Talk:Core Policy
From Pirate Wiki
In terms of privacy and censorship, perhaps we can adapt that to NZ more specifically? Include mention of proposed filtering of New Zealand's internet perhaps? I don't think we have quite the same privacy concerns as the EU yet. Australia probably does though.
I think we're on a par with Australia, if not in a worse situation. The New Zealand government is testing a filtering system very similar to the Australian one, but they've kept a much lower profile. Practically nobody in NZ is even aware of the trial, there have been no leaks to wikileaks, etc. http://thomasbeagle.net/ has some details. and even the Australians seem to be more aware of it than us; http://www.somebodythinkofthechildren.com/new-zealand-talks-aussie-clean-feed/ -ec
[081109 edits] loosely based on http://eupat.ffii.org/log/intro/index.en.html Copyright 2005 Antonios Christofides without an explicit licence for reuse, therefore I'm claiming fair dealing in that my edit is from a small excerpt of the overall article and substantially rewritten. - ec
"(...) the government is on the verge of passing the Patents Bill 2009, which would legitimize international software patents". - Pervach
I wonder if it would be good to have a Current Issues page, or similar, and put details about the Internet filter and software patents there, rather than in with Policy? - james g
What is the PPNZ's actual policy on pharmaceutical patents? The Swedish Pirate Party's discussion on this issue ends with this policy: "The Pirate Party wants to abolish pharmaceutical patents as a long term goal, but realizes that this requires alternative systems for funding pharmaceutical research. We believe that the introduction of a new system should be done on the European level. We urge the Swedish government to study the effects of different alternative system, such as the one proposed here, and to take initiatives to put the issue on the European political agenda for discussions." We agree with their discussion, but what actual policy can we follow it with? We're not part of the EU, so we can't raise the issue there. Do we want to try to raise the issue at APEC (which also includes the USA)? Or else, what? - james g
A flat ban on DRM with copyrighted works is probably unpragmatic. It's kind of pointless for ineffective DRM (e.g. DVDs can be copied and decoded now anyway), and if we ban effective DRM (i.e. DRM that actually prevents copying, or makes it difficult) then people won't be able to get copies of these works, or not easily (I think this applies to some consoles?). Such a policy would be very, very unpopular. I think a tax on the proceeds from sales of DRM+copyrighted works may be more pragmatic. (And if there's not a ban on DRM, we'll need to mention legalising circumvention again. I took this out because I thought it redundant to have both.) - james g
The following are based on ideas pulled mainly from the old Principles page, which I'm suggesting are more appropriate for this page (the Policy page), if anywhere:
new location: Core_Policy > Copyright > Copyright Length / new text: "(excluding moral rights, such as the right to attribution, which we do not seek to limit)." / based on old location: Copyright > Present Position > What this means / based on old text: "However, copyright is not entirely bad. For example, copyright gives the author moral rights, which cannot be transferred. These include the right to be acknowledged as the creator.9 This is clearly a good thing, as above all else, a creator should be recognised as the creator."
new location: Core_Policy > Copyright > Copyright Reach / new text: "We don't think copyright law should invade privacy by placing restrictions on copying, use, or conveying that occurs in private." / replaces old text: "All non-commercial copying and use should be completely free and unrestricted." / based on old location: Principles > Democracy, Citizens’ Rights and Personal Freedoms / based on old text: "The citizen's right to privacy is a fundamental right that brings forth several other basic human rights"
new location: Core_Policy > Copyright > Requirements on Copyright Holders / new text: "(Although we do not oppose the use of DRM where works are not covered by copyright, we think any product containing DRM should display a clear warning.)" / based on old location: Principles > Free Our Culture / based on old text: "In cases where this leads to obvious disadvantages for the consumer, any product containing DRM shall display clear warnings to inform consumers of this fact."
new location: Core_Policy > Copyright > Copyright Alternatives / new text: "For government funded research, we support the idea of open access." / based on old location: Principles > Patents and Private Monopolies Harm Society / based on old text: "Initiatives like Open Access, with the purpose of making results of research freely available, shall be encouraged and supported."
new location: Core_Policy > Trademarks / new text: "Trademarks, like signatures, identify endorsement. We think trademark law generally works well, but there is a growing trend for companies to believe any use of a trademark should be authorised. We think the use of a trademark when talking about a company, talking about culture in general, or in parody are unlikely to lead to confusion, so should be unrestricted by trademark law." / based on old location: Principles > Introduction / based on old text: "Trademarks are primarily useful as consumer protection devices. We feel trademarks mostly work fine today, but need to monitor the growing trend where companies believe that any use of a trademark has to be authorised. The use of a trademark when talking about a company, talking about culture in general, or in parody are unlikely to lead to consumer confusion and should be unrestricted by trademark law."
new location: Core_Policy > Open Government / new text: "The Government doesn't require us to use one particular brand of car to access public roads, and nor should it require us to use one particular computer program to access public information. We think the public sector should make information available in open formats. We think it should be possible to communicate with the Government without being required to pay for and use any one particular program. We also support the use of free/open source software in the public sector." / based on old location: Principles > Private monopolies shall be combatted / based on old text: "The public sector shall archive documents and make them publicly available in open formats. It shall be possible to communicate with the government without being tied to a certain private supplier of software. The use of open source in the public sector, including schools, shall be stimulated. Open formats and open source shall be encouraged."
. - james g
"With the exception of wikileaks cables from US embassies. ;-)" -- Those are leaks by a government employee not espionage from outside agents, and bing communications between the employees of various government agencies directly relating to the business of governing, support of wikileaks on this is completely consistent with our policy on government accountability.
I suggest rewriting the Patent Reach section as follows:
In the USA, around the year 1800, under 100 patents were granted per year. Around 1900, about 20,000 were granted per year. Around 2000, about 150,000 were granted per year. Worldwide, approximately 6.1 million patents were in force in 2006 (WIPO, 2008). To figure out whether you're allowed to use an idea you've just thought up, you first have to check it isn't covered by one of these patents. It is only in the areas of pharmaceuticals, chemicals, and to an extent, biotechnology that such a search need not be a burdensome requirement, as inventions in these areas can be described by chemical formulae and gene sequencing. Coincidentally, these areas, and that of medical devices, appear to be the only areas in which patents play a significant role in promoting innovation today. In other areas innovation is better supported by factors such as lead time, learning curve advantages, complementary sales or service advantages, and secrecy (ABA, 2007, p. 108; Bessen, 2011; Cohen, 2000; Graham, 2009; Levin, 1987; Mansfield, 1986).
Recent moves to extent patents to computer programs are of particular concern for a number of reasons. The inventive step is relatively small, as computer programs are closely related to mathematics which is not patentable (as with Google PageRank). The computer industry is relatively new, leading to a gold rush on trivial inventions (as with Amazon one click shopping). Computer programs are abstract, making it more difficult for the patent office to assess them, more difficult to identify prior art, and more difficult to determine whether an act would infringe a patent (for example, the GIF picture format was widely used on the Internet before Unisys realised it was covered by a patent they held). Information technology revolves around exchanging information, which patents on data formats hinder (as with Microsoft's patents on VFAT, used against TomTom and Android). Also, computer programs don't need to be manufactured in a factory, they can be copied, meaning both that they are already covered by copyright law, and that patenting them can restrict not only industry, but individual liberty.
The extension of patents to living things is also of concern. Like software, they don't need to be manufactured in a factory. Indeed, they often grow by themselves.
Cohen, Wesley M.; Nelson, Richard R.; Walsh, John P. (2000) Protecting Their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why U.S. Manufacturing Firms Patent (or Not) (Nat’l Bureau of Econ. Research Working Paper No. 7552).
Levin, Richard C. et al. (1987) Appropriating the Returns from Industrial R&D, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 783, 794-95.
Mansfield, Edwin (1986) Patents and Innovation: An Empirical Study, 32, Mgmt. Science 173.
WIPO (2008) World Patent Report: A Statistical Review -- james g
