“Privatized monopolies are one of society’s worst enemies, as they lead to price-hikes
and large hidden costs for citizens. Patents are officially sanctioned monopolies on
ideas. Large corporations diligently race to hold patents they can use against smaller
competitors to prevent them from competing on equal terms. A monopolistic goal is
not to adjust prices and terms to what the market will bear, but rather use their illgotten
rights as a lever to raise prices and set lopsided terms on usage and licensing.
We want to limit the opportunities to create damaging and unnecessary monopoly
situations.”
My problem with them is that in the past they have wanted to make DRM ‘illegal’. Well, DRM may suck, but I dont think companies should be prohibited from using it.
Also, notice they say ‘reform’ of copyright law. Why not ‘elimination of copyright law’? So I guess they still believe in some sort of IP…
I think consistent opposition to Intellectual Property also denotes opposition to DRM, which is a technology that both presumes that there is intellectual property (and certain attributable “rights”) IP to be regulated, & is utilized to rationalize Intellectual Property itself.
Something akin to copyright, such as a general notice of the generation of content, like Creative Commons, & that avoids trying to stake claims over nebulous “ideas” (such as songs, word combination, poems, etc.), seems to be acceptable & doesn’t contradict being anti intellectual property, imo.
As to why they do not oppose copyright law absolutely, it may have to do with two things:
1.) As long as the state exists, intellectual property will exist in some form. Remember, IP is another regulatory function that helps in providing funds to not only the state itself, but special interests that may also fund & patronize the state. The Pirate Party, being a political party, is obviously not advocating the elimination of government, which brings me to…
2.) Not everyone involved in the Pirate Party are anarchists, & most are probably minarchists that have an appeal for a more meritocratic society than what is currently abound. They maybe believe that some IP laws may be required in order to identify & defend original works, which go in line of the argument that regulation itself is a valid concept, but too much of it or some things being regulating give it a bad rap (i.e. minarchist position).
I meant to say how DRM is used currently, otherwise yes I would be at risk of conflation.
Without the state legal system & law, I wouldn’t really consider DRM in a free-market DRM (I would consider contractual agreements & limitations upon use per product as what DRM would essential amount to without the state), nor would I oppose fully (If I didn’t agree to a companies terms on a product, I wouldn’t simply wouldn’t use the product & go to a competitor).
What I’m currently opposed to is how DRM is (mostly) used at furthering monopoly, with no real interest in competition, & both the quality of the product & the consumer experience suffer as a result (like DRM making it difficult to install games, to port music files to devices, etc.), which the DRM advocates further using circular arguments by rationalizing more DRM is needed because customers are turning to piracy, despite DRM being one of the prime reasons.
Without the state & it’s legislation, I don’t see DRM being nearly as draconian as it can be, as it wouldn’t necessarily be profitable to do so, as is shown by file-sharer’s opposition to restrictive DRM (in addition to higher than needed prices on products brought on by monopolies).
So basically, I’m against current DRM’s laughable attempts at being contracts over “intellectual property”. Sorry for being vauge
