything after the comma; OSS is developed internationally, at least part of it will be developed by 'foreign firms' or foreign people. Case in point, OpenOffice is lead by Sun. --Samgower 13:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not that it's developed by foreigners that's the problem, it's that for closed source, people typically have to buy the software to use it, which costs them money, and if it's foreign software hurts the UK's balance of payments -- Cabalamat 18:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The balance of payments is a non-issue if you believe in free trade. As Samgower said above, drop everything after the comma. Open source software has many virtues, there is no need to explain any further and particularly not with non-arguments about balance of payments. 82.33.17.58 01:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)