We also think that, for copyright to be granted, there should be a requirement that technological measures (or DRM) are not employed to restrict the use of works. If works are restricted by technological measures, their use, and therefore their contribution to the public good, is limited, which goes against the justification for granting copyright.Ladies and gentlemen: the relentless logic of the Pirate Party (NZ).
It works like this: if you are a creator of a work of art, a cultural artefact or even a reality TV show, you will have the rights to it for ten years. This won't prevent others from copying it without your permission, because you won't be allowed to protect your creations by technological means. To add insult to injury, the people who will take your creations will refer to them as content. The will also claim that they are taking your work in the cause of liberty, not because they want it without paying for it.
If you are an inventor, you will be in much the same position, although with the added insult that your tormentors are this stupid:
Patents restrict the use of certain ideas (which have direct practical applications), even if people arrive at these ideas independently. Because inventions are often made possible by the emergence of other ideas (including those that might not themselves be patentable), it is not unheard of for people to independently arrive at the same patentable idea within a short time. In the case of the laser, for example, there is disagreement about who arrived at the idea first.But then, there is a note at the bottom:
Core Policy originally taken from the Swedish Pirate Party and adapted to the concerns of the New Zealand Pirate Party.Perhaps something was lost in translation.