Pirate Party: file-sharing is good for the record labels
By Hani Megerisi
Posted on 23 Mar 2010 at 12:26
The UK Pirate Party is preparing for its first General Election campaign - and it has a few radical proposals up its sleeve.
Its newly launched manifesto, includes calls to legalise file-sharing, cut back copyright to ten years and set free BBC content.
Here, the party's leader Andrew Robinson explains why the policies would actually be good for both end users and industry.
Q. The Pirate Party wants the copyright period reduced to ten years, but the music and film industries make money from their back catalogues. Won't this harm these industries?
A. Not at all. Copyright is also a big problem for the music and film industries, which have to deal with copyright holders for scripts or old books and stories.
Why do we need the Pirate Party?
click here to read our interviewFor example, the makers of the Lord of the Rings franchise were locked in a $200 million legal dispute with someone who just happened to be the grandchild of Tolkein. Expenses like that would be saved under our proposed copyright changes.
Q. You’re calling for the legalisation of file-sharing. Won’t this increase the number of downloads and the damage it’s allegedly doing to the culture industries?
A. Of course more people will do it if it’s legalised. We think an increase in file-sharing is a good thing for the culture industries. If you are not one of the few people who are lucky enough to be signed to a big record label then it’s virtually impossible to advertise yourself in the same way.
Q. What about those who do have the big contracts - won’t they continue to lose money?
A. We’re talking about legalising something that already happens here. And I’m sure that big names like U2 will still have huge numbers of people coming to their gigs.
Q. The manifesto calls for a change in ISP tariffs, allowing users to only pay for the fraction of the claimed broadband speed that the provider delivers. What's the thinking behind that?
A. It is to give ISPs an incentive to improve their actual speeds. There is currently no incentive for ISPs to upgrade. This way they will see an immediate return on their investment and it’s better for consumers.
Q. Under your proposals, the BBC mustn't apply DRM to its content. Wouldn’t this make the BBC less competitive as a broadcaster and hinder its ability to show third-party content?
A. In our manifesto we do say that the BBC should be releasing all its content – not content from third parties. We understand that we can’t ask it to purchase third-party content and then just make it free. This only applies to content made by or commissioned by the BBC.
Q. How many seats will the Pirate Party contest in the UK?
A. As many as we can afford, really. We have two so far with eight more in the pipeline, but we’ve still got to find funding for a couple of the last ones.
From around the web
I know several UK manufacturing companies who are already working in an ecconomy free of copyright law: it's called China. Perhaps the content-sharing fanboys would like to go and take a long hard look at what happens there to the hard-thought and hard-won products of their fellow countrymen, before they consider throwing the baby out with the bathwater in quite such a cavalier way!
By Steve_Cassidy on 23 Mar 2010 ![]()
Excellent, another balanced and unsensational comment on the "evils" of copyright infringement.
By dodge1963 on 24 Mar 2010 ![]()
Why do people(like Bush) confuse capitalism with democracy, and less stringent copyright laws with communism?
I assure you that capitalism works very well in a totalitarian state(China, etc)and that less stringent laws on copyright will not spell the fall of the economy as we know it, what it might do is change the way it works that is what scares "THEM" so much!
By sandman652001 on 24 Mar 2010 ![]()
could be ok
I think is a good thing that this PP is coming up...obviously some points are extreme but they will not be able to pass them, what is good is the fact that they will pull the string on the other side since for now the current politicians are just pulling in favour of big corporations so probably a middle ground can be achieved. One really valid point is the ISP regulation, how many of us are paying for 8 meg but barely reaching 2? so why we have to pay for something we are not using? and so is this the same point of paying for a single album but since the artist has created and made available more music we have to pay for the entire collection but only have the single delivered?
By sayl1000 on 25 Mar 2010 ![]()
advertisement
- Chrome's shine getting lost in translation
- BytePac: the cardboard hard disk enclosure
- How tech loosens our grip on reality
- Hokum watch: Safer Internet Day
- Why I'm deleting Adobe from my PC
- Prepare to be patronised: it's Safer Internet Day
- Dear Sony, Samsung and every other tech company in the world: stop trying to be Apple
- Will Apple's Final Cut Pro X update placate the pros?
- Smartr Contacts for iPhone review
- Switching to Office 365's Outlook Web App
advertisement
