Pirate Party calls for file-sharing to be legalised

While they have some valid points...

..I think their aim of removing copyright altogether is absurd.

We need a middle ground where businesses and groups cannot simply steal media and designs from each other with impunity.

But the same laws should not be used to introduce a police state run by corporations, funded by government, which can spy on anyone without just cause and can carry out witch hunts on teenagers swapping songs.

This is what the current bill in parliament is giving the green light to and I strongly disagree with.

Why is the middle ground so difficuly to reach?

By cheysuli on 23 Mar 2010

Agree with cheysuli

The Digital Economy Bill (DEB) goes way too far but effectively killing copyright is no solution either. As it stands the DEB is extremely one-sided, with both the technical, social and legal problems of enforcing it being totally overlooked. Pandering to a single industry that has failed to adapt is no solution.

By Mark535 on 23 Mar 2010

Why does politics always attract idiots?

How about I photocopy my morning paper and hand it out for free? Or copy my dvd of Cloverfield to give away as an mp4? Is that what we're supposed to believe should be acceptable?

Intellectual property protection must be available to those that want it (and I accept that some want to share their work for free) to enable them to sell their work within a regulated market. Shorter IP protection likely means even higher prices, as innovators attempt to recoup their investment and make a profit over less time. How on earth will shortening copyright "encourage artists to keep creating new work"? Or "allow new art forms"?

By Mat1971 on 23 Mar 2010

Extreme view point maybe, but required

They may have an extreme take on it, but I think (/hope) they know that and are aiming for a compromise somewhere in the middle.
Which to my mind can only be a good thing, as we seem to be falling more and more the other way...

By stevenutt on 23 Mar 2010

Missing the point

Whether or not you agree with the Pirate Party is not the point. To fight an extremist like the MPAA/RIAA et al you need someone who believes in the opposite extreme.

Hopefully some middle ground will be sought, but without argument from both sides the result will always be incredibly biased, hence the success of lobbyists.

By The_Scrote on 23 Mar 2010

Also, if I build a wall I get paid for it once, not every single time it keeps someone out/in. And if the copyright holders say that's not a fair comparison as it's a physical thing, it's an argument they fail to listen to when people say file-sharing is not akin to stealing a handbag.

Why SHOULD right-holders (and they're not always the talent behind the work) get paid forever for one piece? If you want to keep being paid, keep working, just like in any other job.

By The_Scrote on 23 Mar 2010

Misconceptions

@cheysuli: The Pirate Party do not want to abolish copyright! Copyright is a good thing, it's just become severely unbalanced against consumers.

@Mat1971: "Intellectual property" is both a horrible phrase and concept. One should not be allowed to own ideas.

By M2Ys4U on 23 Mar 2010

If you cant own an idea - then people will stop creating new ideas anymore

Creating entertainment is a business like any other business that generates income for a whole bunch of people so why shouldn't people pay for a physical mp3 or movie file that they took the time to find on-line and that they are going to get enjoyment out of.

Most illegal downloaders I know - never buy a thing, so it seems that abolishing copyright would be severely unbalanced in favour of freeloading consumers.

By SoulSista on 23 Mar 2010

@M2Ys4U
I'm interested in your statement, but it lacks weight without reasoning. Are you suggesting that inventors or innovators should not be offered protection for their work? Or is your statement deliberately philosophical? I believe that inventors (musicians, programmers, engineers, scientists etc) that create a valuable commodity should be able to sell that commodity exclusively for a minimum period. If they created it alone, then the rights are theirs alone (unless they sell them in whole or in part). If they did it as part of an organisation, then the rights belong to that organisation (unless the inventor has a remarkably well written contract). To have it any other way would remove the incentive to create, except for those altruistic few that create for the good of mankind. I actually know quite a few people like that, and I'm glad they exist, but they do not represent a valid economic model for society. If you want a commodity someone else has created, you should have to pay for it, rather than receive it for free as described in my earlier message. As an example, it costs a pharmaceutical company many millions to develop and register a new drug, money that they must recoup in sales if they are a) to pay salaries and survive as a business and b) to develop anything else in the future. Do we remove exclusivity and the incentive for them to do this? You may not like the idea of IP, but I fail to see how society will benefit from the skill of inventors without it.

By Mat1971 on 24 Mar 2010

Essexboy

I think file sharering should be allowed only if the content is a month old because most people who listern, watched and seen the produts have a chance to buy and listern to it again if they want . and why do they make programs to copy this stuff to cd and dvd if they did not want you to copy this stuff to disc why make programs to do this and build it into operating software like microsoft windows 7 and other os systems . and burning programs like Nero burnning and other software

By Essexboy on 25 Mar 2010

beyond the profit motive

we have examples of great people who have given their work without expecting continued reward. We have all become seduced by the profit motive and sadly believe that people will only be creative if they can get paid for many years after the act of creation. I say it is time for a paradigm shift in consciousness, we have seen the results of the current system, why not at least attempt to make a positive change. Greed is not the only motivating factor.

By ravit on 25 Mar 2010

Copyright in education.

I work in education and have held positions in two different colleges. The form-filing that lecturers are intended to fill in is absurd and the printed information that lecturers are meanat to read is complex and time-consuming. Because of the pressure that we are under and the under-funding within education most lecturers just copyright law regarding printed material, despite 'ticking the box' and appearing to comply. No money changes hands and the only individuals who benefit are students, who invariably destroy any hand-outs later anyway. Copyright law is long overdue for revising.

By pcdiver on 25 Mar 2010

Copyright law in education

Ooops! Prevbious post had word 'ignore' missing! Should have read 'most lecturers just IGNORE copyright law'.

By pcdiver on 25 Mar 2010

Some points are valid

As my title says some points of the PP are very valid and I think it will be quite good having someone pulling the string on the other side, novadays the copyrights Holders which in most cases if not the majority are the label company who just want to make profit over and over again and we have seen already old people who do not even know what filesharing is being fined millions...obviously there is a need to protect the intellectual property over a reasonable amount of time but also we cannot be at the mercy of the big labels who will be firing on anyone just for the sake of profit.A new model is long overdue and everyone has to accept it, now are we ready for it? or just take the word of one side or the other?

By sayl1000 on 25 Mar 2010

Pirate Party provides much needed balance

In the absence of any apparent will in Parliament for a full debate on the Digital Economy Bill, we need groups like the Pirate Party to bring necessary pressure to force this into the wider public awareness. If you take the trouble to look at what the PPUK stands for, you will see that they are on the side of fairness and common sense. I'm not a member of the PPUK, btw.

By blueleaf on 25 Mar 2010

File Sharing Is Already Legal

The technology of file sharing is already legal. What *isn't* legal is the use of the legal technology for illegal purposes, e.g. sharing copyrighted works.

I agree the Pirate Party's proposals go too far. However they do promote more open debate on the issue in the same way The Da Vinci Code caused open debate about Christianity. Anything that promotes *informed* debate - rather than the knee-jerk reaction of technophobic politicians in the pay of rights holders - can only be a good thing.

By CeltiKaos on 25 Mar 2010

Two sides to every argument...

Ten years is probably too short, for example it would leave artists with no revenue from 90's compilations.

That said, the other side of piracy is exploitation, in that performers get paid only a tiny percentage of the take, while the majority of revenue goes to the fat cats behind desks.

Also, what about the live musician whose job has been replaced by a CD player? Is that a crime? The media barons would no doubt say no, but I reckon the unemployed musician might disagree.

By Anteaus on 25 Mar 2010

The Pirate Party is right

Seems a very reasonable proposal, though I would extend the period to 20 years and make the copyright laws applicable only if the item is available on the market at a similar price to similar products.
This would bring the law more in line with Patent law.
To doubters I would point out that copyright holders are not necessarily the artists or others involved in the creative process - more likely to be companies esp. after a few years, so the money goes to their directors, shareholders and other parasites. Having written bios of a few 60s and 70s artistes for the internet I can say they generally get nothing from legal re-issues of their records.
What needs reforming is Government. As long as companies (esp. limited liability ones) can contribute to political parties we will continue to be run by corrupt politicians who pander to them.

By Walsallian on 25 Mar 2010

"a police state run by corporations, funded by government, which can spy on anyone without just cause" We already live in one.

By dodge1963 on 25 Mar 2010

Most of you seem to have reading comprehension problems. Its not ten years whilst the author is alive that is being proposed but ten years after the author of the work dies.

"“Currently copyright carries on for more than 70 years after the author of a work dies. We believe 10 years of copyright protection is long enough"

By StoneFree on 26 Mar 2010