[pp.int.general] An answer to RMS' critique of the PP.SE political programme

[Valentin Villenave]

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 10:55 PM, Egil Moeller
<egil.moller at piratpartiet.se> wrote:
> Well, since I've mainly been following the Swedish PP's internal
> debates, where this has been a hushed down non-issue. When RMS published
> his text, I wrote a sort of hurried blogg-post about it, but no one
> seemed to care. A bit later I wrote the text I've linked to now, which
> includes an actual proposal for paragraphs to change in a specific law,
> which at least got people talking... And it was only when I wanted to
> post it to RMS and someone told me he reads the PPI list, that I joined
> and sent the text here...

OK. RMS' own text was published long after the discussion I was
referring to took place, anyway.

> Good to know that PPI and PPFR takes this issue a bit more serious than
> PPSE has done, and I'm sorry I joined your debate so late. Have you
> tried to take this up with PPSE? What has the reaction been?

Right now I'd say we're in a stage where each party needs to define
its own identity and find its own ways to gain stability and
visibility. PPse and PPde are doing an amazing job in their own
countries (and we other parties wish we'll be able to achieve
something like that ourselves), and there's no point in arguing over
specific details while we're still lacking resources (money, people,
time, skills) everywhere.

That's fine by me, since I'm afraid we're not mature enough (as a
movement, I mean) to be able (yet) to work together and reach an
ideological consensus. We're getting there, but we're not there yet,
and we shouldn't be ashamed of that: many of us aren't law experts,
and we all need to be patient and gradually learn *what* exactly we're
talking about, make sure our proposals wouldn't have any
hidden/unforeseeable backdraws or dangers, etc.

(Which is why I hope this discussion won't go into another flamewar or
anything like it.)

> The main advantage to my proposal is that it is useful even without a
> changed copyright term and that it can be implemented on a national
> level w/o breaking any international treaties.

Granted... But last time I checked, reducing the copyright duration
*was* somewhere near the top of our priority list :)

> Do you have an archive of the discussion you had, or a summary?

Sure:
http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.international.general/2009-January/002524.html

Cheers,
Valentin