Draft Platform 2012 Revision

This document is currently under development and is not approved or endorsed by the party. Some statements may be incorrect, unverified or otherwise objectionable to party policy or intention, and until such time as it is endorsed by the party, it does not represent the views or intentions of the party. Please read the discussion on the talk page before making substantial changes to this document.

Notes on this Draft

This draft is a proposed revision, and is not endorsed by the Party. It will be put forward for adoption at the 2012 Congress in July.

This is a draft that was worked through and edited by members and others present at the Sydney Meeting on 5 December 2009. Its current form was revised for clarity and succinctness in 2012 by the Press Officer, Mozart Olbrycht-Palmer.

As it is a draft, it should not be considered an official document of Pirate Party Australia. It is placed here for all members to consider, add to and edit. However, any major amendments to this draft must be motioned and passed at the annual National Congress. It is usually best to ask before any changes are made. The original can be found here: https://pirateparty.org.au/oldwiki/index.php/Draft_Platform.

Declaration of Platform and Principles

Pirate Party Australia is founded on the basic tenets of:

• Freedom of culture and speech;
• The inalienable right to liberty and privacy;
• The protection of the freedoms provided by the evolving global information society;
• The transparency of institutions; and
• The restoration of the freedoms and balance lost through the encroachment of harmful and overbearing intellectual monopolies.

As part of an international movement, we seek not only to change national laws, but to reform perceptions and affect worldwide change. We seek this democratically, through parliamentary elections and lobbying of government.

Free Culture and Copyright Reform

Copyright balances the rights of those who create intellectual property with the rights of society. It is a limited statutory monopoly granted to the creator of an original work to encourage innovation, publication and dissemination of culture, information and knowledge. The monopoly granted is limited in both time and scope, and prevents – with a few limited exceptions – others from using or distributing the work without licence.

In recent times, we have seen a rapid and drastic expansion of copyright in favour of established industry, and the current situation now stifles creativity and innovation. The artificial monopoly created by copyright has been widely expanded, and the balance has been lost. Instead of protecting creators’ rights, it now works to perpetuate stale and inefficient business models. Copyright has become a mechanism for control that locks down and stifles culture, information and knowledge by preventing others from accessing or modifying works, and ultimately benefiting from creations.

Large corporate entities confuse the issue by misusing terms like ‘intellectual property,’ which cloud public debate and allow for the use of pejorative terms like ‘piracy’ and ‘theft.’ It is a misinterpretation that confuses the general public, and, particularly, law makers.

We believe that the copyright monopoly should only exist where a work is being exploited commercially: when we share privately and non-commercially, copyright should not work to stop or interfere with this, and it certainly should not make people criminals.

Non-commercial culture and information distribution must be legal, including derivative works of a non-commercial nature, or parodies, which must be permitted and encouraged without restriction.

Copyright should not be placed above the fundamental rights to privacy; security; the presumption of innocence; due process; and freedom of expression.

We need to make copyright fair, we need to bring back balance, and we need to protect our civil liberties.

Sharing Knowledge and Culture Must be Legal

Advances in technology have allowed unparalleled opportunities for the dissemination of knowledge and culture, providing the unfettered ability to share and exchange ideas, knowledge, art and culture, whilst presenting enormous business opportunities for those innovators who seize them. It also delivers artists and their works the opportunity for greater exposure, where previously full potential may not have been attainable due to the dependence on antiquated models of distribution.

However, copyright maximalists and big media seek to reassert their domination and control, without any regard for our fundamental civil liberties. They are curtailing the new found freedom. Governments and established media have declared a ‘war on sharing’ – a misguided attempt to prevent unauthorised distribution that by necessity requires the erosion of civil liberties, including intrusions into our privacy and limiting freedom of expression. The established industry lobby groups intentionally misrepresent the issue, while politicians typically comply because they do not understand the implications and benefits of new technology, or care about the purpose of (or necessity of balance in) copyright.

Access to culture, knowledge, information and the freedoms to participate and share, should be permitted with no regard to monetary limitations. Access to these things should not be dictated by corporations. It is a necessity for the freedom of expression and a prerequisite for a free and democratic society.

This does not mean that we do not recognise the economic importance and value of cultural works, nor does this understanding preclude their use commercially. However, we make the statement that there is also an enormous intrinsic value of the public domain. Fair dealing is an important and valuable part of the creative economy. The ability to draw on the cultural commons contributes significantly more to the economy than copyrighted works. The ability to freely use creative works, knowledge and information is a necessary part of our culture, and a necessary part of our economy. The push to enclose and control the commons is extremely detrimental to society.

As the pace of culture and information transfer quickens, and shifts occur in the means by which this is achieved, a new paradigm is being created through a ‘disruptive technology,’ and copyright in its current form is quickly becoming an irrelevant relic. A law that may be suitable for the analogue paradigm, overextends itself and is increasingly irrelevant when applied to the digital sphere. We are seeing a completely new and different social understanding of copyright – a generational shift in the way we relate to and participate in culture. It serves no logical purpose to persist in aiding the respiration of an inadequate or inefficient model, or to cripple technology by succumbing to the vested interests of established industry.

New and sustainable models will be found if they are allowed to be. There are simply better and more efficient ways of ensuring that knowledge creation is rewarded and that artists are credited and paid than the arbitrary expansion of knowledge monopolies.

Fifteen Year Term of Commercial Protection

An excessive length and scope of copyright is responsible for an increasingly inefficient outcome both economically and culturally, because it encourages rent-seeking behaviour and inhibits innovation.

In most cases, the duration of copyright in Australia is life + 70 years. This is ludicrous. The purpose of copyright has always been to encourage innovation for the good of society. It has never been to directly reward the great-great-grandchildren of innovators. Such overprotection leads to a reduction of innovation due to the removal of motivation to create: rather than continue to produce new work, a creator lives off income derived from royalty payments or license fees. We need a reasonable and fair balance, to encourage sharing and to spark innovation to achieve better economic and social outcomes. We advocate a reduction in the term of copyright to 15 years. It returns copyright terms to a more reasonable duration, and has been said to represent an optimal balance – a harmony between society’s welfare, society’s sacrifice of natural rights, and the material welfare of the creator.

Abolish Crown Copyright, and Open Access to Public Sector Information

Copyright carries with it the potential to restrict the flow and dissemination of information. When it is applied to things like laws, regulations and other public sector information, it acts as a severe inhibitor to the access of information. Works, data, laws, regulations and other materials produced by any government body in Australia should not be restricted in its reproduction or dissemination, and should not be enclosed by copyright. We need to abolish the concept of ‘crown copyright.’

There are inefficiencies in the current system that see public schools paying collecting societies for the photocopying of government documents and the prevention of useful tools being developed because of the cumbersome requirement for explicit government consent for the use of public sector information. There is also the risk of crown copyright being used to censor or restrict publication of government information.

It is our information; we have all paid for it. The public interest is best served by having free and unfettered access to all public sector information. Doing so will increase innovation and creativity across all society. Whilst there may be some regulations and guidelines necessary regarding the use of public sector information (for the purposes of data integrity, for example), crown copyright must not work to prohibit or encumber access to information.

We believe that express exceptions to copyright should be established, and crown copyright abolished for all:

• Bills, statutes, regulations, ordinances, by-laws and proclamations, and explanatory memoranda or explanatory statements relating to those materials;
• Judgements, orders and awards of any court or tribunal;
• Official records of parliamentary debates and reports of parliament, including reports of parliamentary committees;
• Reports of commissions of inquiry, including royal commissions and ministerial and statutory inquiries;
• Other categories of material prescribed by regulation.

Even where translated, adapted or otherwise used, no material the government produces should be subject to the enclosure of copyright.

Open-sourcing of State Funded Software

All software created or commissioned by the government should be open-source if paid for by the taxpayers. Open-source software is more valuable to the public than closed, proprietary software: open-source software can be adapted by knowledgeable end-users for additional uses not envisioned by the original creators. Open-source software is also open to inspection by the public, increasing the chances that security issues can be found and resolved quickly, and allowing for a greater degree of transparency in government.

Equitable Access to Culture, Information and Knowledge

It is a right of everyone to be able to participate in our culture, to access knowledge and information. Where copyright laws, like they do in Australia, provide exceptions for the creation of accessible formats for people with reading disabilities, international legal frameworks should place no restriction on cross border import and export of such works.

Open Access to Knowledge and Research

The public sector funds much scientific and academic research, that produces a wealth of copyrighted works. We believe that, as these works have been financed by the public, they should also be able to be shared and freely accessed by the public. Often these publicly funded, peer-reviewed academic works are published in commercial journals or publications, and are then not made accessible, even in our public libraries, without excessive costs that impede learning and inquiry. We support the Open Access movement and believe that the accessibility of the cultural and scientific heritage of humanity is essential to cultural and economic development.

The Australian government should impose requirements on institutions it finances, as well as support for the creation of repositories, for the support of the principles of Open Access.

No Digital Restrictions

We advocate the repeal of the “Technological Protection Measures’ (TPM) within the Copyright Act 1968, that gives so-called 'Digital Rights Management' (DRM) legal foundation. DRM can be a prelude to surreptitious surveillance and unauthorised data collection, it cripples culture and knowledge distribution, and is an electronic equivalent of a barbed wire fence around data you rightfully should have free access to. It hinders the fair dealing rights we already have. Information crippled by DRM is also subject to being rendered worthless by some trigger, such as purchasing a new device, or the publisher closing down the service.

In the interim, we demand that legislation is enacted to protect consumers. They must be notified that the product they are purchasing uses DRM. It must be made clear what restrictions and limitations are imposed by the DRM by way of operation, or by way of ability to copy or manipulate. It must include what additional software is installed, what behaviour is observed, and what data is collected.

We also need a grace period of 14 days to be legislated, that would allow consumers, even after notification, to be able to return a product crippled with DRM.

No ‘Three Strikes’ or Graduated Response

In their 2008 report, the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) openly declared to the world that 'ISP Responsibility' would become reality. Shortly afterward we saw the introduction of HADOPI in France – a 'three strikes' or 'graduated Response' law, where upon three allegations of copyright infringement, the account holder would have their access to the Internet terminated. These laws were deemed unconstitutional because, as in most democracies, there is a presumption of innocence and we are all entitled to due process. The court also recognised that the Internet is a component of the freedom of expression. It has quickly become a proposed law elsewhere, in the United Kingdom and New Zealand for instance.

As the Internet weaves itself further into the fibre of the Australian way of life, we have become socially, economically and culturally dependent on it. It is an essential part of modern life. We conduct our financial affairs and businesses through it. We interact with our friends and family on it. Through online communities we find new friends, share ideas, knowledge and culture, and in turn create new ideas, knowledge and culture. It is the most important platform for political discourse today. It is not only a component of the freedom of expression, it is becoming one of the most important components of the modern age. It is a utility at a comparable level of importance to electricity and water.

This is why it is worrying that the Australian Government has indicated an intention to consider the implementation of a "Three Strikes" or "Graduated Response" system in response to the ‘threat of piracy.’ It is not acceptable that, upon an allegation and without due process, any person should be arbitrarily disconnected from such a vital medium, and have their freedom of expression curtailed. It is also unacceptable that we should allow ISPs to become de facto copyright enforcers, requiring the invasion of our privacy be having all our private communications monitored.

Patent Reform

One cannot exclusively own an idea. It is not natural property, and there is no inherent notion or right of ownership in an invention. An idea is part of the greater collective knowledge of society. A patent is a government-sanctioned, time-limited monopoly granted to a claimant of that idea, in the belief and expectation that this monopoly will be exploited commercially. The principle follows that if we temporarily cede our claim and right to freely implement and use ideas – by providing the option of a monopoly – we encourage the disclosure of innovation and the secret of an invention. This is the purpose of a patent. It is a market distortion that is made in the hope that society will benefit. However, we are seeing that in many instances this is not happening.

As the world changes, and we shift from the industrial age to the information age, patents are not fulfilling the intended purpose for which they were created, and are hindering innovation. They are simply not as important to the innovative process as some would have people believe, and in some cases can be destructive and used to suppress innovation and development. In particular, we believe patents on pharmaceuticals, software, living organisms and genetic material are particularly harmful, and raise many ethical considerations. There are unreasonable and irresponsible consequences that necessarily require legislative and structural change.

Another issue with patents is that as technology has improved at an exponential rate, the length of patents has remained effectively unchanged. Historically, an invention would likely take several years to spread around the globe, and the market for any given creation was relatively small. Today, an invention, once developed, can now go to market within the space of weeks and reach billions of people. Twenty years is excessive in the modern world.

Increasingly, patents are being used improperly through a process of 'speculation' or 'hoarding' – and is symptomatic of a system that is in dire need of overhaul. The patenting of trivialities must be halted, ensuring that the system is not hindering innovation as it presently is.

Software Patents

The statement that 'one cannot own an idea' has a logical extension to all formalisation and expressions of those ideas. This includes abstract processes, business methodologies, chemical formulae and mathematical procedures and algorithms. Software, in its basest form, is simply a series of mathematical operations describing an idea and hence should not be offered any monopoly protection by patents.

We believe that software can be adequately protected by limited term copyright, as provided by the relevant section of our policy, which already provides more than sufficient protection for an inventor or developer.

Pirate Party Australia believes that free and open source software (FOSS) is the ideal way of promoting innovation and progress in the software industry and the Internet community generally. We hold many values in common with the Free Software Movement and advocate the use of open source software, and open standards in all government and public service applications and standards, at all levels.

We do, however, respect people's right to choose whether they distribute their software as source code, or in a compiled format. There are many choices of business model that different companies will choose for their own reasons.

Pharmaceutical Patents

The Harmful Nature of Pharmaceutical Patents

Millions of people, too poor to receive the drugs they need, suffer and die because they don't have access to them. Even though the drugs they need to save their lives exist, and could be made easily available, strict enforcement of monopolistic control on the supply of medicines necessary for their health and safety means they will not benefit from them.

By leveraging the monopoly that patents provide, pharmaceutical companies place the value of their already excessive profits above those of human life. Pharmaceutical patents have led to moral corruption that sees the pricing of retrovirals and other medicines out of the grasp of the people that desperately need them, whilst patent owners do all within their power to maintain draconian control over measures that would see lowered costs and greater access.

Abuse of pharmaceutical patents is widespread, and we have seen the European Union take antitrust action against the pharmaceutical industry as they try to evergreen their patents and block generic competition, preventing the return of research and knowledge to the public domain. Many pharmaceutical companies use "process patents" to effectively block the generic manufacture of a drug by patenting the method for creation and delivery within the body. By establishing newer processes, the drug effectively stays patented for much longer than the intended twenty years.

This also contributes to the ever-increasing cost of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) and similar schemes the world over, because we simply have no way to control the spiralling costs that pharmaceutical companies are imposing on us.

The Unnecessary Nature of Pharmaceutical Patents

Despite these concerns, there are people who continue to argue for the maintenance of pharmaceutical patents in their current form. We recognise that the research and development cycle for pharmaceuticals is long, complex and involved and thus expensive, so it must be funded adequately.

However, if the purpose of patents is for the mutual benefit of us all – to encourage disclosure and to help developers of knowledge, balanced with the inherent right of the public to use and benefit from that technical knowledge – there are serious questions about whether this is happening through pharmaceutical patents and whether they do bring about the promotion of innovation in the current over-monopolisation of knowledge, and whether they are adequate or appropriate as a mechanism for funding research and development in the pharmaceutical industry.

Pharmaceutical industry profits far exceed those of other industries, and far exceed the average budget set aside for research and development. Industry-stated costs for the research and development of new medicines are themselves something that requires investigation.

Instead of innovation, pharmaceutical companies are re-prioritising marketing over research and development, with the priorities of those research resources being distorted and skewed. We want to look at alternative sources of funding, and different mechanisms for research and development. The advancement of medicines ensure our health and safety, so we will look at better ways of building upon our knowledge, and sharing it, rather than pursuing stricter enforcement, higher prices and expansion of a system with serious flaws.

The Future of Pharmaceutical Patents

Obviously the Australian government alone can do very little, and the majority of action on a global scale so far has been for the stricter enforcement of patents, which do little to alleviate the inherent problems the current pharmaceutical patent structure is responsible for. There is an urgency for solutions – but change should be gradual and measured.

We already pay substantially for research through grants, tax exemptions and credits, and through inflated prices in the PBS. So the public sector, directly and indirectly, already pays for the majority of research and development. Most of the truly innovative advances come from public sector research.

Pirate Party Australia is also representative of shifting attitudes towards information and knowledge – we want more open access, and freer systems for innovation. As increasing problems manifest in the pharmaceutical patent system, such as ever increasing prices and the restriction of access, the focus has been primarily on the stricter enforcement of patents as a means of funding pharmaceutical research and development, and an increasing push for the removal or weakening of government consumer protections for pharmaceuticals. The time has come to look at alternative models.

We say there is merit in the construction of a biomedical research treaty at the international level in which the World Healthy Organisation is a main stake-holder, and would be a positive step toward recognising that there my be alternative ways of funding research and development, and allowing the benefits of that research to be more equitably applied. Patents are too indirect a measure for something as important as medical research, and, as we can see, the pharmaceutical industry cannot be shown to adequately respect the social responsibility of the monopoly they have been granted, except where token gestures have been made.

We want the Australian Government to commission a report into alternative funding of pharmaceutical research and development. There are obvious flaws with the current model, and we must work to achieve something better. The time for change is now.

Privacy Rights

Privacy is a fundamental right. It underpins human dignity, freedom of expression and association. It is the freedom to control your cultural presence, the information and identity that surrounds you, as well as your physical privacy. A free and open democratic society cannot function without the protection of a person's private life and sphere. Neither the state or private organisations should have the right to intrude without restraint into an individual's autonomy or compromise that dignity.

Fear, combined with surreptitious and intrusive surveillance work, undermines the fabric of our open and democratic society. The compromise of inalienable and unconditional rights does nothing to advance or protect us.

We hold this as one of our most important and cherished values within our democracy. We want to see tougher legislative requirements for organisations retaining data, and a withdrawal of the power to perform surveillance without notification from government bodies.

We will oppose any legislation that seeks to compromise this right – it is not negotiable.

We oppose the practice of "security theatre," in which governments and organisations implement policies that provide the illusion of safety, without providing any security. We support sensible security procedures that are demonstrated as effective and are respectful of people's rights. An extension of this principle is to strongly limit the use of CCTV cameras, especially those that are linked into large networks, where nobody supervises the watchers.

Reform of Democratic Institutions

Transparency

Democracy is dependent on the transparency of its government, law enforcement agencies and in political lobbying. Access to the discussion and reasoning for decisions made, the laws, regulations and obligations of government authorities and an ability for citizens to participate in the decision making process is vital. The digital environment enlarges the spaces for civic engagement, and provides a mechanism for openness in our democracy and government at all levels.

Whilst every individual citizen must have the right to protect their privacy, conversely the administration must not. It must be completely open and transparent.

Petitions

All Levels of Government Should Recognise and Facilitate E-Petitions

Petitions are a well established and recognised form of political participation. To broaden political participation governments at all levels the state should recognise and facilitate electronic petitioning as a legitimate form of participation.

Petitions Should Enhance Democratic Participation

Recognition of all petitions must have attendant obligations upon the elected government when it reaches a predetermined quota, which include mandated parliamentary discussion, meetings with petitioners and formal recognition of issues raised within the petition.

Net Neutrality

‘Net Neutrality’ is the guiding principle of the Internet, ensuring that it is free and open and that regardless of service provider, we all have access to the same Internet – it prevents the blocking, speeding up, or slowing down of content based on its source, destination or the owner of the content. Network operators do not decide what information should have priority over another. Their job is simply to carry data. A simple analogy is the postal service. When we send a letter, we don't expect a priority to be made by inspecting the contents of the letter, or by looking at who the sender and recipient are. The postal service is simply paid to carry the letter. Another analogy is the electric grid. It is a neutral network that does not care what you plug into it – and this provides a basis for the support of innovation and competition.

This principle is being threatened as content providers and telecommunication corporations begin to implement prioritisation of information and data flow. If this principle is sacrificed, there are harmful consequences to competition as service providers may preference or block protocols to force consumers to use other, more expensive services they may provide. It would also be harmful to innovation, as net neutrality ensures that even the smallest entrepreneurs have the same access as leading firms. To remove this would see a crippling of new entrants, as they would struggle to compete on the uneven playing field the internet would become.

A free, open and non-discriminatory access to the Internet is essential for our democracy, and for our economic well-being. Allowing discriminatory practices to develop would turn the Internet into a predominantly commercial-only zone – significantly impairing participation, choice and diversity.

We need the adoption of clear net neutrality principles and regulations that ensure the treatment of lawful content, applications and services in a non-discriminatory manner.

No Censorship

Censorship is unacceptable in any free and liberal democratic society. Freedom of expression and communications is essential.

Internet Censorship

The current government intends to impose mandatory internet filtering at the Internet service provider (ISP) level. This is essentially a national firewall akin to that in China and other heavily censored countries, and it will be imposed upon all connections to the internet. All connections will be subject to the censorship prerogative of the Australian Government via a blacklist maintained by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). The blacklist will be kept entirely secret, and will be used to censor all illegal and "unwanted" material. Obviously this provides a wide scope for what material might be censored under the scheme.

The rationale behind the implementation of such a filter is misguided, due to the fact that the individuals the government is supposedly trying to prevent accessing certain material can easily access tools that allow circumvention. It will not achieve its stated purpose, and is an example of “security theatre.” Government, in combating abhorrent criminal activity such as child pornography, should instead look at adequately funding law enforcement, removing illegal content and prosecuting those responsible for the manufacture of the material, rather than funding a filter that slows connection speeds, is liable to wrongly block websites and is easily circumvented. It is a complete misallocation of public resources.

There is a distinct lack of transparency regarding the reasoning for a censorship regime, its implementation and subsequent operation. It is simply not a case of if it will be abused and its scope expanded, but when.

If an individual wishes to censor their own internet connection, that is their prerogative – there are viable client-side alternatives. We do not object to government providing education about or access to software for individuals who wish limit access to certain materials they personally deem morally objectionable for themselves or for their children, but we object to any government imposed censorship regime or compromise of individual liberty. We do not want or need a nanny state.

We believe that parents should be allowed to make decisions for their own families, and the government should trust them to do so responsibly.

R18+ Classification

Adults should have the freedom to choose what sort of experience they wish to derive from any source of entertainment, and parents should have an appropriate guide as to how best to govern what they expose their children to. Presently there are issues with the current systems of classification enforced by the Australian Classification Board (ACB) and Australian Classification Review Board (ACRB). The issues prevent this freedom of choice, and may work to expose children to content that, due to the inadequacies of the system, is potentially inappropriate. To that end, we support the creation of an R18+ category rating for computer games. The purposes of this policy are:

• To allow games to be sold that would otherwise be refused classification;
• To avoid the possibility of ratings, or the refusal thereof, being used to impinge on freedom of expression;
• To reduce the amount of legislation and enforcement that is required by the existing classification system; and
• To equip parents or guardians with the ability choose, monitor and restrict their children's media consumption.