[pp.int.general] philosophy vs. action

[David Arcos]

On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Reinier Bakels <r.bakels at pr.unimaas.nl>wrote:

> About that FUD in the newspaper, we can also note some things:
>> * it's an "action" of our enemies
>> * but it's not a single action, they have their "philosophy" behind all of
>> their actions. This is how they achieve to attack in all fronts, with the
>> appearance of being coherent with themselves.
>> * without their "philosophy", they would had never achieved so much
>> restrictions and "intellectual property" laws.
>>
>
> Their filo$ophy is to make money, by exploiting present copyright to a
> maximum extent, while striving at low cost enforcement, which is criminal
> law.
>
> We badly need some sort of "fair use" regulation, instead of the present
> law that considers all copying (even of my own legally objtained CDs onto a
> MP3 player!) "reserved" acts in the sense of copyright.
>
> In an economic sense, information (eventually the object of copyright) is a
> "public good". Externalities can be internalised IF the cost of
> internalisation does not exceed the benefit. One way to achieve that is to
> let the taxpayer pay for copyright enforcement! Via criminal enforcement
> (effectively creating another - negative - externality). Incidentally, one
> of the objectives of criminal law is to deter potential tresspassers. If the
> probability to get caught is low, the substance of the threat must by very
> terrifying. Like renowned copyright professor Hugenholtz said some years
> ago: "why not the death penalty"?
>
> Solutions for a more balanced copyright have already been given (although
> admittedly on a fairly theoretical level):
> http://www.ip.mpg.de/ww/de/pub/aktuelles/declaration_on_the_three_step_/declaration.cfm
> While this is really a modest approach (within present law!) such proposals
> should not be ignored imho.
>

Totally agree.

There are more "pirate" issues, though:
* software patents
* privacy violations: CCTV cameras everywhere, RFID tags in ourselves
* freedom/security balance
* etc

Perhaps the easiest "counter-philosophy" is top argue that the persistent
> reference to the interests of (allegedly) poor artists is false and
> dishonest: they are only exploited as a pretext for the greed of record
> companies.


So we need a "philosophy", which is supposed to be the Manifesto.
The Manifesto needs to address all (or most of) the main core issues, in a
way that we all agree.

When we have the manifesto, we will be able to fight back the copyright
lobby and all the other menaces to our freedoms.


Cheers,


>
>
> reinier
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.international.general/attachments/20090116/4344aa5f/attachment.htm>