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

[Reinier Bakels]

<insulting>Let us have some fun again.</insulting>
> Reinier Bakels wrote:
>> While I do not claim an authority of any kind, I do have some experience 
>> in this field
> Your experience doesn't grant you being right. I even doubt about you 
> experience in the field of polling when you state "/abolition of 
> copyright - as an example - will be considered pretty radical by anyone 
> outside PP circles/" without, probably, having asked anyone.

I read literature about copyright reform. No, I do not add footnotes to my 
e-mails.

> Furthermore, that statement includes two fallacies and two 
> inaccuracies -very /meritable/, for just one statement-:
>
> - inaccuracy: we are PP, not PPI (you may consider this not relevant; 
> however, for Spaniards it is essential not to be confounded with Popular 
> Party)
I am sorry. So the "Popular Party" is PPI, not PP (I would expect the 
opposite).

> - inaccuracy: at least in Spain there is no /c word/, but author's rights 
> (well, in Spanish legal framework the /intellectual pro...whatever/ is 
> also present though that's another story: you there talked about what we 
> want, not about what currently is)

It is pretty common to translate "droit d'auteur" by copyright, and this 
communication is informal, so I may use colloquial terms, isn't it? Besides, 
Spain is a WTO member, and thus obliged to implement the copyright 
provisions of the TRIPS agreement. And Spain is also a signatory to the 
Berne convention since 5 December 1887.

> - fallacy: we don't aim to abolish commercial rights, but to reduce their 
> term & scope

Read carefully. I made an "if - then" statement. But actually I believe that 
reducing the term from life+70 to 5 years will be considered pretty 
extremist as well (source: see above).

> - fallacy: you don't know what people outside PPI thinks about that goal 
> of reducing commercial rights term & scope

Uh? There is an abundance of literature. And I read some of it. Indeed there 
are few writings about reducing the term. Preventing extension is hard 
enough. But the scope is under debate all the time. And so is the 
subject-matter question (see e.g. the recent ground-braking "Back bench 
conversation" decision of the Dutch supreme court).
>
> Hope this may serve as an example of what you usually do.

Yes. I hope I have explained that my statement are perfectly justified. In a 
mailing list, not the ultimmate precision is required. And in a debate about 
policy, it is logical to mention opinions and perceptions - that are no hard 
facts. If you disagree, you are welcome. But not to blame me, but to provide 
counter-arguments.

>> I don't quite understand Carlos' perceptions.
>> Actyually I am amazed how often my arguments are seen as personal insults 
>> and scornful language (I word I did not know so far).
> Well, Will seems to have understood it, so try again: words and 
> expressions used by you, like /stupid / fundamentalist / radical / getting 
> out of touch with reality / violating human rights / etc/, lay within what 
> can be considered as scornful and/or insulting / defamating language. Not 
> quite polite in my viewpoint.

I thought Will noted something else, which is that our conversation is 
hardly productive anymore - it is not an exchange of views, but a unilateral 
flow of views from me to the list, and a constant flow of irritation from 
you to me.

And I explained again and again that one rightfully may have different 
perceptions on "reality", in particular as regards feasibility. And human 
rights, I repeat, leave ample room for interpretation, especially in 
politics, and are often used by proponents of tough enforcement at the 
expense of privacy, and extension of "intellectual property" (now the term 
is appropriate) into fields currently governed by the information freedom 
principle. I guess this is a very important issue for our policy, and if you 
are so easily offended then we are unable to have a fruitful exchange of 
opinions on this matter.

 >> Our debate suffers from not reading what I actually say. It is age-old
>> debating trick to take the other's argument, twist it and then argue that 
>> it is complete nonsense. If I say somthing is not always "black", the 
>> counter-argument is not that it is *not* always "white".
> It is age-old debating trick to blame others from your own faults. The 
> other thing you do, calling me /sensitive/ because of complaining about 
> the things you say, seems as bizarre to me as calling anyone /weepy/ 
> because of complaining about having being punched -"/why have you punched 
> me?/" "/come on, don't be so weepy/", and all that stuff-. Maybe you are 
> seeking to have me replying you in your same terms, but I won't, at least 
> not in this PPI list -not even in personal mails, I stopped considering 
> them useful once you rejected shaking hands some days ago-.

I expect substantive arguments. Then we can learn something from each other. 
If you disagree, you should not feel "insulted", but argue why I am wrong. 
Then I mayh change my opinion. It is also a learniong curve for me. E.g. how 
to articulate arguments in the political arena, maintaining the essence 
while being concise. If you only blame me for making imprecise and unfounded 
statements, help me to articulate them.

>> The general public usually shows very little interest in privacy
> Have you asked /the general public/? I wonder why do you so often talk on 
> behalf of people without having previously asked them.

Do you really think I am wrong, or do you blame me for not giving sources? 
Well, I am aware that it varies by country, but I noted that in my country 
it is NOT a popular political theme (except perhaps in limited intellectual 
circles). The proof is that not often newspapers write about it.

> Maybe -just in case people actually shows very little interest in privacy- 
> the problem would be that -due to the lack of information there currently 
> is- people would be unaware of the threats that currently exists; I 
> haven't seen news about FRA in Spanish mass media outside the 
> Internet -and very very few inside the Internet (just briefly mentioned in 
> 1-2 digital versions of mass newspapers)-; data retention was also largely 
> ignored by mass media, and so on.

Yes, indeed.

>
> You mocked (mail 31-XII-08, 10:12; a really peculiar mail; e.g., "/I 
> communicated for some time with a gentleman called Callahan - a word that 
> includes the letters "allah", and I hoped that the filters would be simple 
> enough to identify me as a terrorist threat/") on those threats, however, 
> Piraten Partei Deutschland proved that the Bavarian Government actually 
> spied Bavarian citizens against the law -even, PPDE sites and some of 
> their members' homes were stormed by Bavarian Police-, so I wonder why did 
> you mock on this issue. If you don't agree with what I say, you may ask 
> that Callahan just to have a third opinion.

Sure, that was a very serious thing. But I actually meant something else: 
computerised filters inappropriately programmed leading to "false 
positives". Pervasive surveillance inevitably requires automation, and 
computer programs (or rather: programmers) do make mistakes.

>> Re "radicalism": for me this is, again, a substantive issue. And it is a 
>> common issue in politics. I favour gradual changes over more drastic 
>> changes such as a strong reduction of the copyright term.
> Hope you finally became able to distinguish between you considering those 
> who aim to reduce commercial rights term & scope (nearly all of us within 
> PPI?) as /radical/, and we actually being /radical/. I mean, it would help 
> you to avoid using "/abolition of copyright - as an example - will be 
> considered pretty radical by anyone outside PP circles/"-like statements.

This is not a black and white thing. "Radical" is derived from the Latin 
"radix" which means: "root". There is nothing wrong with at least 
reconsidering the roots. There is a long range from minute to major changes, 
and so there is in feasibility. Anyone who has no infinite resources should 
do some planning. And  - in the present context - the "resources" - also 
include the time of other players in the field of policy making. Finally, I 
am aware that PP (or at least PP Sweden) does not advocate full copyright 
abolition. In that respect Richard Stallman is probably more radical (= 
mopre inclinedto debate the roots).

>> For reasons I explained: I believe that such a strategy is more likely to 
>> lead to results in the near future, and it avoids that the PPI is 
>> considered radical.
> Again: you consider all who in PPI ask for those goals (nearly all of us 
> within PPI?) /radical/, but in no way it implies that eligible voters may 
> consider us /radicals/. Will traditional politicians accuse us of being 
> /radical/? Of course, and they will even make bolder accusations; our duty 
> is to counter and deny their accusations, with facts.

If you ask me to write more precisely, you should also read more precisely. 
I am not saying anything is "radical" - it is just the risk of being 
considered radical. And - also in previous mails - I noted a basic confusion 
between opposing politicians (simply) disagreeing, but being prepared to 
discuss, and opposing politicians who find that there is not even a basis 
for talks. Perhaps we have a different perception on the way PP(I) could 
achieve something. I stringly believe in the "catalytic" approach, 
potentially leveraging into a much greater influence than the actual number 
of seats. But then the PP(I) should remain "salonfähig" = socially accepted 
and respected even by (strong) opponents.

>> Oh yes, this position may be influenced by my Dutch background. In NL we 
>> have a system with many political parties, and the government is always a 
>> coaltion, requiring compromises. Systems with a threshold (Germany) and 
>> bipartisan systems (UK) are different. And the Dutch - until recenty, I 
>> am afraid - were tolerant and solution-oriented. We always had to because 
>> we are a trading nation, plus half our country is below sea level so we 
>> need an effective government to keep our feet dry,
> Yes, political realities, while share some common characteristics, differ 
> from one country to another. It, thus, I think should make recommendable 
> to watch out when applying certain analysis to other scenarios.
An essential aspect of Dutch politics is that our political parties always 
are minorities, so coalitions must be forged, sometimes between pretty 
strong opponents. "Realpolitik" requires compromises to be made, after one 
has tried to convince each other. The trick is to get more influence than 
indicated by the % of government seats. You don't do that by making 
ennemies. But of course, you don't achieve anything either if you try to 
stay good friends with everybody all the time. You should be prepared to 
debate, even if some people will blame you for being "insulting" and 
"scornful" ;)
>
> About being tolerant, when I worked as a salesman, I was taught two basic 
> principles:
>
> - A salesman must always aim for an agreement
> - Agreement is not always possible
>
> To know whether agreement is possible, one should -according to what I was 
> taught- graphicly compare the stances of the stakeholders and test if 
> there is /overlapping/ between them; if there is -e.g., the seller wants 
> at least 100 and the buyer offers up to 105-, agreement is possible; if 
> there isn't -e.g., the seller wants at least 100 and the buyer offers up 
> to 95-, agreement is not possible. *In the light of those principles, if 
> anyone ask us to offer more than what we reasonably can afford, or to 
> demand less that we reasonably can expect, I believe we should reject 
> those conditions*.

The parallel is indeed very helpful. Firstly, one should avoid overasking to 
the extent that no agreement is reached at all. Secondly, one should avoid a 
one-dimensional argument about (in the example) just the price.

When the Data Rentention Directive was debated in the Dutch parliament, the 
conservatives (who call themselves "liberals") followed their pet postion 
and argued for tough enforcement. But then another MEP asked him: would you 
be prepared to approve a major increase in budget for the police and other 
law enforcement work? The conservatives *also* favour lowering of taxes, and 
a "mean and lean" government. Deregulation. Well, I must admit, the result 
was disappointing, The Minister of Justice could safely ignore the 
opposition, because the government coalition has a majority. It was amazing 
to see how much nonsense was said by the Minister of Justice, who used to be 
a renowned law professor. Before you get angry again: I merely blame him for 
being dishonest, not for being stupid!

>> Remember how angry he got when I quoted the realo/fundi dichotomy of the 
>> German Greens.
> And you asked whether there was a simmilar divide in PPI.
To some extent, such a divide is logical in any political movement. (Am I a 
"scornful" now to all politicial movements? Give me a break!) Effective 
politics requires compromises to be made, and it is a constant struggle to 
find the most effective direction. IIRC the realo's, not the fundi's were 
the bad guys in the German Greens movement. This movement was founded to 
introduce something different, and eventually they became part of the 
system. Did they betray their beliefs? Or were they just practical? Anyway, 
the former activist Joschka Fischer became a succesfull and respected 
minister of foreign affairs.

>> This is actually about a very similar dilemma (take note: I deliberately 
>> use the word "dilemma") between PP policy directions: giving priority 
>> either to ambitious, long term goals, or to short-term results (given the 
>> fact that priorities must be set, due to 1) limited resources 2) limited 
>> public attention 3) sometimes conflicting nature).
> You have invented such false dichotomy, as I don't see here anyone 
> wondering whether to choose one option or the other one: I think we all 
> choose both -aiming for short, middle & long term goals, i.e., for all of 
> our goals (while being aware of the fact that most of them won't be 
> feasible in the short term)-.

Agreed, this is not a black and white matter (again). It is a classical 
optimisation problem. And *personally* I am inclined to give priority to 
short term issues. And I have a pretty strong conviction that *results* must 
be achieved. Talking about long term goals may or may not be helpful to 
achieve short term goals - as I explained before, it may even be 
coutner-productive.

>> BTW the "conflicting nature" imho works to ways: overly utopical goals 
>> will hurt the acceptance by other political parties to make coalitions - 
>> but otoh, as I just explained, any step to make present copyright more 
>> acceptable reduces the pressure to make drastic changes - the ultimate 
>> goal.
> Again: our goals are not overly utopical, that statement from you is a 
> distortion of facts; simply, their feasibility depends on our strength 
> (i.e., the amount of our MEPs), thus they're not likely to be achieved in 
> the short term. Also, as in my language the /c word/ doesn't exist, we in 
> PIRATA don't make steps to make more acceptable something that doesn't 
> exist -as you said in a former mail, what exist in Spain and in the EU are 
> the author's rights; even talking about rejectable expressions, the 
> /intellectual pro...whatever/ is present in the Spanish legal framework, 
> while the /c word/ is not-; thus, I prefer not to use something that 
> doesn't exist -at least in the legal contexts I talk about-.

Frankly, I think that the PP(I) ideas have not quite settled, so there is no 
"we" that I could blame. I only warn for a tendency. for instance, I am 
aware that Richard Stalman is pretty radical in rejecting copyright 
altogether, and he enjoys some popularity, to say the least.

Oh yes, don't blame me again for using the word copyright and the concept 
"intellectual property". Re copyright, I have explained before that this 
word is used in TRIPS, imposing obligations to the 153 present WTO members. 
And I consistently put "intellectual property" between quotes (if I don't 
forget). I even had a discussion at the university that this term was 
inappropriately used (like the word "harmonisation", which sounds like 
something logically desirable but actually is a pretext to extend, uh, 
"intellectual property" forever).

>> Carlos, please SMILE. have some FUN. And enjoy the challenge of solving 
>> THE political problem of the 21st century. The present financial crisis 
>> will be over in a couple of years. But the information crisis will last.
> Besides the fact that some countries live within crisis for years, the 
> thing is that I'm here to work on PPI issues, not to have fun -to have fun 
> I have the pubs, the friends, the family, the hobbies, etc-; and specially 
> I don't find funny being insulted nor defamated. If you find it funny you 
> should better find better hobbies. You are welcomed to debate issues, 
> while you are not welcomed (at least not by me) to keep using that 
> /fundamentalist/stupid/fifthcolumnist/radical/ stuff.

Asense of humour is essential to put things into perspective - without 
playing down their importance. Last week, I was on the Chaos Communication 
Congress in Berlin, and one of the presentations was on the privacy 
disasters of the past year in Germany - and there were a lot of laughs. And 
it serves a practical purpose to ridicule political positions that are very 
detrimental for privacy.

Now a short dictionary:
- "fundamentalist": this concept stems (in the way I cited it) from the 
German Greens, and for many of them was NOT being a "fundi" pretty shameful
- "stupid": I think I used that word once when I lost me temper. But 
obviously I was not serious, because you know better than anyone else that 
you are not stupid but brilliant.
- "fifthcolumnist": again, you cited a provision which is often used by 
pro-copyright people.
- "radical": see "fundamentalist". Again, "radical" literally means: to the 
roots. Which is not wrong.
>
> P.S.: From the 31-XII's mail: "/Or will they simply ignore me, because I 
> don't look like someone of mediterrenean origin, with my blue eyes and 
> blond hair?/" I have blue eyes and part of my family is red-haired ... and 
> we still look mediterranean; I mean, some Mediterranean countries like 
> Italy or Spain have a pretty ethnic mix, which ranges from dark-skin, 
> dark-haired people to blond-haired, pale-skin. Just some information to 
> /help you/ in case you again decide to mock again on some of our concerns, 
> to allow you to add more accuracy to your comments.

I know a Dutchman with very dark eyes and a small moustache. While his 
family lived in The Netherlands as long as they know, recently at the border 
he was frowned upon as an "apparent" Turk. (We have a large Turkish 
community in our country). Also, we have many people with a mixed Indonesian 
background, because Indonesia used to be a Duitch colony. Some of these 
people, 100% Dutch but with a pretty dark skin, told me that he ALWAYS has 
problems in airports and/or at border controls.

reinier