[pp.int.general] philosophy vs. action

[David Arcos]

On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Reinier Bakels <r.bakels at pr.unimaas.nl>wrote:

> 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:


Right, you're opposing the Pirate core issues in the Pirate Party
International list...




> * 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 ...


I'm a software developer, so I can't ask this question.

1) Patents are not a human right
2) The right should not be for this "someone", but for the whole "society".
Software patents aren't a benefit fot the society
3) I'm "standing on shoulders of giants". I can do "this brilliant trick"
because the giants didn't patent their inventions!
4) Computer Science is just like maths. Maths can't be patented
5) If there where software patents, I could not make a living from
programing, as every single idea on software is patented (see "double
click")
6) etc... lots of other arguments that have been debated for years, and that
I should not repeat.




> * 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.


No, as it has been demonstrated (lots of times) that surveillance cameras
don't cause any decline in crimes.
Well, prisons have lots of surveillance (cameras, guards, fences, etc) and
drugs, cellphones and weapons are smuggled all the time, and violent crimes
are commited again and again...

Even it that wasn't true, I stil prefer to live with the menace of terrorism
that with the menace of a totalitarian state.



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

No trade-off.
They just took these measures, without debates, without consulting the
experts, without the public opinion. They did it *por cojones*[1], because
it was beneficial for the lobbies who confused, bribed and lied to them.
Just like the "draconian copyright restrictions on music" that you mentioned
before.



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.


I haven't mentioned the Human Rights yet. Why do you mention it so often?
Are you really against HR?

I agree with the trade-off & conterbalance theory, but only in the
appropiate cases.
* No "trade-off" possible in the software patents system, as it is
inherently *EVIL*
* A possible trade-off in certain cases about the security cameras (ie. put
them only in the most critical places, put the cameras pointing the
politicians, etc) as long as they don't steal my freedom and privacy.
* A possible trade-off with the music & movies copyright: they can keep some
restrictions against the comercial use, but not against the non-comercial
use (and NEVER messing with my comunications, my privacy, my software...)



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".


So, again to my point: they have their philosophy, so they can achieve their
abjectives and take out our rights.
We need our philosophy (manifesto), so we can fight them.



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?


Right, but:
1) this steps are consensed (PPI),
2) this steps are part of a long-term strategy (PPI Manifesto)
Else the steps will fail.



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
>

EU Comission = Evil



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.


Right, but some points cannot be debated. Some issues are out of the debate.

Ie, if they propose "to kill 1.000 people", shall be recommend "to kill only
500 people"? "to kill only 10 people"? No, we should defend "don't kill
nobody". It's not a trade-off.


Cheers,


David
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.international.general/attachments/20090116/b25fe67e/attachment.htm>