[pp.int.general] You have GOT to check this out

[Jan Huwald]

Am Samstag, 19. Januar 2008 19:54:20 schrieb Ray Jenson:
> Jan Huwald wrote:
> > They want a tax on advertisments wich is dedicated to culture funding. I
> > love the idea (and actually thought proposing it would immediatly
> > brandmark one as communist), because:
> > a. Advertisments pollute information space by false information and
> > destroying poeples (and therefore society's) attention
> > b. Those polluting the information space should pay compensation for that
> > damage
> > c. Culture (including journalism) can clean up information space and also
> > extend it
>
> Just my own opinions:
>
> Advertisements don't really "pollute" information space any more than
> politics do. A tax merely shifts who has more power and who can command
> more money out of the system. A tax would do nothing to change the
> system other than this.

Politics pollute information space? Yes.

A tax is not politics. Introducing one in a legislative procedure is politics. 
The existance of another source of pollution (politics) is no reason to stop 
caring for reduction of pollution by advertisements.

As a tax is a redistribution from money (= money-power) it is by definition a 
distribution of power. In the Green's proposal they argued to free creators 
from "slave contracts" with publishers - also a redistribution of power. Is 
one of both an evil distribution? No. Only the first is a method (of course 
with side-effects) and the second an intention (lacking an implementation and 
therefore without argueable side-effects).

May be you have to specify further your philosphy of what taxes areor "the 
syste," is, because for my definition of both taxes can not take money out 
of "the system".


> The question again (as you said, Jan), is one of whom the money goes to,
> how much is going, and how it is paid. Simply paying a tax would worsen
> the problem, rather than bettering it. The big companies would gladly
> pay a tax to be able to propagandize at will, since they already control
> the lobbies. A tax would offer them more freedom to propagandize, not
> less. They have virtually unlimited amounts of money with which to
> accomplish their aims. However, money is not really important where the
> ability to remain free. The issue is not as much one of who gets paid.

I am not sure if I can follow you:
Why should any company (independent of it's size) be glad to pay something 
(the tax), without a profit (when compared to the no-tax-situation)?
Is there a bias of a tax promoting ads of large companies?
How do they earn more freedom to advertise by the tax?

And regarding taxes it is invalid to assume infinite amounts of resources (not 
even as approximation)


> The issue is still one of who retains power and control over the media.
> Levying a tax makes absolutely no sense in a democratic system, where
> increasing freedom is concerned. What you consider rhetoric is actually
> a fairly solid selling point, and one that most people can understand.
> Simplicity is the key to getting the message across. There are few
> things as simple as truth.

What I called rethoric in the Website was that they stated to lessen the 
burden of slave contracts with publishers without loosing a word of how to 
do.

Compare this issue with the greens core issue: (In Germany) every party states 
that protecting the environment is a very important issues, but most of the 
time only the green have concepts how to do.

Back to copyright: If am forced to sum up the pirate parties stance on 
copyright I talk about "Strengthening rights of creators and participants of 
culture", but I can easily extend that abstract intention to specific 
measures.

When staying on this abstract (rethorically effictive) level, we do not even 
differ from parlaments adovcating for IPRED (european DMCA++).


> In order to secure more rights for creators, there must be a reduction
> in the law. This means we need to fight harder than before in order to
> get officials into office who might actually be able to accomplish this.

Although the number of laws should be as small as possible this is no 
rationale for any specific law not to exist. The German copyright itself is 
_relatively_ compact (may be I read to many laws to state so :-)


> Many of our positions in the Pirate Party are compatible with those of
> the Green party, but where they would seek to increase laws and
> controls, we are trying to decrease them. The message of the video is
> clear, and I support that, but I do not really support the other
> lobbying efforts behind it. I consider them misguided and divisive. They
> are essentially trying to pick up our cause without truly understanding it.
>
> Therefore, we must help educate them on the points they've promoted,
> rather that furthering the division. We should try to help them become
> more democratized, and understanding of the enemy they're picking up the
> cause for. I would rather they not push for a further division (an "us
> versus them" mentality), because the entire situation would only
> polarize further. Such polarization pollutes society by creating a false
> choice without compromise--and is the chief reason the Green party is
> not taken seriously here in the United States.

Agree.


> Radicalization is as corrupting on one side as it is on the other.
> Extremism is necessary in some cases, but the entire purpose of our
> fight is to bring things back into balance. The more I study it, the
> more I believe that this is where the real power of our chief cause will
> be. We are picking up power and this is becoming worrisome for those
> already in power. Therefore, they are going to fight just that much
> harder to keep the control they have.

Agre even more.


> Copyright itself has a *stated* intent (at least, here in the USA) of
> being for the benefit of artists and other innovators. By requiring
> adherence to that stated intent, we are finding that there is no fight.
> The interpretation of the law is clearly one of favoring the interests
> of commerce instead of those of the individual rights. This is an
> extremely conservative standpoint, and one which should likely not be
> taken lightly. By going back to the "tradition" of protecting artists
> (as the stated intent), we appeal to both liberals and conservatives,
> without deviating from our purpose or damaging the public interest.

The German Pirates have a comparable intention but in out terms we do not 
focus on the creator/innovative but instead on their outcome (production of 
innovation).

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

Regards,
Jan
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.international.general/attachments/20080119/0dd861dd/attachment.pgp