[pp.int.general] where is the manifesto?

[Ole Husgaard]

Carlos Ayala Vargas skrev:
> Rick Falkvinge (Piratpartiet) wrote:
> > I'd go as far as to say that PP.se cannot support a writing that explicitly 
> > grants rightsholders a say in the wording of copyright legislation.
> Sad to hear that. Even more sad to be aware that you weren't there to propose 
> alternatives when the Manifesto drafts were developed.
>   
I am glad to hear that PP.se agrees with PP.dk here. This is why we have
protested that amendment 3 (aka. the RMS amendment) was removed shortly
before the deadline for proposing amendments.

> > Likewise, copyright legislation needs to explicitly exclude the rightsholders 
> > from having a say in its wording.
> >
> > To say that they are part of the balance means that they somehow can agree or 
> > not agree to new legislation. That's insanely backwards -- that's just as if 
> > the abovementioned military town were to be given to accept or reject a new 
> > national security policy.
> If you are willing to develop a law about Information Society, I think that 
> internet users, ISPs, etc, should be taken into account; if the law is about 
> real estates and the estates market, I think house builders, house owners, house 
> owners /wannabies/, etc, should be taken into account; if its about the labour 
> market, I think trade unions, employers organizations, etc, should be taken into 
> account. Would you exclude, e.g., employers, house builders or ISPs from any of 
> those lawmaking procedures? and internet users, house owners /wannabies/ or 
> trade unions? I hope you wouldn't.
>   
<irony>
If the law is about video surveilance, the views of producers of video
surveilance cameras should be taken into account. We need to balance the
interest of video surveilance camera producers against the interest of
society.
</irony>

<irony weight="heavy">
Video surveilance camera producers have a right to make money. If we
outlaw video surveilance, we put an entire industry out of business. The
surveilance camera producers have invested heavily in factories for
producing their cameras, and outlawing video surveilance means that
these factories are worth nothing. But making the property of these
factory owners worth nothing is a violation of the human right to property.
</irony>

I hope you get my point.

Policymaking is not about listening to all parties, and then balancing
their interests. Heavy lobbying may have made policymaking evolve in
that direction, and that is bad. When lobbyists put pressure on lazy
politicians policymaking becomes dumb lawmaking where politicians think
all parties have analyzed the issue at hand; where politicians think
they only have to balance the interests of the interested parties to
find a compromise. But no parties have fully analyzed the issue. They
only speak their own case to the politicians. And some parties may not
even speak to the politicians. This is exactly what has made copyright
law the mess it is today.

Policymaking is about properly analyzing what you and others think might
need to be changed. Analyzing until effects and consequences are
understood. And then deciding what is best for the people and society as
a whole. Of course we need to listen to all involved parties to be able
to fully analyze. But we also need to be critical of their motives. And
we do not in general need to balance anything; we just need to find out
what is best for the people and society as a whole.

Best Regards,

Ole Husgaard.