The formation of UK version of the Pirate Party could turn out to be a political development of more than passing interest, both because it may appeal to a section of heavy internet users who are willing to put considerable efforts in to promoting it and its policies, and also because its very existence may help shift the terms of political debate on some issues.
The Telegraph has a good interview with its the Pirate Party’s leader, Andrew Robinson, both covering him and his views at more than soundbite length but also throwing in some scepticism. It also has this rather curious comment:
When pushed for his views of the major political parties, Mr Robinson is at pains to remind me that the Pirate Party UK is apolitical.
An apolitical political party? Hmm.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Michael Meadowcroft: A Liberal of Intellectual Rigour and Uncommon Integrity
Debt-ridden graduates claim they are seen as cash cows
Why non-fiction books need their indexes
Changes in status: Local Elections wrap up
Matt (Bristol)
Hywel
Chloe
Sam Bateman
Kira Collins
106 Comments
Fact is the Pirate Party will appeal to some of our core vote, namely the student vote, so we have to act.
I see this blog as being the first shot in an attempt to rubbish them. We need to step up the pressure on them and blow them out of the water by whatever means necessary. Several seats could be lost or not gained in student areas due to them so we need to blow them out of the water.
Aren’t the ‘apolitical political party’ thought of by many in the country as:
The Libdems
(haha…only joking)
I believe Martin has it wrong. I watched the rash of friends saying they supported the PP – as, indeed, at one level so do I – but to “rubbish them” would only alienate those who support their aims. We need to take on board their (good, imho) intentions and make them our own. Let the PP be a pressure group and throw its weight behind a party with a more realistic change of actually doing something. Us.
I agree with Alison.
The pirate party stand for pretty much everything I want changed about consumer and privacy issues in the digital age and when their formation was announced I was actually, for a few minutes, tempted to leave the LibDems. The issues they raise must be addressed and soon, yet that party won’t solve any of the other problems in our society, which is why the LibDems will still get my vote; the PP would definitely get my 2nd preference though.
I actually think the LibDems should take on board many of their ideas (the ones about increased privacy and decreased surveillance we already do), and should most certainly engage in a good civil debate with them. I can see the pirate party pulling in loads of supporters, and many of them, like me, in the LIbDem demographics . Maybe in the inital hours after the announcement of the PP that “100 new members an hour” figure was right; as those disgusted by politicians and faceless corporations running roughshod over consumer and privacy rights and suing their own customers self-right-and-centre flooded to a party that finally, unequivocally, stood up for them.
I’m sorry to say that I believe the libdems will probably lose the most voters (proportionately) to the PP compared to the Conservatives and Labour. Let’s not encourage that by rubbishing a party I suspect many libdems, at least on general principles, agree with.
There is an opportunity here for the LIbDems as I’m hoping what will mostly happen is that the non-voters of the internet generation will turn to the pirate party and maybe start taking an interest in politics. Hopefully this will lead them to the LibDems when they start looking for more than a single-issue party. We need to encourage that, and if we start slagging off the PP we’ll only be hurting ourselves.
The PP could and should be our ally.
The Lib Dems will lose votes to the Pirate Party because of our policies on issues such as software patents and copyright terms. Lib Dem MPs like Richard Younger-Ross and John Barrett parrot the BPI / RIAA / MPAA lines about copyright violation being directly equivalent to stealing from individual artists makes the party look desperately out of touch.
Perhaps if the party’s policies in these areas were liberal, progressive, and grounded in evidence rather than rhetoric, we would be gaining votes from people who are well educated on the ramifications of copyright and patents in the digital age, rather than losing them to the Greens and possibly now the Pirate Party.
Think martin has it spot on,while we will lose proportionately more to the pp, they will likely be very effective at mobilising non – voters who at a later age will hopefully continue to engage with politics. I welcome them for the sake of politics as a whole if not for the libdems.
This proliferation of single theme parties – ‘Animals Count’ is another one – is a direct consequence of the Mandelisation of the political system, something to which the Liberal Democrats are by no means immune. It should be a big issue for us: how can we get back to our radical, anti-establishment roots and recapture the support of the young and people with political ideals who don’t see them reflected in any of the main parties? Ironically the Pirate Party and Animals Count are also going to take votes away from the Greens.
Theres no reason to think this party will attract more support than any of the other tiny micro-parties that have been launched over the years. Their single issue only appeals to a very small minority, and single issue voting is not that popular at Westminister level anyway.
As to “lots of support on the internet”, I refer you to Libertarianism to see what thats worth.
I would like to see us move closer to many of their ideas, but thats always been my view; its not affected by the emergence of an electoral non-entity.
Can you think on another party that has so many countries involved??
also, what’s the liberal policy the draconian pharmaceutical patents that KILL people??
You, Labour, and the Tories disenfranchised the entire internet generation. Of course we are all going to vote pirate. Half of Westminster can barely use a computer, yet alone engage with our concerns about how the government has caved in to big business and totally eroded our civil liberties.
The entire 18-25 age range is as good as lost to you I’m afraid.
Louis: on the number of countries, I think Libertas was present in more countries, much good though that did them in the European elections.
Simon: you said, “Half of Westminster can barely use a computer”. That’s not been my experience of either MPs or Parliamentary staff. Certainly some can barely use a computer, but in my experience that’s a very, very small minority. I’m curious what your evidence is for that statement?
If we agree with the Pirate Party’s policies, we should adopt them. If we don’t then we shouldn’t. (as it happens I do broadly agree with them)
The electorate, ultimately, will have a choice: vote for a party that most closely matches their views or vote for the party which has a chance of winning which most closely matches their views.
Adopting their policies for tactical reasons would be foolish. Firstly, there is no guarantee that will put them off from opposing us (such is the nature of politics) and they will always shout louder on these issues than we can afford to as we will want to talk about other boring issues like health and education.
Ultimately, I’ve seen too many parties come and go over the years to get too excited about this. I doubt they’ll make much of an impact in the next general election. What is more interesting is whether they become a significant force in time for the next European Elections. I have to confess, I would consider voting for them.
A side note: it has been interesting to see the internal green party splits in recent days, specifically since they concern Open Rights Group luminaries such as Jim Killock and Jason Kitcat, and wonder if the green geeks which have been behind a lot of the Green’s successes online over the past few years might end up sailing with the Pirates.
According to our treasurer, our paid and registered membership will have exceeded the Libertarians by the end of today, and we intend to surpass other minor parties in due course. And there are other indicators to look at, as well, which say something remarkable is happening here. There is already a Pirate MEP, and the German Pirates (who will soon be contesting elections) I’ve seen poll figures of 2% (up from 0.9% in the European elections), a little bit more and under the German system they will be entering their national parliament.
And let me point out very clearly: We are not actually single issue, we have three core beliefs, reform of copyright and patent law, an end to excessive surveillance and monitoring, and individual freedom to communicate and share information and culture. These are fundamental to our democracy and political process, so in a way these ideas flow through to many areas, making us different to previous single-issue parties mentioned in comments.
And lastly; we welcome other parties which might consider modifying their existing policies to be more sensible for the internet age. The Greens are very much better than the LibDems regarding our core beliefs, we do not intend to be sidetracked into discussing (for example) other Green policies, because we have many Pirates who do not necessarily agree with those policies. The same applies to other policies you may have, or for that matter the Conservatives or Labour. At present, we will not get involved in that. However if all the main parties adapted their policies as we have proposed, then there is a school of thought within our party that we would no longer need to exist.
Right now, we are more than a pressure group, or any other ‘single-issue’ party, we WILL take votes away from other parties which do not adopt better policies regarding these fundamental issues of freedom and the ability to share our culture, and we believe that either we will gain enough support to take seats directly (at European level, if not at Westminster unless the voting system changes), and that even if we do not take seats, our membership and taking a significant proportion of votes (and young voters especially) will send a very big wake-up call to established politicians and political movement, that there are real constituents and people, young and old, that you need to listen to about this.
John,
I have a lot of sympathy for what you are doing. As I’m sure you will agree however, our current electoral system makes it extremely hard for parties to break through. How is your strategy going to deal with that?
One of the risks, and this is true of the Greens in a lot of places (it is arguably true of the Lib Dems as well in some places – it was certainly true in the case of Norwich North) is that they find themselves competing for votes not because they have enough support to win, but out of a trainspotterish desire to get a good second or third place. So it is, for example, that we find the Greens are often most hostile to the Lib Dems in places where they are competing for the same core vote. The effect of that the main opposition party, usually Labour or the Tories end up getting an easy ride. The effect is that parties which are openly hostile to your cause end up in a stronger place.
I’m not asking for special treatment; I agree that the Lib Dems should be stronger in these areas and that the Greens already are (although I observe that the people who have been driving that agenda in the Greens currently seem to be drifting away from them). But I would advise you to pick your fights carefully and get distracted playing a crude game of attempting to hoover up as much support as possible in university seats which will ultimately result in you only reaching out to the already converted.
John Barron,
Sorry, but this is serious politics now and you will be portrayed as a single issue party and rightly so. Your position in the political spectrum means you are natural allies of the Lib Dems so why not join us instead of forming a party of your own. You stand for alot of what we believe in. If you don’t then make no bones about it your party will be crushed and we will be, in part, doing the crushing. Sorry but that is real life and politics. Think about it. You need to disband and join the Lib Dems.
Mark: Whilst I may be a bit overbearing with that comment, it is not without foundation. I’m well aware that most of the politicians I speak to are very active on email, Facebook and now Twitter. The Lib dems have been the most well researched, specifically in terms of the proposed national databases and why they are a terrible idea. Whereas the Labour and the Cons see anything digital as super-secure and uncrackable. I was pleased to see the Lib dems talking about net neutrality. However the discussions have really mostly been in blogs and outside of the internet talks on the subject are polluted with party rhetoric.
As a games developer I’m particulary concerned with the patenting of software (Years of manhours are lost in every company I’ve worked at as people have to reinvent the wheel to work around patented areas). As you know the Lib dem MEPs have had a particularly disastrous run in Europe when it comes to this area. The party is disconcertingly vague on the issue, and I perhaps worry that it is because of ignorance on the subject (Rather than some corrupt agenda).
My main concern is that with online piracy the party (Clement-Jones) seem to be towing the governments line. The “governments line” is indeed not its own creation, but a spoon-fed manifesto from several corporate lobbying groups. If 50% of internet traffic in the UK is illegal(UK Film Council) I think the government should be considering why the populace believes that the law is unjust and therefore do not follow it, rather than trying to figure out how to cut off their internet or spy on them.
A lot of commenters here seem to agree with the Pirate Party’s stances on copyright, patents etc. Rather than talk of “crushing”, I feel that we should discuss how we can best attempt to influence Lib Dem policies to be more in line with TPP’s. It’s clear that the party is lagging on these critical issues.
Personally, I’m naturally sceptical of the Association of Liberal Democrat Engineers and Scientists, since it is vice-chaired by the pro-software-patent Sharon Bowles MEP.
Simon: libertas, you must be deeply worried if you’re drawing comparisons with them.
@ the end of the day, its win win for the pirates if anyone adopts their policies. the reality will be in the polls, and while i wouldn’t suggest the PPUK are about to enter the government, i would think the next EU elections would be a strong possibility for us to send a pirate or two to Brussels. its the likes of the liberals that have been responsible for us sending the odious BNP to the EU. Its also your fault for not promoting PPUK policies before. I’m sure fiddling your expenses forms are far more important than tackling civil liberties or Big Business.
ps Predictable nay tedious body swerve on the Pharmaceutical Patent system, that’s killing people everyday.
“its win win for the pirates if anyone adopts their policies”
Not if the PP takes votes away from those adopting parties and allows another party to come through the middle.
Oh James, if only it were true! You said “The electorate, ultimately, will have a choice: vote for a party that most closely matches their views or vote for the party which has a chance of winning which most closely matches their views.” but may I point you at the not insubstantial number of people who *do* vote for minor parties – and independents – knowing full well that they have absolutely no possibility of winning that ballot, let alone getting into any semblance of ‘power’.
The whole expenses thing may well turn people off politics generally, or off what they see as “politicians” (ie careerists in the main parties) and towards minor groupings, but telling them “the bleedin’ obvious” won’t change their decision to vote their desire, nonsensical that it may be.
And yes, Dave, anyone supporting the stupidity of software ‘patents’ should be shown the error of their ways.
Alison, I think you misunderstand me. By saying people have a choice I was not suggesting they would decide to all make the same one. If I didn’t think they had a real choice, I wouldn’t be saying they had a choice now would I?
Living in a marginal Lab-Tory constituency it is a choice I will have to make next year: vote Lib Dem in order to make a “point” or Labour to keep the Tories out (and a particularly batshit crazy Tory at that). Rationally, I probably should vote tactically but I’m not convinced I could bring myself to given my Labour MP.
Is it a crap choice? Absolutely. I’d much rather we had a system where no-one was forced to consider voting tactically. But a choice it is and, as you point out, it is one that hundreds of thousands of people consciously make in each election.
Perhaps the first service the Pirate Party can be said to have done to the Liberal Democrats is to encourage the party website to actually set out our line on the issues at the heart of the Pirate Party’s message. Now if we disagree with the policy line set by conference and in our manifestos then we can change the policy at Conference. That is the difference between us and Labour and the Tories.
What *is* the party line on these issues? I’ve never found anything concrete, and individual MPs seem to have varying opinions. I am comfortable with the attitude of mine (Chris Huhne) and unhappy with that of some of the others mentioned here, but the party as a whole doesn’t seem to have a firm position on the subject.
I’d love to see this raised to the level of actual discussion at the conferences, because it usually seems to slip below the radar.
(I would vote for PPUK in a proportional representation environment; I wouldn’t dislodge Chris for them, but I would some of the other Lib Dem MPs, if I lived in their constituency)
Andrew, I’m told by a Cambridge Lib Dem councillor that the Party passed a conference motion opposing software patents in ~2004. I have no reason to disbelieve him, but haven’t been able to find any record of this to demonstrate to others.
Either way, party policy hasn’t changed the actual behaviour of our MEPs – when contacted, most (including my MEP Chris Huhne) of them defer to the pro-software-patent Sharon Bowles MEP, because she’s a patent lawyer. I know people who’ve left the party over this discrepancy between policy and practice.
Unfortunately, issues such as copyright reform, free software and software patents, despite having massive practical impact on UK business and local government, are seen as and not taken seriously by the party or its elected representatives, with a few notable exceptions like John Pugh. I’m not expecting them to ever take centre stage in our policy portfolio (though they do impact the economy and security, both important policy directions), but it’d be nice if we made our position more clear, and backed it up with action.
Sorry, but we need to smash these people before they take votes off us.
Agreed 100% with Dave here. On these issues, the Pirate Party are right (at least in general – not looked at the specifics of their policies) and rather than reflexively try to ‘crush them’ we should adopt those policies – I think we’re the natural home for people with those views anyway, much as I think we’re the natural home for environmentalists despite the existence of the Green Party.
Incidentally, Mr Baron, assuming you’re still around, what do you think of Richard Stallman’s criticism of some of the Swedish Pirate Party’s policies as being possibly counterproductive?
@Andrew Hickey,
Yes, I’m still around, we are observing your discussion with interest, glad to see that we’ve woken you up and it’s having an effect 🙂
Regarding Richard Stallman’s question/criticism, we recognise the issue which he raises, and we are incorporating that into our detailed policy discussion, which is currently in progress. I’ve exchanged a couple of emails with him (he is a bit spikey to deal with, even when you’re trying to engage with him!).
However, while a lot of our activists may be free software enthusiasts, and the principles behind copyleft do tie into our core beliefs, we are the Pirate Party, and we will want policy that deals fairly with both open and closed software, both are affected by proposals to reduce copyright, because it means that software will now be falling into the public domain while it is still useful, which doesn’t happen under today’s laws. So we need to address that, and we are discussing possible policy options.
I’ve got to say, John, that even though the discussions might not have been visible to you, I’ve been talking about the issues raised by the Pirate Party within a Liberal Democrat context for quite a while.
I also wouldn’t think that getting a comment thread going on Lib Dem Voice is a particular victory – LDV is read my a tiny minority of Liberal Democrats, and doesn’t really represent the opinion of the party. There’s a lot of bitching and moaning that goes on here, but very little practical action as a result of it 😉
You haven’t ‘woken us up’ so much as walked into a discussion that was already in progress – I know that Dave Page in particular is a *huge* advocate of many of the policies being talked about here and has pressed for many of these measures to be adopted by the party.
And Martin, rather than ‘smash them before they take votes off us’, why not try ‘see which, if any, of their criticisms of us are valid, and respond to those criticisms, so they won’t take votes off us anyway?’
The Pirate Party are going to be a niche party, probably significantly less of a threat to us than the Greens (though more so than the Libertarians), and while I naturally think they’d be much better off joining us and working within the Lib Dems to put forward their views, those views *are* the views of a large portion – probably a majority – of our supporters, including myself, and if we had a clearer line on those issues then we wouldn’t have to fight them at all, as they’d only take votes away from parties that *didn’t* have such a line.
Dave Page: A lot of commenters here seem to agree with the Pirate Party’s stances on copyright, patents etc. Rather than talk of “crushing”, I feel that we should discuss how we can best attempt to influence Lib Dem policies to be more in line with TPP’s. It’s clear that the party is lagging on these critical issues.
Indeed, the person who make the “crushing” remark was being stupid. As a PP member (and former Liberal Democrat, incidently) I’d like to see the Lib Dems adopt sensible policies in these areas.
Personally, I’m naturally sceptical of the Association of Liberal Democrat Engineers and Scientists, since it is vice-chaired by the pro-software-patent Sharon Bowles MEP.
The impression I get is a lot of Lib Dems have sensible views on the PP’s core issues,. Bowles clearly isn’t one of them.
I would like to see PPUK working together with other parties where it’s possible (I’ve written here about possible co-operation with the Lib Dems).
Martin: The pirate party stand for pretty much everything I want changed about consumer and privacy issues in the digital age and when their formation was announced I was actually, for a few minutes, tempted to leave the LibDems.
If you don’t want to join PPUK, but care about these issues, may I suggest you join ORG? They do a lot of good work.
I actually think the LibDems should take on board many of their ideas (the ones about increased privacy and decreased surveillance we already do), and should most certainly engage in a good civil debate with them. I can see the pirate party pulling in loads of supporters, and many of them, like me, in the LIbDem demographics. I’m sorry to say that I believe the libdems will probably lose the most voters (proportionately) to the PP compared to the Conservatives and Labour.
I agee with this analysis.
There is an opportunity here for the LIbDems as I’m hoping what will mostly happen is that the non-voters of the internet generation will turn to the pirate party and maybe start taking an interest in politics.
That will probably happen, loads of people have said to me “finally a party I can believe in”.
Hopefully this will lead them to the LibDems when they start looking for more than a single-issue party.
This will depend in part on the Lib Dems’ policies. Do you think Labour’s plan for a £50,000 fine for copying a £1 mp3 is fair? Do you think people should be cut off from the internet (and hence the modern world) on accusation of filesharing? Do you favour idiotic software patents, or pharmaceutical patents that kill people in poor countries? Do you think filesharing should be illegal? If the Lib Dems answer yes to these questions, many PP supporters will (rightly IMO) think of them as just another of the old discredited dinosaur paties.
The PP could and should be our ally.
Maybe.
“You, Labour, and the Tories disenfranchised the entire internet generation. Of course we are all going to vote pirate. Half of Westminster can barely use a computer,…”
Typical self-satisfied complacency of the internet generation. Half of the British people can’t use a computer but hey, they’re boring fuddy duddies, who gives a toss about them?
“…both because it may appeal to a section of heavy internet users who are willing to put considerable efforts in to promoting it and its policies…”
Just like the Libertarian Party, then. Chortle chortle.
Speaking for myself here…
“Do you think Labour’s plan for a £50,000 fine for copying a £1 mp3 is fair?”
No.
“Do you think people should be cut off from the internet (and hence the modern world) on accusation of filesharing?”
No.
“Do you favour idiotic software patents,”
No.
“or pharmaceutical patents that kill people in poor countries?”
I’d favour *very short-term, country-specific* patents for pharmaceuticals, so companies that genuinely innovated could make a profit short-term, while poorer countries wouldn’t be penalised. I certainly don’t favour the current situation.
“Do you think filesharing should be illegal?”
Depends.
Some way needs to be found to compensate the authors of the files shared. Various means could be found to do that (e.g. a broadband tax with the money being distributed to the authors of shared files). I’d like to legalise *non commercial* copying and sharing, while still retaining rights for authors to commercially exploit their work (and control moral rights, so for example the Conservative Party couldn’t use a song I wrote in their campaign ads, assuming they would ever want to), and I’d also like to see the term of copyright vastly reduced.
Without rewriting international copyright treaties, though, which would take a *lot* of work, I can’t see any way to legalise file-sharing of copyrighted work, so I’d suggest decriminalisation – a non-prosecution policy.
WHS – exactly. Talking about politics online can be a useful way of clarifying one’s own opinions or getting information, but seems fairly useless as a campaigning tool. Certainly I’ve got more actual votes for the Lib Dems in a single day of going round canvassing door-to-door or telephoning than in years of blogging…
“… we need to smash these people …”
Nice.
“Do you think Labour’s plan for a £50,000 fine for copying a £1 mp3 is fair?”
I don’t think such a fine would be fair – but I doubt it would happen in practice (£50k is I assume the maximum and I can’t see you getting a jury to convict for copying a single £1 mp3. In fact it might become analagous to the situation with Obscene Publications Act prosecutions pre the R18 certificate. People wouldn’t convict as they couldn’t see what the offence was in uncertificated but fairly mainstream porn movies.
“Do you think people should be cut off from the internet (and hence the modern world) on accusation of filesharing?”
It is perhaps worth considering whether termination of internet access needs to be treated in the same way as termination of other utilities – it might seem excessive but as we move to some government services only being available online it takes on greater importance (and is thus different from connection to the phone network)
“Do you favour idiotic software patents,”
Not the most balanced of questions 🙂
“Do you think filesharing should be illegal?”
I think this is the question at the nub of this. Like Andrew I basically I start from the principle that the producer of a piece of work is entitled to the rewards from the fruits of their labour so you need some sort of copyright system, and you also need some sort of “author’s rights” over use of their work.
That does mean a no copyright, free for all system isn’t practical.
A lot of the problems AIUI stem from the fact that the authors of the work don’t often own the copyright of those works (eg Paul McCartney/Michael Jackson/Sony).
I also don’t think that a “non-commercial file sharing is fine” approach is totally justified either. I could set up a non-commercial sharing set up with the intent of depriving an author of the (legitimate) fruits of their labour. With other criminal areas the intent or otherwise to make a return for yourself isn’t relevant so I’m not sure it should apply in this situation.
@Philip Hunt
I have been.. for a couple of years now 🙂
As to the rest of your post.. you’re preaching to the choir. The reason I don’t leave the lib dems is because I also want voting reform, I want a curb on religious indoctrination (i.e faith schools) and increased secularism in politics; and masses of other stuff as well (tax reform, environment, westminster reform etc). There’s lost of things I want changed and the lib dems are my best option of getting most of them changed to something much closer to sanity, than either the cons (what a great name for them, a literally true abbreviation 🙂 ) and nulabour.
As to your individual questions.. c.f. Andrew Hickey’s answers. I second all of them. Only adding that copyright infringement isn’t a crime, it’s a civil offense (unless labour have made yet another thing illegal) and prosecution for non-commercial file sharing, even in civil courts, should be prohibited.
I think Sharon Bowles is very wrong on software patents. I hope her line does not spread to the UK party. I will certainly be fighting against it.
I think the attitude of most MPs (of all parties) and the govt is influenced by the pragmatic thought that the UK needs to protect its IP of all kinds, for the simple reason that they have destroyed most of the rest of UK industry apart from Pharma, Hi tech and media. The BPI and others are pushing at an open door.
Its not an attitude I agree with by the way.
@ Andrew Robinson:
“Firstly: reforming the copyright and patent laws in the UK . . .
“Secondly we want to help end the excessive surveillance of citizens . . .
“And thirdly ensuring all UK citizens do have proper freedom of speech – both online and in real life . . .”
So 2/3 of your raison d’etre is covered by at least one major UK political party (which also has a proper political programme – unlike the PP); and the remaining 1/3 has a considerable amount of sympathy in said major UK political party.
So, why do you exist again? What exactly are you hoping to achieve?
Martin K,
I’d be very interested to learn how you envisage this “smashing” to work. Is this some kind of Militant smash-their-windows-and-threaten-their-children strategy you are proposing or something involving gamma radiation and green skin?
All of these people who condone file sharing and depriving the rightful owners of income, i’ll tell you what we’ll all do.
We’ll go round to your banks and steal all of your money, and come round your houses and steal your gold and jewellery; claiming that all property is theft and owned by us all. Total bollocks!
If people want to make their property free to copy they just say, but otherwise someone has to pay. End of!
And to be honest (as far as i believe) it is the ISP’s and mobile companies that are breaking the Law by the act of circumvention with regard to CDPA (2003)
The Government should be taxing them, and also blank CD’s and hard drives to compensate copyright owners.
Here is the nub of the philosophical problem that underpins filesharing. If I lend a book to a friend, I may be depriving the copyright holder of the potential to make money from selling that book. If I invite a friend to my house, so he can watch a football on satellite TV, a match he could not watch at home, I may be depriving the owner of the content some potential to make money from selling the broadcast. Every day, for hundreds of years, people have done things that may, potentially, reduce the revenues earned by the owners of content rights. However, we have long considered these actions to be moral and virtuous. When the owners of great houses allowed the local community to use their private libraries, this was considered a civilized act of charity, not an attempt to deprive publishers of income.
We know that technology has changed the potential to share, most importantly because the content is now divorced from any physical medium. The analogy of stealing is false. Thieves do not break into your house and copy your jewellery, leaving the originals behind. They take something from you. Filesharers, on the other hand, do not take. They make a copy. The truth is that now people are prepared to share far more widely, with complete strangers, because it costs them nothing to do so. However, the act of sharing would be identical if it was sharing an entire music library with a complete stranger on the other side of the planet, or sharing a single e-book with a next-door neighbour. The technological and legal aspects are identical. We can understand that we live in a society that thinks it is wrong to share a music library with a complete stranger on the other side of the planet, but believes it is good that we share a book with a neighbour. The polarized debate about right vs. wrong simply ignores the fundamental issue: that legislators have proven incapable and unwilling to creative a framework that reconciles and accommodates both extremes. No government anywhere has been able to coherently adjust laws to allow for the act we generally consider virtuous whilst prohibiting those thought to be harmful. The result is a terrible fudge. All sharing is a violation of civil law, including sharing an ebook with a neighbour. However, some actions are ‘decriminalized’ not because of a choice of the state, but by a reliance on the copyright holder’s goodwill and lack of interest in pursuing damages. This leads to a new and intolerable conflict within our legal and ethical outlooks.
This is as much a problem for the LibDems as it is all other parties, because no party has been able to form and articulate a coherent position that explains why denying a copyright holder the potential to earn revenue is considered to be virtuous in some cases, evil in others. Technology has moved the debate forward, but our understanding of how to live in a civil society has not. I hope that you can put aside the natural tendency to petty party political squabbling and deal with this issue head-on, instead of just burying it in overly simplistic maxims about right vs. wrong, which has been the trend for most politicians. I believe the popularity of the Pirate Party movement around the world stems from the failure to address the fundamental paradox that we consider sharing to be virtuous whilst denying others an income is wrong. There may never be a perfect solution, but a mature political party that tries to explore workable compromises will be doing everyone a favour, and earning themselves credit in the process.
“We can understand that we live in a society that thinks it is wrong to share a music library with a complete stranger on the other side of the planet, but believes it is good that we share a book with a neighbour.”
But of course your “sharing a book with a neighbour” analogy is also fallacious.
In order to share the book with a neighbour, you have to deprive yourself of it. There remains only one copy of the book. You are not making a copy, so you are not in breach of copyright.
A better analogy would be if you photocopied the book and gave it to a friend. But then, of course, you would be in breach of copyright.
CAPTAIN BLACKBEARD here,we of the pirate party have come to the lib dem voice to kidnap the illiberals of this site(99%),you lib dems with your beards and your sandles will be pretty much at home on the good ship pirate.I say leave the illiberal party and join the progressive fighting force in pirate politics.Ahoy to all my liberal livered new ship mates,lets anchors away and blow the illiberals out of party politics bullsh*tting.
I was going to post a comment (with links to sources so you could check up yourself), but the comment system says I’m a spammer… so.. tough, you’ll have to do without.
I was earth shatteringly good.
The claim to be apolitical is a political stance in itself, so they are either naive or deceptive.
I also agree that the Pirates aren’t a single-issue group (they have three isues), therefore neither are they a party – they are a faction, and their existence is evidence of splintering across the political spectrum.
They have some well-meaning aims and I am happy to join a campaigning coalition with them, but they don’t even pretend that they could start to form a government, so as a general electoral option they don’t register – particularly not while we have FPTP. Perhaps they will join us in promoting electoral reform…
In the long run I think the existence of a vibrant and dynamic democracy with new parties constantly springing up is a big positive for liberalism and our party – participating in the political process is a fundamental tenet of liberalism and should be encouraged at every turn.
Libdem “Guru” said “All of these people who condone file sharing and depriving the rightful owners of income … We’ll go round to your banks and steal all of your money … If people want to make their property free to copy they just say, but otherwise someone has to pay.” whereas Eric gets it right. There is an edge case though, which is that of television programmes.
I don’t download music or films (other than paid-for) but I see TV as different. When it is broadcast free-to-air then there is no fee payable to watch it so, I would argue, there should be no prohibition against downloading it – much as once upon the past we would ‘tape’ a programme and lend it (or dupe a copy) to a friend. The costs have already been covered by the initial broadcast, so there is no direct loss of income. Indeed, if you were to argue that it may detract from eventual DVD sales I note that many people (including myself) will then *buy* those once they become available so they can have a higher-quality experience.
Before the internet it didn’t matter that each country say the same series at a different time, sometimes years after it was originally broadcast in its ‘home’ country. Now, though, we have friends around the globe and keep in touch with them in near to ‘real time’ and those conversations mean that we now easily get ‘spoilered’ for the storylines of the shows we follow but haven’t reached our own country yet. The only option, therefore, is to download.
As to Herbert’s breach of copyright issue for any sharing, I’ll take you back to the 1953 coronation. That day people threw open the doors to their front rooms and invited in friends and family to watch the BBC coverage. A programme shared is not a copyright halved.
Alison
I very much doubt that anyone objects very much to the copying of free-to-air TV programmes that aren’t available on DVD. That’s hardly what the discussion is about, is it?
Herbert Brown: I very much doubt that anyone objects very much to the copying of free-to-air TV programmes that aren’t available on DVD. That’s hardly what the discussion is about, is it?
Some people do object, they are called Her Majesty’s Government.
The Pirate Party thinks such copying should be legal. Will the Lib Dems join us on this?
“Some people do object, they are called Her Majesty’s Government.”
I did say “objects very much”. Have there been any prosecutions?
Herbert Brown, thanks for demonstrating how many people find it difficult to understand the implications of new technology. You said:
“But of course your “sharing a book with a neighbour” analogy is also fallacious.
In order to share the book with a neighbour, you have to deprive yourself of it. There remains only one copy of the book. You are not making a copy, so you are not in breach of copyright.
A better analogy would be if you photocopied the book and gave it to a friend. But then, of course, you would be in breach of copyright.”
Let us perform a simple thought experiment. Suppose I emailed a copy of an ebook to my neighbour. I delete my version from my computer’s memory. My neighbour reads the ebook, then emails it back. After emailing it back, she deletes the copy from her computer’s memory. So in the end, we have the same net effect as lending a book and it being returned.
Is the scenario in the thought experiment a violation of the contract between me and the supplier? Yes, because the licence for my ebook prohibits that the content be enjoyed by any other person than me.
Is this scenario equivalent to lending a book, in the sense that I was deprived of its use whilst the content was being enjoyed by another? Yes, I could deprive myself of use, and still end up with a copy of the book in the end. In the meantime, my neighbour enjoys a copy that she did not pay for.
Does depriving myself of use of the content somehow make this scenario economically preferable to the copyright owner? No. The rights owner’s economic loss is not based on some artificial evaluation as to how many people were ‘using’ the content at any given time. Depriving myself of use may be a disincentive to my lending, but it makes no difference to the copyright owner, who is solely concerned with the loss of revenue because content has been enjoyed by a potential purchaser, without that person needing to make a purchase. That potential purchaser, because she enjoyed the content for free, may then decide not to make a purchase and hence revenue is lost.
You are confusing the concept of fairness with the idea of being economically rational. Copyright holders, if they are economically rational, lose out by lending just as much as they lose out by copying, if the end result is reduced sales. However, our society considers lending to be fair, whilst copying is unfair. That is because fairness is a horribly inconsistent principle, even at the best of times. As the above thought experiment shows, I can generate a scenario that demonstrates that different rules apply depending on whether the content is shared using a tangible medium or is shared by digital transfer, even though no other material facts are changed. I can also generate a scenario where I can ‘lend’ digital content and hence meet your criterion for fairness (depriving myself of use) whilst still creating the same undesirable result for the copyright holder (loss of revenue).
I ask you to put your thinking cap on, and start thinking about what the purpose of these rules is. Is it to protect the income of the copyright holder, and if so, why is lending ever permitted? Are the rules there to ensure fairness, in which case kindly explain what will be equivalent to lending when we live in a world when all content is digital and hence has been completely divorced from a tangible product? My observation is that the current rules that govern our society are confused and contradictory. One possible outcome, if we are not careful, is that the practice of lending is effectively abolished by the conjunction of technological progress and laws that were designed to protect profits but made no room for normal human behaviour which we all consider to be fair and reasonable.
I will leave you with one other example that, I hope, will make you understand the implications more clearly. When you buy digital content, the content is for your use, and may not be used by anybody else. There is no right to transfer the licence to anyone else. So when you die, the content you purchased cannot be inherited. Is it right to make a distinction where content like music and words can be passed from generation to generation if stored using a physical medium, but cannot be passed from generation to generation if it was supplied digitally? How does this distinction support an ideal of fairness? How does making this distinction benefit our society?
Philip Hunt:
The Pirate Party thinks such copying should be legal. Will the Lib Dems join us on this?
Would it actually make any difference if we did? Specifically, would you decline to campaign in areas where the Lib Dems have a chance of winning or not? Even in places such as Oxford and Cambridge where you will surely do very well (at our expense)?
I’ve asked this question several times now, in different forms, but no-one seems to have an answer.
Eric
You’re not really trying to tell me that placing a copy of a book on the Internet – where it can be freely downloaded by thousands, or perhaps even millions of people – is no more damaging to the author’s interests than one person lending a copy of the book to someone else?
I think you must be pulling my leg.
No Herbert, you’re the one pulling my leg. I try to point out the inconsistencies in how the laws work, and the consequences for not just now but for the future, and you come back with a simplistic answer that makes Gordon Brown’s diktats seem well-considered. Are you trying to be like a traditional politician – stick your head in the sand and the problem disappears?
By the way, notice how my example talked about emailing a book, not putting it on the internet. Technologically much the same, legally identical, impact very different. Are you trying to say, in a round about way, that copyright infringement is okay if done on a small scale, but not on a big one? It would be interesting to see a Lib Dem politician try to explain that in public.
But keep doing what you are doing Herbert. I do not wish to persuade you. I only wish to point out your inconsistencies to everyone else. Despite the other comments on this page, so many people will not trust a party like the Lib Dems to actually respond to issues like this. Your response is what I was secretly hoping for – an admission that Lib Dems are no more inclined to understand the issues, despite the inevitable protestations that they really do care, all those fatuous claims that they really do ‘get it’ in contrast to the terrible Tories and lousy Labour. So keep doing what you are doing Herbert. It’s so much easier to switch your brain off and plan to do nothing than actually promote a legislative agenda to fix this terrible muddle. With some luck you’ll reap your just rewards at the ballot box.
By the way, I used to be a Lib Dem you know. I got tired of all the muddled thinking in what the party supposedly stands for. I see nothing much has changed. Liberalism used to be a political philosophy, you know. John Locke, J.S. Mill, Karl Popper – people with great minds who saw things clearly. Now British Liberalism is just a home for people who cannot work out what they stand for. How sad.
James Graham: Would it actually make any difference if we did? Specifically, would you decline to campaign in areas where the Lib Dems have a chance of winning or not? Even in places such as Oxford and Cambridge where you will surely do very well (at our expense)?
I am on the national executive committee of PPUK, however I do not have the authority to make a deal like that. (Nor indeed do you have the authority to make a deal on the part of the Lib Dems, AFAIK).
What I can say is that if a party offered us a deal, we would consider it seriously. Of course, if other parties want PPUK to stand down in some seats to help them, we would be more likely to agree to such a deal if the other party was also prepared to stand down in some seats in favour of PPUK.
Eric
“Are you trying to say, in a round about way, that copyright infringement is okay if done on a small scale, but not on a big one?”
No. I’m saying that lending someone a book has nothing whatsoever to do with copyright infringement, because it doesn’t involve making a copy.
Surely it’s not that hard to grasp?
@Eric
Actually, making books available on the internet for free for millions to download is good for authors.
Don’t believe me? Read the words of an author (one of dozens) who did just that: http://www.baen.com/library/palaver6.htm and he puts is royalty figures online for all to see.
Unlike the fabricated stats the music and films industries keep spouting about lost sales where there is zero evidence that anyone would have bought the music anyway; those authors have actually put real, hard, actual facts about their increased royalties online. Proof that giving stuff away for free increases sales. Read some of the essays they’ve put up.
Then check out the free library. A publisher who has dozens of books (from top selling, award winning authors) available for free to download. Guess what… the authors are making increased profits because of it. They give away CDs full of ebooks with their hard-cover books and encourage people to give copies to other people. They are even available to download (do a search for baencd and fifthimperium) with the publisher’s full endorsement and support.
Every free e-book read is a future fan or someone who would never have bought the book anyway. Well, if the book weren’t there free to download or you sued the people that read them, you’d never get those new fans or the new sales.
“No. I’m saying that lending someone a book has nothing whatsoever to do with copyright infringement, because it doesn’t involve making a copy.
Surely it’s not that hard to grasp?”
In case anyone out there is wondering, Herbert is not a sockpuppet I created. If I was creating a straw man, I promise I would make it a tougher opponent than Herbert. As far as I can tell, Herbert genuinely thinks he is engaged in some form of debate. I, however, am a loss at how to respond to him. Let me have a go…
Yes, Herbert. You don’t need to copy a book in order to share it, because it is a physical object, but you can lend it instead. Lending a book is a kind of sharing. And you do need to copy digital material to share it, because it is not physical and you cannot lend the content. Copying is a kind of sharing. I grasp all that.
So you cannot lend digital material, can you Herbert?
So what the implications of living in a world where all copyrighted content is digital, Herbert?
At that time, will all sharing of copyright material have been, de facto, abolished, because all sharing of digital material is copying and copying is wrong?
If so, would that be a peculiar outcome when, at present, we live in a world where sharing of copyright material is, in many circumstances, considered to be not just normal, but morally virtuous?
Herbert, you’ll find it easier to understand the issues if you walk through the questions and answer them one at a time. Have a go. You might surprise yourself.
What I can say is that if a party offered us a deal, we would consider it seriously. Of course, if other parties want PPUK to stand down in some seats to help them, we would be more likely to agree to such a deal if the other party was also prepared to stand down in some seats in favour of PPUK.
I’m not talking about deals or pacts, I’m talking about what PPUK’s strategic priorities are – votes or making a difference?
I know where I stand with ORG. If I don’t agree with them they tell all their supporters not to vote for me. But with PPUK, I might agree 100% with them, and have a better chance of winning, yet still have them competing with me.
Political parties are vote hoovering machines. There is always a danger that they end up existing for their own sake, and not to fulfil their objectives. Sadly, your assumption that I am making overtures for a “pact” suggests you have already gone down that road.
Eric
I’m afraid you’re labouring under a misapprehension (one of several). It’s not that I don’t understand what you’re trying to say. It’s just that I think that arguing against copyright restrictions on the grounds that they prevent people indulging in the moral virtuous practice of “sharing” is about the silliest thing I ever heard!
James Graham: I’m not talking about deals or pacts, I’m talking about what PPUK’s strategic priorities are – votes or making a difference?
You say that as if there’s a choice to be made between the two. But I don’t think such a choice exists. If no-one votes for us, we won’t make a difference, and if seven million filesharers vote for us, we will make a difference (regardless of how many parliamentary seats that brings us — consider the Greens in the EP election in 1989, they got 15% of the votes, and no seats, but all the other parties started copying their policies).
I know where I stand with ORG. If I don’t agree with them they tell all their supporters not to vote for me. But with PPUK, I might agree 100% with them, and have a better chance of winning, yet still have them competing with me.
If there was another party that agreed 100% with our policies, it’s probable that PPUK would never have been created. But there is no such party that I’m aware of.
There is always a danger that [political parties] end up existing for their own sake, and not to fulfil their objectives. Sadly, your assumption that I am making overtures for a “pact” suggests you have already gone down that road.
LOL. You seem to be trying to paint PPUK as morally tainted and the Lib Dems as morally pure… this would be the same Lib Dems that during the Euro election put a leaflet through my door with a totally spurious graph of the vote share in the parliamentary constituency, saying that “only the Lib Dems can win here” — in a multi-seat PR election that’s not being held under the same boundaries!
Philip, I’m not claiming “purity” – quite the opposite. But I do sincerely question the wisdom of standing against people who agree with you in marginal constituencies, and thus making their jobs harder.
Of course, if no-one does agree with you then the whole question becomes redundant.
What I’ve been trying to tease out is your strategic thinking here. What I’m getting is that you just want votes, lots of them. That’s great but doesn’t give candidates in a winning position a tactical incentive to support your policy platform.
My fear is that since you will see your main target areas as university towns, and we see our main target as university towns, you will end up causing the Lib Dems a harder time than any of the other parties (if at all – you wouldn’t be the first flash in the pan to go nowhere and you certainly won’t be the last). That is your choice to make, but do you really see Labour and the Conservatives being your allies?
It’s very easy for you to come here and attack me for being the nasty big political party bullying you, but I really am trying to get you thinking strategically here. I will concede that I have failed.
Perhaps it would be helpful if I pointed out that my hypothetical question applies to Labour and Tory candidates in marginal seats as well?
“I’m afraid you’re labouring under a misapprehension (one of several). It’s not that I don’t understand what you’re trying to say. It’s just that I think that arguing against copyright restrictions on the grounds that they prevent people indulging in the moral virtuous practice of “sharing” is about the silliest thing I ever heard!”
Well, thanks for sorting that out. To summarize your argument, the reasoning why sharing a book is completely different to sharing an electronic file is because you lack the imagination to see any analogy.
Why didn’t you just say so at the beginning?
Thanks for clarifying your position. Anyone who disagrees with you is silly. Got that. Top quality debating skills. You really cut through the analogy and explained exactly where it falls down. Masterful. Perhaps you should make that the party’s theme for the general election campaign. I can just see the billboards now…
“If we are too stupid to understand what you want and why you want it, then we really do understand what you want and why you want it (I said I understand, hence I obviously do understand, look, I will emphasize the word understand to prove I understand) and the problem is that you are so silly. Vote Lib Dem.”
Well done at your efforts to reach new voters! I guess everyone else on this thread – all those people who posted comments about how the Lib Dems do understand the issues – they must all be pretty silly too! I am talking here about the people who say things like:
“Your position in the political spectrum means you are natural allies of the Lib Dems so why not join us”
“I naturally think they’d be much better off joining us and working within the Lib Dems to put forward their views, those views *are* the views of a large portion – probably a majority – of our supporters, including myself”
“We need to take on board their (good, imho) intentions and make them our own. Let the PP be a pressure group and throw its weight behind a party with a more realistic change of actually doing something. Us.”
What a lot of silly people!
Good job I’m not joining a party like the Lib Dems, which has lots of silly people like me AND lots of sensible people like Herbert. You would never get anything done! How are you supposed to agree a compromise when the two alternatives are (1) the right choice, and (2) the silly choice. The only relatively sane approach is to start a whole new party and ask that only silly people join it. Then, at least, you can present a consistently silly manifesto to the silly voters who might, being silly, want to vote for it.
Did you understand that argument too, Herbert?
I’m going to stop taunting you now. It’s really not fair to have so much fun at your expense, and to do it in a public place where everyone else can laugh at you too – assuming that they’re silly like me, of course.
James Graham: But I do sincerely question the wisdom of standing against people who agree with you in marginal constituencies, and thus making their jobs harder. What I’ve been trying to tease out is your strategic thinking here. My fear is that since you will see your main target areas as university towns, and we see our main target as university towns, you will end up causing the Lib Dems a harder time than any of the other parties
I am thinking strategically. Have you read my blog where I say: “””It seems to me quite likely that we’ll take more voters from the Lib Dems than from the Tories or Labour; it’s entirely possible this could result in the Lib Dems losing seats, or not gaining seats that they otherwise would.
Would this be a good result for PPUK? In one sense it would, since the more people vote for use, the more attention we’ll get, and we can use that attention to get a bigger level of support in subsequent elections, such as in deviolved parliaments (2011, 2012) and the European elections (2014). Note that these elections are all held using PR so we’re much more likely to win seats.
But in another way, perhaps it wouldn’t be a good result for us. The best result, from our point of view, would be electing a parliamentary majority of PPUK MPs. That isn’t going to happen. The next best result would be a parliament that enacts proportional representation, because PR would make it vastly easier for us to win seats at Westminster. And thre sort of parliament that would do that is one where no party has an overall majority, but the Lib Dems hold the balance of power. Therefore if PPUK causes a seat to be won by the Tories, when the Lib Dems might have otherwise won, this might not be in our interests.”””
To the extent that harming the Lib Dems (or anyone else) harms the Pirate Party, or makes it harder for us to get what we want, I’m obviously against it.
But if the Lib Dems are saying to PPUK “we want you to do something for us (i.e. not run in certain constituencies), and in return we’ll do nothing for you” (and note I’m not saying that the Lib Dems are saying that), then that’s something the average PPUK member would probably not go along with, indeed nor would the average human.
If A and B are two groups of humans, and A wants B to do something, A is more likely to get what they want if they offer something in return. That’s human nature.
That is your choice to make, but do you really see Labour and the Conservatives being your allies?
I don’t agree with the course the Labour government are taking regarding filesharing. As to what the Tories would do instead, I don’t have any high expectation of them. Of course there are sensible people in both parties, for example Tom Watson.
Of course, if no-one does agree with you then the whole question becomes redundant.
We think millions of voters are sympathetic to what we stand for. I’m sure the vast majority of the 7 million filesharers are, for a start.
What I’ve been trying to tease out is your strategic thinking here.
Read the blog entry I’ve linked to above, if you’ve not already done so, and you’ll get a better idea of it.
What I’m getting is that you just want votes, lots of them.
Of course we want lots of votes!
That’s great but doesn’t give candidates in a winning position a tactical incentive to support your policy platform.
Sure, and that is an issue under the present voting system. If we had AV or AV+ or STV it wouldn’t be an issue — and I think any of those systems is vastly better than FPTP, for all sorts of reasons. Which is of course why I’d prefer the Lib Dems holding the balance of power to a Tory or Labour majority.
My fear is that since you will see your main target areas as university towns, and we see our main target as university towns, you will end up causing the Lib Dems a harder time than any of the other parties
As I say in my blog post, I think that’s entirely possible.
It’s very easy for you to come here and attack me for being the nasty big political party bullying you, but I really am trying to get you thinking strategically here. I will concede that I have failed.
Read my blog post; you might revise your opinion.
Can I just say, as a member of the Pirate Party (and long time Lib Dem supporter), that if the Lib Dems were motivated to imitating the party’s policies, or at least seriously discussing them, that would be fantastic!
The way I see these things on the issues that the pirate party stands for is this:
1. Pharmaceutical patents
Should be abolished. Replace with some sort of governmental “prize fund” as economist Joseph Stiglitz advocates:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/333/7582/1279
This would probably have to be done on an international scale, so it may be tricky to convince other countries, particularly ones in the pay of Big Pharma.
However, the “prize fund” wouldn’t be “inefficient” or anything the equivalent of the Soviets trying to order just enough shoes for a five year plan, as the allocation of “prizes” could be done quite objectively (on the basis of results of clinical trials etc). This should also be accompanied with requiring all medical trials to be registered. This will stop unfavourable data being buried (publication bias). More info from Ben Goldacre:
http://www.badscience.net/2006/06/academics-are-as-guilty-as-the-media-when-it-comes-to-publication-bias/
http://www.badscience.net/2008/02/619/
Hopefully the Lib Dems will support this policy.
2. Copyright
This is a much more difficult problem to find a good modern solution to.
The way I see it, is that it’s both completely unfeasible technologically, and completely illiberal for filesharing of copyrighted files to be illegal. Not to mention the numbers of people who do it: a war on filesharing would be worse than the current abominable war on drugs.
What should be illegal is selling other people’s work. Copying an artist’s song in order to sell it on. Profiting from another’s ideas, artistry and livelihood without their permission is immoral and therefore should stay illegal. How much progress any government could make in stopping any that happening though is debatable.
On the face of it, filesharing should create a veritable utopia. At it’s core seems to be both capitalism and communism. Freedom and the collective united in a common purpose.
But the problem comes when you think what would happen with filesharing completely legal. Maybe nothing would change. Maybe music (I’m using this as one example, same would apply to ebooks, films etc) would still be bought as well like now. I know I still buy some music. But whether immediately or later, not paying for music ill become normalized. The baby boomers will die off, and our children and our children’s children will be born, and how many will be buying music by then?
We know that music sales have been dropping off. So far this has pretty much been compensated by an increase in gaming sales. But this won’t last forever. As internet connections get faster and faster, and technology becomes more and more integrated, games will be shared online all the more. Maybe that’s a way away in our country, with the state of public finances, Brown’s wasted VAT cut instead of infrastructure spending, and the pathetic Lord Carter goal of 2Mb/s (somehow achieved through magical, and regressive, landline taxes). But I do hear South Korea will be installing 1Gb/s connections soon. Regardless of the problems in our country, I believe that the internet is fast becoming, if not already, a right that can’t be denied, except perhaps to prisoners.
But back to the problem. Legalizing filesharing completely will mean music artists will lose money from sales of their music. They will still make money from gigs and merchandise. But this will probably only be enough for the biggest artists. Smaller artists won’t have access to the main gigs.
Without copyright, clearly those who love playing music will still pick up their instrument and continue to play. But it’s important to realize that those who are most talented at music aren’t necessarily the same as those who love to play. There are undoubtedly examples of people who are talented at music, but only went into it because of the monetary benefits, and not from some great love of playing.
So without copyright, we may lose out on the next Beatles (or whoever takes your fancy) if they don’t see any monetary reason to play.
Before copyright first came into existence (about 300 years ago), people still made music, wrote books etc. But Shakespeare never encountered P2P. Comparing a life without, or with very limited, copyright in future to the thousands of years in the past when we didn’t have it, isn’t a valid comparison. It’s so much easier to copy an artist’s work today and so deprive an artist of money and therefore an incentive to make the music in the first place.
So what’s the solution? Tbh, I don’t know. The two best answers I can think of still have flaws.
a. Something akin to what Stiglitz proposed for pharmaceutical drugs. Reward/subsidize artists for their music/book/film/game etc.
A problem with this approach would be how does the government decide how much to pay the musician? There doesn’t seem to be any unambiguous objective criteria to base payments on, compared to pharmaceutical drugs which had clinical trials or similar medical and economic science to base prizes on. You couldn’t pay according to downloads, as remember we’ve legalized people sharing this over P2P, so a lot of music wouldn’t be counted. Not to mention abuses that could occur, with artists/companies repeatedly downloading their own track in order to boost statistics and get more money. And of course, paying out the same amount to all artists doesn’t seem fair, nor would it provide enough incentive for the very best work, and it could also be abused too, as people call themselves artists in order to receive money, but don’t produce music that anyone would’ve bought if it was being sold (i.e. they’re freeloading).
b. Advertising. Allow people to download music for free, but have them make money the way Google does. Could this make enough money? Doubtful. Not to mention P2P would still happen yet there’d be no advertising there. So decreased money because of that.
If anyone has any better ideas, say, because I can’t think of any.
Anyway, I don’t know whether it’s just me, but I feel that the filesharing movement could eventually become the 21st century’s main global movement, particularly now that socialism seems to have disappeared from most developed countries. In the 20th C, socialism was a worker’s movement that worked against the Establishment, and I feel that the 21st C may see the filesharing movement do the same. No that I necessarily think it will have any of the current pirate parties at the forefront of such a movement, only that they have got the ball rolling.
As for the Pirate party itself, I shan’t be voting for them. My vote will stay Lib Dem (though if we had STV, the Pirate party may well be my 2nd or 3rd choice). Why?
1. While I agree with the party’s general rhetoric, I don’t necessarily agree with their exact details on these filesharing/patents etc issues.
2. They don’t seem to have any other policies. How do we get out of the recession? Are they a Hannan or a Linehan when it comes to the NHS? Afghanistan? The EU? Climate change? Local issues? Forgive me if I’ve missed the Pirate party’s policies on these things, but they do seem like a single issue party to me.
Eric
“To summarize your argument, the reasoning why sharing a book is completely different to sharing an electronic file is because you lack the imagination to see any analogy.”
In legal terms, the difference is that sharing a book doesn’t involve making a copy. In practical terms the difference is that the damage to the copyright holder is limited because you can lend the book to only one person at a time rather than thousands or millions.
It’s not that I “lack the imagination” to see an analogy. I see the analogy perfectly well, and I see that it’s an incredibly poor one.
“The way I see it, is that it’s both completely unfeasible technologically, and completely illiberal for filesharing of copyrighted files to be illegal. … What should be illegal is selling other people’s work.”
Why is copyright protection for people’s work “completely illiberal”?
If it weren’t for the practical difficulties in preventing people’s work being copied freely through the Internet, would you be saying there was something wrong with the principle of copyright protection?
@Herbert
“Copyright protection for people’s work “completely illiberal”?”
You missed a bit from the preceding post:
“completely illiberal for filesharing of copyrighted files to be illegal.”
(emphasis mine)
and the reason that it would be completely illiberal, is that enforcing copyright protection to prevent filesharing, in today’s connected world, requires the monitoring of everyone’s Internet use and private communications, and the criminalisation of a large number of people.
That is the practical reality, and that is why we are saying both that we need to find a different path, it’s not enough to say “any copying is wrong” and not only that doing so means that copyright protection is preventing us from taking advantage of the fact that we can now share information, knowledge, art, culture, etc, at effectively zero cost, enriching all of us. That is why Pirate policy is to extend copyright protection only to commercial copying, where money is changing hands, both because that’s enforceable, and there is an opportunity for that to reward the creator of the work and encourage further work to be produce.
Non-commercial filesharing does not involve money (far more is shared than anyone could afford to pay for!), it’s a good thing because it spreads our knowledge, culture, etc. Sharing of older works (once there has been a period of opportunity to profit from the work through copyright protection), is similarly spreading something that has become part of our culture (no creative work “stands on it’s own” apart from everything else, and offers a subsequent generation the chance to build new derivative works (a kind of freedom of speech, BTW), and to reap the commercial rewards from doing so for a limited period themselves.
Very long (or even worse, permanent) copyright means that we lose our heritage, and that new works (and that freedom to create them) can be prevented not for commercial reasons, but because an author, or worse, the estate of an author or a large corporation which took on the rights, simply does not want to see it happen. That’s wrong, and restricting the duration of copyright to no longer than is necessary to have an opportunity to reap a reward deals with that.
@Eric “Your response is what I was secretly hoping for – an admission that Lib Dems are no more inclined…” etc
I think it is worth pointing out that Herbert Brown, so far as I recall, is not a Lib Dem member.
Alix: since when did mere details like that matter?
I’m a bit mystified by the claim that information technology is enabling information to be shared at reduced costs and therefore copyright is a nasty restriction on the process. Considering the amount of bandwidth consumed by filesharers, it is forcing massive levels of investment in the web infrastructure and architecture. If filesharers don’t pay for their product then the burden will fall unfairly on everyone’s bill. If copyright creates a restriction and is ‘illiberal’, then the same is true from the opposite direction.
In that sense PPUK presents more of a challenge to LPUK because it is supporting negative liberty without balancing it against positive liberty.
“I believe that the internet is fast becoming, if not already, a right that can’t be denied” falls into the same category. Large numbers of people reject the slavery to technology this position promotes, and so for example we see that twitter is used more by middle-aged than the young, while silver-surfing is much lower etc and the Pirate party’s marketing of itself to one specific age-group represents a serious misjudgement.
So is there to be had no compromise over copyright?
I’m also highly sceptical of the proposition that it is possible to agree with 100% of policies supported by a party. Very few people have the expertise or experience to understand the complexities encapsulated in a realistic policy, and I doubt any serious politician is ever 100% satisfied with any outcome. Look at any party official (including the leaders) for instance: they all get elected internally with promises to do things differently! The simple fact is that if it were a requirement to agree 100% with the precise policies of any party then no party would have a membership of more than 1.
While I sympathise with some of the aims of the Pirates and encourage their activism, I disagree with their methods and the limitations of their precise proposals. A serious political party must be able to offer a wide range of policies which deal with everything from rubbish bin collections to weapons of mass destruction.
So it is more than slightly cocky for a party with not even one councillor seat to demand that LibDems should support them – if there is general agreement between them and us, then they should get involved and contribute to the wider effort. If you believe in the value of sharing then perhaps you could contribute your side of the bargain – you never know, you might get something back in return!
Alix,you seem to be worried about the pirate party,why ? you frightened more lib dem members or voters will join this new energetic new force in politics.
The pirates may fashion themselves as freedom fighters, but the full impact of their existence beyond their own horizons is to terrorise policy areas they haven’t even considered yet.
The Pirate Party are the Taliban of technology!
Of course back in the real world, most voters don’t actually care enough about the issues of copyright, patents and file-sharing for it change their vote. I don’t deny that the Pirate Party are potentially an issue for us in terms of losing some younger voters and therefore could affect the outcome in one or two places. But beyond that..
tykejohno – All Alix said in this thread is that one of the other commenters is not a Lib Dem. Are you perhaps confusing her with someone else?
Personally, I’ll start to worry about the Pirate Party when you have as many elected representatives as the Middlewich First Party or Boston Bypass Independents…
Thanks, that’s exactly what I meant by it being “illiberal”. Perhaps I should’ve been clearer.
I have happily given them some money.
I note that there was no response to my point that the PP has only one potentially distinctive policy, in relation to copyright and filesharing. I seriously wonder if that’s enough to win MPs. The thought of a PP councillor is pretty baffling to me (simply, why would anyone vote for one?).
I think James is point is a good one, and one that the posters from the PP can’t seem to answer. As you only have one distinctive policy (which doesn’t actually reflect a narrative for how the country might be governed – even UKIP beat you on this front) why should anyone want to be a member? People who get involved in politics usually do so because they want to change the world.
In many ways, I see the PP as fairly similar to the continuing Liberal Party – they have policy that’s largely similar to the Lib Dems, and an overall theme that’s akin to that of the Lib Dems, and can seemingly identify only one major policy difference (Euroscepticism). True, people join them occasionally and sometimes people even vote for them, but ultimately they’re going nowhere. Indeed, I would imagine that in some parts of Liverpool, small ‘l’ liberal voters end up with Labour councillors because the non-Labour vote is split.
I think small parties actually hurt everyone when they run in our unfair voting system.
Maybe the PP should get all their members to vote LibDem so that we can get in, get a proportional voting system into place, which, at the election after, would give the PP a chance of actually getting representation.
or martin,all the lib dem members vote for the pp,that would give them a chance of getting some representation.
Martin: I think small parties actually hurt everyone when they run in our unfair voting system.
Certainly if all the parties that would benefit from PR stood under one banner in an election, on a platform of enacting PR then calling another election, they’d have a good chance of winning. Of course, if the Lib Dems think they can lord it over all the other small parties, and get them to stand down in favour of the Lib Dem candidate, they are stupid and don’t understand basic human psychology.
Maybe the PP should get all their members to vote LibDem so that we can get in, get a proportional voting system into place, which, at the election after, would give the PP a chance of actually getting representation.
I’ve got a better idea. All the small parties should get together and field a joint candidate in every constituency. In most seats this would be a Lib Dem, in some a Green, in some a Pirate Party, etc.
Alex: Pharmaceutical patents Should be abolished. Replace with some sort of governmental “prize fund” […] However, the “prize fund” wouldn’t be “inefficient” or anything the equivalent of the Soviets trying to order just enough shoes for a five year plan, as the allocation of “prizes” could be done quite objectively (on the basis of results of clinical trials etc). This should also be accompanied with requiring all medical trials to be registered.
These are sensible proposals, and Ben Goldacre is quite right to propose that all medical trials be registered.
The way I see it, is that it’s both completely unfeasible technologically, and completely illiberal for filesharing of copyrighted files to be illegal. Not to mention the numbers of people who do it: a war on filesharing would be worse than the current abominable war on drugs. What should be illegal is selling other people’s work. Copying an artist’s song in order to sell it on.
This is exactly PPUK’s policy.
Something akin to what Stiglitz proposed for pharmaceutical drugs. Reward/subsidize artists for their music/book/film/game etc. A problem with this approach would be how does the government decide how much to pay the musician? There doesn’t seem to be any unambiguous objective criteria to base payments on, compared to pharmaceutical drugs which had clinical trials or similar medical and economic science to base prizes on. You couldn’t pay according to downloads, as remember we’ve legalized people sharing this over P2P, so a lot of music wouldn’t be counted. Not to mention abuses that could occur, with artists/companies repeatedly downloading their own track in order to boost statistics and get more money.
It’s undoubtedly the case that people would try to game the system. My proposal for getting round this is presented here.
“Certainly if all the parties that would benefit from PR stood under one banner in an election, on a platform of enacting PR then calling another election, they’d have a good chance of winning.”
This is naivety on a spectacular level – something which does seem to be present among a lot of small parties.
The fallacy is this:
“70% of people support X, We will stand in favour of X therefore those people will support us.”
Politics isn’t that straightforward. In the mid 1990s polls consistently showed the US public in favour of gun controls, when the Democrats ran on that platform they got smashed because whilst people did support gun control in large numbers there were other issues that motivated them more. Meanwhile those people who opposed such measures were highly motivated to campaign and donate in opposition.
I’m not convinced by the analysis that lots of people file share, therefore they support loosening the copyright laws so lots of people will support PP.
It’s equally, maybe even more likely that a large number of those people just see it as a way to get albums they want for free rather than at £8-10 a pop and care no more about intellectual property reform than we did when copying each others tapes when I was at school in the mid 1980s.
“and the reason that it [filesharing of copyrighted files being illegal] would be completely illiberal, is that enforcing copyright protection to prevent filesharing, in today’s connected world, requires the monitoring of everyone’s Internet use and private communications, and the criminalisation of a large number of people.”
I think the “criminalisation of a large number of people” argument is a very dangerous one. On that basis you could argue that it’s “illiberal” for all kinds of things to be illegal – exceeding the speed limit, using a mobile phone when driving, tax evasion, and potentially much more serious crimes, depending on your definition of “a large number of people”.
And the argument that complete enforcement of the law is impossible without “illiberal” surveillance measures could also be applied to many other crimes, including the examples above. You could detect everyone who breaks the speed limit by putting an electronic monitor in every car. The fact that that wouldn’t be acceptable on other grounds is no argument for abolishing the speed limit!
Surely the right way of going about this is first to decide whether, as a point of principle, people should be allowed to share copyright material freely, and then to have a separate debate about what measures are acceptable to detect and prevent illegal acts.
A question on the substantive point:
If non-commercial sharing of copyright material is to be made legal, what is to stop the Conservatives scanning the campaign guidebooks I wrote for ALDC and putting them online for their activists to download?
I’ll freely admit that I don’t know much about issues of copyright and patent law. The other two beliefs as espoused by John Barron seem wholly inoffensive, and likely to be consistent with what we think we believe as liberals (party policy isn’t always ideologically pure when looked at in hindsight).
However, competition for votes is not a zero-sum game. 40% of those eligible and registered to vote don’t, and it is possible that the Pirate Party will hoover up some, if not very much, of that. And yes, they may take votes from us (and the Greens, Labour and the Tories too), but the idea that we, or anyone else, should be trying to crush them seems a bit contrary to the notion of being liberal. *naivety warning* We’re far better off winning an argument of ideas.
I sat on a European commission looking at the issue of cultural policy twenty years ago and, even then, the question of protecting the rights of ‘cultural producers’ (typical Euro jargon, I fear) was exercising the mind. How do we balance the right to exchange and share information without denying an artist the means to support him/herself?
It is fearfully difficult, and I’m not convinced that, until our friends with the patches, parrots and wooden legs come up with a policy that preserves our cultural heritage and allows individuals to make a living from their work (presuming that they’re any good), I would want to get too excited about their prospects.
As Oranjepan puts it (and I paraphrase quite a bit here), giving consumers freedom to exchange information whilst denying performers and artists the means to exploit their talent is not the kind of liberalism I’m keen to encourage.
That would be “wouldn’t want to get too excited about their prospects.”
Learn to proof-read, Mark, learn to proof-read…
They may be a 3 policy party but I’m an impressionable human being who has been let down by top down politicians who don’t reflect were I come from or my needs.
I’d vote for them easy if I wasn’t voting Lib Dem.
At least they are passionate. Proactive. And talking about (some important) issues facing the 21st century.
Sigh.
You guys must all have mates who are all fellow Lib Dems because you don’t realise how much hate people have for political parties.
My sisters words “what’s wrong with you guys? You’re parties so stupid and frustrating! Whenever they need to talk about the economy, they take out Vince Cable. He’s the only one that people listen to and what are you guys doing about it?? Nothing. I won’t waste my vote on you guys. Will vote Labour again.”
I shrugged. What can you say? You’re seldom listened to by those in ‘power’…
Pretending that this is a difficult question to answer is absurd. It isn’t hard at all. Just get rid of patents (and copyrights, a developed form of the same). All they do is stifle progress for the benefit of a few well-connected rich guys (e.g. Marconi). The world would be better off without them.
Charles Dickens made more money in the USA (where he had no copyrights) than in the UK (where he did). James Watt managed to retard the Industrial Revolution by up to 15 years, because Trevithick was forced to sit on the high-pressure steam engine. When he introduced it, he claimed no patent, and the enormous progress of the early 19th Century was allowed to occur, in part due to the collaborative, competitive innovation of the Cornish mine companies.
Why? Because monopoly is the enemy of progress. Everyone loses, including the monopolist, in the end. There is a much better way to structure these things, and we’ve known about it for more than two hundred years now. It is only the propaganda of the politically connected monopolists that have instructed our intuitions to believe otherwise.
Why has the Internet occured? Why has the World Wide Web been as effective as it is? Why do computers have mice, networking, graphical user interfaces, and all the technologies that support them including compilers, operating systems and object-oriented (and functional) programming languages? Patents had nothing to do with any of it. To compare the technologies that have been patented to these is to compare ants to gods. These technologies changed the world, for the better, and they would have been useless had a company or individual been able to monopolise them. Indeed, the World Wide Web would not have been possible without an outright rejection of these holdovers from the Middle Ages. Are we not the better for it? And do we want to sacrifice that, so as to protect the interests of some incumbent monopolists? That is outright folly.
@ Hywel – quite right: The fallacy: “70% of people support X, we will stand in favour of X, therefore those people will support us.” is why a party who’s only distinctive policy is about copyright isn’t going to go anywhere.
@ Irene – I don’t understand your sister’s point? What does she want to be “done about it”? Vince is our treasury spokesman, he’s very knowlegable and has good ideas – that’s his job and he does it very well – how is this a negative?!
Very few of my friends are involved in political parties or the Lib Dems, so I’m certainly not sheltered from public opinion. I’ve never had a political discussion about copyright with any of my friends or family. There may be no love for political parties but that rests on the frankly bizarre and lazy view that political parties are somehow separate from ‘ordinary’ people. Political parties are made up of people, the vast majority volunteers, who balance their politics with their day-to-day lives. You have to have passion to do this; no one is going to thank you for it. I face the shame challenges that other people of my generation, situation and class face (late 20s, middle class professional, brought up in a single parent family, on benefits, with a heavily diabled sister and a mother who’s just had a stroke). I also happen to be involved in local politics because I think there is another way of doing things that would make a difference.
So when people tell me that politicians are “all the same” – I tend to agree – we’re all the same, the same as everyone else; except we’re trying to make a difference.
I would never seek to defend those MPs who’ve abused the expenses system for their personal benefit, but us “politicians” need to stand up for ourselves a bit against those who snipe but aren’t actually going to do anything.
@ Bob. If we get rid of copyright, and I write a book and you simply have it reprinted with a different front cover and you named as author, and then you sell copies of it for a large profit, is that fair?
I’m not defending all use of copyright or patents (file sharing and medical patents being particular issues) but I’d be interested in your defence of no copyright/patents at all.
Grammar Police: a party who’s only distinctive policy is about copyright isn’t going to go anywhere.
Really? They got 7% in Sweden two months ago.
@ Philip Hunt: I don’t mean to make a trite point, but the Pirat Partiet in Sweden is not the UK Pirate Party, and the political situation in Sweden is not the same as the political situation in the UK. I’ll be impressed if you manage 7% in the next European Elections in the UK.
Philip – do you care to give your thoughts on my question to Bob above?
Grammar Police,
Yes you’re right PPUK is not the same as Sweden’s Piratpartiet. However, the issues are broadly the same, and roughly as high a proportion of Britons use the net and fileshare as Swedes do. In my opinion, it’s quite likely that PPUK will get 7% in the 2014 European election; it wouldn’t surprise me if we get significantly more than that.
If we get rid of copyright, and I write a book and you simply have it reprinted with a different front cover and you named as author, and then you sell copies of it for a large profit, is that fair?
PPUK doesn’t not want to get rid of copyright. We do want to make non-commercial copying legal. In the situation you describe, what’s going on is commercial copying, which would continue to be illegal.
(Erratum: In my previous post I meant to say “PPUK doesn’t want to get rid of copyright.”)
@ Philip Hunt: I’d be interested to know what you base your expert assumption that it’s “likely” you’ll get at least 7% in 2014? I’ll be interested to see if you even exist as a party in 2014 (there are stats on the failure rate of new parties, and it’s quite high). You perhaps misunderstand my point about Sweden. Much of a political party’s appeal depends on its opponents. I’m no expert on Swedish politics; is there a mainstream liberal party? Are they in some way tainted so that an alternative liberal party looks attractive? Do the exact same conditions exist in the UK as existed in Sweden at the time of the 2009 Euro elections? Will they in 2014? As Hywel mentions above, how much of a motivating factor is your one distinctive policy?
As nice as it may be to point to the relative success of the original pirate party in Sweden and then claim it for yourself, does anyone in your party in the UK actually have a clue about how to communicate your message and get elected?
Ps as for allowing non-commercial copying without restriction, I have no particular problem with that. However, I just think that the following issues are more important: a fairer system of electing our representatives and decision-making, real local responsibility and accountability; the protection of our environment; the protection of the most vulnerable in our society; giving people more freedom to make their own decisions; ensuring that no one is enslaved by ignorance or poverty; fostering communities; public safety; reducing the tax burden on lower earners and a whole host of other minor issues. So I guess it’s unlikely I’ll be voting for a party that got one policy.
Pirates? Aren’t they known as habitual mutineers?
“PPUK doesn’t not want to get rid of copyright. We do want to make non-commercial copying legal.”
But from the point of view of the author, what consolation is it that his work is being given away free rather than sold? Surely it’s going to be even more damaging to his sales if it’s being given away free?
@Herbert
Read my earlier comment (https://www.libdemvoice.org/pirate-party-andrew-robinson-15899.html#comment-96353) In which I have a link to an author writing about how his sales increased once his books became available to download for free.
If the books are free… why does the author make more money? Well, because everyone is loathe to buy something they don’t know they’ll like. If they get it for free, that risk falls away, encouraging them to read the book. If they don’t like it, well never mind, that author hasn’t lost out, since they’d never have bought the book anyway. If they do like it, they are inclined to start buying back issues, or the next novel. If they like it, most people actually want to support their favourite authors, they want them to write more, so they’re pre-pared to pay.
The common assumption running through much of this discussion is that people will always take the free version if they have a choice. Most studies have shown this not to be true. Yes, people will get a lot of the free stuff, but they still pay for things that are available for free. There are other benefits of buying something (music, books etc) beyond the mere words or notes. There’s satisfaction of supporting your favourites and contributing to the next version. There are the benefits of having something tangible.. (loads of surveys suggest even if music/books are easy to get electronically most people still prefer to have something physical they can hold, touch). Most people it seems value these benefits.
The majority of fileshareres are kids and students. Those demographics that have the dual curse of having no income and an insatiable curiosity to explore the world and see what it has to offer them. I started reading when I was a kid, and I now spend hundreds of pounds a year on books; but all the books I read when I started…all those books that made me a fan of reading… I read for free. Borrowed from libraries, from friends. If those free sources hadn’t been there I’d not be spending the hundreds of pounds now. Much of my music collection has come about the same way. Lots of copied tapes and recording from radio (which is not really any different to filesharing, no one is “deprived”); now I support those bands by buying their disks.
I believe that non-commercial filesharing will benefit musicians and authors; and many studies (as well as the personal account by David Drake in the post I link to) show that it already does.
Apologies to Eric Flint. It was he who wrote that article, not David Drake.
@Grammar Police
“If we get rid of copyright, and I write a book and you simply have it reprinted with a different front cover and you named as author, and then you sell copies of it for a large profit, is that fair?”
No, that’s plagiarism, which is tantamount to fraud. Give your head a shake.
I’m not sure what “Give your head a shake” means/is intended to mean. It may be plagiarism, but it’s actually also copyright infringement. Plagiarism isn’t regulated by law.