Slashdot Mirror


Ask the UK Pirate Party's Andrew Robinson About the Issues

VJ42 writes "With the 2010 UK general election fast approaching, the Pirate Party of the United Kingdom will be fielding elections for the first time. The Digital Economy bill and ACTA are hot topics for UK geeks, and the Pirate Party is looking to pick up some votes. Their leader, Andrew Robinson, has agreed to answer your questions. Normal Slashdot interview rules apply."

33 of 391 comments (clear)

  1. Forcing authors to lose rights over work by sopssa · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It seems Pirate Party UK's one of the core policies is reformin copyright and patent law so that non-commercial file sharing would be legalized. While certainly a noble goal, shouldn't content producers, artists, programmers, and basically anyone producing something have a right to their work?

    This is not only limited to music, movies or other kind of entertainment - among other things, it also affects open source coders who release their code under GPL. If there weren't copyrights, there couldn't be GPL either, nor Creative Commons Attribution, No Derivative Works and Share Alike licenses. In this exact case copyright is used to allow the author to make sure he is attributed and his work isn't misused.

    Wouldn't the world be less controlling if the authors actually had some saying over their works instead of being forced to lose control over their work?

    1. Re:Forcing authors to lose rights over work by Locklin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I bet you would find a rather large number of people who think that, for example, making a mix tape is entirely ethical and should be legal. Lots of people don't agree that artists should have ultimate control over their work. Also, who is being *forced*? not giving artists the privilege of ultimate control over the use of their published creations is not *forcing* them to do anything.

      I hate that GPL argument. Sure it's technically correct, but the GPL was written with the intent of subverting copyright using it's own rules. The GPL would be unnecessary, and would most definitely not be common had the copyright system been much more lax during the last few decades.

      --
      "Knowledge is the only instrument of production that is not subject to diminishing returns" -Journal of Political Econom
    2. Re:Forcing authors to lose rights over work by FeepingCreature · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No.

      :)

      Basically, I disagree with everything you said. No, you shouldn't be able to retain permanent control over an idea. No, saving the GPL is not worth perpetuating our current broken copyright. And no, a world with drastically reduced creator control over their "intellectual property" would be on the whole far less controlling, instead of more.

      Besides, how often does the GPL come up in non-commercial cases?

    3. Re:Forcing authors to lose rights over work by marcansoft · · Score: 4, Informative

      Here's how it (roughly) works over here (Spain):
      - Audiovisual works can be shared noncommercially, but we pay levies on all kinds of media and copying devices (CD/DVD-Rs, hard drives, media players, cellphones)
      - Software is protected and P2P sharing of software is not legal

      Now, there's a huge SNAFU going on here with our RIAA-equivalent (the SGAE), who are lying bastards and cheaters, the levy system isn't ideal (many people get charged who don't use P2P, and the devices/consumables that get levies are just stupid - I think it'd be better to charge levies on internet connections instead of consumables and devices), and the way the levies are distributed is completely backwards (SGAE execs have been known to use some privately, transparency is nil, and small artists get squat). Nonetheless, the basic premise isnt all that bad: legalize audio/video/book file sharing, but impose some reasonable sort of cash stream from the people very likely to use P2P to the people who very likely have their works shared.

      You also need to realize that legalizing file sharing does not imply removing all copyright. All it says is that sharing copyrighted files is fine (authors have less control over how their work is distributed noncommercially), but it doesn't imply licenses are invalid: You still can't produce a GPL'd derivative work and not provide source, you still can't violate the attribution/share-alike/non-commercial provisions of Creative Commons, etc. I don't think anyone is seriously arguing that copyright should be abolished - there's a huge difference between that and just making the usual P2P scenarios legal.

    4. Re:Forcing authors to lose rights over work by mpe · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I hate that GPL argument. Sure it's technically correct, but the GPL was written with the intent of subverting copyright using it's own rules.

      "Subverting" in this context meaning more of "back to basics". Considering that it originated from the US and the US Constitution is quite specific on what "copyright type" things are ment to do.

    5. Re:Forcing authors to lose rights over work by erroneus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Should creators have rights over their work? Yes. For a limited time. The problem is that the time is no longer limited and it is not the creators who are asserting rights, but huge third parties who are small in number. Small numbers of players in a marketplace means the consumer is screwed.

      Mickey Mouse should have been free LONG LONG ago but is not. Much very old music such as "happy birthday" is still being used as a weapon against people everywhere instead of being released to the public as it should have been long ago.

      The problem isn't that authors are being forced to lose control of their work -- it's that they are not. Worse, the authors ARE being forced into losing control of their work in favor of large copyright publishers.

      Your idealism in in some of the right places, but to see the problems, you have to first see reality as it is practiced.

    6. Re:Forcing authors to lose rights over work by mdwh2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I agree - politics basically works by middle ground. In many cases, it's an argument to moderation fallacy, and it's poor for many reasons (including the fact that it rewards people for taking extreme positions), but despite being a fallacy, it's how politics works.

      If some people say "Copyright should be life plus 70 years, be extended whenever Mickey Mouse might become public domain, we should have laws criminalising telling people how to circumvent protections even if you legally bought the material, and anyone suspected of downloading should be banned from the Internet", and on the other hand you have an already compromising and reasonable stance, say, "Copyright should last 50 years, and maybe some of these other laws are too strict", what will happen? We won't get "Ah yes, the latter guy talks sense", instead at best will be a compromise between those two positions.

      Also it's worth remembering that even the Pirate party's "extreme" position still believes in copyright for commercial use (IIRC, 10 years for the UK party?) The OP refers to the GPL, but most outrages of GPL violations seem to be about commercial use, in my experience.

    7. Re:Forcing authors to lose rights over work by mdwh2 · · Score: 5, Informative

      making a mix tape is entirely ethical and should be legal

      Indeed, take for example UK artist Lily Allen - she believes that people who download are thieves, and was a vocal support of UK plans to disconnect people suspected of downloading. But even she seems to think it's fine to distribute mix tapes, on her record company's website, using other artists' material, in order to promote her own commercial material...

    8. Re:Forcing authors to lose rights over work by mdwh2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In addition, they still have other terms we have to agree to like EULAs and terms of use.

      The only plausible argument for EULs being a valid contract is based on copyright: namely, you need permission to even copy it from disk to memory, so you'll be committing copyright infringement if you don't accept the licence.

      So if it was no longer copyrighted, you could simply use it without accepting the licence.

    9. Re:Forcing authors to lose rights over work by mdwh2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      which the buyer then can copy and sell as many times as he wants

      No, that wouldn't come under non-commercial.

    10. Re:Forcing authors to lose rights over work by Gavagai80 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you take such an extreme view, it makes it easier for opponents to dismiss your group as dangerous extremists and prevent you from getting invited to the table at all.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    11. Re:Forcing authors to lose rights over work by init100 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Frankly, if I had to pay an extra $1 on a spindle of CDs or an extra $10 on an iPod and in exchange get the right to download whatever the hell media I want, I (as an American) would gladly take that option.

      In Sweden, we have a levy system, but non-commercial sharing is still illegal, except in a very narrow set of your closest friends and family, where enforcement would be very hard. So you cannot download from people you don't know, but you still pay a levy on blank CDs, DVDs, portable audio players, etc. In addition, you cannot legally get a copy from someone who doesn't have the original.

      When this point is brought up, it is excused with the levy being compensation for the copying between family members and very close friends. If the levy meant that you could download all you wanted, I think far fewer people would have any problem with it (given that it isn't also raised significantly.

  2. The only question... by Jojoba86 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The only thing I want to know is whether or not there are going to be some candidates standing for the pirate party in the general election, and if so in what seats? It'd be interesting to see how well they do.

  3. In Principle vs. Practical by Zombie+Ryushu · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In Principle I really support what the Pirate party works. But in practical sense, there is a left-of-center ground for compromise. Copyright probably needs to go back to what it was around 130 years ago when it was a sane compromise. Now that ever happening in the western world is next to impossible unless there are large scale changes in governments. I'm sorta in favor of the idea that Copyright be fair, not non-existent. And not perpetual, and not in favor of massive IP holder trusts.

    1. Re:In Principle vs. Practical by Twinbee · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm sorta in favor of the idea that Copyright be fair, not non-existent.

      Interesting, I didn't realize there was a middleground - I thought one had to be either one extreme or the other.

      --
      Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
    2. Re:In Principle vs. Practical by 91degrees · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The pirate part is never going to get a seat in a British election (without major electoral reform). They know this. Single policy parties exist because of the spoiler effect. The people who think copyright reform is the single most important issue will vote Pirate. It's up to the other parties to soften their stance a little to make this more palatable to the voters.

  4. Money by Alistair+Hutton · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In a world with no copyright for "non commercial" distribution of work how is anyone who creates a non subscription fee based computer game or e-book supposed to make money given that the work will be freely available on file sharing sites?

    --
    Puzzle Daze is now my job
    1. Re:Money by damburger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why do they have an a priori right to make money in this way?

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    2. Re:Money by pv2b · · Score: 3, Informative

      How would you suggest copyright be reformed?

      This is the UK pirate party's stance on copyrights, as from their front page:

      Reform copyright [...] law. We want to legalise non-commercial file sharing and reduce the excessive length of copyright protection, while ensuring that when creative works are sold, it's the artists who benefit, not monopoly rights holders. [...]

      Do you have another suggestion as for how the copyright system should be reformed that would be more moderate and still effective? Or are you just agreeing with the UK PP without knowing that you are? :-)

      The concept that the pirate party movement wants to dismantle any and all copyright law is a wide-spread misconception. The stance (at least for the UK and Swedish pirate parties) is more moderate than the name might suggest.

  5. PPAU apathy by acehole · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm wondering if you had any trouble getting members for the party as opposed to what is happening in Australia. The pirate party here is suffering from member apathy, no one is going as far to fill out the paper work in order to help the party get the numbers needed to register as a political party. Has the UK pirate party had any similar issues?

    --
    Be you Admins? nay, we are but lusers!
  6. Bring in a 3 strikes law by Xest · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Can we have a 3 strikes for politicians so that when they've been caught with red handed with their hand in the checkout 3 times they're jailed and banned from ever entering politics again so that the likes of Mandelson would never have got to a position where he could single-handedly manipulate the Digital Economy Bill in the first place?

  7. Priorities for spending of funds by jez9999 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why does your treasurer and campaigns officer, apparently under heavy pressure from the likes of Eric Priezkalns, feel that spending almost all of the party funds on the upcoming general election is the right way to go, given that, realistically, the PPUK will not make much of an impact in these elections? Don't you think that the better approach is a long-term one, and blowing all the money available to the party right now on the upcoming elections would be resources badly spent, when they could be better used to garner long-term widespread support/publicity, and apply long-term pressure?

  8. Diluting possible change by TDyl · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Given that we have issues of such national and international importance do you not feel that another party, campaigning on such a narrow platform will only dilute the real change that is needed which is the ousting of labour and the restoration of faith in the institution of parliament and the fact that it should be working for the whole population of the UK and not the vested interests of politicians?

    --
    Todd: I hope it proves as delicious as the farmers that grew them
  9. Since when is autorship transferrable? by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why do people believe that I can give the fact that I wrote a story or a song away? Shouldn't the first issue in any copyright negotiations be that the author's right is non-transferable?

    If author's rights are transferable, the "new author" (a publisher, for example) will not write the sequel to the original book, nor write the next song of the original author. In fact, the author is only discouraged to write anything if somebody else can steal his rights.

    --
    Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
  10. What is your stance on erosion of privacy in UK? by SharpFang · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What is your stance on erosion of privacy in UK? Will your party only follow the path of Intellectual Property rights, or do you plan to fight for freedom of speech, against invasion of privacy online and in daily life, censorship and other vital freedom-related problems.

    --
    45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  11. Naming Rights by Inda · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My mother would never vote for a party called "The Pirate party". An image of Captain Pugwash springs to her mind every time I mention the word.

    Us nerds and geeks get it, but how does The Pirate Party aim to convince normal people that this political party is more than a modern Monster Raving Looney Party?

    --
    This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
  12. Monster Raving Loony Party by GuyFawkes · · Score: 5, Interesting

    (for the yanks, it was and is a genuine political party)

    Knew all the old crew (Sutch, Hope, et al) well, great social events and parties, no hope of ever actually winning, just thumbing your nose at the system.

    Why is the UK Pirate party any different, apart from the lack of great social events and satirical candidate names? Oh, and the lack of any other decent policies to counter the insanity worked by the likes of Harman etc.

    Whereas a vote for the BNP (British National Party, often called British Nazi Party) really would be a protest vote, as more than a handful of seats might actually go to them, and NOTHING would shock british politics more than a notable proportion of the population electing wannabe Hitlers to the House of Commons.

    This is not a troll, this is a serious question.

    --
    http://slashdot.org/~GuyFawkes/journal
  13. The Rest of Your Views & Stances by eldavojohn · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You've quickly gone from forum member to party leader in about half a year. It appears your background is graphic arts and music, not politics. How do you plan to convince your voters that you are competent and qualified? On top of that, your site only lists three core policies. Voting (to me) shows more than support. It shows I am confident in that person or group as leader of my country. As if by voting for you, I genuinely hope you are to be the next Prime Ministers, replacing Gordon Brown. Right now, privacy and copyright are important issues but possibly more important are things like foreign policy that might govern how you feel about the Iraq and Afghanistan wars or about the social programs in the UK. Could you extrapolate on your core issues to give us an idea of how you stand on the other major issues that will be debated among the more popular parties? I agree with you on your stated issues but being a one issue voter can result in disaster for the whole country, do you mind giving yourself more depth than just privacy and copyright?

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:The Rest of Your Views & Stances by Cederic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Your question appears to be based on a flawed premise.

      Do not vote on who you want to be the Prime Minister. Vote on who you want to represent your interests in parliament.

      Yes, it's useful if that representative doesn't present views with which you agree on broader issues (foreign policy, education, healthcare, taxation being the usual suspects) but in reality a PPUK vote isn't even voting in a candidate; it's voting for a given issue ahead of the others.

      If you really care strongly about foreign policy then vote for a candidate that will represent your views. If you care about a range of issues, find a candidate that represents you the best across the range.

      If you find that the three main parties are all corrupt and pushing broadly the same policies, the Greens have no sense of reality, the BNP are a bunch of racist fuckwits and none of the independent candidates have knocked on your door to tell you what they're standing for, then why not vote for a single issue party. If you hate Europe vote UKIP, if you want greater transparency and online rights then vote PPUK.

    2. Re:The Rest of Your Views & Stances by VJ42 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Voting (to me) shows more than support. It shows I am confident in that person or group as leader of my country.

      And this is why we're in the mess we're in. Our politicians are meant to be our servants, not our masters; I don't vote for a leader, I vote for a representative that I can hold to account.

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
  14. Re:Questions by mdwh2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I see the point you're making - but most of those questions are only relevant for a party forming a Government.

    There's no chance of that happening here - I don't mean that in a "they won't get that many votes" sense, but I mean in the sense that they don't have enough people even standing for election. So such a thing is impossible.

    It's still important I think to have policies on a wide range of issues, because if you had one as your MP, you'd still want to write to him, and hope he has an opinion on more than a single issue, and such things would be voted on in the Commons.

    But let's be fair - individual MPs are not expected to come up with solutions to the economy, or immigration problems. (As an aside, I'm not sure what uncontrolled problem you are referring to - although I appreciate that these might be questions asked by your typical Daily Mail reader, so it's useful to have responses to them.)

  15. Let's ask the important stuff! by muckracer · · Score: 3, Funny

    Pirates versus Ninjas...who'll win??

  16. Voting for the BNP is an extremist vote by fantomas · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Voting for the BNP is not a "protest vote" - this is not a warm and cuddly hippy protest option like voting for the Monster Raving Loony Party.

    Voting for the BNP is voting for an extremist party, a party that grew out of the National Front (look all these up on wikipedia) and until they were forced to change by European law this year had as part of their constitution a ban on people that weren't "white" from joining the party membership.

    To my mind that's quite an extreme position for a party to take if it declares its goal to be getting political power, ruling over people of a variety of different ethnic groups. I think voting for the BNP is a dangerous way of expressing your protest at the current political system. The BNP is serious about some of its extreme politics, and is likely to get some seats and have real influence in UK politics if people start voting for them in the misguided belief that they are just offering up a protest to the system.