[pp.int.general] philosophy vs. action

[Andrew Norton]

Reinier Bakels 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:
> * 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 an engineer by education. I hold (co-hold) a physical patent, on a 
design of safety horse stirrups for disabled people. It's due to expire 
soon, and I've basically covered my costs to my satisfaction. This is 
one thing where myself and the Swedish party diverge, for instance. They 
want to abolish patents, doing so only would mean that I would never 
have sold my patent, I'd have to sell the items myself, and as soon as 
I've sold one to a competitor, they can, if they're bigger, make them 
quicker and cheaper than I (economies of scale).

Patents are useful in some ways, just misused at present. There is, 
however, to me, a difference between tangible items, and non-tangible. 
That could be my engineering background colouring that though, and I'll 
freely admit it (I'm from an engineering family, my father did his 
apprenticeship at Lucas, working on the then-new concord fuel systems).

> * 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.

Thats all it is, a feeling of safety, it's not actual safety.
The UK has camera's everywhere (so much so, that in a crossover episode 
between UK series The Bill, and german series SOKO Liepzig, they mention 
more than once that the cameras in london were 'more than the stasi 
hoped for'. The ONE time i've ever been beaten up, was on a train, with 
a camera, on the Liverpool underground, full of cameras. The teenagers 
(I was 15 myself) were never caught.

Terrorism isn't a huge issue either. I grew up in the UK during the IRA 
attacks - I even walked past one of their bombs minutes before it went 
off in 93 - and it never altered things significantly. I was working on 
a TV show in November 2001 in the bay area, at the same time there was a 
'severe terror allert' on the bay area bridges. I had to take 3 of those 
each day (I was working on the island in the middle of the bay bridge, 
in the former nash bridges studio), and despite there being army on the 
bridge, they weren't doing anything. Myself and my driver noticed an 
abandoned 2-ton truck on the bridge, told the army units on out exit. an 
hour later, still no-one had approached the vehicle (our studio looked 
onto that part of the bridge). Terrorism is a means to control.

> 
> 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.

As always, Reinier, actions speak louder than words. Stop talking, start 
doing then, instead of telling us what we should be doing, do what you 
should be doing.

> 
> reinier
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general