Read more
Pirate Parties have been emerging since January 2006 with the appearance of the Swedish Piratpartiet. Now we see that pirate parties have been developping in different countries. There ideas is to promote free knowledge, transparency and perticularly to reform law concerning patents and copyrights.
There is also the Pirate Parties International (PPI) which is based in Belgium as a non-governmental organization. It helps promoting and developping national pirate parties throughout the world.
The Belgium Private Party says that they want to reform copyright and patent, and those are field which are not approached by current political parties. They want to bring new ideas on the table.
On the Uk Pirate Party website, they claim that even though copyrights have to give the chance for the artist to make money, it needs however to be balanced with the rights of the society. They raise the idea of a shorter copyright period (less than ten years) and advance the fact that it will encourage artists to create more.
They criticize the big business surrounding copyrights and are in favour of a more creative and investing content which could be possible with a shorter copyright period.
As for patents, which can be defined as an intellectual property right which gives an exclusive right to an inventor for a certain period of time, the Pirate Party agrees that the big competition and business surrounding it has to be stopped and patents had to be adressed to invetors as a reward for their work.
They suggest a rise of the bar to detain a patent and agree on the fact that some patents must be prohibited.
They also would require a “model”‘ for patents to be provided.
The Pirate party are in a favour of more civil rights for the individuals and they stand up for privacy. They are in favour of technology and knowledge economy and they point out the good ideas that are often stopped by too trivial, hard to understand, “overreaching” patents.
I think their program is interesting but I think that unfortunately many people won’t feel so concerned by it, and would rather turn themsleves to classical political parties. They are mainly preoccupied with development, intellectual property and transparency of the State, but as they themselve point out, they don’t offer ideas or propositions on social, economic and political matters, which for citizen are main clues in order to rule a country.
Show lessRead more
The Pirate Parties are some kind of “political” or even more anarchical groups who try to change some part of the institutions of our society. Their focus is on 2 things mainly. First, they want to abolish patent and copyright structure. Second, they also have some kind of agenda on the fundamental right of “private life”.
They exist almost everywhere in Europe. It started in Sweden but now there’s a Pirate Party in France, Belgium, UK,..
For example, in Sweden, the Swedish Pirate Party’s platform has three components: It wants to do away with the patent system, it wants to reform the copyright system and limit protection and it wants to protect individual freedom from the “surveillance state.”
On the intellectual property rights agenda, they want to reform and even abolish copyright and patent laws.
For patents, they assert their bad and negative effects on societies because it creates a monopoly for the people who benefit from its protection. They think it’s completely noxious for society in general. They want to reform the structure and abolish it step by step. So they want to forbid patent on ideas, mathematical formulas, softwares, methods (like psychology), on living people,… They want to reform the financing of medical research and find a solution for the patent on pharmaceutic.
Their values and ideas should be taken into account. They don’t want to abolish research. They actually want to promote it but by other solutions. What they do not take into account is that, even tough patent is a form of monopoly for people who benefit from its protection, it’s a huge incentive for the research in general. Patent is about the protection of technologies and inventions. This institution has 2 sides. First, it promote research, investment and creation. Actually, it is because patent protection law exist that young people try to make a life time research on some important point and try to find investors for their project. If they can’t have this protection, they can’t prevent others from copying and using their invention. In Belgium, there is the “SPIN OFF des universités”. It’s an institution that makes it possible for young searchers to find an investment for their project and they are financed by public institutions. And it is because the patent exists that those people can have this and also be able to be defended by good lawyers when bigger undertakings try to use their invention. It’s a way of keeping searchers in our countries. So yes, there might be some abuse sometimes with patent protection such as big firms having a patent on huge evolutions on medicines,… But national courts and international ones are there to denounce those abuses.
Concerning copyrights, it is about artistic and original creations. First, we had a strict protection for copyright. Then, in some way, it started to become more easy to access to the protection. So they reenforce the system because it was too flexible. Pirate Parties want to abolish the system. They want to abolish copyright for works, informations,…
They want to create a new collective license on the internet for artists.They also want to promote the diffusion of artistic works and legalize copies, diffusions,…
In my personal point of view, we need copyright at some points. Artists wouldn’t be protected for their work otherwise. And we need culture and arts in our societies to be protected and recognized. Societies are made of culture and art and it’s not because we want to render everything free and public that we should forget that those institutions and systems basically finance artists and searchers so they can create and invent. Therefore, patent and copyright protection are kind of monopolies but it’s a positive restriction. We need those systems but the Pirate Parties are a good way to start the discussion and try to think about what we could change in those systems for reaching a better balance of interest.
Finally, they assert themselves as protecting fundamental rights such as private life and they want to render free culture technologies and knowledge from their ancient structure that created a monopoly on culture and technologies which are copyright and patent.
On basis of private life, they want to protect private life by using pseudonyms and protect and recognize the right of access to the internet. Private life is not an intellectual right but the idea they want to assert is that, even tough societies say our life is protected on the web, it is not protected. Personal datas on the internet or used by firms are not protected as we are supposed to believe. Therefore they pirate some websites (they crack the system and try to access to personal datas) and show like 10 or 15 lines on the internet to prove our private life is not protected as we thought because they could access to it easily. Their argument may be true, we are not protected as we think we are and personal datas are not that private. But with the internet, those systems of protection became difficult to handle. So I think, they have a good argument by pointing out we should be careful to this problematic. But the way they proceed may not be the best.They want to protect private life so they shouldn’t make personal datas accessible to everyone on the internet. They should propose to firms or even to the Commission on private life to cooperate. They have a big ideal and they want to protect it. But by doing so, they prevent others from the protection of their private life. There’s a need to make a balance of interest again and try to work together instead of keeping their own agenda which harms private life and other’s right of protection for private datas.
They have other values such as independence of the judicial power, transparency of political life, abolish the censure on the internet,…
My point of view is that it’s more a group of anarchists than political people who want to “change the world” and abolish the institutions of our societies on behalf of freedom.
Read more
As an introduction, I will speak about the communal/ provincial elections, which took place yesterday. The pirate party (PP) was represented at the provincial level and won 5984 votes in my province, which means 2,61% of the total vote. It is quite a good score for this tiny party, and it’s only the beginning. The pirate party seems to get more and more supporters across the world, as we can see it in Germany or in Sweden.
But, what is this party about? What are their main ideas?
First, the party avoids the common classification in saying that it is neither a left wing party, nor a right wing one. Pirate parties all over the world claim for intellectual freedom. They want to reform law concerning copyright because it turns now as an impeachment for the culture to spread, which was the initial aim of the creation of the copyright system. They think that a Five year copyright protection is enough and that people do not need money after their death… On top of that, they actually want to get rid of the patent law and they fight for the free sharing of knowledge. But pirate party is not all about copyright and patent, even if it takes a large place in their political program, it also concerns right to privacy, transparency of the state, civil right, functioning of the government… Pirate party is honest in saying that it has not the answer for all the political problems we faced every day, and their program is very clear: its workhorse is about reform of copyright law, a transformed patent system and a greater respect for the right of privacy.
For more details see: http://www.piratpartiet.se/international/english
All the pirate parties all over the world are coordinated by the PPI, Pirate Parties International (http://www.pp-international.net/). This non-governmental organization, founded after the Brussels conference in 2010, helps all the Private parties in different countries to communicate, to cooperate and so on. In my opinion, this kind of organisation is very useful, it helps to have a international cooperation, uniformity for all the parties and a broader presence. It is quite uncommon to have such a political unity.
I think this party has some good ideas. It is true that the rules concerning pharmaceutical patents should be changed, as we know lot of people are dying everyday all around the world because they cannot afford some medicines because of their price. In addition, as we saw it with the “Mega upload” scandal, people are skirting legal rules to load movies and songs for free. Artists are losing more and more money, so it could be a good thing to redefine IP law. But the pirate’s program could seem lean in term of contents because, as I said before, it doesn’t contain any solution concerning taxation, education, and economic crisis… All these things that concerns our everyday life and the issues traditional parties are dealing with.
Concerning the impact of the pirate parties and the implementation of their program, WIPO (world intellectual property organization) has just refused the PP to attend WIPO’s meetings as an observer, even if PP fulfils all the required conditions. It means that the well-known institution refused any discussion and compromise with this party. But the PP is spreading everywhere and is represented in 60 countries, can the WIPO avoid the dialogue longer?
Show lessRead more
I’ll briefly summarize the Pirate party’s point of view concerning copyright, found in Christian Engström and Rick Falkvinge manifesto : the Case for Copyright Reform (available at : http://www.copyrightreform.eu/sites/copyrightreform.eu/files/The_Case_for_Copyright_Reform.pdf) Then I’ll try to explain how the pirates connect the issue of copyright with fundamental freedoms. This, in my opinion, explains the relative success of the Pirate party because they somehow relay at national and european level the concerns of the so called « civil society » about copyright vs fundamental right. Finally some conclusions about their action will be drafted : the impact on regulations ? Raising awareness in the civil society ? Did it work ?
The Pirate party proposes a 6 part reform of the copyright legislation. This is a very central issue of their program, they consider this reform as urgent and copyright law today as outdated and threatening fundamental freedoms (ex : postal secret, client-attorney privilege). The reform would « set all non-commercial copying and use free, and (…) shorten the commercial protection time. But (…) keep the commercial exclusivity in a way that allows most business models that are viable today to continue to work. »
1. First step is to leave the moral rights unchanged : « give credit where credit is due ».
2. Secondly : free non-commercial sharing. They wand regulation to target copying for commercial purposes and put an end to the criminalization of peer-to-peer file sharing (using/spreading copyrighted work for non-profit motive).
3. Thirdly, the Pirate party wants to shorten the duration of copyright, they propose 20years from the date of publication.
4. Fourtly, they want to keep the automaticity of the copyright (no formalities, it starts at the publication). But they would require a registration after 5years to solve the orphan works problem.
5. Fifth proposal is to authorize sampling, remixes and parodies and to set clear exceptions and limitations instead of putting a ban on creativity.
6. Sixth proposal is to put a ban on Digital Restrictions Management (a way to restrict by technological means the use of a copyrighted work even if the consumer has legal rights to do so).
Engström (co-founder of the Pirate party) in the Case for Copyright Reform explains it very well : for a long time laymen did not feel concerned about intellectual property : IP concerned only some industries. As we can see in the IP roadmap : industrial concerns about IP remain unchanged, they just follow the evolution of the technologies ex (IP Roadmaps) :
• 2010 « There is also increasing overlap between IP and Information Technology (IT) policies. Issues such as data privacy, open source software, technical measures to discourage on-line infringement, and domain name policy have implications in both the IT and IP fields. »
• 2012 : « The accelerating pace of developments in information technology is also having a major impact on how IP is used, licensed and protected. The emergence of social media, the increasing prevalence of mobile devices and applications, ever-increasing bandwidth, and changing consumer behaviour are making IP owners reconsider their strategies and models for distributing, commercializing and controlling their IP in the electronic environment ».
The big change is how laymen do now feel concerned about IP. Ordinary people were before the age of the internet not able to do anything that would infringe copyright. But now that internet exists, file sharing is boosted : « Until twenty years ago, copyright hardly concerned ordinary people. The rules about exclusivity of the production of copies were aimed at commercial actors, who had the means to, for example, print books or press records. Private citizens who wanted to copy a poem and send to their loved one, or copy a record to cassette and give it to a friend, did not have to worry about being in breach of copyright. In practice, anything you had the technical means to do as a normal person, you could do without risk of any punishment. But today, copyright has evolved to a position where it imposes serious restrictions on what ordinary citizens can do in their every-day lives. As technological progress has made it easier for ordinary people to enjoy and share culture, copyright legislation has moved in the opposite direction. We want to restore copyright to its origins, and make absolutely clear that it only regulates copying for commercial purposes. To share copies, or otherwise spread or make use of use somebody else’s copyrighted work, should never be prohibited if it is done by private individuals without a profit motive. Peer-to-peer file sharing is an example of such an activity that should be legal. »
I think 3 steps of increasing connectivity could be isolated in the movement towards increasing ability to share files, increasing volume of files shared, increasing availibility of people to share file (people are more connected).
1st step is the blogger/mailer/messenger stage : the content is targeted to one correspondant and private or to a big public and public (private= private, public = public), there’s a volume limit and people are occasionally connected.
2nd step is the community game/social network (could be split in 2phases) people are much more connected but still limited by the technology (computers) they share very various contents that are now able to go viral in a much easier way since the public is larger in number and much more spread at global scale (http://www.checkfacebook.com/) Shared contents are various. We come to a point were stopping information or file sharing is very hard.
3d step is using the same communication channels but wich a much higher connectivity : people are at every single moment able to share contents. This is what we experiment with smartphones. Possible volume to share is still perfectible and new channels are on their way.
What can this very schematic (and of course simplistic) approach of our file sharing ability teach us ? That we came to a point were stopping file sharing is utopic. Additionally, try to stop it could strike with some fundamental rights. In fact, any digital communications channel used for a private correspondance can be used to transfer digitizations of copyrighted works. And the only way to check that is to allow to break the seal of private correspondence. Right to privacy, secret of the correspondance… those fundamental rights have to be weight with the industry’s interests.
This is the reason why the civil society nowadays feels concerned about the copyright legislation (ex : ACTA, HADOPI, SOPA, PIPA). People feel threatened in their fundamental rights. It is also a good explanation of the success of the pirate party. ACTA has received a very important mediatic coverage (traditional media but also viral spreat of concerns regarding this agreement.
An uplifting example of how the « civil society » resents the enforcement of IPR in the field of internet (IP Policy Committee blog (http://tacd-ip.org/archives/10)
« DEAR FRIENDS:
Please help us to send a clear message to our European Parliamentarians in defence of fundamental rights, privacy, transparency and judicial due processs. The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement is now being negotiated in secret by the EU, the US and 10 other countries. This international trade accord that will soon be concluded could threaten consumer rights and innovation by means of heavy-handed criminal enforcement measures and the private policing of Internet .
Once an agreement is reached by negotiating parties the European Parliament must give its assent to the ACTA treaty.
Four members of the European Parliament from different political groups have put forth Written Declaration 12 below that needs the majority of the members to become the official opinion of the elected representatives of the European Union. If this declartion is approved it will send a strong message to EU leaders and to EU member states. From the 6th to the 9th of September are the last days to reach a majority of signatures of MEPs. Please contact (by e-mail or telephone) MEPs from your country who haven´t yet signed on the list attached and ask them to demand the respect of citizen and consumer rights by signing Written Declaration 12.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact me.
David Hammerstein, Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue
32 474472763
david@davidhammerstein.org”
The civil society and the industry play now on a level playing field, with representation of the industrial lobbys as well as a political force transmitting the civil societ’ys concerns.
As a way of conclusion : Pirate Party claims that copyright is out of date and infringing fundamental human rights. It is maintained by a constant lobbying at eu and national level.Flourishing culture production is not in contradiction with file sharing. They plead for an end of the ciminalization of the file sharing generation. They claim the penalties imposed by some landmark judgements about infringement of copyright (ex : Jamie thomas case) are totally disproportionate and violating due process and this would never stop file sharing anyway.
I think that their is a dialectical process between those parties and the civil society : at some point, that kind of party comes to life by a process of crystalisation of existing concerns among the society. On one hand, Pirate party started strong in countries like Sweden and Germany. Their was a lack of clear program but they proposed more protection for private data’s, cthe end of criminalization of file-sharing, a different functionning (more like a network ex :Internet relay chat) that was very seducing for countries keen to direct democracy and acculturated to the social network culture (highly connected). This is the bottom-up effect of crystalisation of people’s concerns.
On the other hand, the Pirate party acts as a kind of « counter lobby » to the industries (movies, music, industries concerned by copyright cf. IP roadmap). This is why I think their arrival in the European Parliament was a big step forward : they entered the policy making field (top down outcomes). They bring the citizens concerns in the public debate and at the same time raise awareness of the whole civil society at european level. This was I think a key step for the spread throughout Europe. The Case for Copyright Reform brings more flesh to their program concerning copyright. I think this party have had some strong mediatic impact with its participation to the miscarriage of ACTA, but still the legislative outcomes of their actions are uncertain. Party under construction.
Illustration : http://ds2.ds.static.rtbf.be/article/big_info/2/d/1/624_341_fb0388af54b7030c18228532faeb77b9-1341407908.jpg
Show lessInteresting comments. Good flow of arguments. Thanks for your thoughts.
Read more
Pirate parties all over the world owe their expansion to the growing importance of IP issues in recent society. They represent an important international political movement, active in over 40 countries and represented even in the European Parliament as from 2009.
The Pirate Party considers that copyright “prevents people from legally profiting from the works of others “ and therefore they are in favor of the non-commercial use arguing that people should be able to “copy a poem or dub a cassette and send it to a friend without fear of punishment “. Moreover, they believe that copyrights should be limited to five years instead of an “absurd period of life plus 70 years”.
Concerning patent law, the Pirate Party intents to abolish it, because “patents in other areas range from the morally repulsive (like patents on living organisms) through the seriously harmful (patents on software and business methods) to the merely pointless (patents in the mature manufacturing industries). Europe has all to gain and nothing to lose by abolishing patents outright”.
Besides the reform of copyright and patent systems, the Pirate Parties also advocate for issues like support of civil rights, data privacy, direct democracy and participation, transparency, freedom of information and network neutrality.
As far as I am concerned, the political program of the Pirate Party is both interesting and ambitious. Nevertheless, I tend to consider that some of their views can hardly become reality. First of all, reducing copyrights can be considered useful to society if we were to consider that their goal is to promote the non-commercial use of works on the Internet and thus, improving creative progress. Yet, fraud continues to exist, making this vision of the copyright reform still unrealistic without some precise form of regulation.
Regarding patent law, I believe that their reform project has some merit because by abolishing the patent system, particularly in the field of genetic and pharmaceutical research, innovation can be enhanced.
Although the political program of the Pirate Party remains of great interest, its concrete implementation lacks still substantial economic and political support…at least, for now…
Show lessRead more
Over the past years, Pirate parties have emerged in many European countries as well as all over the world. Founded in 2006 in Sweden, the Piratpartiet quickly developed and a party member was elected as MEP during the European Parliament election of 2009. But it’s in Germany that the Pirate Party is the most successful in national elections. Indeed, the German Pirate Party gained 2% of the votes during the 2009 general election. Although this is not enough for the party to be represented in the Bundestag, it hopes to win the 5% needed when Germans return to ballots next year. This relative success of the Pirate Parties in Europe should make us think about their claims on copyrights and patents, as these are actual issues that concerns most of us.
The Pirate Parties International (PPI) is, since 2010, an NGO based in Brussels that acts as the worldwide “umbrella organization” of Pirate Parties, as summarized on Wikipedia. One might expect to find general information about Pirate Parties’ claims on their website. Rather, the latter is more of a blog, gathering articles about national parties worldwide and displaying links the those parties’ websites. There is no general manifesto available. This might reflect the general philosophy of the Pirate Parties to differentiate themselves from the classical political parties and to promote “liquid democracy”, i.e. the basic idea of a “democratic system in which most issues are decided (or strongly suggested to representatives) by direct referendum” (see http://liquidfeedback.org). In Berlin, the party uses an open-source software called LiquidFeedback to submit legislative documents to the people who then discusses and votes for them. Office-holders are then bound to act according to the votes on LiquidFeedback. Therefore, most ideas and claims come from everyday citizens.
It is however possible to single out shared guidelines of Pirate Parties. First, by looking at manifestos from national Pirate Parties (Germany, Sweden, etc.). Then, a useful document is the Uppsala Declaration of 2009 which defines common claims of PP for the same year’s European Parliament election (see http://www.piratpartiet.se/nyheter/european_pirate_platform_2009). This declaration calls for an important reform of copyrights and patents laws. On the one hand, they believe that copyrights are a burden to modern days creativity. They ask for a sharp reduction of the duration of copyrights protection. Copyright laws should also be less influenced by powerful media industry lobbies. The Declaration insists on the fact that governments make law, not lobbies. Then, they also ask that copyrights should not apply to non-commercial activities. That is, they call for the free use and reproduction of digital products if it’s not for commercial purposes. On the other hand, they consider that patents on life (e.g. patents on seeds and genes) and softwares should not be granted. For them, the patent system is obsolete and threatens innovation and economic growth (an argument in total contradiction with the traditional justification of the patent system). In addition to that, they regard pharmaceutical patents as ethically problematic since they prevent developing countries from distributing cheap medication to their populations. The Declaration also states that such patents are troublesome in developed countries as they prevent competition (and therefore lower prices) in a publicly funded healthcare system.
At first sight, some of PP claims seem valid. One might say that it’s legit to try to combat powerful media industry lobbies. But aren’t these lobbies pursuing a legitimate interest by defending an industry that represents hundred billions of dollars and millions of jobs? Why fight against an industry that provides us with the cultural goods we all love (music, movies, etc.). This is a paradoxical situation for both Pirate Parties and the common everyday Pirate Bay user. However, we might find a point in their claim concerning the reduction of the duration of copyright protection, as lengthy copyright protection might reduce creativeness of copyright holders as well as inventive competition. But do we prefer artistic creation to be driven by harsher market competition rules or let artists create better content and grant them protection? Aren’t artists entitled to their creation as long as they wish? What I however find more interesting is their point of view on pharmaceutical patents and the ethical issues behind it. Are pharmaceutical multinationals entitled to a legal monopoly and make billions out of desperate populations in Africa? This is arguable since these companies have spent billions on research for the development of new drugs that can save millions.
As we can see, this is highly debatable. But I doubt these parties will actually have a real impact on the political scene for now. Surely, they might be an obstacle to the formation of a government in Germany next year after the national election, as they are still growing. But they still lack a comprehensive and reasonable program needed to have some kind of influence in the politics of the country. One thing is to complain about IP issues and giving idealistic solutions. Another is to implement these solutions in a comprehensive program that addresses other important issues (such as the Euro and the economic crises), which none of the Pirate Parties do. Furthermore, I doubt that the election of a single PP member to the European Parliament had an impact on the EP’s rejection of ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement) in July 2012. At least, the Pirate Parties have the merit to make citizens and politicians think about IP issues that concern us all. At the end of the day, the question remains: how to balance freedom of expression with a legitimate protection of artistic creation?
Show lessRead more
Pirate parties are political parties aiming to reform IP law such as copyrights and patents. All of them were inspired by the Swedish pirate party and they want to protect private life in daily life but specially on Internet. They’re neither left-wing nor right-wing, their goal is to provide an unrestricted access to internet, without barriers, freedom of communication,… They strive to reveal the impact of multinational trade agreements on all people on earth, and foster freedom and democracy.
They have three main objectives : First of all, they want to reform and limit copyrights to 5 years. Secondly, they want to abolish patents once and for all and finally improve protection of privacy. Indeed, this raises issues specially dealing with the fight against terrorism where private life is totally violated.
What about copyrights ? Pirate parties agree and furthermore encourage peer-to-peer. According to them, non commercial use and copies of work should be legal to promote culture and creation.
What about patent law ? Patent law raises ethical issues specially in the pharmaceutical domain where poor country don’t necessarily have access to drugs that could save people life while
Do they have merits ? The question is not that simple.
At first glance, their ambitions are interesting and greathearted. They want to democratize lots of works, inventions and enable people with less means to get access to culture. This is noble but you need to dig extra deep and list the reasons of the existence of IP law.
Why does IP rights exist ? First of all, it’s to prevent abuse and their program presents some weakness : abuses. How can you make sure that they won’t be abuses anymore? Authors, musicians, etc. should be protected and their work should be remunerated. Without copyright law, this can be a big problem.
This is the same for patent law, creators have some merits and their work should be protected. Some of them have spent years to create their product and in my opinion it’s totally understandable that they want to be the only user of it.
However a big question arises when dealing with some kind of inventions. We’re not talking about Mp3 player, computer and same kinds of things anymore but about medicines, GMO,…
Does patent rights are still admissible and even morally permissible?
In this kind of situation, proceedings go on and are clearly not done ! If you could save the world, should you deliver freely the cure ? We are in presence of 2 different (and competing) interests ! The interest of societies and the general interest. Which one should prevail? The question remains unanswered.
Finally, pirate parties have already some importance in the politic world. They have two seats in the European Parliament. It’s hard to tell the future but in my opinion they may get bigger and bigger. Because privacy gets more and more important, it’s one of the most important right protected by the ECHR.
Show lessRead more
Pirate Parties
Over the past years, Pirate parties have emerged in many European countries as well as all over the world. Founded in 2006 in Sweden, the Piratpartiet quickly developed and a party member was elected as MEP during the European Parliament election of 2009. But it’s in Germany that the Pirate Party is the most successful in national elections. Indeed, the German Pirate Party gained 2% of the votes during the 2009 general election. Although this is not enough for the party to be represented in the Bundestag, it hopes to win the 5% needed when Germans return to ballots next year. This relative success of the Pirate Parties in Europe should make us think about their claims on copyrights and patents, as these are actual issues that concerns most of us.
The Pirate Parties International (PPI) is, since 2010, an NGO based in Brussels that acts as the worldwide “umbrella organization” of Pirate Parties, as summarized on Wikipedia. One might expect to find general information about Pirate Parties’ claims on their website. Rather, the latter is more of a blog, gathering articles about national parties worldwide and displaying links the those parties’ websites. There is no general manifesto available. This might reflect the general philosophy of the Pirate Parties to differentiate themselves from the classical political parties and to promote “liquid democracy”, i.e. the basic idea of a “democratic system in which most issues are decided (or strongly suggested to representatives) by direct referendum” (see http://liquidfeedback.org). In Berlin, the party uses an open-source software called LiquidFeedback to submit legislative documents to the people who then discusses and votes for them. Office-holders are then bound to act according to the votes on LiquidFeedback. Therefore, most ideas and claims come from everyday citizens.
It is however possible to single out shared guidelines of Pirate Parties. First, by looking at manifestos from national Pirate Parties (Germany, Sweden, etc.). Then, a useful document is the Uppsala Declaration of 2009 which defines common claims of PP for the same year’s European Parliament election (see http://www.piratpartiet.se/nyheter/european_pirate_platform_2009). This declaration calls for an important reform of copyrights and patents laws. On the one hand, they believe that copyrights are a b
Show lessRead more
Pirate parties (PP) want to reform the legal system concerning copyright; they say it severely restrict the very thing it was meant to do, i.e. enable the creation of culture and promote it. Culture and knowledge are good things that increase in value the more they are shared, say PP. Pirates state that all non-commercial use of culture should be free and that a five years copyright term for commercial use should be enough. Copyright should be granted for 5 years, say PP.
Furthermore, PP want to abolish the patent system. Their clearest example concerning the necessity of this can be found in the field of pharmaceutical patents. PP say those “hamper possibly life saving research by forcing scientists to lock up their findings pending patent application, instead of sharing them with the rest of he scientific community”.
Pirate parties advocate more transparency and more democracy in society. They believe that fundamental changes in the way traditional politicians act can be made (rejection of traditional political views and mistrust of the state characterize those parties). Freedom is their “idealistic utopia”: they fight for freedom through open access to education and knowledge, participation and pluralism, expression of opinion, equal rights, etc. Digital rights and freedom on the Internet are at the heart of PP’s political programs, too. “An increasing portion of the population feel worldwide that the traditional political parties do not speak to them any longer”.
Some people say that “ ‘pirates’ are a chaotic bunch, a protest party without a real political agenda”. I couldn’t disagree with that since Pirate parties over the world do not offer clear views over international conflicts, economy, security, etc. – however they created Pirate Parties International, an NGO established in Belgium and aiming to facilitate co-operation between Pirate parties worldwide. I like the idea of people willing to change the world and bringing ideas that can be discussed internationally or locally in order to make the earth a better place, but those people need to “build convincing political demands based on their core principle of freedom” if they want to be accepted by traditional political parties and a bigger part of the public – if they want to get credit for what they say.
It seems obvious to me that the more political representation PP will receive over the world, the bigger the chances are that their IP program will be discussed and could lead to some reform (either nationally or on a bigger scale). Their “fight” certainly has some merit for it exists and delivers result – there are representatives of the “pirate trend” in several parliaments over Europe and!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/18/germany-pirate-party-political-gap
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-15288907
http://www.piratpartiet.se/international/english
http://www.pp-international.net/
Read more
Pirate Parties:
The first Pirate Party was the Swedish Piratpartiet, founded on 1 January 2006 under the leadership of Rickard Falkvinge. The name of this first PP is derived from Piratbyrån, an organization opposed to intellectual property. Knowing this, we already notice that the PP’s view on copyright and patent isn’t that positive. The Pirate Parties defend the free exchange of information, so basically, to simplify things, we could say that they’re against the Intellectual Property laws. “Historically, the ideals of the Pirate parties are partially based on groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Chaos Computer Club, representing the hacker culture and values centered around freedom of information and free exchange of knowledge” .
In general the Pirate Parties stand for the enforcement of freedom, they make this clear by supporting the strengthening of civil rights, direct democracy and participation, but more importantly for us through standing for a reform of copyright and patent law, free sharing of knowledge (also called Open Content), more transparency in governments and freedom of information. They want a society in which ideas, knowledge and culture can freely be exchanged. And in order to make this possible they want to change legislation, especially patent and copyright laws.
For Rick Falkvinge, the founder of the Swedish and first Pirate Party, copyright monopoly is “ a set of monopolies from the era of guild-regulated commerce, when privately dictated monopolies were the norm and expected” . He says that copyright therefore should’ve been abolished with the upcoming of free enterprise laws in the 19th century.
For the Pirate Parties patent rights are seen a reduction of our property right: there were we could produce or create something with raw materials for example, patent laws forbid this in a great number of cases. So they clearly see patent rights as a diminishing of our property right. The PP not only sees copyright as an infringement of our property rights, but also as an invasion of our privacy. For them limiting file sharing is synonym to introducing complete surveillance of everybody’s private communication.
It is of great importance to mention that they’re goal isn’t to abolish patent- and copyright legislation, but to reform it. They’re not planning on abolishing moral rights of authors, they just think “today’s copyright laws are out balance, and out of tune with the times. It has turned the entire young generation into criminals in the eyes of the law, in a futile attempt at stopping the technological development” . Their reform would contain the guarantee of net neutrality, non-commercial file sharing (Free non-commercial use), five years of commercial exclusivity, free sampling (the default rule has to become that it is legal to create new works out of existing ones) and banning DRM (Digital Rights Management).
The PP are gaining power in a lot of countries these last years and they’ll probably gain some more in the future. They have presented candidates in several European countries and they already obtained some seats in various parliaments. In Berlin for example, the German PP won 14 out of 130 seats available. And although we can argue that that isn’t a lot, it’s still 14 seats more than they had before! Even in the European Parliamant there is a Pirate Party member since the 2009 election. Although they’re gaining a lot of power all over the world and are getting more and more chances to implement their IP program, we must not forget that there is a lot of negativity around them as well. Their ideas and thoughts are often discussed in the media and although they’re perfectly legal they do tend to enjoy and underground reputation as an icon of counterculture . Furthermore the demand for Internet regulation is getting stronger and stronger by all traditional political parties. And a last example to show that it will be hard for the PP to really get to the top, is the concern of the entertainment industry: how will artists get paid if file sharing is set free? It’s an interesting question to think about…
Sources:
http://christianengstrom.wordpress.com/the-pirate-party-on-copyright-reform/me
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_Party
http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/nicholas20120724
Read more
Fundamentally, the Pirate Party wants to reform copyright law, get rid of the patent system and also ensure that citizens’ rights to privacy are respected. The primal idea behind the Pirate parties’ political ideas is that culture and knowledge are good things that increase in value the more they are shared. Culture must be created and spread as much as possible. But the problem is that nowadays copyright laws severely restrict the very thing they are supposed to promote.
In this train of thought, Pirate Parties in general wish to restore the balance in copyright legislation by reducing copyright restrictions. This includes:
– The legalization of non-commercial sharing of published works. All non-commercial copying and use should be completely free.
– The prohibition of Digital Restrictions Management (aka DRM which is a class of access control technologies that are used by hardware manufacturers, publishers, copyright holders and individuals with the intent to limit the use of digital content and devices after sale). Big media companies shouldn’t be allowed to write and enforce their own arbitrary laws.
– Reducing the copyright protection for commercial use to a five-year period (Five years after publication, any published work would become part of the public domain). They believe that today’s copyright terms that ensure that people make money seventy years after their death are simply absurd. This is because they think that if you don’t make money in the first couple of years, you basically never will. In their opinion a five years copyright term for commercial use is more than enough. As already mentioned before, non-commercial use on the other hand should be free from day one.
Pirate Parties also want to reform patent laws by banning patents on life, which they think should not be allowed. In their opinion they hamper possibly life saving research by forcing scientists to lock up their findings pending patent application, instead of sharing them with the rest of the scientific community. They wish to introduce an alternative to pharmaceutical patents. This would solve the problems mentioned above but also free some money for actual pharmaceutical research.
In my opinion, the Pirate Parties’ program does have some merit for several reasons. First of all, I believe they are right when they say that culture and knowledge should be shared as much as possible. In a period of economical crisis like ours, people will less want or be able to pay to access culture. The legalization of non-commercial sharing of published works is therefore something that should definitely be considered. The prohibition of DRM technologies is also something that we should reflect about because having a monopoly making its own laws can be positive but can also have a lot of negative effects on the buyers. Finally, I also agree on the fact that it isn’t necessary to behold copyright protection for commercial use for a period of seventy years after a person’s death. Of course, the number of years to which these protections should be reduced is another question that needs to be discussed.
On the topic of patents, I also think it’s necessary to reform laws when it comes to pharmaceutical patents. These laws shouldn’t be able to block research and to unable people to access some crucial scientific findings.
I do expect Pirate parties to be able to implement their IP program in the long run because their ideas seem to slowly spread and appeal to more and more people. An example of this is the evolution of the German Piratenpartei that seems to gain more and more importance with the years.
Read more
The pirate parties don’t want to abolish copyright but reform it. The reason for this reform is because they say that the law is too outdated and out of balance. Copyright law was originally written to promote the creating and spreading of culture, now it does the opposite. According to the pirate parties copyright laws restrict and even prevent many new cultural expressions. To solve this problem they propose a shortening of the protection time. They also want to set all non-commercial copying and use free.
The pirate parties are even more radical when it comes to patent, especially when it comes to pharmaceutical patents. These patents should be abolished, according to the pirate parties, because they deprive poor countries of medicines that could save lives.
The political program of these parties is quite difficult to find. This is because they don’t see themselves as professionals but as civilians who want to spread their ideas. Unfortunately, before this course I had never heard about these parties. If they want to implement their program, they need to be more convincing and more oriented to the public. However, I personally find that there is some truth in their arguments, especially when it comes to pharmaceutical patents. For the younger generation, like me, their ideas are very attractive. We are constantly sharing information even if it’s not permitted. This shows how poorly the IP laws are followed and that it’s time to modernize them.
Show lessRead more
Pirate Parties present themselves as being a political alternative to traditional parties, like “a fresh wind in the sails” (motto of the Belgian pirate party). The emergence and development of pirate parties all over the world is closely linked to intellectual property issues. In the 2009 Uppsala Declaration, European Pirate Parties agreed on their program concerning IP:
• They consider that copyright has evolved to be “an obstacle to creativity, particularly grass roots creativity”. They thus argue that at least 3 changes need to be made: non-commercial activity should not be regulated by copyright, monopoly duration should be reduced and levies to compensate for copying should not be permitted.
• As far as patent law is concerned, Pirate Parties believe that pharmaceutical patents raise important ethical questions and increase the costs of public health care. They are also against patents for life and software patents.
These parties advocate, among other things, for free sharing of information especially on the Internet, information privacy, direct democracy via e-democracy, transparency.
I personally believe that the program of Pirate Parties can be seductive in a way especially for the young generation, the so-called “digital natives” or people who do not really believe in private property (or at least intellectual property), but I think that their view on IP is quite unrealistic and very difficult to implement given the business and money interests at stake. I am also not exactly sure this kind of IP reform would necessarily lead to something good, to a more informed society. The one thing I agree upon, though, is that pharmaceutical patents should be an important point for political debate.
I think that by putting forward these IP issues and not only, Pirate Parties have at least the merit of raising some important questions and maybe “make” traditional parties reflect more on these issues which are usually not exactly top priority.
Read more
The Pirate Parties from all over the world want to reform the copyright law and abolish the patent system. Those are two of the three issues on their agenda. The PP think the copyright legislation restricts what it’s supposed to promote: the non commercial use. They want the non-commercial copying to be completely free of charge for the unique reason that the Internet should be the greatest public library. They think there is no need for authors to make money seventy years after their deaths, because if they haven’t made their money back in the first few years, they never will (dixit them). For this reason they want to limit the copyrights to five years after publication.
They also intend to abolish the patent system for the good reason that they kill people in undeveloped countries. Instead of sharing them and save peoples lives, they lock them up. They also summed up two other negative effects, namely the fact that pharmaceutical patents distort the pharmaceutical research priorities and that they lead to an increase in costs for drugs. For this reason they propose « an alternative to pharmaceutical patents » by trying to make the government invest less in the pharmaceutical companies, but more in the research so that the companies wouldn’t’ have to do it themselves. Without the price of the research, the drug prices would drop by 70%.
In my humble opinion, I think they are right about patents. There is a real lobbying from those big pharmaceutical companies, and I wouldn’t mind them to be less free. The only problem is that I don’t think the government will be able to invest enough money in crisis time. Monopoly has good and bad aspects, we should try to confine their power and make them think twice about spending so much money in advertisements and taking advantage of peoples fear for some diseases, but we shouldn’t cut off their subsidies too much. That’s why there should be extern experts, appointed by for example the government. Concerning the copyrights, seventy years post-death can be excessive, but it’s understandable a great artist like our Belgian singer Jacques Brel or even the poet Hugo Claus keeps on earning money for his genie during his life. But of course, I have mitigated feelings about this copyright. Even if it is totally understandable, I’m also young, I love music and can’t afford to pay for every music partition I listen to…
So to conclude, of course the PP have a very interesting program, I really like it, but I think it’s too idealistic. I don’t know if they will be able to implement their program because they don’t have enough political opinions about how to govern a country, they’re not famous enough and maybe not enough ‘political minded’.
Show lessRead more
Sophie Carton de Tournai. 2nd Bac Law.
Intellectual Property Law, Alain Strowel.
Paper on an IP issue: Broadcasting rights Treaty.
Broadcasters want an update of their rights, currently protected by the Rome Treaty of 1961 and not updated since. The logical reason behind the proposal is the growing problem of piracy (particularly signal theft), change of the market, and new technologic advancements (internet wasn’t invented at the time the treaty was enacted!).
The WIPO, World Intellectual Property Organization, participates to the demand of creating a Treaty on The Protection of Broadcasting Organizations. This idea is under discussion since 1998. However, no common agreement is achieved until now on the objectives, specific scope and object of protection. This prevents to convene a diplomatic conference. Governments are represented in the WIPO, this way they are not out of this debate. The idea stays in the agenda of the organization. Businesses are also participating in the discussion.
The aim is to give a broader protection to broadcaster’s rights. « The treaty would give broadcasters and cable casters and, under a controversial proposal from the US, webcasters, a range of new rights and expand the scope and duration of existing rights in many jurisdictions. » Broadcasters could easier control how consumers use and record images and sounds and “especially prevent unauthorized retransmission of their programmes over the Internet ».
Their demand is understandable; the signal theft is a growing and complex problem today. Internet is a powerful tool for that form of piracy. Satellite signal theft requires an infrastructure that is not easily detected and rarely subjected to intense pressure by law enforcement. Satellite TV signal theft can be defined as « any unauthorized use of a satellite television service, although the act is accomplished in several different ways » . Signal theft occurs when a viewer who does not subscribe to the service intercepts the satellite signal and attempts to use it to view programming.
But the WIPO has to face lots of opponents. Among them, stands the TACD, Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue, a forum of US and EU consumer organisation. The proposal raises many concerns according to this organization, and some NGO’s and States agree. TACD takes the issue seriously. It would limit the right of consumers to information and knowledge. Many consumers get information trough broadcasts consequently any limitation to the access will limits the rights of consumers.
The first proposal was to base the treaty on copyright and not on signals protection although the inverse would be more efficient and beneficial for both sides, says the TACD.
In 2007, WIPO’s General Assembly agreed to pursue a “signal-based approach”, this way the new draft of the treaty wouldn’t give more rights on the content to broadcasters. But that doesn’t find a solution to all the divergences.
The major concerns and related risks for consumers in the first proposal were:
– The first proposal fixed the time limit of the protection at 50 years! Although for normal copyrights, the protection lasts 20 years. Broadcasters receive these powers only by transmitting materials; no conditions of originality and creativity here! It prevented considerably the access to information. How long should protection last? The question is open.
– Some of the material transmitted are part of the public domain and cannot be covered by copyright, like old movies, speeches of Government officials, facts and data’s…
– According to TACD, there was no longer a fair balance between the interests of the copyright’s holder and those of the user of the copyrighted work. On the contrary, it makes weaker the exceptions to the copyright and gives no rights to consumers (one example of traditional exception is the consumer’s faculty to make a copy of the work).
And we could easily continue to present things that prevent the fair consumer’s use according to TACD.
In conclusion, this topic shows clearly some issues on intellectual properties. The need for protection of broadcasters, enhanced by the development of technologies (like the internet and the ensued problems, as piracy), is counterbalanced by the rights of consumers. Legitimate interests are fighting…
Show lessRead more
The pirate parties are new political groups that want, among other things, a modification of the intellectual property law system. They are in favor of a reform of the patent and copyright law.
For them, the patent law such as patents on software and on living organisms, like the one’s on seeds and on genes, should be banned. They are also in favor of a reduction of the duration of the copyright protection.
Those parties are also opposed to the use of Digital Rights Management technologies that are used by copyrights holders to limit the use of digital content and electronic devices after sale, and some of them are creators of illegal BitTorrent tracker such as “The Pirate Bay”.
To summarize, the pirate parties want freedom of information and free exchange of knowledge.
To me, their program has some merit. Intellectual property law is important and necessary in our society. An author has the right to protect his creation, it’s important to give protection to new inventions to promote creativity, etc.
But it can also be at some point excessive. All those protections are sometimes used to create monopolistic situations, and allow firms to just make huge amount of money while neglecting everything else. That can turn into bad situations, like when a knowledge that could benefit to all is just kept secret in order to make money. For example, if a scientist invents a seed that can grow in a very dry region, such as Africa, that could solve the problem of starvation in numbers of African countries. But if it’s not freely shared, if those countries have to pay huge amount of money to have access to that seed, that would not help anybody.
So I am not opposed to the view of the pirate parties, but I don’t think that intellectual property rights have to be suppressed.
I also think that they would be able to implement their program. That will certainly take some time giving their actual political power, but as it is said on Ipdigit, they are gaining power in numbers or European countries. I think that it is perfectly possible for them to become a significant political entity in European and in national parliaments, and that their program will be seriously taken in account one day.
Show lessRead more
Pirate parties were born, responding to the need of a change in society. In this occasion, the party aims at a growth of society’s knowledge. To review some of the most relevant means proposed by the party we’ll name: a free access to communication and information, thus internet access should be unlimited; a support of civil rights, network neutrality, a reform of copyright and patent law, transparency, protection of personal data, free education…
Under the recent conference of Uppsala 2009 some desires aroused: first and foremost, a wish for a reform of copyright: the copyright term will be reduced, exemption of non-commercial activities from copyright regulation; banning of Digital Rights Management technologies, opposition to media or hardware levies. Furthermore, a need for a renewal of patent law: patents will be prohibited when concerning living entities and computer programs. Finally, a request is held in favor of the reinforcement of civil rights; of fast, just and impartial trials; the increase of anonymous communications and so on.
These wishes will be represented in a common party (the Pirate Parties International) that will run for the 2014 elections in the European Parliament.
I think that, the growth of the Pirate Party is admirable. The history of the beginning of the old Swedish Piratpartiet is self-explanatory: the two thousand signatures needed for the birth of this Party were reached within 24 hours! Then, the increasing presence of the party, whether it concerns a country or the European parliament elections, is striking. When we have a look at Sweden, when comparing numbers of 2006 (when the party was launched) and 2009, we observe an increase from O.63% of the votes to an impressive 7.13% votes during the European Parliament election. The success of the last suffrage was translated into the grant of two Pirate Party members seated at the European Parliament.
Concerning their program, I see a different perspective in analysing society’s problems. On the one hand, the objective they’re aiming at, even if it’s not the majority’s main concern, as could the unemployment be, is totally understandable. Many pieces of information are restricted to the public because of patents, trademark or copyright reasons, thus creating a barrier to nourish our knowledge and culture. It will be much easier for information to flow among the citizens: do you imagine a place where all medication recipes were shared? It’s true that it would be a big help for society. The same goes, when you want to read a book on the Internet but you’re stopped because of intellectual properties, or when you’d like to copy something on the Internet for an essay, but you can’t because of the same intellectual properties…And, On the other hand, when you ask yourself “why would you create something that you’ve worked so hard on trying to conceive so that you never get a reward for it?” you know that these ideas have to be protected. I think that if you were the inventor of a big company such as Apple or Coca-Cola, you would want to keep resembling products away from the market for a big time so that you can, even if it seems selfish, take the most profit of it. I think that’s the tricky part of the ideas of the program. People have to be rewarded for what they know and what they have created.
So, it is true that some intellectual properties have long term duration, and the Pirate Parties don’t ask for a total abolition, but I don’t see how some of the program purposes could come true, to designate one example: no patent for genes. Let’s say that you are about to be the discoverer of a method that allows human genes modification, but, because there are no patents about it, your discovery is stopped, it’s as important as the person analysing genes for hair colour. A second example can be mentioned with the idea of unconstrained access to the Internet and the wonder of “where does it stop?”
To sum up, I understand the objective of the Pirate Parties as a call for a growth of society’s knowledge. Even if it’s not the primary concern of society, the party can nonetheless fight to be heard. Some of the ideas of program are partly questionable, and some doubts are still hovering, but in my opinion, the intention is perfectly reasonable and could only allow people to be more cultivated.
Show lessRead more
The Pirate Party was first founded in 2006, in Sweden. However, its ideas unexpectedly spread internationally, and led to the foundation of several national pirate parties, especially in Austria, Germany, United Kingdom, France…all covered by the Pirate Party International, also founded in 2006.
So what is so different about the Pirate Party?
One of the main guidelines of their political program, besides support for a greater level of democracy and respect for civil rights, is the reform of copyright and patent law.
In fact, when it comes to copyright, the Pirate Party wants to implement a reduction of the duration of protection and exemption of non-commercial activity from copyright regulation. They support the anti-copyright movement which claims that copyright is unjustified for it supports only the interests of big corporations, and misses its goal, as it only creates a counter-incentive to intellectual production and innovation. A reduction in the duration of copyright protection would thus enable the taking into account of the citizens’ interests, for it would allow a broader and freer access to knowledge, culture and education.
This hostility is even stronger when it comes to patent law.
Although some support that patents encourage innovation and its disclosure for the population’s benefit, the Pirate Party would rather claim patents are incompatible with free trade, which is of course part of the main fundamental rights the party defends.
Another field they address is the field of pharmaceutical patents. Protection on the invention of new drugs doesn’t allow generic drugs to be produced…with the dramatic consequence that the poorer regions cannot have access to it.
Of course, these positions are very protective of the citizens’ civil and fundamental rights, and would evidently allow broader access to information.
However, the question is whether or not this is viable in the long-run. Indeed, these positions seem almost completely oblivious of the interests of artists and inventors. The reduction of the duration in copyright would most likely discourage intellectual creativity, and would considerably diminish the incentive to maintain the effort. As for patent law, it is normal that the inventor should be able to gain from his invention. The contrary would downgrade inventions and artistic creations.
I believe a midpoint should be found between two extremes, in order to enable access to goods and information, without compromising the authors’ rights.
Show lessRead more
Pirate parties have gained popularity over the years, especially in Germany, the UK and Sweden. Apart from being utterly different parties from the traditional groups, they notably advocate a change in Intellectual Property legislation. We will focus on the British pirate party.
Concerning copyrights and patents, they have a very ambitious programme. On the one hand, for copyrights, they wish to “reduce the duration of copyright to 10 years” rather than having the actual duration which is of 14 years. They affirm that counterfeiting and “profiting from other work” cannot be made legal. According to them, people should be warned when it comes to the Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) technology. Moreover sections 3 to 18 of the Digital Economy Act 2010 should be repealed. They also pledge for an expansion of the Open Government License to all government funded data and material and for other measures that affect the British broadcast system (such as television, radio). On the other hand, patents should be more controlled and some should be abolished (e.g. drug patents). Manufacturers will be furthermore encouraged in competition.
Why do they want all that to be implemented? They believe that too many copyrights and patents will stop innovation. As it is said in the party’s programme, “Copyright should give artists the first chance to make money from their work; however that needs to be balanced with the rights of society as a whole”. They advocate for a balance between two interests: the artist’s and the public’s. Two questions can be raised from that point: first, will they achieve their goal? No. This leads us to the second question: can they influence traditional parties? Not really and if they can, not for now. These are short answers that need to be developed a bit further. For the first question, there are two obstacles to overcome that make their goal unachievable. On the first place, they are too extreme. As said previously, there is a balance to be made. Balance means concessions. Yes, people have the right to use someone’s work but the artist has also the right for protection. Their programme favours the first interest over the other. On the second place, the great majority of the people are more interested in their pension, their meal, their breakfast coffee, the strike that affects trains, their studies, the reduction of employees in their company… They are not very keen on a reduction of copyright even though there are some sectors (musical for instance) that are concerned by the matter, but here again, it is not the majority. And this explains the answer of the second question. Nowadays, traditional politicians are stuck in the middle of a global economic crisis. They need to find solutions to decrease the deficit but not raise taxes. Politicians have no time – if they ever had interest on the issue – to deal with this copyright, patent matter. Therefore, a potential influence of the pirate parties on the traditional parties is likely impossible for now.
This increasing popularity might be a “protest” vote against traditional parties rather than the defense of the pirate parties ideas. But if the pirate parties really want some changes, they have to ask themselves a very simple question: Is the public interested in what they advocate? And with the crisis going on, it seems that nobody cares.
Show lessRead more
The Pirate party describes itself as a « democratic political party built on grassroots support and the work of volunteer » (www.pirateparty.org.uk) and has the goal to talk about matters that the other parties ignore. Their preoccupation is the protection of a democratic and a transparent state. They denounce the corruption and the lobbying present in the traditional parties and they don’t want to be assimilated to a certain ideology. In their propositions, we can find some ideas about Intellectual Property. About copyright, even if there is a need to give to the artists a chance to make money on their creation, there must a balance with the rights of society as a whole, one of the main claim is to reduce the length of the copyright in order to encourage the creation of new materials. Even if counterfeiting would remain illegal, there would be a right to share. The party also want to raise concerns about DRM which allows companies to turn remotely off a device. About patents, the party thinks that it is aimed to protect the inventor of great ideas and not to avoid competitions. They would thus raise the bar about how innovative an invention has to be in order to be patented. Moreover, they would abolish drugs patent, in order to decrease the costs.
I think their program has some merits. Indeed, they have the “guts” to propose reforms about matters that are not present in the traditional political debate. These matters don’t seem to be as important as the economical crisis we are living at the first sight but maybe that a reform of patents would have a good effect on the industry, by enforcing competition and innovations which would bring the society forward. The traditional ways of resolving the crisis don’t seem to work so the solution could be somewhere else … I however doubt their ability to implement their program. This movement is still very marginal and the IP businesses makes a great deal of lobbying which allow them to have a great influence in parliaments. Nevertheless, the party has the merit to fight about IP and may have some influence on the political agenda. IP lobbyists are not all powerful, proof is the rejection of ACTA by the European deputies.
By their innovative ideas and because they are a pure product of the 21th century, era of digital sharing, the Pirate Party could have an influence on the traditonal political forces and allow a IP law reform. Only time will show if that happens.
Werner SAUSSEZ
Show less
Read more
Pirate parties are often categorized as enemies of intellectual property laws, wanting to abolish copyright and patent in the name of civil society. But are they really that?
When we examine what Pirate Parties advocate in terms of copyright and patent, we realize that the previous statement needs to be seriously nuanced taking into consideration the common core values shared by Pirate Parties throughout the world.
Firstly, regarding copyright, Rickard Flakvinge (founder of the Swedish Pirate party), argues that the Pirate Party does not want to abolish copyright, it wants to reform it by keeping copyright as such for commercial purposes and only setting free the use for non-commercial copying. Indeed, some Pirate parties representatives recognize that we must ‘give credit where credit is due’ to insure a society where culture flourishes and artists and creative people have the chance to make a living as cultural workers. However, enforcing a ban on non-commercial sharing of culture between individuals may not be allowed, as it threatens fundamental rights such as freedom of information, communication and privacy, without in return serving the general interest of the society (since the only interests protected are the private interests of a small and powerful industry that is enabled to enforce its distribution monopoly through long time restrictions and ‘DRMs’).
Secondly, concerning patents, pirates are open to debate over the positive value of patents, and even recognize that when it comes to pharmaceutical patents, “it’s not feasible to abolish the patent system and hope that the market makes sure enough research just happens anyway” (they propose an alternative: delinkage where pharmaceutical research is financed directly from the public coffers, with research results made freely available for anyone to use in any way, spurring a free competition between manufacturers of generic drugs). However, research and a closer look at the historical and international evidence leads them to suggest that while weak patent systems may mildly increase innovation with limited side-effects, strong patent systems could impede innovation, competition, and economic growth.
When reflecting on the implementation of those ideas there are factors we cannot omit. As have stressed Commissioner Karel De Gucht, right before the vote on ACTA « We are in an economic crisis. If Europe wants to have a successful economy it needs firms that can compete for the tasks that add the highest value to a product. And the way they make money and create jobs from those ideas is by turning them into intellectual property, protecting them under the law and ensuring the law is enforced ». There should be no doubt on the necessity of a strong and elaborate IP legal framework. IP protections are essential for economic development and innovation and represents one of the most striking challenges for the future of our continent (for instence – the solar panel case vs China).
However, while addressing that challenge, we must not forget that we are far form the “pre technological” era where IP issues did not affect citizens lives, and what better example that the latest Snowden case that showed us how poorly our private life and individual liberties are protected against the internet era. Therefore, it is not by coincidence that Pirate Parties flourish today in a globalized and individualistic society where the new ‘religion’ are civil liberties and freedoms. And they certainly paly an important role in starting the debate and raising the social awareness, influencing from within (as members of parliaments or governments) or from the outside (as part of the civil society) the contemporary policy makers.
Show lessNevertheless, a lot of progress needs to be made to achieve a constructive dialogue that will result in a policy both protective of intellectual property while at the same time respecting individual liberties and rights. Both policy makers, and Pirate Parties defenders need to reflect on their means of action while struggling to reach a consensus in view of avoiding dramatic failures like ACTA. ACTA is indeed the perfect illustration of how lack of transparency, misinformation, fuzzy procedures, and the stubbornness of some actors restricted by a plain bipolar analysis and failing to consider the bigger picture, has led to the perpetuation of vulnerability through legal void.
So let us hope, that in the future, a middle-ground can be found effectively involving all of society stakeholders.