Pirate Party UK

[ahdkaw]

I find that the whole Copyright/Patent argument is being diluted by Copyright-Holders, but this is obvious as anyone who controls something will always wish to retain that control, especially if there is big buck involved.

Regardless of the legality of the current worldwide P2P activities, it is clear that something needs to be done. Two options exist as far as I can tell.

1. A change to copyright laws which distinguishes between those who P2P for illicit profits, and those for non-commercial private use.
2. Censor and track everyone on the Internet, and arrest anyone who downloads anything that could be considered as Copyrighted.

Option 1 is the most sensible route to take, as the expense involved in tracking every single Internet user is far too costly for any government to withstand. This activity would inevitably increase taxes to protect the few commercial interests. Now, I don't know about anyone else, but I would rather my taxes go to something helpful to the people, not the corporations.

Anyone who advocates the second option, does not appear to fully understand the implications.

Plus, just to throw a spanner in the works, P2P evolves faster than any Government can keep up. Even if all the BitTorrent websites and other topsites were closed down and their admins thrown in jail, either more sites will appear or it will return underground.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I find that the whole Copyright/Patent argument is being diluted by Copyright-Holders, but this is obvious as anyone who controls something will always wish to retain that control, especially if there is big buck involved.

Regardless of the legality of the current worldwide P2P activities, it is clear that something needs to be done. Two options exist as far as I can tell.

1. A change to copyright laws which distinguishes between those who P2P for illicit profits, and those for non-commercial private use.
2. Censor and track everyone on the Internet, and arrest anyone who downloads anything that could be considered as Copyrighted.

Option 1 is the most sensible route to take, as the expense involved in tracking every single Internet user is far too costly for any government to withstand. This activity would inevitably increase taxes to protect the few commercial interests. Now, I don't know about anyone else, but I would rather my taxes go to something helpful to the people, not the corporations.

Anyone who advocates the second option, does not appear to fully understand the implications.

Plus, just to throw a spanner in the works, P2P evolves faster than any Government can keep up. Even if all the BitTorrent websites and other topsites were closed down and their admins thrown in jail, either more sites will appear or it will return underground.

So, you admit that you and people like you belong in jail, from a legal standpoint. I just take it a step further, and say that you and people like you fail from an ethical standpoint as well.

People who own something have a right to control it. There's no getting around that. They want big bucks for it, and they have a right to get whatever the market can bear. You don't have a right to the work of others because you are too greedy and self-involved to behave in a legal and ethical manner. You don't have a right to the work of others because you believe they charge too much money. You don't have a right to the work of others because there's a good chance you'll get away with it, or because the law is difficult to enforce. You don't have a right to the work of others UNLESS YOU PAY FOR IT, OR UNLESS THEY VOLUNTARILY GIVE IT TO YOU.

 

[ahdkaw]

That's right iJoe, if reason doesn't work, shouting might.

Anyway, my doggie is telling me to ignore all this and take her for a walk in sunshine. TTFN.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

ImprobableJoe - Sorry was busy with other things and just clocked back in to find 20 more posts since I last posted.

I will list a couple of negative things that occur because of copyright and patent law.

1 > Monopoly of entire industries
a> Which in turn causes human suffering
b> Allows obscene abuse of power
c> Spreads stupidity
2> Slow down human development
a> By slowing down technological needs
b> By decreases cultural diversity
c> By allowing dis information to occur because the controller of the monopoly does not care if the information is true. Simply that it serves the purpose to increase personal gain for the controller.

So in short Joe, your UN willingness to watch the video that explains some of the core arguments that distribution companies are lies. You stated that it does not matter that piracy actually helps small time artists to beat mass publicized one (well the small time artists care and fight for it).

In one of Obama's speeches, he clearly states that there is a need for patent reform in America. The fact of the matter is he knows that the patent system that America currently enforces is slowly choking American ingenuity and killing off start up companies in the blue chip industry. Simply because algorithms or entire stands of DNA are patent.

You essentially have a rat race to patent anything to force others to pay for the little bit you know. You don't even have to do anything constructive with your knowledge, just have it. I have not even gone into the privacy laws and the free speech arguments. I think I will leave it for now and see what your reply is.

I am however just tired of the fact that I get shit shoved down my thought produced in California. I think they should pay me for the amount of hours of my life wasted because of misleading advertisement.

Free speech arguments don't apply. You don't deserve to be giving things for free without permission. Period.

If you have a problem with technology or medical advances being trademarked, I think your best bet is to drop the "pirate" foolishness and push for government-sponsored research and development, the results of which would belong to the government and sold to the people at cost. There's even an argument to be made for shortening the amount of time that a patent or copyright can be enforced, in certain circumstances. If you're serious about reform and making beneficial changes, your best bet is to drop the label that associates a reasonable discussion of patent and copyright law with a bunch of spoiled criminals who want to steal music and movies for purely selfish reasons.

 

[ahdkaw]

Free speech doesn't apply? That's an interesting concept.

So, rather than calling everyone around you (again) criminals, perhaps you could provide your solution to this thorny issue? I have already proposed two solutions, and my positions on each. Are you willing to do the same?

As regards to criminality, I put it to you that we are all criminals. We have all committed criminal acts.

Ever stolen anything as a child? Criminal.
Ever fiddled your taxes? Criminal.
Ever broken the speed limit? Criminal.
Ever urinated in a public area? Criminal.
Ever had sex in public? Criminal.
Ever dropped litter? Criminal.

See where this is going? That's correct, nowhere. So let's move the debate forward, yes?

 

[Ozymandyus]

I hadn't gotten involved in this discussion... but I fall in with Joe on this one.

For god's sakes, its entertainment. If you feel entertainment is priced too high and you must steal it to bring the cost down, how do you feel about things that are actual necessities that are priced out of range for many people? Maybe we should just steal everything we feel is priced too high. The music and entertainment industry is by NO MEANS completely controlled, there is indie music everywhere and if you really feel the need to 'bring down the man', STOP listening to music from big record labels. Stop buying and caring about music from big record labels.

You can watch so much media for free. You can play so many games for free. Yes they are not the latest and coolest games music and entertainment, but you have to pay for that luxury. You can't just steal Air Jordans or Bulgari watches because they are unreasonably priced.

Also, did someone actually compare what Rosa Parks did to being able to take the fruits of intellectual labor for free? People that are for pirating have such a twisted worldview, I just will never understand. YES you do own intellectual property. If you've ever spent years and millions trying to make and promote an album, write a book, make a movie, or what have you, you would be incredibly angry if someone decided to just take it for free.

As for technological patents, it needs to be looked into of course. Patenting things like multi-touch interfaces (apple) or massively multiplayer persistent worlds (worlds.com) and then suing anything and everyone that moves is so foolish to me. Things that are clear abuses of the patent system like that need to be stopped. But if you spend millions of dollars researching some particular invention and then some company makes an exact duplicate without having to pay for those upfront costs everyone will get out of the invention game.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Free speech doesn't apply? That's an interesting concept.

So, rather than calling everyone around you (again) criminals, perhaps you could provide your solution to this thorny issue? I have already proposed two solutions, and my positions on each. Are you willing to do the same?

As regards to criminality, I put it to you that we are all criminals. We have all committed criminal acts.

Ever stolen anything as a child? Criminal.
Ever fiddled your taxes? Criminal.
Ever broken the speed limit? Criminal.
Ever urinated in a public area? Criminal.
Ever had sex in public? Criminal.
Ever dropped litter? Criminal.

See where this is going? That's correct, nowhere. So let's move the debate forward, yes?

Really? You went with the Ray Comfort thing?

Anyways, the comparison falls apart because I'm not advocating for the "Tax Cheat Party" or the "Unsafe Speed Party." We've all done things that we shouldn't be proud of. The difference is that I'm not pretending that something that I should be ashamed of is really some sort of wonderful and brave endeavor. Stealing the intellectual property of others is something you should be ashamed of. You're not making a moral or ethical stand against unfair laws. You're just a thief.

 

[ahdkaw]

With iJoe attempting to show that somehow backing up my own property by means other than sitting down and record 150 LPs and 300 EPs to MP3 is criminal, I find it very difficult to take anything he says with any seriousness.

The point here, that everyone seems to be ignoring, is that this is happening the world over, with millions of people doing it everyday.

To constantly go on about how 'wrong' or 'criminal' it is, is not moving the debate forward, it is sticking in the mire. It seems that some people don't get that I already know about these things. Well I do, and repeating it will not change a thing.

What does change things is reasoned debate, now if at least one anti-pirate can provide me with a solution that would work then I am willing to go further with this.

No-one has even covered my point about those who download for profit, to supply the black market, for some reason this is completely dismissed as somehow they are no more guilty than anyone else. And again, it's the old black market situation, which is that if technology or whatever can provide a cheaper product, then people will do this. A lot of people buy "knock-off" DVDs. Why? Because they are cheaper than the real thing, and often less intrusive, until this is sorted out it will continue, just like any other black market. It's simple economics.

Just keep making assumptions about me, iJoe. I know you have nothing else to offer.

 

[Ozymandyus]

With iJoe attempting to show that somehow backing up my own property by means other than sitting down and record 150 LPs and 300 EPs to MP3 is criminal, I find it very difficult to take anything he says with any seriousness.

The point here, that everyone seems to be ignoring, is that this is happening the world over, with millions of people doing it everyday.

To constantly go on about how 'wrong' or 'criminal' it is, is not moving the debate forward, it is sticking in the mire. It seems that some people don't get that I already know about these things. Well I do, and repeating it will not change a thing.

What does change things is reasoned debate, now if at least one anti-pirate can provide me with a solution that would work then I am willing to go further with this.

No-one has even covered my point about those who download for profit, to supply the black market, for some reason this is completely dismissed as somehow they are no more guilty than anyone else. And again, it's the old black market situation, which is that if technology or whatever can provide a cheaper product, then people will do this. A lot of people buy "knock-off" DVDs. Why? Because they are cheaper than the real thing, and often less intrusive, until this is sorted out it will continue, just like any other black market. It's simple economics.

A solution that would work? What were your solutions again?
1. A change to copyright laws which distinguishes between those who P2P for illicit profits, and those for non-commercial private use.
2. Censor and track everyone on the Internet, and arrest anyone who downloads anything that could be considered as Copyrighted.

This is your solution that would work, copyright law that lets you steal as long as you don't make a profit? What's to stop Everyone from giving away all intellectual property for free? Why would I ever pay for anything again? How is this a working solution?

There are many in-between steps here: You don't have to track everyone and throw anyone that might be downloading copyrighted materials to punish a few thieving fools. Leave harsh fines in place, make it clear that stealing is stealing, and that downloading intellectual property that isn't yours is stealing, and occasionally make an example of heavy distributors and users.
Lots of other options out there: music and video streaming services, embed tracking of intellectual property for multiple copies made of digital media to see how many times it has been copied and being able to track those copies back up through the chain of theft, registering your backups online when you make copies, whatever.

Yes, there will still be a black market for these things. There is one for Everything, lots of people buy things every day that 'fell off a truck' or from a 'flea market' or whatever. That doesn't mean that we should re-evaluate the idea of ownership, just because some people steal stuff.

Yes, we all recognize that the actual thieves that do the majority of the work whether it be theft, or removing the DRM or the selling for profit are the worst offenders. Yes, they should be the first to be punished. But you should not feel that you are doing something okay or even JUST when you buy from shady dealers or download copyrighted material for free, which is the suggestion here. That a political party would form around the idea... it is sad to me, really.

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

I've closed the report as I don't see that IJ is being any worse than adhkaw, and adhkaw isn't really backing himself up well.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

That a political party would form around the idea... it is sad to me, really.

Same here. There's something seriously screwed up when a political party forms around the idea that people shouldn't be paid for their work. I wonder why they think anyone would spend the time, effort, and money to create anything when someone with an entitlement complex and a complete lack of ethics will just come pirate it away?

 

[ahdkaw]

I've closed the report as I don't see that IJ is being any worse than adhkaw, and adhkaw isn't really backing himself up well.

Okay, so it's fine for me to be accused of being a thief.

You may as well ban me now, because I won't be returning to be abused by iJoe at every turn.

 

[Möbiµs]

It doesn't really matter what you think. You can certainly possess a certain composition of chords or words. Copying constructions of these things that other people have created and then copyrighted is plagiarism and theft and so on. It makes no difference if you have an idealistic notion that, because words and chords exist outside copyright, therefore constructions OF words and chords are outside copyright. They aren't.

Interesting example: The guitarist Steve Vai wrote a piece of music called "Bangkok" then discovered that he'd actually worked from a transcript of an old Bjorn-from-ABBA song that he'd made some years previously then forgotten about. With the record already completed, he had to scramble to get permission to use Bjorn's music in the release. Fortunately Bjorn was nice about it, and the information merely had to be changed to "written by Bjorn".

This is why lyrics from songs quoted in books tend to have a "used by permission" link somewhere. Your argument is like saying that, because colours can't be possessed, configurations of these colours into artwork can't be possessed either.

I don't know if you're any kind of artist or writer, but it would gall me something rotten if I found someone had used music I'd written and passed it off as their own. A piece of music I spent a lot of time and effort on, stolen.

And even if you don't personally agree with it, it's still the law. Copyrighted music or writings cannot be reproduced without permission.

Finally some substance.

Your argument is like saying that, because colours can't be possessed, configurations of these colours into artwork can't be possessed either.

This is a much too complicated matter to be simplified with basic metaphors like that. I wonder if we still would have bakeries and restaurants if we used the same logic on them. Flour, butter, milk, yeast and spices aren't copyrighted, right, but cinnamon buns should be?

You, as a musician, are probably always trying new ideas, but there's still a musical framework built out of rules for tempo, scale, harmony, rhythm etc. that gives you little room for variation before it gets too unintelligible for your audience. This reality will make it very plausible to accidentally come up with something already thought of by someone else, without your knowledge of the former material. Are you guilty of breaching copyright then? If a court of law finds your stuff too similar to the copyright owners, then you will lose!

Here's a great example of a blogger threatened for using an everyday phrase in his writings: http://digg.com/d1pglc. Facepalm is an understatement.

I know though that the main issue isn't about accidental plagiarism and think that artists do have the right to have their work attributed to them if they want to, but copyright laws aren't the way to go. It leaves us incapacitated to do anything without the fear of becoming "criminals", à  la iJoe.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I know though that the main issue isn't about accidental plagiarism and think that artists do have the right to have their work attributed to them if they want to, but copyright laws aren't the way to go. It leaves us incapacitated to do anything without the fear of becoming "criminals", à  la iJoe.

The problem is that what seems to be advocated is not "avoidance of accidental plagiarism" but outright theft, which DOES make you a criminal and a thief no matter how you want to spin it. It doesn't make you the worst criminal in the world, any more than driving 10 MPH over the speed limit is identical to drunk driving... but both things ARE illegal and a breach of ethics. There's also a difference between ripping a CD you own to your hard drive, and downloading songs illegally from the Internet. If you want to keep the right to add your personal CDs to your iTunes library, that's different from saying you should be able to add music that you don't own and haven't paid for.

How do you intend to guarantee that people are paid for their creative work, without a law? Laws exist people without them, people don't do the right thing. Hell, as we've seen in this thread people can hardly do the right thing with laws in place. Remove copyright protections, and you might as well tell creative people that they shouldn't bother.

 

[Möbiµs]

The problem is that what seems to be advocated is not "avoidance of accidental plagiarism" but outright theft, which DOES make you a criminal and a thief no matter how you want to spin it. It doesn't make you the worst criminal in the world, any more than driving 10 MPH over the speed limit is identical to drunk driving... but both things ARE illegal and a breach of ethics. There's also a difference between ripping a CD you own to your hard drive, and downloading songs illegally from the Internet. If you want to keep the right to add your personal CDs to your iTunes library, that's different from saying you should be able to add music that you don't own and haven't paid for.

How do you intend to guarantee that people are paid for their creative work, without a law? Laws exist people without them, people don't do the right thing. Hell, as we've seen in this thread people can hardly do the right thing with laws in place. Remove copyright protections, and you might as well tell creative people that they shouldn't bother.

Copyright is not a simple matter and should not be summarised all under the same umbrella. Ahdkaw made a great point regarding profit and personal usage. These two need to be separated, for they have entirely different ramifications.

I know I'm not alone about this, because the nation of SPAIN agrees with me:
http://torrentfreak.com/downloading-3322-movies-is-okay-in-spain-090529/

You are, on the other hand, right about the issue of entertainers getting credit for their original stuff, but the problem of payment is way too overhyped in my opinion. Many of the artists I listen to that endorse file sharing are living the dream and frequently give out free albums on their website. Tech N9ne (a rapper), for example, has sold more than a million records with his independent record label and gets millions of dollars from all the concerts he holds worldwide. All this because of the exposure he gets from file sharing.

Being entirely against laws that regulate trademarks is maybe an overstatement. They do need to be protected, but only if the copier is making a profit out of it.

 

[philebus]

There does seem to be a big pooling together of distinct problems.

So far as I have ever been able to tell, all property is convention, be it physical or intellectual. I just can't come up with a good objective argument for any of it. Does that mean that we shouldn't have those conventions? The question is, do the conventions serve any good? I think that for the most part they do, and where they don't, they could be improved to do so, I would never claim that we could ever come up with absolute rules on the matter that are always fair but we are better off with them than not.

Broadly, what we are talking about here is divided between copyright and patents. Patents cover technologies, ways of doing things (and there is some question regarding the use of copyright rather than patents to protect software). Then copyright is used to protect creative endeavours such as writing, painting, and music.

These conventions exist to incentivise creators, be they inventors of machines or of drugs, or be they artists or playwrights. They provide a mechanism by which those people can earn a living from their efforts, something that really was very hard in the past. You invent something, someone else then produces and sells it, profiting instead of you. You write a book, make a deal with a publisher, you make some money of the first printing but then, seeing it to be popular, another press produces and sells their own edition, making money instead of you. It used to be very hard to make money as a writer because of this, it did happen, but it was rare. I recall reading of the numerous, and essentially pirated, editions of Alice in Wonderland. Also, when others took to printing a novel, the author lost all control of it, sometimes with legal consequences, there was an unauthorised edition of Fanny Hill that had added to it some descriptions of homosexuality that contributed to legal proceedings against John Cleland.

With regards to patent law, I will agree that there is plenty of scope for revision, there are cases where we can see that it is working against societies, in particular, I would mention medical advances. But this does not give us carte blanche to treat all patents with the same contempt. We must push for revision of those areas that are unfair, but must qualify any such revision. Where it works, leave it.

With regards to copyright, the first thing I will mention is that it does not prevent the spread of knowledge, you can only copyright a particular expression of knowledge, not the knowledge itself. That can be republished elsewhere in different words (though it would be ethical to attribute the source). This is mostly about books, music, and film. Without copyright, we really do risk these industries and the livelihoods of those artists within them. It is all very well pointing to the grey areas, such as lending music or backing up a recording, but as conventions, we expect grey areas and honestly, we they have never presented much problem, how many musicians would want people prosecuted for these things? And in some countries there are even fair use laws to accommodate them. However, a few grey areas do not permit us to jump to total freedom from copyright. I would suggest that those who want to make this move need to present some serious alternative models that could provide the same levels of benefits and they need to have those models before fighting to stop copyright as it is now and certainly before they abuse the existing copyright laws. Such models must take into account the establishing of new artists, the ability to make a living professionally, if we are to see professional standards, and sanction against those who would break the new model. So far, I've seen nothing that I believe would work and even if there were a new model ready to suggest, how would that entitle anyone to deny others reward for their efforts before it is in place? And if, as is sometimes the case, the pirate's gripe is with the distributors, the studios, publishers, etc - then I wonder how many of them have ever sent a payment directly to any of the artists whose work they have taken? Also, while some artists are successfully employing filesharing, how many of them were already established? And do you really think that it would work for less popular music, such as opera? And how would it apply to illustrations and fine arts, or to novel writing. Pointing to a few individual cases does not make the case - it doesn't demonstrate that it would work for all or even that these are not exceptions.

No, I won't vote for pirates. Their actions are poorly aimed, arguing against one thing while abusing another (such as medical patents and music). Just because piracy is now stupidly easy does not make it right. Just because I can get away with something, would never be enough to revise my understanding of it being wrong.

 

[Shapeshifter]

By the way, if you don't know this video already, it describes the history of the "Amen Break" and makes some conclusions about copyright laws restricting creativity thus actually prohibiting economical gain from it, instead of protecting the benefits. Resampling of already existing music is a huge business.

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

Okay, so it's fine for me to be accused of being a thief.

You may as well ban me now, because I won't be returning to be abused by iJoe at every turn.

My perspective is similar to Joe's here. If you obtain, by whatever methods, something which you ordinarily would have had to pay money for . . . I would regard that technically as theft. So accusing you of being a thief is entirely justified in that context, if you've ever downloaded something. You may disagree with it, but in law you could be designated as such.

Of course you have your argument of "have you ever recorded onto tape etc? Then you're a thief" . . .

Well, that is a little different. When we recorded stuff onto tape as lads, it was generally one or two songs, not great quality, onto a fairly imperfect format that would fast degrade. The triumph of the internet and technology is that now you can get PERFECT versions of an entire album, or discography, within minutes, and then quickly put them onto all sorts of media for whatever use you see fit.

And ignoring all the technicalities of it, you simply ARE a thief for doing it. That is a factual term and, as far as I'm concerned, completely justified. I'm a thief too. Let's be friends.

 

[acerba]

By the way, if you don't know this video already, it describes the history of the "Amen Break" and makes some conclusions about copyright laws restricting creativity thus actually prohibiting economical gain from it, instead of protecting the benefits. Resampling of already existing music is a huge business.

This sort of thing isn't restricted to music, either. Just look at the Cthulhu mythos. In addition to Lovecraft's books, there are writings by a number of other authors, and themes from their works are frequently used in movies and television.

 

[philebus]

I'm sure that I'm being pedantic but just to be clear, Lovecraft actively encouraged others to employ his mythos. In this case it worked in his favour - the more authors used it, the more attention that would come his way as its originator.