[pp.int.general] [Cafe] levies
aiarakoa at yahoo.es
Wed Mar 26 03:38:42 CET 2008
----- Mensaje original ----
De: Amelia Andersdotter <teirdes at gmail.com>
Enviado: miércoles, 26 de marzo, 2008 2:12:04
On 25/03/2008, Rick Falkvinge (Piratpartiet) <rick at piratpartiet.se> wrote:
> > In all this talk about levies, I have yet to see somebody answer the fundamental questions:
> > Why is who is going to be compensated for what, and how?
> I've answered this question at least a couple of times: the claim for compensation would be that copyright holders
> have lost the right to control distribution. This right could be argued to be economical, but is essentially moral: the right
> of the artist to control the use of his/her own work
You haven't answered, because answering is not just saying yes or no, but also giving reasons that support your stance, and you haven't given any not wrong reason.
You say copyright is moral, statement that's wrong. Only 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 are moral rights, the copyright rights -right to make copies & right to perform & right to broadcast& right to translate & right to make derivative works- are material ones; are you putting UDHR in doubt, when article 27.2 UDHR clearly distinguish between moral and material interests? UDHR declares, not defines, author's rights -though UDHR includes that main distinguishment-, so if you are wanting to redefine actual legal status of copyright turning it into moral stuff, reasons for such redefinition would be welcomed.
> The how is details. License. Whatever. The reason licenses can be accepted is because it a) leaves time to focus on
> shortening copyright terms and b) probably gains some sympathies from those who have doubts about disregarding
> the moral copyright arguments.
Even if finally loss becomes proven -hard to believe it- or if we finally had to swallow such bitter pill -because not having enough strength to change communitary laws-, as Rick explained, how determines whether levies are compliant with civil rights and liberties -being, as I commented in my former mails, rule of the law the most important, specially when levies are closely related with the duo debtor(the one who causes the supposed loss)-creditor(the one who suffers the supposed loss)-.
If anyone different that the one who suffers the supposed loss finds himself/herself receiving the compensation, system doesn't work; if anyone different that the one who causes the supposed loss finds himself/herself paying the compensation, system doesn't work; and, as Rick explained, if in order to avoid the former and guarantee that debtors and creditors are properly identified, civil rights and liberties become conculcated, system doesn't work. Thus, how is not details, but relevant issue -of course, just in case it would have been proven that loss exist and has to be compensated-.
Are you going to agree with such levies, even if the only way to make them compliant with civil law requirements for compensations is to conculcate privacy? Hope you don't :)
> Note also that there is only ever one claim made here: the loss of control of distribution. That is the only thing that
> merits compensation so every artist gets the same amount - what's lost once can't be lost again. Why would you need
> anything to be more "fair" than that?
Note that for an unfair claim, being the only claim does not make it better. By the way, you continue telling us what -levies on distribution- but also continue not telling us why -why loss of control would mean a loss to be compensated, if in our context we defend the free non-lucrative sharing of cultural works;
> Carlos: The semantic difference between "strategy" and "tactics" is that tactics win the battles, strategy wins the wars
That's the reason for me to find it hard to assume, because what's more important? Winning the battle of stopping RMOs and entertainment industry whining -and slandering and offencing-? Or securing the achievement of our goals in the middle-long term? Extorters and blackmailers never get satisfied, they only take a break just to come back with further threats, slanders and offences; if we result to be taken into this RMOs & entertainment industry pantomime -giving what they ask without having them proven the rightfulness of their demands-, we'd be showing a fatal weakness that would be exploited sooner or later. Because, as you correctly pointed out in your last mail, in Spain -and in France, and in other countries which suffer with special harshness RMOs abuses- we know much about this RMOs behaviour.
So, you can still defending the -wrong- statement about copyright being moral; stating -wrongly- that how to collect, manage and deliver levies is just details; and believing -pretty much naïve, I think- that extorters and blackmailers will find themselves satisfied if we cede with levies. Or you can finally assume facts, assuming that author's rights are composed by moral and material rights -copyright not being moral but material stuff-, assuming that even if forced to accept levies, the how is pretty relevant to be sure about if such levies are compliant with human rights- and getting ground about the blackmailers. Regards,
( Aiarakoa )
Partido Pirata National Board's Chairman
Enviado desde Correo Yahoo!
Más formas de estar en contacto. http://es.docs.yahoo.com/mail/overview/index.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the pp.international.general