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

[Reinier Bakels]

>> *I am sorry if I used the wrong word* - English is not my native 
>> language.
> It seems you weren't that sorry, as you again and again use that scornful, 
> even sometimes insulting language.
You should no be so sensitive. This is informal communication. "Gettting out 
of touch with reality" in my language is not insulting at all: it is simply 
the result of an incorrect assessment, Everybody occasionally makes 
incirrect assessment, it is not a matter of "insanity". It is not even a 
matter of intelligence: incorrect asssessments are often the result of 
incorrect or incomplete information. Being a lawyer, I try to add 
information that may not be readily available to everybody.

> 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.

Of course, what is considered "radical" is a matter of political opinion. 
But I think it is pretty obvious that some proposals are more radical than 
others. Emphasizing more radical proposals may be detrimental for less 
radical proposals to be accepted.

>> 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.

Surveillance (like FRA) has several problems. The unavoidable consequence of 
FRA is that people feel watched. That is the essence of privacy. But it is 
subjective, and proponents of surveillance argue that it is the price for 
safety against terrorism and other evil. So I chose (by way of example) a 
risk of a more objective damage. Which is the risk of accidental loss of 
data. We read all the time in newspapers about poorly protected systems that 
are hacked, and memory sticks with sensitive data that get into the wrong 
hands. Another risk of objective damage is the risk of identy theft.
>
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/accident
Yes, the emphasis is on "unforeseen" - as I just explained.

> And those examples mean I missed the shot by too much: your previous 
> statement requires at least this (!x100) many.

I use may own way of expressing my idea's, certainly in the use of 
punctuation! This is informal communication. You are not my boss!

>> In Europe we don't even have a "fair use" rule.
> We have, check 2001/29/EC's article 5.

No. The essence of "fair use" is that it is open-ended, susceptible for 
judicial interpretation. In Europe we typically have a "closed system" of 
exceptions in copyright. And before you say you don't like room for 
interpretation: that is exactly why copyright proponents argue against "fair 
use".

>> 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

My point was that political groups who typically favour more copyright, 
patents etc. (and tougher enforcement) recognise the disadvantages of these 
legal systems. Even in corporate boardrooms, "intellectual property" is not 
only considered a blessing. So we may have unexpected allies. And I agree, 
the left-right antithese is pretty obsolete. Incidentally, I used it here in 
the simple, classical, socio-econmical sense.

>> 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.

As I just said myself. I just the term for simplicity and brevity, but 
apparently it is confusing. The essence is that the "corporate world" (hope 
that is not a confusing term too) which is usually believed to be pro-patent 
etc., has its bright moments and recognises that patents are not a blessing 
at all. So they may be our allies.

>> 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 economy.

> 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

I did not address a lack of completeness, but the priorities issue.

>> 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.

The feasibility to change copyright *term* and copyright *scope* imho is 
very different. The scope is under constant debate (see e.g. the presnt 
debate on the three step test). Re the scope, the prime concern is to 
prevent extension. Reduction seems very far to me.

>> 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/.

I am aware that "intellectual property" is a wrong term. Is "copyright" also 
wrong? Perhaps I should use the term "authors right", which is the European 
term (actually from the French "droit d'auteur"). But, again, this is 
informal communication, so - sometimes -I prefer the shortest, most common 
word.

Interestingly the author's right includes the important aspect that the 
author may decide on the way the fruits of his mind are used. Again, it is 
the basis of GNU and CC.

> Having said this, are you telling us that commercial rights term & scope 
> should remain untouchable ... because of serving a moral purpose?

Of course not. The fact that "droit d'auteur" has its positive side ony 
means that one should not advocate total abolishment.

>> 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!*

I was discussing the interests of those parties that may benefit from 
copyright. Bt I am fully aware of the other side. In one of my publications 
I have drawn a 2x2 matrix of interests: social vs. individual + moral vs. 
economical.

>> 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.

Well, I am not sure whether it is actually discussed in our parliament. The 
Ministry of Justice makes law proposals in this field, that are reviewed by 
a commission of author's right professors (I know most of them), and on this 
particular theme a study was conducted by the renowned Institute for 
Information Law of Amsterdam University 
(http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/overig/auteurscontractenrecht.pdf, sorry, 
only in Dutch). The parliament usually pays very little attention to such 
issues. Typically they are discussed in a legal committe of a handful of 
"specialists" - which are typically parliament members with a background in 
law in general (which is obviously very broad). The "liberals" and the 
christian democrates have only one theme: tough on enforcement!

Needles to say, PP could do very useful work here, in the "catalytic" sense 
I explained before. Legislative decisions typically considered formalities 
can be made to real political issues by PP.

Franckly I was not very aware of the copyright contract law issue - until I 
was told that it is actually a very important argument in the recent debate 
on the extension of neighbouring rights (50->95 
years).(http://www.ip.mpg.de/de/data/pdf/stellungnahme-bmj-2008-09-10-def.pdf, 
in German). The argument given by the proponents was: please care for the 
elderly, retired artists! (Don't let Paul McCartney die poor!) But the 
counter-argument was: this is about records that artists made over 50 years 
ago, so (except VERY old artists), they were still early in their career. 
And in that time, typically they get contract "offers they can not refuse" 
from record companies that are very unfavoraboe for the artists, who (still) 
have a bad negotiation position at that time. So it was argued that an 
extension of the neighbouring rights (=copyright for performing artists) 
would actually obscure the real problem of the bad contracts artists often 
get offered by record companies, in those jurisdictions that allow full 
"freedom of contract" in this field.