[pp.int.general] copyright vs. "droit d'auteur"

[Carlos Ayala Vargas]

Reinier Bakels wrote:
>> The thing is that *we all are victims* -don't know other countries'
> No, the entertainment industry is not a victim (well, perhaps in a 
> different sense, because allegedly(!) human rights are not respected 
> sufficiently).
I don't have to enlist the aggressor: I talk about anyone else. RMOs are 
in Spain the aggresors, traditional politicians the accomplices, and the 
rest of us the victims, when talking about levies -and several other 
issues-.
> If everbody else agrees with you, it is the end of the Pirate movement.
Anaesthesia-less: "/make what I say, otherwise you're doomed/", Reinier 
said.

Think you better prove you're right -otherwise, I ll think that 
statements without sources not evidences are pointless-; and anyway, as 
I said in a former mail, time will be our judges. And not within a 
6-month time window -most EU pirate parties are unable to meet 
requirements to concur to the EU Election, including PPDK, PPOE, PIRATA, 
Partia Piratow and others-, but within a larger window.
> It is just not sensible to consider major counter-arguments as a 
> challenge - if there are other options.
Then Per is not /sensible/; not me; not RMS; not PIRATA members; damn, 
how many /non-sensible/ people can be found in the world ... actually 
when will you cease that language, and simply accept that we merely 
disagree? You're often pretty scornful.
> We all know that the actual systems are far from perfect (to say the 
> least), but the purpose clearly is to compensate authors.
No, Reinier: the purpose -at least in Spain, and probably same in 
France- is to compensate /the 1.000/ (i.e., Miguel Bose, Victor Manuel, 
Joaquin Sabina, etc). Do you want to see again the /Plataforma PAZ/ 
video to convince yourself that levies are nothing but a reward for 
their support to the current government? Search for my former mails, 
you'll be able to find the link.
>> /Easily/? Not without lying and, if they lie, I think our duty is to 
>> counter and deny their lies.
> No. It is not far-fetched to argue that increased surveillance 
> improves safety.
What I said is that even with that /improved safety/, bombings still 
happen, murderous mafia & terrorist attacks still happen, etc; even I 
think that overall public safety has worsened in the last four years 
-though I would require reliable statistics to prove it-.

Why should we accept losing privacy in the name of a false /safety/? 
Benjamin Franklin said: "/They who can give up essential liberty to 
obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety/"; 
I fully suscribe such statement.
> The issue is that the negative side is ignored, or at least no proper 
> trade-off is made. It is also personal to some extent. Some people 
> value safety more than the loss of privacy, vice versa.
But of course none or little trade-offs are made by traditional 
politicians -at least in Spain- having people in their minds. About what 
is more valuable, check Franklin's words.


                                                                                             
Carlos Ayala
                                                                                             
( Aiarakoa )

                                                                       
Partido Pirata National Board's Chairman