Non-commerciality is a blind alley. Richard Stalman realised it yonks ago. Wikipedia eventually realised it too. Either you’re into suspending the public’s liberty in order to exploit it or you’re not. The ‘not’ bit means you don’t say “You’re free unless we see you getting paid”.

PPUK is compromising on principle with a view to more support. Bad move.

FAC hasn’t got a clue about principle. It’s just realised that it needs to stop suing its fans (except those fans getting paid – the scum).

Don’t get the idea my ambition is to abolish copyright. You’re not the first to think that. I’m simply trying to enable commerce in digital productions. Abolishing copyright is just so fricking obvious I can’t help suggesting it. And that’s not just from an ethical perspective but from a pragmatic one. Copyright is ineffective. People who still think it will make them money are clutching at tradition. The market for copies has ended. People like Billy don’t like hearing that.

I think the PPUK should focus on exempting individuals from copyright – entirely, not just those individuals who can prove they didn’t receive anything of value in exchange. The cartels really will laugh their heads off if they are told they can only accuse people of commercial infringement, not non-commercial infringement. “Ok. We accuse X of COMMERCIAL infringement. What fricking difference does it make? We don’t need no evidence either way.” The only entities the PPUK should tolerate on the receiving end of copyright litigation should be corporations (not people).

You’ve seen the RIAA prosecute fundamentally innocent people (sharing is not a crime). What makes you think they wouldn’t dare send strike notices to independent artists?

I’ll engage with your response, I found it easier to follow than the preceding posts I answered, while still disagreeing with it.

And ‘organised groups’ duplicating for profit? You’d better tell the world these groups have discovered how to make money selling copies – no-one else has figured it out. This is the ludicrous thing – they are bogeymen.

“People are selling copies of my work for a fortune and they aren’t giving me a cut!”

Eh? If someone can sell copies of your work for tons of money, why the heck aren’t you?

Frankly, the market for copies has ended, and that means for people who do it illicitly too. What would you do if you caught someone selling home made Linux CDs in a back alley? I’d ask ‘em what their secret was.

Really? I don’t think so. Maybe not so much here in this country, where enforcement is fairly strong.although it does happen. In some countries (including major European cities) it is a way of life that street vendors are wandering round selling unauthorised knock-off copies, the police do not necessarily bother the individual low-level vendors, When I saw this, I was informed that being also human the police realise those guys are just trying to scrape by one way or another, and prefer to go after the guys who are doing the copying and organising the footsoldier illegal vendors.

It isn’t that difficult to make money from copies, directly or indirectly, and if you’re following the debate in various forums you should know this. The marginal cost of copying/distribution may be effectively zero, however in any healthy free market the price that the market will bear will naturally drop close to the marginal cost. But not actually quite to the marginal cost.

So, yes, it will be quite impossible to charge present monopoly rents on copies in future. But it will be possible to charge something, for some copies, and it is possible to “compete with free”. Why would anyone pay? I can provide examples, maybe I need to submit a blog post for that however rather than try and put that sort of thing into a comment, if you don’t already know some of them.

Tons of money? I call strawman to that. People and corporations do sell copies of Linux, and that goes all the way from home-made copies through to professionally produced discs. More than likely that the eventual “media industry” will be very different from the “heyday” of making and selling copies (and I’ve seen reports that filesharing has also an effect at making counterfeiting uneconomic… maybe even more so than quality media endorsed by the artist as the “official” version, that by itself has some commercial value). But it isn’t a given that even legalising non-commercial sharing will eliminate the market for purchased copies entirely.

Independent artists no matter what they sing or what music they compose or perform will be strike noticed the moment they get a significant audience. Irrespective of whether they are paid. Irrespective of whether they infringe. The label strikes them because: 1) they don’t need any evidence of commercial infringement, 2) they want them signed to them because they’re evidently popular (they fancy 99% of the revenue they could bring in), and 3) if they won’t sign, they can get the fuck off the label’s Internet.

This is just disingenuous, isn’t it? Independent artists are increasingly finding direct routes to fans, and there’s nothing the “labels” can do about it. This claim of yours is simply surreal, even the enforcement that’s being proposed is hitting huge opposition, and any attempts to make it as extreme as you say will only inflame that (and, incidentally, bring in new pirates to support us…).

The PPUK better start grokking why non-commercial=good/commercial=bad is a bogeyman (spurious dichotomy) pretty soon, or its roots will run too deeply in its manifesto.

There is a very good reason, however, why allowing non-commercial sharing is a big priority, and would be a big step forward even without anything else. One side of the coin is that it takes away the reason to monitor private individuals, and limit private rights to free speech and communication (ECHR territory), and the other side of the coin is that decentralised/non-commercial peer-to-peer distribution is quite simply the most efficient and effective way to get the widest distribution of information, knowledge, art, and culture to the most people. Taking non-commercial use out of the remit of the law is sufficient to deliver all of that.

It may well be that this will, in time, knock the bottom out of any market for charging for copies directly, but it isn’t an instant thing, and the intermediate period can allow for a transition. For example, for books there is still a window where print copies are valuable in ways that digital copies aren’t, and distribution of the digital can be used to drive sales of print copies. In the longer term that will go away – although as indicated, it’s not necessarily the case that it will never be possible to charge anything for any copy.

I do agree that dividing the world into non-commercial=good, commercial=bad, is a potential trap, almost in a “four legs good, two legs bad” sense, that PPUK does face, and it comes up in our discussions.

My own view is that the freedom to reuse commercially is important, I do not however rule out the possibility that a limited period of commercial copyright might provide enough of an incentive to be worth the trade-off of permitting it. Academic studies exist which talk about where the right point might be, and while it’s not all that long, it’s not zero. That’s the sort of evidence-based policy I’d be interested in support.

The position that copyright has to be totally abolished, as a moral absolute, to my mind is simply extreme and a very very small minority view. Maybe it’s right, and will be seen to be right in time; right now, I cannot imagine how it could be considered realistic that we would enact that as a democratic society, it would be a very extreme experiment, and a very dramatic change from what we have now – the disruption of that alone frightens me, I’m looking for a transition path, and trying not to prejudge the destination, calling for copyright abolition now seems to me like that’s jumping off the side of the mountain, rather than trying to find a navigable path down.

So… at least for now, I confess that I do regard you as really a quite lonely extreme voice, however impassioned and true your belief in abolition may be. You have a long way to go for achieving that, and I believe that we can and will take smaller practical steps a lot sooner than that will happen – and I’m slightly afraid there’s a risk you might actually not be quite as right as you hope, and going for that outright would therefore be quite a risky experiment.

And ‘organised groups’ duplicating for profit? You’d better tell the world these groups have discovered how to make money selling copies – no-one else has figured it out. This is the ludicrous thing – they are bogeymen.

“People are selling copies of my work for a fortune and they aren’t giving me a cut!”

Eh? If someone can sell copies of your work for tons of money, why the heck aren’t you?

Frankly, the market for copies has ended, and that means for people who do it illicitly too. What would you do if you caught someone selling home made Linux CDs in a back alley? I’d ask ‘em what their secret was.

Don’t forget, in your world, copies can be given away, but not charged for. Why would anyone pay for a copy instead of simply being given it?

You’re being blinded by the bogeymen and missing the fundamentally innocent and honest artists who manage to get paid by their fans, e.g. for publishing an MP3 podcast that reviews new label releases (and sent a ’strike notice’ the moment the label can ACCUSE them of receiving even a tiny donation).

Independent artists no matter what they sing or what music they compose or perform will be strike noticed the moment they get a significant audience. Irrespective of whether they are paid. Irrespective of whether they infringe. The label strikes them because: 1) they don’t need any evidence of commercial infringement, 2) they want them signed to them because they’re evidently popular (they fancy 99% of the revenue they could bring in), and 3) if they won’t sign, they can get the fuck off the label’s Internet.

And on your other point, you’d better be bloody careful what you deal you make with the devil, because he’s far cleverer than you or I in foreseeing its potential for his exploitation.

It only takes one step to fall off a cliff in a fog of confusion and distraction. It’s certainly in the right direction if you want to get off the mountain in a hurry, but you ain’t in THAT much of a hurry to get down.

Copyright is a priori corrupt. There is no deal you can make that somehow ends up with its unscrupulous and immortal wielders being reformed into saints. The closest you can get without abolition is a neutralising license like the GPL, but even that is frail against the onslaught of patent (operating by similarity rather than provenance). Don’t be fooled by Lessig, there is no mapping of non-commercial/commercial to good/bad or advantageous/disadvantageous. ALL cultural exchange is commercial. The oldest profession existed without coins. The idea that commerce is bad is another bogeyman, i.e. the insinuation that because corporations are highly commercial, it is their commerce that taints them rather than their lack of scruples in pursuing it.

The PPUK better start grokking why non-commercial=good/commercial=bad is a bogeyman (spurious dichotomy) pretty soon, or its roots will run too deeply in its manifesto.

I don’t follow the argument in your previous post at all… Usually I can at least see where you’re coming from, even when I don’t agree…

But on this one, are you sure you’re not being blinded by your own rhetoric? What on earth could you mean by saying:

They will send ’strike notices’ to any indie artist the moment they get a significant fanbase. Remember, they don’t need any evidence. They just need to accuse. The file-sharers now operating scott free don’t have any sympathy. They’re all right Jack. Those independent artists trying to go it alone are classed as scummy ‘commercial pirates’.

“Scummy commercial pirates”, to me, really is just the counterfeiters and organised groups who duplicate and sell for profit, without the slightest hint of a connection to the artist (and a label contract, however much you disapprove of it, is such a connection entered into by the artist).

However, if it was once necessary to sign with a major to “make it big”, that surely is less necessary than ever, and getting easier and easier all the time for independent artists to not sign? So I just don’t get your point, I’m afraid.

In the longer term, I do agree with you that the freedom to reuse and develop previously created work, including the ability to earn a profit from that effort, is important. So that’s a reason why I differ from Billy (and I suppose the FAC), on for example the length of copyright or the reversion of rights, and instead think copyright (if we have it) must be as short as possible/no longer than necessary, and I also accept that it may not be necessary to have any copyright at all, as you advocate.

However… I also totally agree with Billy that private use by individuals, not for commercial gain, should be unrestricted, and that this would be a huge improvement on the current situation and a possible early step forward, even without any other change to the law.

To quote the proverb “A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step”.

To me this proposal is a first step, that I hope we can all get behind, and I also very much hope that it could be the first plank in building a common understanding between the Featured Artist Coalition and the Pirate Party.

It is something that we already agree with/have as a core policy, so it should be easy to get agreement there, although it may be that Pirates will be nervous of supporting a campaign run by the FAC, even though we agree with this principle, because of other fundamental issues we have with other FAC policy (e.g. length of copyright, restricting search engines such as torrent sites…).

It may also be that FAC members will be equally nervous of having a campaign of theirs officially supported by the Pirate Party (if I can persuade PPUK!), because of disagreements with other policies we have. However… I’d like to believe agreement on this could be a first step to working with each other, and not against each other, and I believe that would also be a big achievement.

And ’supporting artists’ is another way of saying “Enabling labels and other copyright holders to prosecute those unsigned artists sharing and building upon published works who have fans that pay them, and consequently keep labels in such profits that they can continue to support their contracted artists”.

This is still a copyright and therefore label oriented proposition.

I think you’re making a grievous error in the eyes of independent artists if you expect them to be happy when you come back and say “I’ve got file-sharers off the hook, but any independent artist who even thinks of trying to sell their work directly to their fans, is going to be forced into signing up to a label before they realise what’s hit them. As the labels explained to me, this will be really great for the label because they no longer need any evidence of infringement. They simply accuse the indie artist of infringing copyright, and if they don’t sign with a label or shut up shop after three accusations, they’re disconnected. If they can afford to persist, and even win their appeal (unlikely), the label’s legal budget blows that of the artist out of the water.”

This is a cunning strategy that Machiavelli would be proud of. The labels win the support of 90% of file-sharers and format shifters, who are very happy if copyright doesn’t apply to them (who have always done it for convenience or as a favour), and are still indoctrinated to believe that anyone who does it commercially must be a scummy pirate who deserves everything they get.

The other 10% of copyright infringers (independent artists trying to make a living) now have the labels, the signed artists, AND the file-sharers all supporting draconian and inhumane penalties if they try and remain independent.

But, you say (if you still think copyright’s right and proper), “That’s fine. All that independent artists have to do is remain 100% original, and not even think of being influenced by any work covered by a copyright belonging to a publishing corporation.”

You don’t understand. The cartel wish to retain control of all cultural delivery channels by whatever unscrupulous means possible. They will send ’strike notices’ to any indie artist the moment they get a significant fanbase. Remember, they don’t need any evidence. They just need to accuse. The file-sharers now operating scott free don’t have any sympathy. They’re all right Jack. Those independent artists trying to go it alone are classed as scummy ‘commercial pirates’.

So, if you would like to see labels continue in their business of creaming off 99% of all fan revenue, and you think indie artists should only be tolerated if they have no revenue from their fans, then support this mission.

No, I am not. I am not asking anyone here to support 3 strikes.

I am asking you to help lift file-sharers out of the scope of copyright law – and so beyond any kind of three strikes legislation – by supporting artists in our campaign to make copyrght apply only to commercial use.

Yes please.

We can go on talking about whether copyright should exist, and if so what durations are appropriate. That is an important and useful conversation.

As is, the question of exactly what would be considered commercial use, it seems clear private copying/sharing between individuals with no other intermediary would certainly be “non-commercial” in this sense, when you go past that there may be grey areas that are less clear. And again that is an important and useful conversation.

However, this one principle, even without any other change to copyright law, would be a huge step forward and I would wholeheartedly support it and an FAC campaign for it.private

Moreover, if we adopted this as consensus here:

I am asking you to help lift file-sharers out of the scope of copyright law – and so beyond any kind of three strikes legislation – by supporting artists in our campaign to make copyrght apply only to commercial use.

I am willing to take that proposal to the Pirate Party UK member discussions, and advocate that we should support it, and adopt support for that principle as policy. I cannot promise in advance that I would be successful, I can promise to try my best to explain/advocate why I believe it would make sense for PPUK to do that.

Are you going in with the intention of saying, “the FAC and the P2P community both support 3 Strikes”, and expecting to get “rights returned to the artist after 35 years” in return??

No, I am not. I am not asking anyone here to support 3 strikes.

I am asking you to help lift file-sharers out of the scope of copyright law – and so beyond any kind of three strikes legislation – by supporting artists in our campaign to make copyrght apply only to commercial use.

Option 1: Beg the labels’ to surrender their weapons – “Ok, we’ll return them after 35 years- they get a bit blood stained by then anyway”.

Option 2: Forget the labels and their weapons. Start relating and dealing with your fans directly.

Here’s a second opinion Stop punishing fans and start selling to them.

Even so the first option is attractive, because hey, weapons are cool! But then, perhaps there should be a muggers’ code eh? Stop beating up tramps and schoolkids with no money, only mug folk trying to make a living. Maybe we can persuade the labels to adopt that code too?

Okay, so let’s get it straight on what’s being proposed, then…

Are you going in with the intention of saying, “the FAC and the P2P community both support 3 Strikes”, and expecting to get “rights returned to the artist after 35 years” in return??

It might be time to answer that question.

The thing to remember about what has been leaked is that it is just the first draft of the ACTA agreement. Someone has to put forward something and, as often, it is a lobbyist inspired wish list. As has already been noted, countries like Canada have laws which make these proposals unworkable. They will want to water these proposals down.

The RIAA are rushing to get laws passed because they don’t have the upper hand. If they did they would be so panicky. In order to exploit their disarray, we need to work together, consumer and creator, supporting one another against the corporations. If we can do that, then the legislators – and the press – will sit up and take notice.