This thread is for formulating and discussing proposals for PPNZ's official policy on the term of copyright. Proposals and ideas will be collated on the wiki page Policy Committee Proposals on Copyright Term (linked)

If you would also like to discuss copyright length on IRC, please raise this in the thread, and the Policy Committee will try to arrange a meeting time. To help us select an appropriate time, please ensure you update your preferences in the poll Board index > General > Polls > What time of the week should PPNZ have IRC meetings? (linked)

This thread will be open until at least 11pm on Tuesday 19/07/2011 [Edit: extended to Sunday 31/07/2011]. Once the Policy Committee has finalised a set of proposals, this thread will be closed, and a new thread will be opened with instructions on how to vote (the vote will be conducted via e-mail). Voting will then be open for at least the following 5 days.

[Edit: The votes have now been counted, see this post (linked).]

In case it still needs to be, I propose that we adopt the current 'unofficial' policy (as per the wiki) i.e. the term of should be shortened to 10 years, regardless of what's being copyrighted. Also add that this should only be one policy on copyright out of several, and not the 'main' one either.

I've collated the terms proposed by the 27 official pirate parties (the pirate party of Sweden, and the 26 members of PPI).

• can't determine: 9 parties (Brazil, France, Ireland, Kazakhstan, Luxembourg, Morocco, Romania, Serbia, Spain)
• shorten, but not further specified: 8 parties (Austria, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Russia, Slovenia, Switzerland)
• 20 years: 1/2 party (Belgium/2)
• 15 years: 1+1/2 parties (Australia, Canada/2)
• 10 years: 3+1/2 parties (Czech Republic, Finland/2, New Zealand, UK)
• 5 years: 4+1/2 parties (Belgium/2, Bulgaria, Canada/2, Denmark, Finland/2, Sweden)

Some parties mentioned more than one length of term, and I've counted them half in each. For some parties I couldn't find a term mentioned, and I suspect at least some of these do not have a policy on length of term (but rather only on allowing non-commercial copying)

I think 10 years is a good compromise. Realistically I don't think it matters that much, if we can make progress on allowing non-commercial copying then long copyright terms no longer provide such a great benefit to the 'content industry' but those same terms still limit them.. What will Disney do when there are no more public domain stories left to retell?

And in general I feel that our policy should closely follow the "Uppsala Declaration", except where there are very sound reasons to differ.

http://www.piratpartiet.se/nyheter/euro ... tform_2009
http://www.piratskastrana.cz/wiki/en:zo ... eclaration

Here's my current thoughts (drawing from other people's ideas, not all originally my own ideas):

IMHO the morally defensible copyright length would be no more than what is democratically agreed, benefits the public good, and doesn't infringe on personal liberty. If copyright were to cover commercial use only, then I think personal liberty is largely covered. Research suggests 15 years is economically optimal (I think this is WRT commercial works, the reference is on the wiki policy page), so IMHO a democratically agreed term up to 15 years, but no more, is morally defensible.

In the case of software, RMS has raised a concern that, if we are to keep copyright at all, a reduction to a copyright term of around 5 years could harm F/OSS by tipping the playing field in the favour of commercial software (in the article How the Swedish Pirate Party Platform Backfires on Free Software linked). Commercial software could build upon F/OSS once the copyright expired, but F/OSS could still not build upon closed source commercial software. This may assist commercial software to draw away users, and therefore developers, from F/OSS, and discourage contributions to F/OSS in the first place. I think this may be a valid concern. RMS suggested a reduction to a 10 year term probably wouldn't tip the playing field too much. (He also suggested other options, which, although interesting, don't have much support in the pirate movement AFAIK, and may be too confusing for promotion to the general public at this stage).

In regards to political expediency, it is a major concern to me that being too ambitious could limit our chances of success. I personally suspect that, in the current climate, anything less than 10 years would seriously risk political suicide by casting us as 'extremists'. I think it is fair to say that realistically we are not likely to achieve even this in the near future, and I think a 15 year term may be significantly easier to promote in sound bites and debates. In arguing for a 15 year term, we can point to research that suggests this is economically optimal, and an opposing argument must then challenge the research, or argue for being economically suboptimal. OTOH, we have already promoted a 10 year term, and this would be a late switch.

I think international cooperation would be very beneficial, since we are up against international treaties and agreements, so it would be good to be consistent with the international pirate movement as much as possible to present a united front. Terms of 5, 10, 15, and 20 years are specifically mentioned by other pirate parties, some pirate parties simply suggest reducing copyright term without being specific, and some appear not to address reducing copyright term at all, but rather only applying copyright only to commercial use. The Uppsala Declaration states "expires well within one generation". I think a generation is traditionally taken to be 20 years, so I think a 20 year copyright term would technically not even be within a generation, let alone well within. A term of 15 years is 25% less than 20 years, and I think this can reasonably be considered "well within one generation", so I think 5, 10, and 15 years are all consistent with the international pirate movement.

On this basis, I think it would be best to set PPNZ policy for copyright term at either 10 or 15 years, and I am currently leaning towards 15.

The closing date for proposals for PPNZ's policy on copyright term has been extended to Sunday 31 July 2011. The current suggestions are on the wiki page Policy Committee Proposals on Copyright Term (linked). This is the last call for other proposals.

Voting is now open for the official PPNZ policy on copyright term. Voting will remain open until 11 pm on Sunday 07/08/2011. Votes will be counted by the Schulze method (which performs strategic voting on voters' behalf). The results will be posted in this thread. Except in the case of a tie, the winning option will become official policy.

The options are:

• [A] no policy on copyright term
• [B] 15 year term
• [C] 10 year term (as per the policy wiki page)
• [D] 5 year term
• [E] abolish copyright (requires 75% majority)

(Option E would require a 75% majority to win because it goes beyond the policies of the international pirate movement, and is therefore considered non-core policy.)

Members can cast their vote by sending an e-mail (from the account they put on their membership application) of the following form:In the place of "X > Y > Z", include the letters that indicate your options in order of preference, separated by the greater than sign '>'. You can include 1 option, or all 5, or any number in between, and including more options will not harm the chances of earlier options being successful. Only if the earlier options do not have enough support to be successful will the Schulze method shift your vote to later options.

Before voting, please read the summary of ideas from the discussion available on the wiki page Policy Committee Proposals on Copyright Term (linked).

btw, i assume X > Y = Z etc. are valid too? i.e. giving Y and Z equal ranking

Yes, I guess there's no reason not to allow this. I just didn't write it in because I thought it would keep the instructions simpler, and there probably wouldn't be much need for it. But if anyone does want to do this, I don't have any objection.

anything less than 10 years would seriously risk political suicide by casting us as 'extremists'

"Political suicide"? We have 139 members, and have trouble getting people along to meetings. Who knows how long it will be before we can actually register. The only way this party is likely to ever to have any influence on government policy is to represent a credible alternative position.

For people who think 75 years is too short, 10 years is crazy radicalism. We will never win them over, and by accepting that their position has merit, we demonstrate that ours has none.

The ownership of knowledge and expression is a moral harm which cannot stand. The time for clear and forthright thinking on this issue is upon us. We need to inspire change, not hope to wheedle it out of an utterly disinterested political establishment. Anything less is simple pointless.