User:JohnB/Pirate thoughts
From Pirate Party UK Wiki
These are just some thoughts I was having about some aspects of our proposed policies, which sometimes we're pressed on or some don't believe could be practical, yet at the same time without these I wonder whether we can really even call ourselves a "pirate party", if we don't espouse such fundamental principles.
Contents |
[edit] Pirate ethos
The underpinning pirate ethos is that to copy, share, and build on what has gone before is a good thing, and which only becomes possible on the expiry of copyright. Indeed, that all creativity happens within and builds on the context of the cultural heritage that went before it. Our very political existence is a rejection of the idea of "ownership", and of moral rights to control onward distribution and derivative works (as opposed to the moral right of attribution). Rather, the reason for copyright is to grant a temporary right, as a financial incentive to encourage the creation of new work, precisely so that it will ultimately become public domain and serve as the inspiration and basis for further creativity, and be distributed and developed further for profit or not, as widely as possible.
[edit] Duration of any copyright and consequent restriction of the freedom to share
The longer the proposed duration, the longer that is restricted, preventing the ultimate purpose of enriching our shared culture and making it available to the widest possible audience. Every day, month, and year of copyright is a restriction of freedom of expression, because the rights-holder can legally prevent distribution and re-interpretation which they disapprove of, with or without reason, and irrespective of financial reward. This ties into the exemption of non-commercial activity from copyright, because if that is not exempt fan-fiction derivatives may be prevented simply because the rights-holder disapproves, irrespective of financial gain or loss. This brings copyright into direct conflict with our core principle freedom of speech and expression.
Therefore it is not short copyright that needs justification; having copyright any longer than necessary is the claim that needs justification, and where the burden falls to provide an explanation.
[edit] Examples I can think of
William Shakespeare: Various works, many based on existing works in his time. Could these have been legally created in his day, if copyright had existed, especially lengthy copyright?
JD Salinger: "Catcher in the Rye", copyright used to attempt to prevent independently written sequel "Coming through the Rye" being released
Margaret Mitchell: "Gone with the Wind", copyright used to attempt to prevent independently written reinterpretation "The Wind done Gone" being released
JRR Tolkien: "Lord of the Rings", how long were film versions delayed in rights battles? How many interpretations, good, bad, or indifferent, might we have had the chance to see and enjoy by now, if copyright had expired much earlier?
Video game The Legend of Zelda, fan-fiction/non-commercial film spin-off suppressed using copyright
[edit] End note
Finally... remember that copyright expiration does not mean that the original author is somehow unable to sell copies, there remains a market, and a premium price-point, for the official and creator-endorsed interpretation, and for endorsed derivatives. The widest production and distribution at lowest cost to the public, and the widest creative freedom, however, comes about when copyright is just long enough to provide sufficient incentive to create in the first place, and no longer than that.