When I look at the other side of these debates, at various industry and law enforcement groups, I see a lot of rhetoric, sensationalism, hyperbole and manipulation. A very simplistic example is the slogan “home taping is killing music,” circulated by the British Phonographic Industry (BPI) in the 1980s. This is very easily ridiculed with the argument that music has survived pretty healthily over the past million or so years without copyright.

However, it is quite easy to fall into the same trap of using those tactics, perhaps unknowingly, yourself. Mike Masnick’s “The Sky’s the Limit” report, for example, has been criticised, and quite frankly for good reason. I wouldn’t trust a report sponsored by an industry organisation whose members would directly benefit from a reduction in copyright regulations to be unbiased. It is for such reasons that I have pushed for strict guidelines on what material should be used to support Pirate Party Australia’s policies.

But what has all this got to do with rights?

Recently the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) dismissed an application from Peter Sunde and Fredrick Niej, two of the four founders of the Pirate Bay who were sentenced and fined for commercial copyright infringement. Two rights collided.

The applicants complained that their convictions interfered with their right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the [European] Convention [on Human Rights]…

The Court has consistently emphasised that Article 10 guarantees the right to impart information and the right of the public to receive it…In the light of its accessibility and its capacity to store and communicate vast amounts of information, the Internet plays an important role in enhancing the public’s access to news and facilitating the sharing and dissemination of information generally…

In the present case, the applicants put in place the means for others to impart and receive information within the meaning of Article 10 of the Convention…Actions taken by the applicants are afforded protection under Article 10 § 1 of the Convention and, consequently, the applicants’ convictions interfered with their right to freedom of expression. Such interference breaches ARticle 10 unless it was “prescribed by law”, pursued one or more of the legitimate aims referred to in Article 10 § 2 and was “necessary in a democratic society” to attain such aim or aims.

…The Court observes that the applicants were only convicted in respect of material shared through TPB which was protected by copyright in accordance with the Copyright Act. It follows that the interference was “prescribed by law”.

— Fredrik Neij and Peter Sunde Kolmisoppi v Sweden (European Court of Human Rights, Chamber, Application No 40397/1, 19 February 2013).

A lot of people were outraged immediately by an apparent placing of “copyright above freedom.” The linked article is but one of many expressing this sentiment.

No matter how I look at this, it is nonsense.

The Court did not place copyright above the right to freedom of expression. The Court decided that given the serious infringement of copyright that the founders were considered implicit in, their right to freedom of expression was of lesser consideration in this case.

Simply put: sometimes the enforcement of one right is considered to be more important than the enforcement of another.

All rights are superficially equal. In a utopia, no right would conflict with another. But in our reality, rights commonly conflict and there is often a remedy provided. An example relevant to the context would be that copyright gives way to the right of freedom of expression through fair use (in the United States) or fair dealing (in Australia). In other situations, the right of freedom of expression gives way to copyright.

Moving beyond that context: in the United States there has been much debate over the supposed right to bear arms. There is certainly a right to maintain an armed militia. But what do “arms” mean in this context? As has been observed by Michael Moore in the documentary Bowling for Columbine, “arms” does not extend to nuclear weapons. There is a limit to how far this right goes before it infringes on other rights.

It is only natural then to assume that the court, ruling according to existing laws (both domestic and international), would determine that assisting in copyright infringement to what is considered a significant degree negates any claim to an infringement of the right to freedom of expression. If someone is infringing a right, any right, and you are profiting from it, the court is not going to accept a claim that you are reasonably exercising a right yourself. Your rights do not extend without limits.

I find it absurd that this case can be considered anything revelational or outrageous.

Do I agree with the ruling? In context, yes. I have mixed feelings about the Pirate Bay. The laws do need reforming, but I am not sure of the Pirate Bay’s commercial aspects. There’s not really enough transparency for me to make an informed judgement, but, under the laws, this ruling was appropriate. If anything, I disagree with the original decision, but that is not what was decided by the ECHR. The criminal penalties applied by the Swedish Court are perhaps unnecessary; civil damages could have provided punishment given the amount(s) being claimed.

But what I do believe for certain is that very few rights are supreme over all other rights. The right I consider most important is the general right to life. Most would contend this could be considered supreme, but when you take into account the issue of abortion it becomes a little complex. Not unworkable, but complex (“Does an unborn child have a right to life?” and “What if the mother’s life is at risk?” are two contentious questions, obviously). The right to freedom of religion can be subverted in cases where that religion advocates, requires, or practices ritual harm of others. If you infringe another’s rights, some of your rights must be by necessity curtailed. This is why we imprison people.

The extent to which exercising your rights infringes is, as demonstrated by the ECHR, key to determining the outcome. I have a right to protect my property, and my neighbour has a right to prevent me trespassing on his land. If a fire breaks out on my property, I may justifiably use his land if necessary to put out the fire. His right is subordinate to my right. However, if I unnecessarily destroy his house in the process, I have exceeded the reasonable limits of my right, and he may exercise his right to claim damages.

We must accept that rights are a balancing act. Rights may be sorted into hierarchies, but ultimately they are all balanced against each other.

Over the past twelve months, my view of PPI has gone from being one of enthusiastic support, to one of weariness, and now it has reached total opposition. In this article I will be explaining why I now hold that view. Many Pirates I am in regular contact with know of my disappointment with PPI, and some of the reasons. I felt it was time to compile those reasons into a statement which can be used to support movements within Pirate Party Australia to withdraw from PPI.

My first direct interaction with Pirate Parties International was in April of 2012: the Prague, Czech Republic conference. In the months leading up to this conference I began hearing more and more rumblings of disapproval towards the state of affairs at that time. Brendan Molloy, the Secretary of Pirate Party Australia, announced his intention to run for a position on the Board of PPI with the intention to solve many of the issues. He withdrew his candidacy when he (with reason) came under the impression that a certain member of the incumbent Board who was physically attending the conference had been badmouthing him to delegates there, leading to him to fail to pass the approval vote. Denis Simonet, of Pirate Party Switzerland, was elected with less than 50% also, as it became apparent that, after a revote, no remaining candidates would reach the threshold.

Before the conference, however, I figured that, as I was at that time merely Press Officer at Pirate Party Australia, I would put forward my candidacy for a position on the Court of Arbitration which was supported by the Australian and New Zealand Pirate Parties.

I published a full roundup of the conference briefly after it occurred, and am including the necessary parts below.

I was shocked by the lack of co-ordination and thought put into the conference. I had heard stories about various problems that occurred at the last two General Assemblies, but did not think the situation could have been that bad. This years’ General Assembly was “that bad”.

I would like to make it very clear that I have nothing against the moderators of the conference; technical or otherwise. In my opinion they did a fantastic job given the situation – it was primarily the delegates and the individuals actually chairing the conference who caused the issues. The technical moderators particularly were very accommodating given their poor English (which they admitted themselves, and which I understand – my Czech is considerably worse then their English). The choice of software for video conferencing could have been better, but otherwise they are absolved from blame.

Myself and others have noticed the ongoing Eurocentricity of PPI as an organisation. I admit that there have been successes in Europe that make it the centre of attention for the Pirate Party Movement. This is not unwarranted. So, of course it makes sense for Europe to get attention. But what the Europeans fail to recognise is that the rest of the world exists.

PPI was designed to give all members an equal voice. Remote delegates last weekend were treated very poorly, merely because the cost of attending was either too expensive, or the travel time too long. It would cost PPAU close to $2000 just to send one delegate, who would also have to spend nearly 24 hours in transit.

The intention of the technical moderators of the conference was that remote participants would change their status in the software to “request,” and then they would be put on the main screen, and be allowed to speak. However, those running the conference were moving far too quickly for the remote delegates, who had difficulty in gaining the attention of the technical moderators, as well as technical issues. At one point Thomas Gaul, a Board member, was heard through a microphone that was accidentally left on saying “I don’t care about the remote delegations”.

Priority was given to those attendees fortunate enough to attend in person. While the physical delegates were allowed to debate the wording of one sentence for twenty minutes, and a significant portion of Saturday was devoted to discussions on forming PPEU, remote participants were ignored to keep to the strict schedule.

The main purpose of the General Assembly (as it is understood) is to elect PPI officials (five seperate elections), vote on admission of new members (about ten applicants), and to amend the statutes (about twelve this year). These are the important issues and should not take more than one day to complete. Instead, the majority of the statute amendments have been postponed until an emergency conference to be held later this year (2012). The schedule should have been maintained; but instead those chairing the conference permitted presentations outside the agenda. This caused the important matters to be put by the wayside.

In short; the PPI General Assembly did not break with the tradition of PPI focusing almost exclusively on Europe. The remote delegates were treated poorly, and major decisions that should have been made were not. I am informed that the conference room was very close to the bar, which increased noise and disturbance, and that great priority was placed on performing for the media and guest speakers, in lieu of actually giving attention to the serious business at hand.

For a Movement that is meant to be highly tech literate, the audio-visual set up was unimpressive, the handling of the remote participants abysmal, and the fact that there was no vote counting software, or electronic voting method is shocking when compared to Pirate Party Australia’s National Congress. PPAU’s 2011 congress featured many more participants than PPI’s GA this year, the majority of which were participating remotely. And yet, even with a 30 second video stream delay, and the use of the archaic internet relay chat, more progress was made.

Legitimacy does not come through old blood and conservative methods. The Pirate Parties International General Assembly conference of 2012 saw a movement strongly based in modern technology carry out business in the same way as every other political movement in the world. If we are to champion technology as a way of achieving a greater level of democracy, we must embrace it far more effectively on an international scale than we currently are.

If nothing changes, it might be time for the non-European parties to form their own international organisation that addresses the needs of those parties not fortunate enough to have the political, social or geographic advantages that the European parties do. The Tunisian Pirate Party has already publicly denounced PPI, preferring the Coalition of African Pirate Parties. Maybe the rest of the world should take note.

It has been approximately nine months since that conference. As I mentioned, Brendan Molloy did not get elected to the Board. I was however elected to the Court of Arbitration. Returning to the Board were the two co-chairmen Gregory Engels (who was elected at the founding of PPI in Brussels as a co-chairman in 2010) and Lola Voronina (who was the incumbent Chief Administrative Officer).

For those unaware, the Court of Arbitration is, as the name suggests, the dispute settlement body of PPI. It doesn’t handle disputes within member parties, but makes rulings and clarifications where necessary to solve disputes between members and PPI. For example, if I were to claim that Pirate Party Italy is not operating democratically, I could refer the matter to the Court of Arbitration, who would see if that was the case, and may then rule that the membership is valid or invalid, based on the relevant clause of the PPI statutes.

Following the Pirate Parties International General Assembly conference of April 2012, the PPI Court of Arbitration was requested to handle two significant cases:

1. The admission of Pirates of Catalonia as an ordinary member of the General Assembly, and
2. The validity of decisions made at the April 2012 conference (including elections).

Both of these cases tested the Court of Arbitration, and we stumbled. We ruled poorly on reflection. We ruled both the admission of Pirates of Catalonia and the decisions made at the conference valid. I stand by the rulings, even though they were poor — I feel they were the best possible outcome for the movement. We could have been sticklers about it and ruled pedantically, as some would have liked, but we didn’t. We did what we thought was fair considering as a political movement we’re still so young, and PPI is still learning to walk.

Pirate Party Switzerland (as represented by its president, Thomas Bruderer), finding the rulings displeasing, threatened PPI with legal action. Depending on several factors — including jurisdiction, I believe — it is unclear whether this would be legal action against the Court of Arbitration as a sub-body, or PPI as a whole.

The PPI Board (as represented by the co-chairman, Gregory Engels) asked Pirate Party Switzerland whether the resignation of the Court of Arbitration would be sufficient to create a peace and prevent legal action. Mr Bruderer informed the Board this would be sufficient.

Beginning in early September, members of the Court of Arbitration resigned until there were no members left. Arturo Martinez resigned first, followed by myself on September 5, with the remaining three submitting a joint statement of resignation with the blessing of Arturo and myself. The Board has failed to acknowledge this resignation, and by the next conference (in March/April 2013), PPI will have gone without a Court of Arbitration for approximately seven months.

This allows the Board, intentionally or otherwise, to operate PPI with little to no dispute settlement process between the General Assembly and the Board for more than half the Board’s term. The refusal to acknowledge the resignation properly (through an email to the General Assembly, for example) is a conscious decision, as the Court of Arbitration has requested the Board do so numerous times.

Putting that to one side for the moment, I would like to discuss the conference locations.

The first three locations for major international meetings were:

1. Vienna, Austria — June 2007.
2. Berlin, Germany — January 2008.
3. Uppsala, Sweden — June 2008.

These three locations were decided in 2007.

Andrew Norton was appointed coordinator of PPI prior to its official founding. The fourth location (December 2008/January 2009) was intended to be St Petersberg, Russia, however the disappearance of the Russian Pirate Party made this infeasible. Norton selected Helsinki, Finland, and held the conference there with assistance from the Finnish Pirate Party.

After Norton handed the role over to Patrick Mächler and Samir Allioui in August 2009, the “core team” chose Brussels, Belgium as the next location, and organised the conference themselves. The Board elected at Brussels (which was also the founding conference of PPI) began the process of asking for bids for conference locations. The following three locations — Friedrichshafen (Germany), Prague (Czech Republic) and Kazan (Russia) — were decided through the bidding process.

This situation — and perhaps it is not coincidental that Gregory Engels has been co-chairman for both situations — allows the Board to place the vast majority of responsibility and accountability onto the hosting Party. As Andrew Norton has pointed out “the bid ‘system’…is designed to minimise the work the board has to do (giving them plenty of chances to ‘schmooze’ the media and build up their wikipedia pages, while again insulating them from consequences for a crap conference.”

Norton summarises both of my above concerns with the following:

Meanwhile, the last two boards (which have featured both current co-chairs as senior members) have *PROMISED* [the next conference] will be outside Europe, and yet it never comes, because that would require two things — work, and being held accountable for the event. That’s two things the PPI board does NOT want. The same reason the Court of Arbitration, the body that has oversight on the Board, has not been ‘refilled’ despite being empty for the last 4 months.

Pirate Parties International brings nothing of value to the movement. It is a redundant ego trip for those involved.

Very rarely do I agree with the Republicans, so I was quite surprised to read this document. Of course, I’m biased against modern copyright law, but even copyright holders who want to maintain the current level of protectionism (and go beyond) must acknowledge the accuracy of the brief.

Myth #1: “The purpose of copyright is to compensate the creator of the content.”

The RSC debunks this, writing:

…According to the Constitution, the overriding purpose of the copyright system is to “promote the progress of science and useful arts.” In today’s terminology we may say that the purpose is to lead to maximum productivity and innovation.

This is a major distinction, because most legislative discussions on this topic, particularly during the extension of the copyright term, are not premised upon what is in the public good or what will promote the most productivity and innovation, but rather what the content creators “deserve” or are “entitled to” by virtue of their creation.

The content of Pirate Party Australia’s submission contained arguments in favour of clear exceptions to allow legitimate customers to back up their content, to allow them to format shift across various devices, and to exercise fair dealing rights (similar to fair use in other jurisdictions).

So, what’s so funny? Well, first of all, this rather lovely appraisal of our organisation (derp emphasis added):

As a preliminary point, the Department should be wary of accepting submissions from organisations such as the Pirate Party Australia, an organisation (not a registered political party) with a primary argument to “decriminalise non-commercial copyright infringement”(1), where non-commercial copyright infringement includes conduct of an owner/operator of a website that makes unauthorised copyright material available where the primary purpose of the website is not to earn money (even where some income is accrued from the site)(2). An entity that professes no respect for the rule of law is hardly one on which the government could or should rely in determining policy regarding whether to expand the scope of the TPMs.

(1) http://pirateparty.org.au/faq/.

(2) Christian Engstrom MEP and Rick Falkvinge, The Case for Copyright Reform 2012, page 81, available at www.copyrightreform.eu.

For a professional organisation, I’m surprised that AFACT have to stoop to this level. Seriously guys? Beating up volunteers? Good work! But, meeting this argument, let’s see what’s wrong.

AFACT are essentially saying: “Don’t trust the Pirate Party, because they’re not registered and support copyright liberalism.” So, because Pirate Party Australia isn’t registered (yet), we are less valid than AFACT. Who knows what AFACT stands for?

Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft.

AFACT was established in 2004 to protect the film and television industry, retailers and movie fans from the adverse impact of copyright theft in Australia. AFACT works closely with industry, government and law enforcement authorities to achieve its aims.

Don’t trust an organisation that can’t tell the difference between copyright infringement and theft! I mean, this is their job. They are meant to know the difference. I know “AFACI” doesn’t sound as clever, but surely someone among you has a law degree? I mean, during my humble music course I endured two lectures on copyright that really drove that point home. Though I suppose rhetoric is a good approach when you’re losing.

Also, it’s very unprofessional to apply a book written by two prominent Swedes to an Australian organisation. The Case For Copyright Reform, while in my opinion an interesting book, should not be considered to be representative of every Pirate Party. For one thing, they want a twenty-year copyright term; we push for fifteen. Maybe actually do a modicum of research before you start making assumptions — would you use UK Labour Party documents as reflections on the Australian Labor Party? Probably not. And hey, my phone number and email address are publicly available. Send me an email or call me if you want to get your facts right.

And then, the big one. Accusing us of being a criminal organisation. Pirate Party Australia has never advocated breaking the law. As an organisation, we respect the law to the letter. It is our aim to change the law, not to be outlaws. I note that no reference for the statement “an organisation that professes no respect for the rule of law” is provided. Maybe because AFACT just jumped to conclusions and resorted to that good old rhetoric (or slander) again.

The only conclusion I can draw from these comments is that AFACT are afraid of Pirate Party Australia. They do not seem to be the words of a rational organisation who believe in what they are doing. It seems to reflect some sort of fear that maybe we’ll get listened to, that maybe their lobbying is unsuccessful, that perhaps secret meetings with the Attorney-General’s Department won’t be enough. Though perhaps I’m reading too much into this, so I’ll stop hypothesising: that appears to be AFACT’s job.

Perhaps not coincidentally, the remainder of AFACT’s critique predominantly opposes all attempts to allow circumvention of TPMs. This, in my opinion, reflects an extreme disconnect with consumers. AFACT actively opposes any circumvention that would make life easier for consumers, and while I can obviously understand their desire to prevent copyright infringement, I don’t think they’re doing themselves any favours by promoting the use of technologies that, frankly, will piss off the customers of those they claim to represent. Resentment can do a lot to kill off a customer base.

Oh well, as I said, “rhetoric.” When you can’t beat the pirates fair and square, cheat…or maybe reconsider your position.

Though considering they couldn’t even get the name right, I’m not too sure AFACT are the sharpest tools in the shed.

The National Congress begins with a two-day conference where physical and online participants work on policy changes, socialise, hear presentations and candidate speeches. This year’s conference was in Melbourne, Victoria, and was attended by Pirates from six out of seven Australian states and territories. Motions are voted on at the conference as to whether they will pass to a full-party vote – this is a sort of “mass seconding” – and amended in a similar way.

The first comment I’d like to make is that there were a heck of a lot of things to get through. Last Congress was quite informal in comparison. There were around 30 motions to get through, four presentations and elections for nine positions.

Nevertheless, it was much more successful than the Pirate Parties International General Assembly Conference earlier this year.

The reason for this is that we started on time. We made sure that people arrived earlier than the start time, and provided plenty of flexibility within our agenda. Additionally, all audiovisual equipment had been tested in near-operational circumstances prior to the day of the conference, and an hour was provided to make sure everything was working fine. What was also great about this approach is that I provided my own mixer and microphone, someone else provided other microphones and cables, and the PA and streaming software was provided by someone else. So we cut our costs down by using equipment we were already familiar with anyway. All up, it cost us less than $300 in funds for the two days.

There was a downside – the venue we hired did not have a wired Internet connection. This meant that everyone was tethering from their phones, and the streaming was via a 3G broadband connection. Not the best set up, and something which will need to be remedied for the Canberra 2013 conference. This made it difficult to take minutes collectively, but was only a minor issue in my opinion.

Following the conference there is a week-long voting period. It usually starts within the week directly afterwards, but in this case the complexity of the voting system and the fact that the Secretary got food poisoning meant that it was delayed, and the voting didn’t close until August 1. Not too bad – it was nice to mull over the motions and think about which candidates to vote for – but hopefully the time will be brought down a little next year.

Onto the motions: there were a few highlights, obviously subjective. It was excellent to see my Platform Revision 2012 pass without a hitch. Pirate Party Australia now has a nice and neat set of policies (the platform includes other amendments passed at the Congress).

All the policy amendments I put forward personally were passed with high majorities, which makes me happy – I’m in a party whose policies seem to be almost entirely in line with my own. Pirate Party Australia adopted 13 policy amendments, and are the first Pirate Party to adopt a policy on 3D printing technologies.

The National Council elections saw the previous members return, with the addition of myself and Sam Kearns as Deputy Secretary and Deputy Treasurer respectively. The newly elected council appointed Glen Takkenberg as Party Agent, completing the seven positions. George Campbell was a new addition to the Dispute Resolutions Committee.

As mentioned above, there were four presentations – two from members, and two guests. Andrew Downing spoke about the “Polly” project for which he is Technology Lead. Polly will be Pirate Party Australia’s liquid democracy system, which is being developed in-house due to dissatisfaction with existing platforms. The alpha version should be operational in 2014 we estimate. It was a very informative presentation, and I’m fairly certain everyone was impressed with the amount of consideration which had been given to the planning of the software’s features.

Asher Wolf, a Melbourne activist discussed the impending National Security Inquiry – a whole bunch of proposals to extend the powers of security and intelligence agents – and the need to avoid a police state.

Glen Takkenberg from the ACT Branch talked about the “failure” to register in time for the upcoming elections, and what the road forward will look like.

And finishing off the conference was a talk from Dan Hunter, Professor of Law at New York Law School, “an expert in internet law, intellectual property, and artificial intelligence and cognitive science models of law.” The talk was quite fascinating and informative, particularly in relation to the history of copyright (what he called a “Tragedy in Three Acts”). I believe Dr. Hunter is used to presenting this talk to the other side of the debate, so he seemed quite interested to hear what we had to say. It was extremely nice of him to give the presentation to us out of his own time.

So, that’s about all I have to say about that. Melbourne is an interesting but odd city. The trams cost $4, yet don’t accept notes. Nor are there vending machines for change at the tram stops. Otherwise, I “enjoyed” myself (it wasn’t any worse than Sydney =P).

I find this odd.

I personally have spent a great deal of time trying to understand copyright law in particular, and when you’re a multi-discipline academic nearing completion of a Bachelor of Music, it’s pretty hard to avoid intellectual property.

That’s right, I am educated. I’ve studied most aspects of music at a tertiary level (analysis, composition, history, performance, philosophy, technology and theory), as well as literary history, philosophy and linguistics. Currently I’m strongly considering applying for a law degree (where I will major in international law, human rights and intellectual property).

Many members I’ve come into contact with are IT professionals, programmers and system administrators. There is a strong “geek” basis to Pirate Parties, because they understand the technology. However, I’ve had the privilege to interact with law professionals, fellow musicians and performing artists, journalists, film makers and engineers. Members consist of a wide cross-section of society. Loz Kaye, leader of Pirate Party UK, is an interesting example, as is Anna Troberg, leader of Piratpartiet (Pirate Party Sweden).

The average age of Pirate Party Australia members is 33. The brains behind our Liquid Democracy project currently under development is about 50 (at a rough guess). While we avoid making a big deal about age and gender, it’s important to note that members come from a wide variety of backgrounds. I think we represent a diverse group of individuals considering the issues we campaign on. We have a relatively high percentage of women for a political party, a wide range of occupations and qualifications for what we campaign on (i.e. digital liberties), and a wide age spectrum considering the Internet is, to stereotype, the domain of the younger demographics.

So when I hear people refer to “idiots justifying stealing” I am a little put off by them. As established, we are not idiots.

Secondly, if you can’t tell the difference between copyright infringement and theft, then immediately I have the upper hand because I actually know what I’m talking about. I once jokingly said “people shouldn’t be allowed to hold copyrights if they don’t understand them.” I am called an idiot for pointing out that there is a strong difference – and one of them is your legal standing. Theft is a criminal offense, copyright infringement generally is not (unless it’s of a commercial nature, in which case it is “criminal copyright infringement”).

I’d just like to briefly explain the difference between “theft” and “copyright infringement”. I’m not attempting to justify either of them, or say that the latter makes things okay, but it is an important distinction to make, whether you agree with my opinion on the matter or not.

Theft (or stealing, larceny, and so on) involves taking someone’s property without permission. I can take your car without permission, I can even annex your land and that could be considered stealing. I can walk into a video rental store and steal a DVD from their shelves – I am taking the physical item without permission. In the latter, I haven’t stolen the content of the DVD, but the physical manifestation of it.

Now imagine I take a laptop into the rental store. I rip the DVD, return it to the shelf, and walk out. I haven’t stolen anything, I have copied. The definition of copyright infringement is in the name. “Copy” + “right” + “infringement”. I have infringed your near-exclusive statutory right over the ability to copy that content by ripping that DVD.

The difference is that a limited number of tangible items can exist, whereas a potentially unlimited number of copies can exist. To copy is not to steal. Interestingly, it is impossible to steal copyright. The Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) don’t seem to have grasped this. The right to religious freedom cannot be stolen, but it can be infringed. Rights cannot be stolen, but they can be infringed.

And now, onto the debate at hand. Each time I get hit by some rhetoric by the copyright lobby that I hadn’t heard before (and they do throw some interesting points out there from time-to-time), it makes me stop and think. I question whether what I believe is actually right. And then I do some research, and holes start to appear in their arguments.

As I mentioned before, we are not uneducated people. There is a wealth of material generated by academics, musicians, journalists, lawyers, writers and pirates themselves which indicate that copyright reform is not a bad thing. Books by Yochai Benkler, Philippe Aigrain, Matt Mason, James Boyle, Christian Engström and Rick Falkvinge, Kembrew McLeod and Lawrence Lessig, interviews with Neil Young and Thom Yorke, responses from Stephen Fry, Neil Gaiman and Michael Moore, comics and cartoons from Nina Paley. There is also a collection of copyright-related essays in a book compiled by the United States Pirate Party.

Each day, more and more voices are added to the debate. There are over 200 Pirate Party representatives around the world who have been elected to various levels of government – 45 state MPs in Germany (where they are federally the third or fourth largest party), 2 MEPs (from Sweden), and a mayor or two. Piratenpartij Nederland look set to take a seat or two in the next Dutch federal electons too.

I would much rather be on the side I am and be “wrong” than be on the other side and be “wrong”. I’d much rather continue to push for reform and what I believe in, only to be told to pack up and go home, than to sit on the conservative side and end up winning. Hopefully one day I will have grandchildren, and I will be able to sit them on my knee and explain to them that I was partly responsible for the freedoms society might enjoy in 50 years.

And if I’m wrong, at least when they ask me “it must have been great to grow up with the Pirate Bay – your generation really screwed it up for us” I will be able to say “at least I tried.”

But it has been portrayed by several sources, particularly Delimiter and the Sydney Morning Herald as an abysmal failure from a disorganised political party.

Let’s backtrack.

About two or three months ago, the now Secretary of PPAU-ACT came into our IRC channel and said: “ACT elections are in a few months, and I reckon we could have a chance at fielding some independent candidates.”

At that stage, I’m not sure many of us had considered that the ACT was much to bother with. Our largest states are New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland, and the ACT was as likely a place to run as the sparsely populated Northern Territory.

Another person looked up the registration requirements and said: “Registration only requires 100 members, why don’t we try that?”

Very quickly attempts were made to get the required members in order to register. The original plan to field independent candidates remained, and the attempt at registration was to see if it was at all possible to get the Party registered anywhere in Australia. Some might recall that initial attempts to register Pirate Party Australia federally failed as a result of the Australian Electoral Commission misplacing half our submitted membership forms, ruling we didn’t have enough members, then finding the forms with another party’s application. Rather than admit fault, they gave the option of having it reviewed ($750) or reapplying ($500). We chose the latter so that we could verify all our members manually and “save” some money.

So, on reflection, the situation is this:

• Pirate Party Australia failed to get a territory branch registered by 6 members
• They still managed to massively increase their membership over a short period of time
• They will still field independent candidates as per the original idea

It’s only a failure if you look at it from the perspective that it was a serious attempt. We’re disappointed, obviously, but if you think about it, we’re still ahead. The membership drive was successful, people know about us, and people will still be able to vote for us. After October 20, we may resubmit our application and become registered in the ACT.

I note our detractors telling us to get it together do not appear to be helping the cause too much. I challenge anyone who wants to see us registered and on ballots to help us distribute the weight a little more. Running a political party is a little more complex than people seem to think.

In the meantime, there are umpteen other things to deal with. Several inquiries, most importantly the National Security inquiry (#natsecinquiry on Twitter), which proposes many threats to our privacy. And there are inquiries on Technological Protection Measures (TPMs), Copyright and Patents coming up.

Many people do not realise that a political party is not just about getting votes. If Pirate Party Australia register, all it does it get a few names on ballots under the Party name. There are many other things to be focusing on. Our likelihood for electoral success is slim, but we have made great contributions outside Parliament. Just visit our website and read our press releases to see what we’ve contributed to.

We have plenty to keep us busy, particularly in the wake of our 2012 National Congress, which is still technically open until voting closes (about another week). We may have changes to our leadership and policies, so hopefully the transitions are smooth. I’ll be doing a “round-up” of the National Congress, similarly to my reflection on the PPI 2012 GA conference.

So, the way forward from here? We’ll be verifying all our members to make sure they are enrolled to vote correctly, and likely undergoing pre-selection in case we are registered in time for the next federal election. The Government may call an early election which might not allow us to compete, but as I said above – there is a lot of work to be done away from elections.

But that’s hardly something to complain about unless you’re actually a contributor to the Party, in which case you should be doing all you can to help.

There are a few multi-party organisations:

• Pirate Parties International (PPI). This organisation does not dictate policy, and has only a few rules of membership. It’s primary function is to assist collaboration, facilitate communication, and help local parties start up.
• European Pirate Party (PPEU). This does not dictate local policy, but instead works on a joint platform for the European Parliamentary elections. It’s effectively just another tier of government.
• African Coalition of Pirate Parties (ACPP). An organisation about which little is known, but appears to be led by one of the two Tunisian Pirate Parties.
• Pirate National Committee/United States Pirate Party (PNC/USPP). A national committee in the United States. As the US cannot truly have federal parties, this organisation works similarly to PPI, and cannot dictate local policy. Not all US Pirate Parties are members.

There are two key issues I want to talk about that this relates to. The first is Kopimism, the second is incest. The reason for these will become apparent below.

Just as Piratbyrån (The Pirate Bureau, from which the Pirate Bay originated) was never part of Piratpartiet (Pirate Party Sweden, the first Pirate Party), so too is Kopimism separate from the Pirate Party movement. Admittedly, many members would describe themselves as Kopimists, but then many members are also involved with the activities of Anonymous. I do not subscribe to either of those – I view Kopimism as a joke that highlights a serious problem, just as Kembrew McLeod has a registered trademark for “Freedom of Expression®,” and think that Anonymous taking down websites devoted to child pornography is not necessarily a bad thing.

The Massachusetts Pirate Party invited a speaker to talk about Kopimism to one of their conferences. Does this mean that MAPP are supportive of Kopimism? Perhaps, but bear in mind that Pirate Party Australia plan to invite several of their adversaries to their upcoming national congress. It does not seem fair to lump them all together like this.

We have to bear in mind that while Pirate Party Australia may consider Kopimism a satirical joke (and many of the members do), they are an entirely separate group to MAPP. Furthermore, if I help the New York Pirate Party, this does not mean they share all my views, or the views of Pirate Party Australia. I cannot vote at their meetings, cannot run for positions. I can merely share ideas with them – like flyers they may like to copy (or “pirate”). This does not mean that I have attempted to clone PPAU, I’ve just let them know what has worked for us, and recognised that local problems require local solutions. Recently the PPAU-ACT party formed. They are planning policy on motorcycle road regulations because many of them are enthusiasts. This is a local problem, local solution.

Another issue is the recent call for annulment of certain incest laws by Piratenpartei Deutschland (Pirate Party Germany). Now, I am not in favour of this. And no one within Pirate Party Australia appears to be. In fact, we question how that decision actually came about, and are planning to build a “rationality test” for all proposed motions into our own liquid democracy system. We pride ourselves on evidence-based policy, and evidence suggests that sexual relations between siblings is biologically not a good idea.

 Recapping all of this:

• Each party is subject to local laws and political systems.
• Political parties are generally not subject to any overarching organisations, though there will be a degree of communication as good ideas should be shared.
• Even parties within the same sovereign state can have different policies.
• Not all members and Pirate Parties share the same ideologies.

Person A: “Defense is necessary. We should spend more on protecting the nation.”

Person B: “I don’t think we need to spend more on defense.”

Person A: “Person B doesn’t think defense is important! They would see us be at the mercy of more powerful nations!”

A very simplified version of it, but it gets to the point. Person B has put forward the statement that they think defense is fine as it is. Person A has distorted that argument, and transformed it into something that can be more easily argued against. The easiest option is to reinterpret that statement, and present an emotive argument against it, putting the onus back on Person B to clarify and defend their statement. It’s frustrating being on the receiving end of this.

After a bit of searching around, I found this, which contains:

We found this enlightening and ironic. The Pirate Party in Australia is opposed to Spotify, guess they don’t like the competition. What does it say about a commercial legal service when the pirate party doesn’t like it for cutting in on their business?
http://olbrychtpalmer.net/2012/02/22/streaming-is-not-an-alternative-to-piracy/

I’m not sure where to start with this pile of wrong. This could be considered “strawman ad nauseam”.

…The Pirate Party in Australia is opposed to Spotify…

First of all: we’re Pirate Party Australia. While we have international connections to what is after all an international movement, we are not subservient to anyone. Please use our proper name.

Second: I am me. I write articles that show my thoughts based on the evidence that surrounds me, and there is a lot of material that gets me thinking. These are my thoughts, on a blog operated solely by me, with a domain name I purchased. This is not Pirate Party Australia’s blog. It just happens to be operated by a member. Pirate Party Australia have no control over the content here, and do not authorise anything.

Third: Pirate Party Australia (and myself) are not opposed to Spotify that I know of. File-sharing/DRM free downloads can co-exist with streaming. However, one is about access, the other is about interaction. The link to my site that The Trichordist posted made it clear that streaming was not an alternative to piracy. This meant that while streaming is not necessarily a problem, it is still not a viable substitute for being able to interact with media, just as DRM is not a step forward either. YouTube is great, for example, if you want to access content. But what if you want to add your own soundtrack to a video and put it back up on YouTube (presuming you weren’t doing it for money, or plagiarising)?  Streaming is pretty useless for that sort of thing. So my article was arguing that it is better to pay for DRM-free content that you can modify, rather than accept free content that turns everyone into passive consumers. To quote artist Robert Luxemburg: ”We’re surrounded by images, everyday and everywhere. There’s nothing you can do about it. But the problem with these images is that they’re not yours. People’s lives are determined by images they have no control over whatsoever. And I’d say that’s a very unfortunate situation.”

…guess they don’t like the competition…

Woah. Did I read that right? What? The Pirate Party movement is not a competitor…I’m not sure what this means…we’re not…I can’t…this makes no sense. Unless they’re implying that we run the Pirate Bay or something, I have no idea. If you know, please tell me. Pirate Party Australia do not operate or authorise the use of any sites or technologies that are designed purely to share copyrighted materially without the copyright holder’s consent. Fact.

What does it say about a commercial legal service when the pirate party doesn’t like it for cutting in on their business?

Again, where is this business? Pirate Party Australia is an unregistered non-profit political party at the moment. I want to know how claims can be made that we are operating a business or generating income. Please enlighten me as to where I can find this mystical business if you know. I’m certainly not getting paid, and no one else I know is…

To sum up, we started with this original quote:

We found this enlightening and ironic. The Pirate Party in Australia is opposed to Spotify, guess they don’t like the competition. What does it say about a commercial legal service when the pirate party doesn’t like it for cutting in on their business?
http://olbrychtpalmer.net/2012/02/22/streaming-is-not-an-alternative-to-piracy/

And once we strike through the inaccuracies, we get:

We found this enlightening and ironic. The Pirate Party in Australia is opposed to Spotify, guess they don’t like the competition. What does it say about a commercial legal service when the pirate party doesn’t like it for cutting in on their business?
http://olbrychtpalmer.net/2012/02/22/streaming-is-not-an-alternative-to-piracy/

And I’m sure they did find it so.

Of course, Pirate Parties are also about a couple of other things. We want to rip pharmaceutical companies off by forcing them to price medicines affordably so that poor people can afford them. The plan is to make the pharmaceutical company employees just as poor as the starving people in the third world. What’s even worse is that we want to allow generic pharmaceutical companies to distribute cheap drugs to AIDS sufferers. Why the hell would we want to allow cheap medicine to dying people when pharmaceutical companies are losing money?

Oh and privacy. We’re foolish to believe that we should have our privacy protected. Of course I should show my privates to anyone who asks to see them. Of course the police should be able to examine my Internet history without warrant. Why am I being so unreasonable? I should just hand over the keys to my life and let it be dragged out into the open.

But of course, while we lose our privacy, the Government should be able to keep their activities hidden! Only madmen would propose that the Government be accountable to their electorate. We must be crazy to suggest we actually see treaty negotiation drafts before treaties are signed. This is not how democracy works! Democracy occurs in secret! Just vote every few years and keep being fed the same shit.

</sarcasm>

So, with all that out of the way, I will move on to the purpose of this post, which is to discuss another vital element of the Pirate Party platform – censorship.

Censorship has a pretty obvious meaning to most. It’s the filtering out of ideas that someone does not approve of. However, censorship should not be confused with the moderating of trolls. To adapt Rick Falkvinge’s Troll policy:

I place a very high value on…open and honest discussion.

Unfortunately, I have also learned that there are individuals who are motivated by sabotaging the discussions and grabbing all attention for themselves by…provoking me. While this kind of indiviudal fits badly into my ideal image of the human philosopher hungry for the exchange of ideas, part of the charm with humanity is that all people are different, and motivated by different things and aspects of life. Nothing is wrong or right, there is just natural variation.

However, this is my blog…I invite people to be guests here in order to discuss ideas, concepts and aspects of information policy. That’s the topic of the party. When people are guests on my blog, I expect people to behave like guests in my house. I am entertaining a fruitful exchange of ideas with large amounts of hospitality in return. However, I also expect guests to honor that hospitality.

People who are rude to other guests at the party, or to me personally, will have this fact pointed out to them and asked to be friendly, once. If they continue to violate my hospitality, I will show them the way out so they will not ruin the party and discussion for all the other guests.

This does not mean that disagreement is bad. Quite to the contrary! Countering an opinion with reports saying the opposite stimulates discussion and the fostering of a sustainable, sensible information policy. But disagreeing rudely is another matter. The keyword is “rudely”, not “disagreeing”.

But the question that needs to be answered is “what is a troll?” So I shall define a troll for my own purposes as anything that includes either of the following in more than two comments:

• Garbled nonsense that attacks me or someone else without any attempt at coherency; or
• Logical fallacies, particularly:-
  • Strawman: misrepresenting someone’s argument to make it easier to attack. By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone’s argument, it’s much easier to present your own position as being reasonable or valid, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine rational debate.
  • Black or white: where two alternative states are presented as the only possibilities, when in fact more possibilities exist. Also known as the false dilemma, this insidious tactic has the appearance of forming a logical argument, but under closer scrutiny it becomes evident that there are more possibilities than the either/or choice that is presented. A circular argument in which the conclusion is included in the premise.
  • False cause: Presuming that a real or perceived relationship between things means that one is the cause of the other. Many people confuse correlation (things happening together or in sequence) for causation (that one thing actually causes the other to happen). Sometimes correlation is coincidental, or it may be attributable to a common cause.
  • Ad hominem: Attacking your opponent’s character or personal traits instead of engaging with their argument. Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character. The result of an ad hominem attack can be to undermine someone without actually having to engage with their argument. Avoiding having to engage with criticism by turning it back on the accuser – answering criticism with criticism.

Is this censorship? Not that I can see. By moderating this sort of nonsense, I am not preventing you from starting your own outlet to criticise what I say.

If someone argues with you and repeatedly misrepresents your argument, what is the point in continuing the discussion? Is it worthwhile? No. If they then turn and make remarks about you in an attempt to divert attention away from your valid points, then moderate away. The power of the Internet, as I have discussed before, is that everyone has the opportunity to put forward opinions.

This is the space I have staked out and paid for, respect it and me. Moderating comments from people who choose to distort my words is a reasonable reaction.

Oh, and before I forget: to whoever linked to my résumé on Delimiter, cheers for the free advertising! I plan to write a full article on the peculiar relationships between the various Pirate Parties soon.