[pp.int.general] where is the manifesto?
r.bakels at pr.unimaas.nl
Tue Dec 30 10:34:57 CET 2008
I believe it is more productive (likely to be successful in the foreseeable
future) to concentrate on the *contents* of copyright than on a reduction of
the term (even thoough I find it preposterous to own the copyright -
together with my cousins - for the paintings of my grandfather (google
Reinier Sybrand Bakels) until I am 78 - but the purpose was allegedly to
cater for the grandchildren during their lifetime!)
Hot issues include: the fact that no "fair use" exception exists in Europe,
authors contract law (that should benefit the true autheors vs. the
publishers), rules on a proper (balanced) application of the TRIPS three
step test for exceptions, rules on anticompatitive behaviour of copyright
owners, rules on enforcement, using criminal law to a minimum ... The
present political mood (due to an aging, conservative population that loves
"law & order") is: being tough on enforcement. Like a politician told me
once: youngsters today steal a MP3, and tomorrow they steal a bycylcle: they
no longer learn to respect property. Well, this statement obviously is wrong
in several respects. but it shows the political mood.
To give an example in another field: when the Data Retention directive was
discussed in the Dutch parliament, when someoone noted that there are major
blank spots like Skype and Hotmail that can not be covered by "data
retention", the typical christian-democrat law&order representatives urged
the minister (a christian democrat himself) to strive for the elimination of
such blank spots. In p[oliticis it is irrelevant that it is nonsense from
the substantive perspective. The spokesman for juristice in the liberal
party (which is not liberal but simply conservative) used to be a policeman,
and then made career to become a public prosecutor befor he became a MP.
When he was told that fighting filesharing ("illegal downloading") really is
unfeasible unless a disproportional police effort is made: he considered
that a challenge rather than a warning. But on the other side of the Dutch
political spectrum there are problems as well. We have a second far left
wing socialist party in NL (similar to the German "Linke"), but the
spokeswoman for copyright matters was hijacked by (I guess) record companies
who learned her to care for the pop musicians. Tough copyright enforcement
as a socialist issue! (The human rights of thee pop musicians!) The
desperate record industry is prepared to do everything. Like Christian
Engstrom (PPSE) once said: a falling giant can cause a lot of damage!
Groeten, Grüße, Regards, Cordialement, Hälsningar, Ciao, Saygilar,
Üdvözlettel, Pozdrowienia, Kumusta, Adios, Oan't sjen, Ave, Doei, Yassou,
Yoroshiku, Slán, Vinarliga, Kær Kvedja
>>> REINIER B. BAKELS PhD LL.M. MSc
private: Johan Willem Frisostraat 149, 2713 CC Zoetermeer, The Netherlands
telephone: +31 79 316 3126, GSM ("Handy") +31 6 4988 6490, fax +31 79 316
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard M Stallman" <rms at gnu.org>
To: "Pirate Parties International -- General Talk"
<pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net>
Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2008 8:32 AM
Subject: Re: [pp.int.general] where is the manifesto?
> Am Monday 29 December 2008 11:23:27 schrieb Richard M Stallman:
> > So if the constitution is changed, as I suggested above, that
> > may change. Thus, I think you have been too quick to give up.
> The problem here is that - as Reinier already said - article 14 is
> among the
> basic rights which are protected from being changed through article 19.
> Furthermore there is no definition of what is considered property and
> not. It just says "Property and right of succession are guaranteed."
> This is what gives us an opportunity. Article 14 cannot be changed,
> but there is a considerable conceptual gap between article 14 and this
> decision. Crossing that gap is a matter of reasoning, and it depends
> on other assumptions. So changes in other articles of the
> constitution (existing or new articles) can change them and thus
> change this outcome, even though article 14 remains the same.
> It seems to me we need to distinguish between confiscating a specific
> item of property, on the one hand, and legislating out of existence a
> certain aspect of property which was created by a previous law, on the
> other hand. Article 14 should apply to the former.
> 1.Change the term for all works
> 2.Change the term only for new works
> 3.Keep the term for the authors' rights at lifetime +70 but establish a
> new term for the commercial exploitation rights so that they expire
> much earlier.
> #1 or #3 would be adequate. #2 is not adequate -- even if we did it,
> we would still face, for the rest of our lives, the almost the same
> amount of the same injustice that made us get active on this issue.
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
More information about the pp.international.general