Talk:Draft Platform 2012 Revision
General changes
Grammar and spelling have been adjusted for consistency and accuracy. Rewrote some sections into plainer English, so that it is more easily understood. As a platform does not require the same level of precision as a document like the Constitution, it can be simplified for the laypersons’ ease of readability.
Table of Contents
Extensive reformatting of the section layout. Rather than have a numeric sequence that features “x.x.x.x,” the deepest level it goes to is “x.x.x”. “2 Declaration of Platform and Principles 2.0” has been modified so that each major item of the platform has its own top-level numeral indicator. There are eight such items. This makes it considerably easier to navigate, as each major section is clearly identified.
Draft Notes
Has been renamed to “Notes on This Draft,” because it seemed to read better. This section has been expanded to include an explanation of what it is (a draft, not an official document, and so on). This will need to be removed and prefaced properly if adopted.
Declaration of Platform and Principles 2.0
Removed the unnecessary “2.0” and gave the first paragraph its own top-level numeral. The “basic tenets” listed have been put in a parallel list form to make it easier to read. Also added is “the transparency of institutions” in accordance with the “Transparency” section. The second-half of the paragraph is below this, and has been changed to read “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 & Copyright Reform
Replaced ampersand with “and” because it looks more professional. Removed emotive language that could be misconstrued as underhanded rhetoric to make the introduction a little more explanatory, and a little less direct.
Expanded the second paragraph, and changed “artist” to “creator” – it seemed more appropriate to talk broadly about creators. “Give respiration to” has been changed to “perpetuate” as it is easier to comprehend in the context (complicated and emotive issues should be discussed in simple language). Added “by preventing others from accessing or modifying works, and ultimately benefitting from creations,” to make the point clear about why we campaign for this.
Replaced “more importantly” with “particularly”. This is to prevent the feeling of inferiority that readers might encounter – planting this idea of a hierarchy might distract the audience from the text.
Broke the fourth paragraph up into two sentences – following plain English principles that two short sentences may get the point across better than a longer one.
Sharing Knowledge and Culture Must be Legal
Made it a subsidiary section of Free Culture and Copyright Reform, as well as made it more direct.
Replaced “Politicians typically comply because they do not understand the implications of new technology, or care about the purpose or necessity for balance in copyright” with “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,” – the point of copyright has been lost, arguably, so many do not understand that it was not about establishing “ownership” per se.
Replaced “the size of your wallet” with “monetary limitations,” to make it more formal.
Reworded it slightly to make it more direct, and clarified that there is “an enormous intrinsic value of the public domain”. Also replaced “The ability to draw on the cultural commons contributes significantly more to the economy than, and provides the basis for, the copyright economy,” with “The ability to draw on the cultural commons contributes significantly more to the economy than copyrighted works” – it makes more sense.
Removed additional emotive language (the reference to copyright as a “relic”). Added “social” to define what sort of understanding of copyright it is.
15 Year Term of Commercial Protection
Spelled 15 out and made it a subsidiary section of Free Culture and Copyright Reform.
And the clause: “rather than continue to produce new work, a creator lives off income derived from royalty payments or license fees,” to explain why overprotection removes motivation to create.
Abolish Crown Copyright and Open Access to Public Sector Information
Made it a subsidiary section of Free Culture and Copyright Reform.
Broke the first sentence down into two for ease of reading. Removed the word “actively” in “actively restrict,” because any restriction is generally bad.
Removed mention of the Copyright Law Review Committee so that it states what we believe are appropriate express exceptions to copyright in relation to public documents.
Open Sourcing of State Funded Software
Added under this section as it seemed most appropriate, though equally could be shifted to the “transparency” section. It more or less follows on from crown copyright, and as it was voted for at the last Congress, it has been added to the revised platform.
Equitable Access to Culture, Information and Knowledge
Made it a subsidiary section of Free Culture and Copyright Reform.
Open Access to Knowledge and Research
Made it a subsidiary section of Free Culture and Copyright Reform.
Switched “economic” and “cultural” around, to reflect the greater interest of the Party (i.e. We are pro-culture, pro-economy. If we were the reverse, we would not be pro-copyright reform).
No Digital Restrictions Management
Made it a subsidiary section of Free Culture and Copyright Reform, and omitted “management” from the title – we want no digital restrictions.
No Three Strikes or Graduated Response
Made it a subsidiary section of Free Culture and Copyright Reform.
Patent Reform
Gave it it’s own top-level numerical indicator to appropriately separate it.
Under the subsection “The Road Forward” (retitled “The Future of Pharmaceutical Patents”), there has been a removal of discussion of the “Biomedical Research and Development Treaty” (BRTD).
The reason for this is that, in accordance with the Australian Labor Party draft platform 2011, and the Greens/EFA common position on copyright, a political party platform is not the place for discussion of detailed legislation or international agreements. Rather, a certain vagueness is required to allow flexibility, while at the same time making it clear what we stand for.
The BRTD is a good idea, and something that interested members (including myself) should pursue. However, we must bear in mind that too much detail is off-putting. Already the draft platform is at least 6 pages long. While this is nothing in comparison to the ALP draft platform, which is nearly 200 pages long, we must bear in mind that their platform does not involve dense and lengthy passages. Paragraphs are kept short, sentences are simple, and there is no discussion of the specifics of legislation; more so what they stand for. It logically follows then, that the Party may decide to propose legislation and agreements in the future, however including them in the Platform may be overwhelming for those who want to know what we are about.
Therefore, having struck the four paragraphs on the BRDT from the draft platform, I propose it be moved elsewhere for discussion separate to the platform, which should only include the core policies and their brief explanations, justifications, and intentions.
Privacy
Gave it it’s own top-level numerical indicator to appropriately separate it from other issues and renamed it to “Privacy Rights”.
Removed “they,” as it is emotive and is unexplained.
Changed it to “legislation and requirements,” as requirements can be non-legislative.
Transparency
Gave it it’s own top-level numerical indicator, and moved it under “Reform of Democratic Institutions” along with “Petitions” (as motioned and approved at the last Congress).
No Censorship
Gave it it’s own top-level numerical indicator.
Adjusted the “R18+ Classification” section to a much more simplified version. As with the removal of the BRDT (see above) – the platform is not the place to discuss lengthy ideas for legislation. It is enough to say we support R18+ and why, without going into details about how that could be brought into effect. As there has been movement in support of R18+, much of this has become redundant. The replacement is, I feel, adequately reflective of Party sentiments on the issue, and is suited for the purposes of the Platform.