Not without Proportional representation, we won’t.

And it should be noted that these elections were only elections to the Berlin city council, which is only called a state parliament because Berlin has this weird status of a “city-state”.

The UK Pirate Party’s policy of abolishing all drugs patents is, IIUC, completely insane.

Other than that, and their proposed “right to share files between friends and peers” regardless of the wishes of the content creator / owner, great.

And we thought we had a problem with asset strippers. The rest of the continent has pirates…

On a slightly more serious note, albeit from a very different background and using very different techniques, the forces that drive Somali pirates are pretty similiar to those underlying the European movement – historically pirates are generally more a rebellion against authorities involving not recognising existing propery rights than simply thieves (the stereotypical Caribeen pirate was more of a brigand in this respect…).

Agree with ukliberty – artistic copyright and industrial patents are, in fact, good things. Certainly there’s room for improvement (we don’t need people being threatened with fines in the thousands for copying one or two CDs, and drugs IPR could probably be brought more in line with consumer needs without destroying R&D) but I can’t imagine voting for a party that actually wants to get rid of intellectual property.

@ Chaire

Artistic copyright and industrial patents are, in fact, good things.

Disagree completely.

Patents always have the effect of slowing and hindering progress- as I’ve pointed out here before the industrial revolution nearly didn’t happen because one guy had a patent on the steam engine and another had the patent on the crankshaft.

Similarly, we have never had a more interesting and vibrant music scene since internet file sharing- low barriers to entry for new artists and established bands producing live music rather on relying on revenue from recordings.

Ideas and knowledge are not property- they existed before they were thought of or written down.

6
The industrial revolution happened because of the surplus labour caused by the agricultural revolution, absolutely nothing to do with patents.

@Steveb

Ironically, not only did Watt use the patent system as a legal
cudgel with which to smash competition, but his own efforts at
developing a superior steam engine were hindered by the very same
patent system he used to keep competitors at bay. An important
limitation of the original Newcomen engine was its inability to
deliver a steady rotary motion. The most convenient solution,
involving the combined use of the crank and a flywheel, relied on a
method patented in 1780 by James Pickard, which prevented Watt
from using it. Ironically, Watt also made various attempts at
efficiently transforming reciprocating into rotary motion, reaching,
apparently, the same solution as Pickard. But the existence of a
patent forced him to contrive an alternative less efficient mechanical
device, the “sun and planet” gear. It was only in 1794, after the
expiration of Pickard’s patent that Boulton and Watt adopted the
economically and technically superior crank.

http://www.dklevine.com/papers/ip.ch.1.m1004.pdf

There is a difference between necessary and sufficient conditions for industrialisation.

Surplus labour in agriculture, because of improved productivity in farming, is not a sufficient cause of industrialisation. Britain’s pioneering experience of industrialisation without state direction or control had much to with improved transport systems by road, canal, sea ships and rail, Watt’s steam engine, and a series of innovations in the manufacture of textiles which found ready markets overseas.

8
The industrial revolution started in 1750, almost 50years before the patent expired, the technological revolution (which I think you are referring to) was mainly drivien by the industrial revolution, not the other way round.

9
Perhaps you can explain how industries emerged without labour.

@ 6 Pagar

“Patents always have the effect of slowing and hindering progress- as I’ve pointed out here before the industrial revolution nearly didn’t happen because one guy had a patent on the steam engine and another had the patent on the crankshaft. ”

Yeah, but a lack of patents also hinders progress. Once an idea is publically available, it will indeed see faster takeup if there’s no IPR. But you’ll get less ideas to begin with, because what’s the incentive to spend money and time developing a promising new product if your rivals can just copy it from the day it comes out?

These days, the most expensive overhead for new drugs isn’t production, it’s research, including the price of regulatory trials. Remove that and medical progress will slow to a crawl – everyone will just be trying to make cheaper copies of existing drugs.

Comparing this issue today to the industrial revolution is dangerous, because as society moves on we identify and exhaust much of the low-hanging fruit. I’m not saying this is always the case, but where once a life-changing invention could be created by a flash of inspiration and one person’s research, now many concepts take hundreds of workers and millions of dollar in development. It’s just not the same situation.

“Similarly, we have never had a more interesting and vibrant music scene since internet file sharing- low barriers to entry for new artists and established bands producing live music rather on relying on revenue from recordings.”

Well, I disagree. I think the baby-boomers did better. It’s not quantifiable, in any case. And if you’re in favour of file-sharing, you’re incentivised to be biased in favour of musicians who grew on the back of that process.

“Ideas and knowledge are not property- they existed before they were thought of or written down.”

Knowledge in the sense of the technical requirements, yes. But that knowledge will probably never get written down if people have no incentive to seek it.

@9 – Which countries, for reference, have adopted modern farming techniques and NOT had an industrial revolution?

@12 – Oh please. Never get written down, right. Never mind that plenty of research and innovation happens in field where patents are not granted… (for either being too utilitarian, or because they study natural laws)

@11: “Perhaps you can explain how industries emerged without labour.”

I don’t need to – but the availability of labour is not a sufficient condition for industrialisation. Lots of countries had or have abundant labour – and often other resources as well – without undergoing industrialisation and, moreover, industrialisation without the extent of government intervention which was much in evidence during the process of industrialisation in France and Germany – see: Clive Trebilcock: The Industrialisation of the Continental Powers 1780-1914 (Longmans 1981). This is one good reason for being cautious over whether laissez-faire is the way to go.

There’s an extensive academic literature on which particular prior conditions were conducive to industrialisation in Britain – where the start of the “revolution” and the associated rise in living standards is usually put nowadays at around 1800 rather than 1750. Try the discussion here:
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/IndustrialRevolutionandtheStandardofLiving.html

@6. pagar: “Similarly, we have never had a more interesting and vibrant music scene since internet file sharing…”

Chaise proposed that the impact of file sharing is not quantifiable. That may be true for contemporary music, but less so for historic photographs, drawings, paintings and video. Lots of historic stuff is locked up in archives (including non-digital ones) because the owner can’t afford to give it away. It costs money to process photos from glass plates and old negatives, to maintain a collection of images on paper and canvas. Lots of those archive owners would like to make their collections accessible for private/non-commercial use, but they don’t because they are rightly afraid of being ripped off.

One half of the impact of non-publication is quantifiable. It is the number of historic works that are not available online because the rights owners fear copyright abuse.

The problems about defining orphan works are explained at the link below:
http://stop43.org.uk/orphan_works/orphan_works_problems.html

—
@6. Pagar: “…and established bands producing live music rather on relying on revenue from recordings.”

That comes across to me as the opposite of choice. For a song writer to benefit from the invention, s/he has to go on the road and perform. S/he can’t just sell the performance rights for the song.

For an independent inventor of physical widgets, the only way to make money, without patent protection, is to be first to market with the device. But abolition of intellectual property also abolishes non-disclosure agreements. The independent inventor cannot pitch an idea to five companies because the companies can take the idea into their workshops and directly copy it. They don’t even have to reverse engineer it and come up with a device that works differently but produces the same results.

@8. pagar quoting a paper: “An important
limitation of the original Newcomen engine was its inability to
deliver a steady rotary motion. The most convenient solution,
involving the combined use of the crank and a flywheel, relied on a
method patented in 1780 by James Pickard, which prevented Watt
from using it. Ironically, Watt also made various attempts at
efficiently transforming reciprocating into rotary motion, reaching,
apparently, the same solution as Pickard.”

Thanks for that reminder, Pagar.

It is interesting that Watt and Newcomen will always be associated with the steam engine, and that Pickard is an incidental bystander. Pickard’s invention of the crankshaft was brilliant — more efficient and cheaper to manufacture than Watt’s alternative — and applicable to devices that needed to convert rotary into linear motion (steam engines required it the other way round).

All that the history lesson tells us is that Pickard was less perspicacious as a business man than he was as an inventor. If he had pitched his crankshaft idea to everyone who could have utilised it, he would have been the founder of the industrial revolution rather than the subject of a three line Wikipedia article.

@13. Leon Wolfson: “Which countries, for reference, have adopted modern farming techniques and NOT had an industrial revolution?”

Many countries that were colonised adopted modern farming practice on large estates. If you recall, much of the pickle in Zimbabwe was caused by elimination of modern farming. Or you could look at the mass scale agriculture in Argentina and Brazil, countries which largely skipped the industrial revolution.

You could even argue that modern farming does not require local industrialisation. It depends on educated workers, machinery and chemicals, all of which are portable. The crunch issue for modern farming is dependable transport.

@16 Charlieman: “The crunch issue for modern farming is dependable transport.”

As Adam Smith famously put it: The division of labour is limited by the extent of the market.

Britain has a relatively high population density (as compared with, say, France) and Britain’s population trebled in the course of the 19th century so there was a ready and growing market for farm produce in the rapidly growing urban areas – France’s population increased only by about 50% in the same time frame. Also, many of the rapidly growing urban areas in Britain were not far away from farming lands. But compare the situation in countries with low population densities – such as in Africa and South America. Arguably, communications are nearly as important as road transport because there are many historic reports of trading opportunities between villages which were missed for lack of knowledge about crop scarcities and surpluses.

With the advent of mobile phone technologies, it seems unlikely that many countries will need to make the huge investments that countries in Europe and North America made in fixed link telecommunications.

Similarly, we have never had a more interesting and vibrant music scene since internet file sharing- low barriers to entry for new artists and established bands producing live music rather on relying on revenue from recordings.

As I see it the ship has long since sailed but, ethically / morally speaking, if content creators / owners are happy for others to share their content I have no problem with it whatsoever, go for it; conversely if content creators / owners aren’t happy for others to share their content then those people shouldn’t share that content. I couldn’t care less whether or not the music scene or games scene is is interesting or vibrant, I don’t see why sharing shouldn’t be up to the content / creator (from ethical / moral pov).

In my business (games) I can point to different countries and say with certainty that that country is dead for this platform (i.e. no sales / distribution) simply because of the file-sharing (i.e. ‘piracy’) in that country (Iberia and Brazil for example on Nintendo DS). That is why Spanish and Portuguese (again for example, not picking on them) might not see games translated into their languages.

Never mind though, eh? So long as people can do whatever they want on t’intertubes.

14
You will find that there is a concensus amongst historians that the industrial revolution began in 1750 and completed in 1850 and was facilitated by the agricultural revolution. However, this is a somewhat artificial concept, perhaps it’s easier to label the events in a particular way to study/teach history.
The model of free wage labour and the wage nexus relationship became the norm within the agricultural revolution, as the surplus labour moved towards the towns, the smaller units which already employed wage labour expanded.
As I have argued in the past, this process was more of an evolution rather than a revolution, but by the mid 19th century the separation of production and consumption was probably 99% complete.
I suppose it could be argued that the majority of the Russian peasantry did want to return to the old feudal way after the 1917 revolution and I suppose it was physically possible but highly unlikely, certainly there was no way of standing still or going backwards in the UK.
16
Like Pagar, you are confusing the industrial revolution with technological innovation, revolution means rapid social and/or political change, this can happen without technology.

@20. steveb (addressed to me): “Like Pagar, you are confusing the industrial revolution with technological innovation, revolution means rapid social and/or political change, this can happen without technology.”

I acknowledge that I might have been misled into confusing technological and social revolution on past occasions.

But at point 16, I discussed the invention of the crankshaft and the inability of the inventor to exploit it.

The inability of the inventor of the crankshaft to exploit that invention is incidental to the UK industrial revolution. The industrial revolution may have happened differently, more slowly, but it happened. With and without sabots.

“You will find that there is a concensus amongst historians that the industrial revolution began in 1750 and completed in 1850 and was facilitated by the agricultural revolution. ”

As posted, the more recent view of historians, following Nick Crafts, places the revolution – with the associated rise in living standards – later and more around 1800 and after. See the link posted.

I agree that the preceding “agricultural revolution” made the industrial revolution possible: it was a “necessary” but not a “sufficient” cause of industrialisation. Other factors and conditions were necessary for industrialisation to develop, including transport systems to bring farm produce to the rapidly growing towns and to take the produce of factories to the towns and to the ports for export, as well as motive power to drive the innovative machinery in the factories, mills and mines. I’ve not got a clear view as yet on quite how the small banks and financial system funded this prior to the legal concept of limited liability without an act of Parliament.

“The model of free wage labour and the wage nexus relationship became the norm within the agricultural revolution”

In Britain, feudal relations and work dues reportedly failed sooner than elsewhere in Europe, starting in the 14th century after the ravages of the Black Death in 1348/9, which is estimated in modern research to have killed up to a third of the population – hence the many deserted/vanished villages of England.

As a consequence, feudal landlords found it challenging to enforce traditional feudal dues in kind, such as working on manorial demesne lands as a form of rent payment. The Statute of Labourers of 1351 was a vain attempt to keep wage rates at pre-plague levels.

The contentious enclosures of land made the agricultural revolution possible (by making it feasible to privatise the gains from improved farming methods which would have difficult with open field systems and common lands) but note estimates that about half the land in England was already enclosed by 1500. The agricultural revolution took centuries to develop.

21
Didn’t really mean to labour the point, but when the two are confused it often means that debaters end up arguing from totally different premises.
22
Yes, events evolve and no doubt we can go back even further and find determining factors, but we don’t need technology to bring about social or political change, industrialization could have evolved as several local but independent populations not requiring advanced road and communications systems.
Also, social and/or political revolution doesn’t necessarily bring about an increase in living standards.

@ 13 Leon

“Oh please. Never get written down, right. Never mind that plenty of research and innovation happens in field where patents are not granted… (for either being too utilitarian, or because they study natural laws)”

Of course research and innovation happens without intellectual property protection. Did I say otherwise? No, I said that it happens slower. As a matter of simple logic, if you create a system whereby someone who takes risks (in terms of funding etc) to do research has the possibility of receiving a massive payout for their efforts, more people will take those risks.

Biopharma research costs billions – that’s not the costs of the whole industry, but sometimes the cost of developing and testing a single line of treatment. They’re not going to do it out of the goodness of their hearts. If private companies weren’t incentivised to do this, governments and philanthropists would cover some of the slack… but they’ve got nothing like the resources for healthcare.

Getting rid of patenting laws entirely would be hugely detrimental to progress – the sort of progress that saves, lengthens and enhances human lives. Bringing in absolute intellectual property rights would probably be even worse. As is so often the case, the best solution is somewhere in the middle.

@24 – Right, I’ll tell designers in the hyper-competitive fields of food and fashion that their work goes slowly. They need the belly-laugh.

Drugs are the exception to a LOT of rules, rather than representative of the general IP field.

@24 – Right, I’ll tell designers in the hyper-competitive fields of food and fashion that their work goes slowly. They need the belly-laugh.

Eh? There is IP protection in fashion.

There are two quite different topics confused in the above debate.

The first is whether IP rights help or hinder progress and wealth creation and I would argue it usually hinders.

Supposing, for example, I discover that cold fusion occurs when sperm is mixed with HP sauce. Would the world be better served if I patented the formula and spent the next twenty years trying to develop it myself or would progress be quicker if I made the discovery available to all manufacturers to compete with each other in developing the best SHPS generator?

And if the company who created a working generator patented the design and prevented their competitors from building similar generators and cornered the energy market?

More or less progress?

The second strand is whether a lack of IPR is equitable to companies who invest in research and to individuals who have their work copied.

In music, there has been no effective protection of copyright since technology made recording possible and to try to pretend it can be enforced is Luddite and the consequences are oppressive.

Good musicians can still earn an excellent living, it is the big corporates that have lost out and, as I argued above, the effect of uncontrolled access to an audience and the proliferation of live performing has stimulated creativity. Do we really want to go back to the days when the record companies devised and manufactured the “next big thing”.

The argument regarding drug research is more problematic.

Would the wonder drug that cures cancer be discovered at all if the results of research could not be patented and the company concerned reap the rewards? But is it reasonable that the patent holder of the new drug can allow millions to die in agony whilst they price it for the treatment of the few that can afford it?

It may be that in a world without IP protection there would be less total money spent in medical research, however I think that the market is currently skewed because of state involvement in healthcare provision and the regulation of medicines. Big pharma is effective at ripping off the taxpayer by stimulating phony demand from the ill.

However it is interesting that Viagra was not trialled or developed for the purpose for which it is generally sold, and that brings me back to the HP sauce………..

@ 25 Leon

“Right, I’ll tell designers in the hyper-competitive fields of food and fashion that their work goes slowly. They need the belly-laugh.”

Food and fashion generally don’t involve developing new technologies – and when they do, there’s IPR. What they do is react to (and sometimes lead) consumer trends. And trying out a new sandwich filling doesn’t involve the same risks as trialling a new drug, or the same investments as inventing an e-book.

“Drugs are the exception to a LOT of rules, rather than representative of the general IP field.”

“The” exception? What about electrical consumer goods? Dyson actually runs adverts explaining that its patents prevent competitors from copying it. Or aerospace? Software? Industry? Any field, in fact, where new technology is a major competitive factor?

What you’re doing, Leon, is trying to demonstrate that IPR is pointless by only discussing those areas where nobody really thinks we need IPR anyway. Do you really think that, with IPR gone, the creativity in the food industry would be reflected in industries where groundbreaking inventions demand billions of dollars in research?

@ Chaise Guevara #28:

Food and fashion generally don’t involve developing new technologies

Nor does much pharmacological and biological research; the patents are sought and granted not on technologies but on substances.

As for software patents…

@ 29

“Nor does much pharmacological and biological research; the patents are sought and granted not on technologies but on substances.”

That’s a false distinction. Many of those substances ARE technology by any useful definition of the word.

In some cases a pharma firm might end up with a patent on a genuinely simply compound, one that I wouldn’t call a complex techonology, by dint of discovering its application through research and then proving its efficiacy, side-effect profile etc through trials. All of this costs a lot of money – much more money than coming up with a new combination of sandwich fillings based on consumer research, then testing your new sandwich in the market.

Under the current systems, companies get exclusive rights on their drugs (on the provision that they use those rights) for a certain amount of time (it varies, but I think 14 years isn’t uncommon), then other people can step in and make cheaper generic copies. I’m not saying this system is perfect, I personally feel that it’s skewed too far in the favour of corporations. But it’s better than no IPR system at all.

@ Chaise

is it reasonable that the patent holder of the new drug can allow millions to die in agony whilst they price it for the treatment of the few that can afford it?

You haven’t answered the question I posed above.

And if your answer is positive, on the grounds that research has to be incentivised, would it still be positive if, as with Viagra, the efficacy of the patented substance was discovered by chance?

@ 31 pagar

Within the specific situation itself, it seems unreasonable. However, in the wider context it may be a necessary evil that results from a system with a higher net positive effect on human wellbeing. It’s actually logical to allow some people to die if that’s a necessary part of enabling far more people to be saved.

Ignoring the wider situation and focusing on one negative aspect without regards to the context is cheating, really.

The viagra example is trickier – it’s unclear how much someone should be rewarded by the system for a fluke. Two questions emerge though:

1) Was the discovery of viagra’s usefulness totally serendipitious, or had the owner been working on finding a use for it for a long time, only to discover one where it wasn’t expected?

2) If we do decide that it’s unreasonable for viagra to be patented, can we create an enforcable law that will prevent this kind of patenting while not outlawing patents where the owner has genuinely paid in terms of time, money and/or risk?

@Pagar,

You’re partially right about music. There is no effective copyright protection in the music that is sold to an IT literate demographic, there remains a great deal of protection available for the types of music sold to the non-it literate demographics. Hence the major labels focus on cheap manfactured pop and re-issue numerous compilation albums of 70s and 80s hit singles as gifts to be sold in supermarkets.

But the labels also still act as gatekeepers, offering access to the music press and the main stages of festivals. Without that you are only ever going to be touring the toilets and unsigned stages. Even within many of the alternative subcultures, there is an innate conservatism displayed, I can’t think of many acts from the last 10 years who have gone down the self management route and become sufficiently big to get more than second or third stage appearances and earn enough from touring as to not require a day job. So a lot of bands have a love-hate relationship with piracy, they can’t publically support it as they still effectively have to be on a label to generate the bookings necessary to make an income, (whilst giving away any income from cd sales as a result). On the other hand Piracy has undeniably expanded the space in which non-pop music can operate, and increased audiences for festivals and live music.

But it is also the case that no musician ever starts writing music for financial gain, which makes the standard copyright argument irrelevant.

Bands make (and have made for a long while thus far) more £££ from touring than they ever do from record sales. With the exception of the highly vocal, over-represented 0.5% Lady Gagas and Justin Biebers, who earn the industry hundreds of millions – naturally the industry wants to protect those particular golden geese!
It’s a case of shutting the door after the horse has run off anyway. In fact, the horse is now a million light years away and has evolved into a superhorse with wings. The industry is (slowly, too slowly) playing catch up – see Spotify, see we7, etc for example – but copyright law must change soon to be a more accurate representation of what’s actually goin on out there.
It’s not a case of “artists! you MUST give your music away” but equally it’s no longer a case of “hey, get ripped off £14 for a cd that cost £3 to produce (and that the band will see fuck all of the profits anyway)”. The industry has been fleecing artists and fans for far too long and its getting the kicking it deserves, frankly. The Pirate Party has some sensible plans which I think will be similar to how the Green Party put a lot of ideas on the agenda that are now co-opted by all major political parties. 20 years hence these arguments will seem quaint.

No idea about patents *shrug*

@ Planeshift

I can’t think of many acts from the last 10 years who have gone down the self management route and become sufficiently big to get more than second or third stage appearances and earn enough from touring as to not require a day job.

Those are two very different questions.

On the first, I’d largely agree. At least if we’re talking about the big more ‘mainstream’ festivals, as opposed to the niche ones. It doesn’t really apply to Bloodstock, but metal is a law unto itself when looking at the music industry anyway. The only really counterexamples are bands who’d already made it big before going into self-management e.g. Radiohead, New Model Army. That’s part of a wider trend, not just confined to festivals though. Major labels are increasingly concentrating on their back catalogues and the festival lineups are reflecting that. (U2 at Glastonbury).

On the question of whether bands can make enough to support themselves, some do so. I know for certain that The Indelicates don’t have day jobs. I’m pretty sure that’s also the case with Enter Shikari. There’s also the question of how you’re defining “self-managed”. Both of those bands have done distribution deals. And, while Half Man Half Biscuit are on Probe Plus, it looks to me like they’re self-managed to all intents and purposes. (Indie labels can complicate this discussion, simply because at least some of them take a very ‘hands-off” approach to bands).

That isn’t to say making a living touring is easy. A big problem is the lack of medium sized venues, due to the collapse of the college circuit. Another issue is that many venues are completely tied up by deals with booking agents, which can make it difficult for a band to arrange a full tour in the first place.

But we shouldn’t overstate the case. In the past, most starting bands have had dayjobs, including the ones with a major label contract. The ‘glory days’ of the 60′s and 70′s were in part based on the fact that dole regulations made it a lot easier for bands to concentrate on their music while signing on and squatting was a lot more widespread.

There’s two major problems with self-management at the moment. Promotion and distribution, especially on a global level. It remains to be seen if a viable alternative for bands will appear. (I think it’s more likely with the latter). But even without that, when all that is needed is that kind of skeletal structure, the major labels really are outdated as a model for putting out music. They’re screwed in twenty years, due to the amount of copyrights that will have expired by that point.

It’s too early to give a judgement on most of the options available to self-managed bands anyway. I can see real potential in both fan funding and “pay what you like” models. But it will be at least five years before we have a real idea how effective they are going to be. Which isn’t surprising. People are still at the stage of making up a lot of this stuff as they go along.

I woudn’t disagree with that.You identify booking agents as an issue in this, as well as promotion. The problem essentially comes from the fact agents, venues and the music press (and arguably many of the fans) still regard ‘being signed’ as like a quality mark, so bands choosing the self-release route face major obsticles in getting coverage and gigs in the first place. So many simply decide to (realistically) give up income from cd sales and retain merchandising and live performance rights. Which is increasingly difficult with the advent of 360 deals.

Oh…and it also applies to Bloodstock as well, which won’t book an unsigned band (except bands that were previously signed like Anathema) on the main stage or the sophie stage. They’ve had some spectacularly big cocks up with this as well in terms of overcrowded tents.