[pp.int.general] [Cafe] levies
aiarakoa at yahoo.es
Tue Mar 25 20:38:39 CET 2008
----- Mensaje original ----
De: Amelia Andersdotter <teirdes at gmail.com>
Enviado: martes, 25 de marzo, 2008 19:58:47
On 25/03/2008, Carlos Ayala <aiarakoa at yahoo.es> wrote:
> > I see. Thus, would be our strategy to continue ceding -for reasons still undisclosed- before just starting to bring up
> > our claims? Pretty hard to agree with it.
> I don't see it as strategy. I'm merely proposing a tactics
Leaving aside that it's hard for me to find semantic differences between strategy and tactics ...
> We have our goals, which will presumably include no levies, but we will still need tactics to win each battle on the way
> there. Spain seems to have had a much bigger problem with levies up to now than Sweden has had
... you can bet for sure about that fact -though we aren't the only ones ... ask Valentin Villenave about SACEM, just as a mere example-. And just because of that, hope you believe me when I say that RMOs -which is the same in Spain that entertainment industry, as the Big Four are in the national board of Spanish biggest RMO, SGAE- never get satisfied, even if they're given all their claims.
Of course we need tactics, simply I think that ceding -without reason- to RMOs demands before starting to demand our goals seem to be tactics hard to assume.
> Luckily, the EU bureaucracy doesn't necessarily just enable levy legislation, it can also limit it. This means we could, if
> elected, push for a reform that would severely limit what levies member states can actually charge. Especially if you
> claim the only damage done is the moral damage of losing control over distribution.
When something has no reason to exist, there is no reason to limit it: it just has to be removed.
So please: why levies has to exist? How do you translate that supposed loss of control in monetary terms -which are the ones used as basis to define compensations according to civil law-? No harm, no pay, Amelia.
> Don't define copyright as solely economical: that's Sony/BMG tactics. Copyright *is* a moral right, that idealistically
> gives control to the artist over the artist's own work.
It's pretty weird to be accused of using the tactics of Sony-BMG while denying Sony-BMG claims, and at the same time to watch the one who accuses me saying "copyright is a moral right". Which will be next step? wicked iusnaturalism -it's in the nature of things that copyright exist-? God's will? Please, if we are defending free non-lucrative culture sharing is because we don't agree with the exclusive right to decide who, how, where, when and for whom make -if made without economic/commercial interests- copies of a cultural work.
Maybe when you talk about copyright you mean the whole material rights combo -right to make copies & right to perform & right to broadcast & right to translate & right to make derivative works- plus moral rights -right to have authorship & right to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, orother derogatory action in relation to, the said work, which would beprejudicial to his honor or reputation- acknowledged; so who's mixing here? :)
Again let me ask to focus on what matters: is there something to be compensated? If there is, let's gonna compensate it; if there is not, the rest is literature. Regards,
( Aiarakoa )
Partido Pirata National Board's Chairman
Enviado desde Correo Yahoo!
Disfruta de una bandeja de entrada más inteligente. http://es.docs.yahoo.com/mail/overview/index.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the pp.international.general