The intention of copyright legislation is to create balance. Balance between promotion of both the creation and dissemination of culture within the public sphere, and the rights of the author to derive both recognition and compensation for the creative process. The artificial monopoly constructed by copyright legislation has been widely expanded and is currently wildly imbalanced, and those intentions have now been corrupted. It now serves to protect stale and inefficient business models, the only beneficiaries are the domineering and feudalistic organisations who seek to maintain their status quo, who seek to continue, and in fact, expand their control. It has become a mechanism where by culture, information and knowledge are being smothered, and locked down.

The copyright monopoly should exist only to provide a means of protection to a work, where that work is being commercially exploited - however this should not extend to non-commercial activity like private file sharing for instance, which is conducted without any intention of financial gain, which we believe should not incur the smothering effects of copyright legislation and certainly not be criminally punished. Non-commercial culture and information distribution must be legal, culture must be unrestrained and free, legitimate derivative works permitted and encouraged - without restriction, and this must be set as the default within the legislation.

Sharing Knowledge and Culture Must Be Legal

Technology has delivered society the greatest opportunity for knowledge and cultural dissemination, allowing the unrestrained exchange of ideas, knowledge, music and culture, whilst presenting a myriad of business opportunities for the innovative firm or individual, delivering a greater exposure to artists who would previously have never realised their potential due to the antiquated and controlled models of distribution - yet big media and other copyright maximalists now seek to control this new found freedom, and re-assert their domination and extortion of the public - and they are attempting to do this, without regard for your rights, by any and all means necessary.

Access to disseminate, and partake in culture is not a privilege dictated by the size of your wallet, nor is it based upon what oligopolistic corporations seek to spoon feed you - it is a fundamental right - now made ever easier by technological advancement. To curtail access and allow its relapse into manipulatory grasp of big media once again, is nothing more than state sanctioned theft. Legislation must recognise that the copyright monopoly only applies where a work is commercially exploited - the sharing of cultural works, with no intention of commercial exploitation, via non commercial means, must be protected.

This does not, however, mean that we do not recognise the economic importance of cultural works, and nor does this policy preclude their exploitation commercially - it is a policy in response to a shift in the means, and rapidity of culture and information transfer which present opportunities for new models of commercial distribution and industry instead of yielding and adapting to the paradigm shift created by this disruptive technology, has instead sought to cripple it by lobbying for draconian legislation which compromise your rights. Firms must be forced to accept and adapt to the structures of this new economy, there is absolutely no logic in perpetuating inefficient and stale models by aiding their respiration through antiquated legislation. The best place to see a movie, will still be in the cinema, a DVD or digital download service will still provide convenience and features consumers will be willing to pay for, and musicians will always be best seen performing live. There are simply better and more efficient ways of ensuring that knowledge creation is rewarded than by the arbitrary expansion of intellectual monopoly.

Free culture, unrestrained by restrictive and overbearing copyright is your right. Government must not succumb to lobby pressure which intends to intimidate the Australian people with criminal sanction, fines and litigation, and unnaturally inhibit the flow of culture, information and knowledge. Sharing of knowledge and culture must be legal, and must be considered fair dealing.

14 Year Term of Commercial Protection

Because of the excessive length and scope of the current copyright monopoly, we have increasingly seen the development of a system of economic inefficiency and rent-seeking, where corporate entities have sought to acquire and then expand a right of distribution to include what, where, how and when you may access or enjoy that knowledge or culture, often undermining the rights the creator should rightfully have, whilst marginalising the rights of society.

Currently the duration of copyright in Australia is life + 70 years - this is a completely ludicrous situation. The Pirate Party Australia seeks to restore a reasonable and fair balance to the intellectual rights regime, to encourage sharing, to spark innovation, for a better outcome, both social and economic, for us all. We want to a reduction in the term of copyright to 14 years from the date of publication - this is the optimal balance between social welfare and the material welfare of the creator.

No DRM

We seek to eliminate so called “Digital Rights Management” (DRM), and repeal the “Technological Protection Measures” within Australian copyright legislation that gives DRM legal foundation. It is an abhorrent assault on the freedoms of citizens and consumers, a prelude to greater surreptitious surveillance and unauthorised data collection, and has a crippling effect on culture and knowledge distribution, by effectively placing the electronic equivalent of a barbed wire fence around the data you should have free access to.

In the short term we demand that legislation is enacted which demands that consumers are clearly notified that the product they are purchasing is defective by design and is using DRM technology, the limitations and restrictions that the technology imposes upon them by way of operation or by way of ability to copy or manipulate, what additional software the the product installs on your computer, what behaviour is observed or what data is collected by the DRM, and have the option of return even after being notified, if that product still remains unfit for purpose within a grace period of 14 days where that product is using DRM.

DRM should viewed in a very dim light by government. It is anti-competition, it is anti-consumer, it is anti-rights.