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

[Carlos Ayala Vargas]

Reinier Bakels wrote:
> 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".
My statement: "/you again and again use that *scornful, even sometimes 
insulting* language/"; I find things like "/out of touch with reality/" 
scornful, while other words from you like /fifthcolumnist, 
fundamentalist/ or /stupid/ are the insulting ones. I think that -after 
you first use that scornful language and later say "/shouldn't be so 
sensitive/"- it's more obvious now that you weren't that sorry for your 
language.
> 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.
The curious thing about this is that you believe that your degree makes 
your statements true by default; it's like having an engineer thinking 
that his technical advices are true by default -one can think of a 
higher or lower % of accuracy in his advices depending on the talent and 
training; 100 %? not even close-. However, you've already collected 
several wrong statements, enough to make you consider a humbler approach.
> 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.
Fortunately, it doesn't depend on you to decide what is /radical/ and 
what is not; specifically, whoever or whatever who disagrees with you is 
not /radical/ by default. Furthermore, having us aiming for a commercial 
rights reduction in term & scope is not /radical/, but as necessary for 
us as a political movement as breathing and feeding is necessary for 
you, me and everyone here as human beings.
> 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
First of all, people doesn't /feel/ watched, *people IS watched by FRA*.

It is not subjective: if we, the citizens, don't want our privacy to be 
compromised, it has not to be compromised, and that's all. MPs are not 
legitimated to behave against the eligible voters' will, so the only 
question here is whether the eligible voters' will is to have their 
(our) privacy spoiled or not. It's a pretty objective issue: the 
sovereigns are the ones who have to decide.
> and proponents of surveillance argue that it is the price for safety 
> against terrorism and other evil
They can /argue/ tomorrow that the new price should be reinstating /ius 
primae noctis/ and using elder children as slaves, and all the 
nonsensical /arguments/ that they may want to: our duty is to counter 
and deny that silliness from them.
> So I chose (by way of example) a risk of a more objective damage
Having people watched according to a Swedish law; having Piraten Partei 
Deutschland sites stormed by Bavarian Police agents because PPDE 
unveiled a Bavarian Government's plot to illegally spy Bavarian citizens 
.... those and more examples are the most objective ones you can find.
>> 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!
Far from willing to be. However, I'm free to criticize your -in my 
opinion- /rash/ statement of a messy levies collection system being 
/fortunate/ -even in spite of that /(!)/ thing-; we suffer in France, 
Netherlands, Spain and many other countries too much pain -and it's not 
an exaggeration, there is people in bankruptcy because of the RMOs' 
sueing attitude and because of the amount of the irrationally collected 
levies- because of that mess to be hearing that /fortunate/ thing 
without criticizing it.
> No. The essence of "fair use" is that it is open-ended, susceptible 
> for judicial interpretation.
No. The essence of fair use is that it allows certain uses which doesn't 
require of authorisation from rightholders.
> before you say you don't like room for interpretation: that is exactly 
> why copyright proponents argue against "fair use".
Entirely false; and even bothering having you again making comparisons 
of me with pro-copyright lobbies -are you about to call me 
/fifthcolumnist/ again? because it was (and it is) laughable to receive 
such nonsensical accusations-.

What I defend is rule of law and one of its principal features -at least 
in Spain, I guess also in EU and in worldwide democracies-: certainty of 
law. Do you like certainty of law? Then, I think you don't want a law to 
mean whatever you want, but to mean what it means -and if you want it to 
mean a different thing, change it-. I believe that interpretation of 
laws, for the good of certainty of law, has to be restricted -the margin 
can be variable, though anyway limited-.
>> I think /right/ vs /left/ approach is not advisable
> My point was that political groups who typically favour more 
> copyright, patents etc. (and tougher enforcement) recognise the 
> disadvantages of these legal systems.
Spanish Socialist Workers Party is the most hard-working defender of 
/intellectual pro...whatever/ within the Spanish Congress. So, who are 
those /groups who typically favour /the/ c word/?
>> 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.
Yes, it is.
> 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
Not exactly. China has a different view on author's rights than other 
powers, but not because of agreeing with us but because of current 
circumstances; when they achieve the same status as the ones who 
currently defend the c word, they will change their mind to preserve 
their winnings.

Thus, those called by you /allies/ are nothing but people that 
incidental and temporarily share some (not all) stances (totally or 
partially) with us; because of that share being incidental and 
temporary, they can change their mind at any time if a better context 
more suitable for their interests (probably not for ours) arise. 
Specifically for the case I know -Spanish one-, every time that 
/corporate world/ solves its short-term problem, then abandons the cause 
and the folks who are against current state of things -even supporting 
some pro-copyright lobbies statements as part of the agreements; I have 
Jesus Banegas, AETIC (the IT enterprises association) Chairman, in mind 
.... I remember him calling filesharers /thieves/ (by saying that 
filesharing was same as /robbing/)-.

Do you find, then, that people trustable? The door for cooperation may 
be still opened, though calling them /allies/ I think is going too far, 
being too much optimistic ... and allowing too much danger.
>> 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.
Do you agree on the fact that you don't need to ask me for breathing? It 
is assumed that I will as long as I stay alive.

Well, same happens with PPI and the concern of preventing extension of 
commercial rights term & scope, it is assumed -reading our national 
platforms- that we are concerned, as we aim to achieve the opposite. So 
why do you focus on it?

About how far reduction is, I repeat it doesn't matter, as with just 1-2 
MEPs -are we all EU pirate parties expected to achieve many more than 
that?- every single issue from our platform will be pretty far, even 
short-term issues -which will be closer, though not so close-. If 
reduction of term & scope is one of our goals, we will pursue it.
> I am aware that "intellectual property" is a wrong term. Is 
> "copyright" also wrong?
At least for Spanish-speaking folks, it is; and as you recognize,
> Perhaps I should use the term "authors right", which is the European 
> term (actually from the French "droit d'auteur")
also for EU citizens.
> But, again, this is informal communication, so - sometimes -I prefer 
> the shortest, most common word.
Rather it may be the shortest path to our defeat at the /language arena/.
> 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.
*GNU and CC do reduce the scope of commercial rights* retained by 
authors who use such licenses, did you forget it? I don't remember the 
formula ... oh, yes, /Some Rights Reserved/

http://creativecommons.org/

Also, RMS -/somehow/ related to GNU, rms at gnu.org hints it- repeatedly 
asked here in this list for a reduction of commercial rights term & 
scope, did you also forget that?
>> 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.
And who is advocating total abolishment? Do not use strawmen, stay with 
fair play, Reinier: *we are talking about reducing, not abolishing*, 
commercial rights term & scope.
> 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.
Who is PP? Popular Party? We are PPI.

May I ask you, Reinier, to stop the usage of inaccuracies -e.g., your 
analysis of the GNU & CC approach to author's rights-, strawmen figures 
-e.g., having you criticizing a commercial rights abolition defended by 
.... who?-, scornful expressions -e.g., /getting out of touch of 
reality/- and all that thing you too often do? I mean, I think of you as 
a well-trained man able to defend his stances without resorting to that.


                                                                                                
Carlos Ayala
                                                                                                
( Aiarakoa )

                                                                         
Partido Pirata National Board's Chairman