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

[Carlos Ayala Vargas]

Reinier Bakels wrote:

> What I meant simply is: some goals are feasible, others ae difficult, 
> and still others are impossible.
/Impossible/ -i.e., unfeasible- *in the short term; feasible in the long 
term*. Only you know why do you so often try to transmit us that /you 
can't/ message.
> *I am sorry if I used the wrong word* - English is not my native language.
> I repeat: advocating really esoteric proposals could work out 
> counter-productive: *if you are considered radical*, the influence on 
> short-term issues may suffer.
It seems you weren't that sorry, as you again and again use that 
scornful, even sometimes insulting language.

As repeatedly said in former mails to counter your /advice/, *aiming for 
what we want, for our goals, is not radical nor counter-productive*; the 
fact that they are not feasible in the short term won't prevent us to 
still pursue those long-term goals. Furthermore, if they are long-term 
issues because they will take much time to be made, if we pay attention 
to that /advice/ and delay starting to work for the achievement of our 
long-term work, it will take even longer to do it.
> And there are many short-term issues that deserve attention. Such as 
> the privacy issue. Mainstream politicians still argue that they should 
> employ all available technology to prevent terrorism, and they still 
> repeat "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" - which 
> is obviously plain nonsense in view of e.g. all the accidents such as 
> accidental loss of confidential data, and identity theft. 
Do you really think that all the threats on privacy come from accidental 
events? What about FRA, is it /accidental/ too? I'm far more worried 
about the governments management of personal data and communications 
than about those accidents you talk about; why? Because accidents are 
unexpected, unforeseen and unplanned, while FRA, Data Retention and a 
long /et cetera/ are pretty expected -by governments-, pretty foreseen 
and pretty planned.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/accident
> In copyright, the proliferation of levies is frightening, but 
> *fortunately(!)* the collection and redistribution of levies in my 
> country became a complete mess.
One (!) is not enough, your statement requires at least this 
(!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) 
many. Even if levies collection was not a mess, we in PPI stated months 
ago for the EC consultation that it would be despicable -considering the 
rejection of the /intellectual pro...whatever/ concept-; if far from not 
being a mess, SACEM, SGAE and other RMOs exist to do their will crushing 
whoever who opposes them, then it can't be a fortunate scenario anymore.
> And it violates som down to earth principles. Like the fundamental 
> right of the rights owner (author) to decide NOT to use its 
> exploitation right (open source!) and, on the other hand, to prohibit 
> certain forms of publication. Furthermore, the redistribution of 
> levies involves decisions of cultural policy that should not be left 
> to organisations that normally cater for the very capitalistic 
> interests of the record industry. Should we perhaps advocate levies on 
> plain paper, which is just as logical as levies on memory sticks? I 
> like the idea of "reductio ad absurdum", or "Verelendung", to speak in 
> Marxist terms. And I already mentioned thre present efforts to explore 
> the true ambit of the "three step test" in TRIPS.
And those examples mean I missed the shot by too much: your previous 
statement requires at least this (!x100) many.
> In Europe we don't even have a "fair use" rule.
We have, check 2001/29/EC's article 5.
> Typically *right-wing* politicians are in favour of copyright, patents 
> etc.
I think /right/ vs /left/ approach is not advisable; at least not in 
Spain, where when a new party arises, the new "/do you love more daddy 
or mummy?/"-like question -i.e., /are you right-winged or left-winged?/- 
is always made ... and those who get caught by the tricky question 
usually end sucked by bipartidism -we have a record bipartidist Congress 
in the current term, with 323 out of 350 seats for the two biggest 
parties-. PPI is not /right-winged/, nor /left-winged/, but a mix from 
people formerly /right-winged/, /left-winged/ and /non-inscrits/ -I'm 
myself a /non-inscrit/, eclectic person-; and I hope nobody here has in 
mind to abandon that ideological neutrality brought to us by the /core 
issues & non-core issues/ thing -in my opinion, a wonderful conception-.

We in PIRATA think that it's not a good idea to play the bipartidist 
game by always being talking about /right/ vs /left/, as -at least in 
Spain, don't know how things are in your countries- supposedly 
/right-winged/ parties -like PP ... i.e., Popular Party, the true PP (we 
are PPI in the international scope)- try to invade the /leftist/ 
ideologic space of the opposite party, while supposedly /left-winged/ 
parties make many decisions which would normally be more expectable from 
/rightist/ stances. /Left/? /Right/? Merely disguises to catch most 
voters -and they currently work in Spain, 323 out of 350 seats just for 
2 single parties-.
> The abolitionist movement in patents of the late 19th century, which 
> lead to the full suspension of patents in The Netherlands and 
> Switzerland for several decades, was not advocated by left-wing 
> activists, but by liberals (who are conside right-wing in Europe, 
> unlike the US) for mercantilistic reasons.
Andrew Norton, Glenn Kerbein, Richard M Stallman and other fellow US 
citizens may help you in that false friend: /liberal/ doesn't mean the 
same in Europe than in USA. If I'm not wrong, /liberal/ means sort of 
/leftist/ in USA -for what you mean, Reinier, in USA they rather use 
/libertarian/-, while it means sort of /rightist/ in Europe; by the way, 
are US /liberals/ truly /leftist/? are Europe /liberals/ truly 
/rightist/? Again, disguises, as many purportedly self-declared European 
/liberals/ are anti-/laissez faire/ people, while many purportedly US 
/liberals/ are considered by some political analysts as 
/right-to-the-European-rightist/. Please let's run away from that /this 
is better/worse because it's leftist/rightist/ stuff and let's simply 
focus on what we want.
> IMHO the record industry (and similar outdated distributors) should be 
> the prime short-term target of PPI. They campaign consistently with 
> various false rumors - for esentially "rent seeking" 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking: manipulating regulators to 
> increase income without actually contributing to the econmy.
I bet that will be in our platforms -though not the only short-term 
target, as there are also Patents, Civil Rights & Liberties, Information 
Society and Government Transparency & Accountability issues-; however
> And reducing the copyright term? Well, that would be last on my list.
reducing the commercial rights term *and scope* -you always forget to 
explicitly mention the scope reduction, though you indirectly mention it 
in some mails- will also be. Check Piratpartiet's platform, check 
PIRATA's platform, check Piraattipuolue's platform ... ask people here 
about that issue.
> Not only because of the problems noted above, but also because 
> copyright (at least in a European perspective) is more than a mere 
> exploitation right: it also serves a moral purpose - which happens to 
> be the base of e.g. GPL and CC licencing.
First of all, I reject talking about the /c word/ or about the 
/intellectual pro...whatever/, unless we have to quote current laws; 
why? I agree with Rick, RMS, Ole and others in not giving up at the 
/language arena/.

Having said this, are you telling us that commercial rights term & scope 
should remain untouchable ... because of serving a moral purpose? My 
only moral purpose, and PIRATA's /moral/ purpose -declared in its 
Statute- is to count with the interests of all stakeholders -in that 
context, lobbies are a marginal part of the equation, few thousands 
compared with millions-, and I believe that not reducing commercial 
rights term & scope leaves aside most citizens -thus, giving too much 
weight to the lobbies-, and it would go against my moral and PIRATA's 
/moral/. I won't betray the party where I belong, nor myself.
> More in general, *copyright should again* become a true authors right, 
> which *helps authors to defend their interests against* greedy and 
> powerful *publishers*.
> * should protect authors against publishers*, like labour law protects 
> employees against employers
Sorry, it doesn't just involve authors and publishers ... *you are 
leaving the rest of citizens out of the equation!*
> And it is currently under political(!) debate, at least in my country.
Lucky you; in spite of millions of Spaniards rejecting the current 
author's rights legal framework, Spanish MPs only meet to talk about 
that legal framework if it's to enlengthen the lobbies privileges and 
shorten the rights of the rest of authors and citizens.


                                                                                         
Carlos Ayala
                                                                                         
( Aiarakoa )

                                                                  
Partido Pirata National Board's Chairman