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

[Carlos Ayala Vargas]

Reinier Bakels wrote:
> 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.
You may talk about the /c word/, the /intellectual pro...whatever/ and 
all the concepts you wish to use; simply, I reject to use myself that 
language and recommend them not being used, as I consider using them as 
losing at the /language arena/.

About WTO, check the official Spanish version of TR/IP/S, and if you 
find at least once copyright I will reward you ...

http://www.wto.org/spanish/docs_s/legal_s/27-trips_01_s.htm

.... but you won't, because where in English is written the /c word/, in 
Spanish is written /derechos de autor/ (i.e., author's rights or, as you 
use to say, /droit d'auteur/). So, it doesn't matter whether Spain is 
Berne & TR/IP/S signatory: the /c word/ doesn't exist in the Spanish 
legal framework -we talk about author's rights, and for me the nuances 
are essential-.
>> - 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).
Read RMS, it seems like I'm not the only one who doesn't read what you 
/now/ say, but what you actually said, "/abolition of copyright - as an 
example - *will* be considered pretty radical by anyone outside PP 
circles/" -I know you talked about your English, mine is neither good, 
however I think that in every language there are conditional forms of a 
verb that are used when an if-then statement is done; *you didn't use 
/would/, you used /will/*-, and we don't aim for abolition, but for 
reduction of term & scope. You use strawmen figures, which I find fully 
rejectable.

About whether reducing the term from life+70 to 5? -5/10/20/30 ... 
proposals differ from one pirate party to another-, who will consider it 
/pretty extremist/? I mean, to know whether we have to worry or not -I 
count with pro-copyright lobbies complaining about such proposal, who 
else? (I don't see no sources in your mail to support your theories)-.
>> - 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.
Written by who? 5 people? 10? 50? 250? 2.500? There are more than *6.000 
million human beings* all around the world, so I'm going to ask you to 
specify what do you understand as /people outside PPI/.
>> Hope this may serve as an example of what you usually do.
> Yes. I hope I have explained that my statement are perfectly justified.
No, it isn't; you have given no sources for many of your statements, 
specifically that one about what /people outside PPI/ thinks.
> 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.
You present your statements as hard facts, not as mere opinions.
> If you disagree, you are welcome. But not to blame me, but to provide 
> counter-arguments.
Thus, the burden of proof is not on me, but on the one who makes the 
statements -i.e., you-; you are the one who has to prove that people 
outside PPI finds our proposals as being /radical / extremist / whatever/.
>> 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.
Again distorting the facts: I present views to the list; I've talked 
about liquid democracy, about author's rights, about referendum, about 
privacy ... are you so short of arguments that you have to make false 
statements about me?
> And human rights, I repeat, leave ample room for interpretation, 
> especially in politics
Not that big margin,
> 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.
those who make what you explain there, simply abuse the interpretation 
margin in their own profit. I think that one of our duties is to show 
that they are abusing, to counter and deny their statements.
> 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.
The exchange of opinion on this matter would be truly fruitful without 
your offences.
> I expect substantive arguments.
Simply: you have accused me of doing things actually done by you; you 
say you justify enough your statements when actually you bring no 
sources. There is no substance in that, as it's not true.
>> 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?
I think you are wrong because you don't give any sources to prove the 
opposite. Except from very credited sources (i.e., people that I trust), 
I need people who makes statements the way you do yours to bring sources 
to prove that those statements are true. Specially if those statements 
talk about calling us /radicals/.
> 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.
It is the opposite: it is because of newspapers not writing about it 
that most people may be unaware of the threats on their privacy. 
Currently there is no true freedom of information, thus mass media have 
the power to decide what is spread and not, what is true and what not.
>>> 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".
False. While /radical/ has several meanings, in the mail I'm replying 
here & now you've said "/actually I believe that reducing the term from 
life+70 to 5 years will be considered pretty *extremist* as well/", what 
matches with the third meaning of Merriam-Webster dictionary, "/marked 
by a considerable departure from the usual or traditional *:** extreme 
<http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/extreme>** *b*:* *tending or 
disposed to make extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, 
or institutions* c*:* *of, relating to, or constituting a political 
group associated with views, practices, and policies of extreme change* 
d*:* advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state 
of affairs/".

You called us /extremists/, and now try to cover your steps. Not a 
chance, assume what you did.
> 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).
Now mention which pirate parties advocate full copyright abolition. Your 
list will be pretty short, probably empty.
> 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.
You both said that stance would be /radical/ -also, /esoteric/ (?)-, and 
that would be considered as /radical/. However it is not /radical/, it 
is simply what we find fair; and if the ones you are worried about are 
the pro-copyright lobbies, who cares? They will call us /radicals/ and 
even worse things whether we advocate for reduction of commercial rights 
term & scope or not.
> 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.
There is no confusion, but a disagreement. I think you are way too 
optimistic about MPs ... or maybe you just have never heard about 
Spanish MPs -Simancas, Muñoz (PSOE), Salmones (PP), Llamazares (IU), 
etc-; I don't know how MPs are in Netherlands, maybe they are potential 
diamonds waiting to be worked; here in Spain, nothing can be expected 
from many (most?) MPs.
> But then the PP(I) should remain "salonfähig" = socially accepted and 
> respected even by (strong) opponents.
I think one shouldn't do anything to become /socially accepted/ by 
traditional parties. If we talk about being *socially* accepted, I'm 
more concerned about the actual society, as in Spain 323 out of 350 MPs 
belong to just 2 parties, and they obey to their parties directives.
> 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" ;)
Oh, is it usual to have Dutch MPs calling each other /stupid, 
fifthcolumnist, radical, fundamentalist/, etc? We in Spain already have 
gossip TV shows for that; I expect much more from a parliament which is 
representative of people's sovereignty.

About /realpolitik/, it cannot be done when the government party 
proposes to amputate your four limbs; which would be your proposal in 
that case, having just one limb amputated, and being able to choose 
which one? My /limbs/ are civil rights and liberties, and are not for 
amputation; and if /realpolitik/ means to cede in such issues -i.e., 
accepting to give steps back in our civil rights and liberties-, then I 
reject /realpolitik/.
> The parallel is indeed very helpful. Firstly, one should avoid 
> overasking to the extent that no agreement is reached at all.
That is not what I said: what I said is that also one should avoid 
underasking to the extend that agreement would only be reached through 
giving up on essential issues.
> Secondly, one should avoid a one-dimensional argument about (in the 
> example) just the price.
Hope you understood it as a graphical example. In real estate sales, 
there is not an only issue on the table: apart from price, there are 
several selling conditions, as important as the deposit -too much may 
spoil the deal, too few may add excessive risk of losing the transaction 
without time to find new buyers-, the deadline to give the sold estate 
-if you sell to buy, and you haven't found a new home when the deadline 
is reached, you have a problem-, the items attached to the estate -home 
appliance, furniture, etc-, and other issues. Any of those issues, not 
properly managed, may spoil the deal.
> 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.
I told you that /liberal, socialist, conservative/, etc, are vain, 
meaningless political tags, used by traditional politicians just because 
those tags work, not because of them having a commitment with the values 
that those tags once represented.
> 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!
I also told you that being a lawyer doesn't imply that such lawyer is 
going to say the truth; it only implies -depending on that lawyer's 
talent & training- that such person has a lot of knowledge; however, 
such person can also say nonsenses, false statements and more. We 
shouldn't judge the person, but the statements, and the statements 
require sources and evidences to be taken as true statements.
> 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!)
Simply, nowadays I have no news on such divide here; pirate parties may 
disagree on concrete issues, but -as far as I know- not in a matter of 
how much do we want to achieve, but in a few conceptual issues.
> 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.
Read my /lips/: I am not /fundamentalist/, so stop that stuff.
> 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.
Actually you seem to me more inclined to leave long term issues aside 
-as you find them counter-productive-; however, as we find essential 
those long-term issues -which are long-term issues not because of not 
being prioritary, but simply because of not being feasible in the short 
term with 1-2 MEPs-, you shouldn't ask PIRATA to leave our long-term 
goals as you shouldn't ask me to stop breathing ... and for PIRATA those 
long-term goals are as important as breathing is to me.

And aiming for our goals, the goals which appear in our Statute, public, 
/well/-known, is for us a requirement of seriousness, and a commitment 
with our members and supporters; I won't betray them, and believe my 
fellow party members neither will. Guess the same happens in the rest of 
pirate parties. And I firmly believe that fulfilling our commitment with 
our ideology is the way to the success of our project, i.e., the most 
productive thing we may do.
> Frankly, I think that the PP(I) ideas have not quite settled, so there 
> is no "we" that I could blame.
While you don't use to bring sources, I already did several times

http://int.piratenpartei.de/Pirate_Manifesto_parties_at_a_glance#Analysis

Check it by yourself.
> 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. 
Again, I've read the official Spanish TR/IP/S (in Spanish, AD/PI/C) at 
the WTO site, and no matter how hard I try, I cannot find the /c word/, 
only /derechos de autor/ (/droit d'auteur/, i.e., author's rights).
> And I consistently put "intellectual property" between quotes (if I 
> don't forget)
But you don't use quotes for the /c word/. Why do you use quotes for the 
/intellectual pro...whatever/ if it appears in TR/IP/S -including the 
very title-? Because you disagree with it. Well, in my country, actually 
-as you said- even in the EU, it's about author's rights, so we in 
PIRATA disagree with the /c word/.
>>> 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.
> 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
It's not my business whether Greens accept being called 
/fundamentalists/ or not, it's up to them. Now we're talking about me, 
and I swear that you're not welcomed to call me such thing.
> - "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.
I am not brilliant, just tenacious -i like the Merriam-Webster example 
of being tenacious, "/a /tenacious/ advocate of civil rights/"-, though 
it's not the point; the point is your language which is plainly 
unacceptable for me, so you should only use it with those who allow you 
to use it with them.
> - "fifthcolumnist": again, you cited a provision which is often used 
> by pro-copyright people.
Again, in spite of pro-copyright lobbies abuse of the interpretation of 
human rights, *UN is the authority on human rights, and that 2005 paper 
shows that our goals on reducing commercial rights term & scope are 
feasible, at least in the long term*. So shame on you if you continue 
calling me /fifthcolumnist/, as being /fifthcolumnist/ would be 
promoting the pro-copyright lobbies stances, what I definitely don't do.
> - "radical": see "fundamentalist". Again, "radical" literally means: 
> to the roots. Which is not wrong.
False, you use it to mean /extremist/, in the mail I'm replying to you 
stated "/I believe that reducing the term from life+70 to 5 years will 
be considered pretty *extremist* as well/".

Your dictionary, then, is not true.

At the end, it's up to you: you can open a debate like you do in your 
05-I-09 20:45's mail, or you can continue with that "/hey, I called you 
fifthcolumnist, it's appropriate to do it, so smile and have fun/" 
stuff. I think debate is always welcomed, but it's up to you to choose 
what do you prefer.

P.S.:
> If you feel offended, quit the list.
If anyone feels truly offended by you, stop making offences. When A 
offends B, should be B the one leaving the building? You must be dreaming.