[pp.int.general] levies consultation
aiarakoa at yahoo.es
Sat Mar 29 15:06:00 CET 2008
----- Mensaje original ----
De: Reinier Bakels <r.bakels at planet.nl>
Enviado: sábado, 29 de marzo, 2008 14:23:10
> > Is there any reason to find not desirable to answer all the questions, apart from RMOs being utterly surprised? If
> > you're willing to, I may send you a report about actions from Spanish RMOs and also about opacity regarding levies
> > in Spain -and also may Valentin (reporting about SACEM) and other PPI folks do the same with their national levies
> > issues- to let you see why we shouldn't care if RMOs become disgusted > with our inquiries.
> yes, there is more than one reason:
> 1. time: only three weeks are left and imho the priority would be to write an excellent "strategy" paper that - at last -
> clarifies the copyright paradox. Also: the situation in all member states is different (that is why the Commission thinks
> about harmonising), so the "facts" effort must be made member state by member state, which is well beyond our reach
Clearly three weeks are not a huge deadline. However, it shouldn't prevent us to do the proper efforts; only lack of personnel, only lack of people working in this stuff would prevent us to develop the paper you comment & to answer the questionnaire. While we can put the pre paper as a priority, let the following days determine how many answers will we be able to give for the questionnaire.
About the facts, giving a picture about situation regarding levies in some countries becomes useful, when you want to avoid that situations to become a reality in the EU -and the reality from RMOs like SGAE or SACEM I strongly believe is highly necessary to be avoided; I repeat my offer about giving you a report about it-. Not in vain, what RMOs want to apply is the weakest leg theory -to extend liberticide measures like the Olivennes agreement to all the EU countries, and to harmonize levies (first securing levies' existence, and later securing the highest possible size of collected levies)-.
> 2. need: the quoted Commission website itself says that not all respondents must answer all questions
To be precise, EC states: "Answers and comments, which may cover all or only a limited number of the issues mentioned in the background document", so we are allowed to answer as many questions as we are able to :) Thus, it's a flexibility we are given by EC, instead of a reason to not answer everything -instead of a need, it's a mere option-.
> The example you give is a tricky one: if you say you are not aware of whatever, then you must be pretty sure that not
> perhaps indeed it happened outside your scope. Then you only demonstrate you lack knowledge.
Actually it is far from being tricky, but a simple issue: they ask if we are aware to, the answer is no, and also that we should be aware of, as we are required to pay but no reasons are given to us -if you are client of a mobile phone company and that company suddenly raises four times the tariffs you surely would ask why? (or even just quitting that company and becoming client of a different one); why should we then accept the because it's the right thing formula from public offices, instead of requiring them to put evidences, data, reasons on the table to support things like levies?-.
Thus, it's in my opinion a matter of transparency vs opacity -transparency should always be, I think, the choice-. 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