[pp.int.general] philosophy vs. action

[Reinier Bakels]

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

OK ,we are getting close now. To play the devils advocate:
* Doesn't someone who contributes a brilliant trick for building software 
have the "human" right of a software patent? It is his (her) labour and 
creativity, anyhow ...
* Don't we need pervasive surveillance in a world full of terrorist threat + 
"ordinary" criminality such as street violence? Isn't personal integrity a 
human right? Elderly people are very happy if cameras are installed e.g. in 
public transportation because it gives them a feeling of safety.

These arguments - I repeat - are by no means nonsensical. The proponents of 
such ideas only make different trade-offs.

In sum, if you need a philosophy, human rights simply do not give the 
answers. It is the trade-off that matters. Restore the  balance. Which needs 
counterweight on the political balance. Which is the PP.

Last monday I heard a visionary lecture about the future of copyright, by a 
renowned professor who is known to be critical on copyright proliferation. 
Harmonisation in Europe is a failure, despite numerous diectives. We need a 
European copyright act. Which should be fundamentally restructured. 
Presently, the conntinental European "authors right" system has "limitations 
and restrictions". Actually, with the Anglo-Saxon "fair use" principle it is 
not essentially different: the suggestion of such regulations is that the 
principle is a very broad right, while the "limitations and restrictions" 
are the exceptions. The professor argued that a very different perspective 
is needed: it is wrong to talk about exceptions: they are an integral part 
of the regulation. Some have argued that is better to talk about "user 
rights".

Having said all this, I am afraid it is very ambitious for the PP to propose 
some sort of 21th century copyright blueprint. Altering the utterly 
unbalanced political decision making process is a realistic, short-term 
objective, and, realistically, a major overhaul of copyright is unlikely 
anyway. Small steps should lead the way. For a political party, it is pretty 
logical to limit (at least initially) the ambition to improving the process. 
Not: economists say A so you should adopt regulation B, but: have you asked 
expert advice from economists (preferably more than one!), and have you 
taken that advice into account?

As I reported earlier, the EU Commission recently blatantly ignored advice 
it actually commissioned (=paid) itself! 
http://www.ivir.nl/nieuws/open_letter_concerning_european_commissions_intellectual_property_package.html

Incidentally, for a more balanced decision making no political reforms are 
required: if only the PP is there, it can exert influence! It is the 
"catalytic" approach I recommended earlier. Asking questions will also 
trigger other politicans.

reinier