I disagree.

We have a stupid law. Just because it's not being enforced doesn't make it OK, if anything that makes it even worse because it enables selective enforcement; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_enforcement

We have a stupid law, and no one is proposing to keep the law as is. There are two camps here:

A) Grandstand until we are magically able to repeal the entire history of copyright law and part of the national psyche all at once
B) Dismantle the law piece-by-piece, attacking the worst pieces first, all the while making progress on our other core policies as well.

Even if Skynet is repealed, unlicensed p2p of copyrighted works within term will STILL be illegal, so you're not talking about repealing Skynet, but a lot more than that.

Even if you want to repeal Skynet, then work on the rest of copyright law later, that still kind of fits in the B) category, and requires that our copyright reach policy says more than just "(large scale) noncommercial copyright infringement should be legal"

Fair enough, but the post I was replying to started "all we have to do is .."

Repealing skynet would be a good first step, and it's probably the first thing we need to be working on... but it's not all we have to do.

That's the difference between "have to" and "would if we could"

If we're considering a lesser option, I'd guess we might go with unrestricted personal use once a copy has been legally obtained (in addition to repealing Skynet). e.g. If you buy a copy of a DVD, then you should be allowed to format shift it. There is already a format shifting provision for music, and a backup provision for computer programs, so these could be expanded and merged into a general provision. (Or alternatively, rewrite copyright so it's essentially conveyright--it's receiving and sending copies that is restricted, not making copies.) This should take care of EULAs too, I think (for individuals anyway). As I understand it, EULAs have force because it is necessary to copy a program in order to install/run it. Therefore, if you use a program without agreeing to the EULA, you've broken copyright law because you don't have permission to install/run the program. Recording television programmes might be included in personal use too. We could argue this stuff on the grounds of privacy. What I do in my home is my business.

That said, if we're considering a lesser option, I think it might be prudent to make it provisional on clearing it with PPI before we officially adopt it, in this particular case. Looking through the policies of the official pirate parties, every single pirate party that I can determine policy for has the policy of copyright only regulating commercial activity, and I think this is possibly the only policy that is universally agreed upon by pirate parties. Also, the Pirate Party of Sweden was involved in P2P, so it could be a sensitive area.

To keep a foot in both camps, perhaps we could say that eventually we'd like copyright to only regulate commercial activity, but for the moment our policy is unrestricted personal use?

(BTW, another option we should probably include in the vote, simply for the sake of completeness, is abolish copyright.)

Thoughts?

As an interim step, that makes sense, and we might be lucky if we can even get that far the way things are going... But I don't think we should ever accept it as a final goal.

Sharing is good for society as a whole even if it's possibly (this is never actually proven) going to impact the profits of publishers. The 'war on sharing' is massively harmful.

Looking at copyright reach policies for the 27 official pirate parties (the pirate party of Sweden, and the 26 members of PPI), I've found:

• can't determine: 6 parties (France, Ireland, Luxembourg, Morocco, Romania, Slovenia)
• copyright only regulates commercial activity: 21 parties (Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, Kazakhstan, Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, Russia, Serbia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, UK)

(and the Uppsala Declaration)

And also:

• derivative works always permitted: 6 parties (Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland)

(and the Uppsala Declaration)

I like the derivative works clause. I would also add to it that copyright should only covers actual* costs and losses incurred by infringement, not punitive components. (this would considerably mitigate issues with copyright as a means of censorship)

* loosely defined, i wouldn't care if it included "lost sales". The main point is that enforcement is not a source of profit in itself.

I still can't see how this would work--how do we draw the line between a work that is essentially the same, but almost not, and one that is not essentially the same, but almost is?

Looking at Community Law Centres: Shoplifting (linked), it seems that a punitive component of around 10 times the actual loss is not unusual, so I think it might be easier to go with the argument that not every act of copying is a lost sale.

Looking through the discussions, these are the suggestions I've found. (I've separated some into components--hope this was sensible, tell me if it wasn't.)

We probably all agree [Edit: I guess this is essentially related to judgement and punishment, and perhaps there is more to discuss on it]:

• Repeal Skynet--burden of proof lies with plaintiff not defendant, remove/reduce excessive punitive damages

What acts copyright should cover:

• Copyright doesn't cover personal copying of a legally obtained copy
• Copyright only cover cases where money changes hands
• Copyright only cover commercial use and non-commercial use on a commercial scale
• Advertising income be allowed from conveying even if it turns a profit
• Copyright be abolished (I think we should include this option for completeness)

Suggestions in relation to what acts copyright should cover:

• If we are to adopt a policy other than copyright covering just commercial use, clear it with PPI first
• If we adopt a policy other than copyright covering just commercial use, also say that eventually we would like copyright to only cover commercial use

What material copyright should cover:

• 'Copying' be defined as actually copying a work, not reimplementing or drawing inspiration from one
• Copyright not cover (or have narrower coverage over) critiques
• Copyright not cover (or have narrower coverage over) derived works that substantially differ from the original

Have I got everything? And have I got everything right? Which of these are wanted in the vote? Anything else to add?

I guess we can take repealing Skynet as a given, but perhaps we should have a separate vote on this to rubber stamp it? This aside, we seem to have 2 dimensions being discussed here--what acts copyright should cover, and what material copyright should cover. Perhaps we should have a separate vote on what material copyright should cover too? (Otherwise I think we could potentially end up with a lot of options for one vote.)