Ask the UK Pirate Party's Andrew Robinson About the Issues 391
VJ42 writes "With the 2010 UK general election fast approaching, the Pirate Party of the United Kingdom will be fielding elections for the first time. The Digital Economy bill and ACTA are hot topics for UK geeks, and the Pirate Party is looking to pick up some votes. Their leader, Andrew Robinson, has agreed to answer your questions. Normal Slashdot interview rules apply."
Re:Forcing authors to lose rights over work (Score:3, Informative)
The GPL would be unnecessary, and would most definitely not be common had the copyright system been much more lax during the last few decades.
With weaker copyright the GPL would certainly be less beneficial because the GPL relies on strong copyright. Without that we might not have the benefit of good GPL licensed projects like the linux kernel and the GNU userland.
Re:Forcing authors to lose rights over work (Score:5, Informative)
Here's how it (roughly) works over here (Spain):
- Audiovisual works can be shared noncommercially, but we pay levies on all kinds of media and copying devices (CD/DVD-Rs, hard drives, media players, cellphones)
- Software is protected and P2P sharing of software is not legal
Now, there's a huge SNAFU going on here with our RIAA-equivalent (the SGAE), who are lying bastards and cheaters, the levy system isn't ideal (many people get charged who don't use P2P, and the devices/consumables that get levies are just stupid - I think it'd be better to charge levies on internet connections instead of consumables and devices), and the way the levies are distributed is completely backwards (SGAE execs have been known to use some privately, transparency is nil, and small artists get squat). Nonetheless, the basic premise isnt all that bad: legalize audio/video/book file sharing, but impose some reasonable sort of cash stream from the people very likely to use P2P to the people who very likely have their works shared.
You also need to realize that legalizing file sharing does not imply removing all copyright. All it says is that sharing copyrighted files is fine (authors have less control over how their work is distributed noncommercially), but it doesn't imply licenses are invalid: You still can't produce a GPL'd derivative work and not provide source, you still can't violate the attribution/share-alike/non-commercial provisions of Creative Commons, etc. I don't think anyone is seriously arguing that copyright should be abolished - there's a huge difference between that and just making the usual P2P scenarios legal.
Re:What is your stance on erosion of privacy in UK (Score:3, Informative)
What is your stance on erosion of privacy in UK? Will your party only follow the path of Intellectual Property rights, or do you plan to fight for freedom of speech, against invasion of privacy online and in daily life, censorship and other vital freedom-related problems.
We campaign on all three issues: http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/ [pirateparty.org.uk]
Re:Forcing authors to lose rights over work (Score:5, Informative)
making a mix tape is entirely ethical and should be legal
Indeed, take for example UK artist Lily Allen - she believes that people who download are thieves, and was a vocal support of UK plans to disconnect people suspected of downloading. But even she seems to think it's fine to distribute mix tapes, on her record company's website, using other artists' material, in order to promote her own commercial material...
Re:Money (Score:3, Informative)
How would you suggest copyright be reformed?
This is the UK pirate party's stance on copyrights, as from their front page [pirateparty.org.uk]:
Do you have another suggestion as for how the copyright system should be reformed that would be more moderate and still effective? Or are you just agreeing with the UK PP without knowing that you are? :-)
The concept that the pirate party movement wants to dismantle any and all copyright law is a wide-spread misconception. The stance (at least for the UK and Swedish pirate parties) is more moderate than the name might suggest.
Re:Money (Score:3, Informative)
And how much will they be paid? The Standard Rate as defined by government? So, you're basically advocating communism.
Imagine I'm a talented writer or painter. If you want a picture or literary work, pay me and I'll make you one. No government involvement needed.
Re:Forcing authors to lose rights over work (Score:4, Informative)
Frankly, if I had to pay an extra $1 on a spindle of CDs or an extra $10 on an iPod and in exchange get the right to download whatever the hell media I want, I (as an American) would gladly take that option.
In Sweden, we have a levy system, but non-commercial sharing is still illegal, except in a very narrow set of your closest friends and family, where enforcement would be very hard. So you cannot download from people you don't know, but you still pay a levy on blank CDs, DVDs, portable audio players, etc. In addition, you cannot legally get a copy from someone who doesn't have the original.
When this point is brought up, it is excused with the levy being compensation for the copying between family members and very close friends. If the levy meant that you could download all you wanted, I think far fewer people would have any problem with it (given that it isn't also raised significantly.
Re:Priorities for spending of funds (Score:1, Informative)
Wouldn't it make sense to spend whatever money they have on this, and raise new money for later? I can't imagine they are sitting on a fortune anyway. Since PPUK is currently rather small they should take this chance to get out there.
Re:Swedish Pirate Party equivalent (Score:1, Informative)
Mr. Robinson and I have been in touch extensively from time to time when I have visited the UK.
/ Rick Falkvinge (leader of the Swedish PP)
Re:Diluting possible change (Score:3, Informative)
Labour : Want copyright strictly enforced
Conservative : Want copyright strictly enforced
LibDems : Want copyright strictly enforced
Labour : Caught fiddling expenses
Conservative : Caught fiddling expenses
LibDems : Caught fiddling expenses
Which of the above do I vote for to inspire faith in parliament, and not vote in people who want strong copyright laws for their friends in the media industry?
Re:Is fielding candidates the best course? (Score:3, Informative)
That pressure group already exists, has done for a couple of years now, and does some excellent work.
http://openrightsgroup.org/ [openrightsgroup.org]
Why repeat that organisation's activities instead of doing something else, such as giving the disenfranchised population the chance to vote against the mainstream parties?
Re:Forcing authors to lose rights over work (Score:3, Informative)
She sends it to her friend, Carrie, who sends it to her friend, Bill, who sends it to my friend, Alex. Now I can get it, and all the sharing has been perfectly legal.
No, that wouldn't be legal in Sweden, since each recipient must get their copy directly from someone who owns an original (i.e. one they bought in a store).
Re:Naming Rights (Score:3, Informative)
explain that the name tory comes from the irish for outlaw?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tory#History_of_the_term [wikipedia.org]
she can vote for pirates or outlaws. :-) isn't history fun!
Re:Game developers (Score:1, Informative)
It's mostly because those professions work on actual physical items and things, but while digital things don't cost almost anything to copy and sell to a new customer, they cost a lot to product.
Most, but not all. For an interesting real world novalist example see the post in the thread above [slashdot.org]
Which brings us to another question:
How will computer game developers afford making games?
I notice that many of the new games are now emphasizing the online multiplayer aspect- e.g. Left4Dead 2 single player mode is the least interesting and almost hidden at the end of a long line of cool value added online multiplayer games. All value added services that cannot be copied. WOW has been profitable, popular and has little competition. Are the game studios happy about being forced to do this to make money? I doubt it, but there lies the heart of this: Once you break even, It is extremely profitable to just duplicate as many copies as you need for fixed cost and sell each copy for scarce good prices. Example: COD MW2 [wikipedia.org]: As of January 18, 2010, it has taken over $1 billion in sales. Now subtract the cost of production (a _lot_ less than 1billion even you would have to admit) - now each "unit" sold going forward is all gravy: it has a fixed cost approaching zero to copy/produce.
It is much less profitable to have to run game servers to make a living, with all the overhead they bring. However this is how services in the real world operate: you actually have to have a value added service to make money, _not_ have a legislated and privilidged position to be the only one able to make a digital copy. Relying on legislation to enforce artificial scarcity into the digital medium in order to support your business model built upon the exclusive right to make copies for sale, is highly morally questionable to say the least. Further, COD MW2 managed to pull off 1 billion sales despite what pundits claim to be an internet rife with piracy/No ACTA to control the masses copying digital information!
Most likely COD MW2 benefited from the Internets natural ability to copy and propagate information, exactly the same as the Novalist reference I provided at the beginning.
Discussion about copyright is usually only around music and forgets that some of the other industries have a much harder time to come up with alternative solutions, so I'd like to hear a good solution on how would gaming industry work.
You have heard it, I have even given you real world examples - but I bet you'll reject it for one simple reason. Actually having to provide a value added service is of course not nearly as profitable as legislating artificial scarcity into the digital medium for your exclusive "right" to make unlimited copies and sell each one as if it was scarce commodity. For this reason (not as profitable) every major large game studio, music and movie producer in the world is going to fight tooth and nail, pay off any politician necessary to have legislation enacted to force artificial scarcity ASAP. As Micheal Geist put it [michaelgeist.ca] in a recent presentation to Washington college of law: ACTA is an underhanded (immoral) way to bypass democratic processes built into other treaties like WIPO.