[pp.int.general] where is the manifesto?

[Reinier Bakels]

> Can anyone have fun when law is used /against/ anyone? With /against/ I 
> guess you mean that the TR/IP/S was designed to introduce new conditions 
> for the author's rights treatment in the USA.

The "fun" was because TRIPS was pressed through by the US in order to force 
other countries (presently over 160 member states) to strengthen their "IP" 
laws up to US standards, and then the Americans themselves were blamed not 
to properly observe the rules.

>> Unfortunately, these rules are so vague that nobody knows what they 
>> really mean - but on the positive side, that gives also room for 
>> interpretation.

> I don't want that room for interpretation. While laws always allow an 
> interpretation margin, I think that such margin has to be 
> restricted -laws, though not 100 % /as is/ (because often there are cases 
> that doesn't fully match with law and require courts of justice to 
> interprete), I think that should leave clear their spirit and purposes, to 
> avoid twisted interpretations-; otherwise, certainty of law -one of basic 
> principles- would disappear, and judges and governments would be able to 
> make interpretations -opposite from those made some years ago- according 
> to unclear reasons.

Of course it is desirable to have explicit rules. These rules are the result 
of a (diplomatic) political process. While they suggest openness, the 
vagueness, combined by the typical risk averse mentality of national 
parliaments, actually works out very restrictively.

Realistically, imho one should foster the opportunity given by such 
provisions. National governments should be encouraged (put under political 
pressure) to experiment with the interpretation of these "thee step test" 
rules rather than avoid risk.

If you really want to change TRIPS, good luck! The present tendency is in 
the opposite direction, with the US increasibly imposing "TRIPS plus" 
conditions in bilateral agreements with (developing) nations.

>> I admit, this is by no means the kind of radical change that PP would 
>> prefer. But imho one should combine long-term visionary activity with 
>> down-to-earth hands-on activism relating to "earthy" proposals.
> Sorry, I don't know which is /the kind of radical change/ that you 
> consider wouldn't be preferable for PPI.

Radical change is for instance a change in TRIPS. Incidentally, I do not 
mean "radical" in any kind of moral sense - I only mean that it is pretty 
utopical. In choosing political priorities, the product of impact and 
acceptance likelyhood should be guiding. Proposals that are likely to be 
accepted but have little impact are not very interesting, but the same 
applies for proposals that have a major impact but are unlikely to be 
accepted in the foreseeable future (except that utopical proposals may be 
helpful in getting voters - as long a they are not obviously betrayed). The 
true challenge imho is to make proposals that are both realistic AND have a 
substantial impact.

The German Greens at some point in time distinguished "realo's" and 
"fundi's". Do we have a similar divide in the PP movement?

reinier