[pp.int.general] philosophy vs. action

[Reinier Bakels]

>> In sum, if you need a philosophy, human rights simply do not give the 
>> answers. It is the trade-off that matters.
> Disagree: take the human rights out of the equation, then -at least for 
> PIRATA- no single trade-off can be possible.
I start to loose my patience. you completely misunderstood an essential 
aspect of human rights. They are often contradictory. I explained you that 
most provisions of the ECHR have a subsection 2 (or 3, occasionally) that 
gives specific rules in case of conflicts. That is the trade-off I refer to. 
E.g. no one can deny that privacy is naturally limited for reasons of 
personal safety. Think of the role of police in traffic. Think of the tax 
office: it is entitled to know my personal situation.
>> 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"*.
> What do I see? Reinier talks about ... user's rights, instead of 
> /exceptions/ and /limitations/? :_)
Are you a bad reader or do you twist my words om purpose? Firstly, I *quote* 
here, so you can neither blame me for using the wrong terminology, nor 
praise me for using "eventually" the right terminology.The fact of the 
matteris that the law professor I quoted has a (long term!) vision that puts 
a *very* common aspect of present copyright in a different perspective.

> Are you asking us to give them up?
If you mean a brand new copyright, yes.
It is like the social democratic ideology vs. communism. The former makes 
compromises. I repeat: a political party is not an action group. I hate 
politicians who keep crying that certain things arewrong, without actually 
making any changes.
> When you talk about /economists/, you do it the way you do with 
> /lawyers/ -remember all those lawyers that disagree with you-? Because I 
> know some economists very keen with changes simmilar to those aimed by 
> pirate parties -I disagree with them in some other economic issues but, 
> hey, aren't they economists?-
I meant something very different. I meant that politicians (usually) should 
not try to be a better government than the government, but check what the 
government does. Not just on a substantive level, but definitely also on a 
procedural level. For instance: "dear government, you contend that people 
"generally" feel more safe with camera surveillance - did you actually check 
that with field research?"
>> Incidentally, for a more balanced decision making no political reforms 
>> are required: if only the PP is there, it can exert influence!
> I think you don't know Spanish MPs.
No. And I suppose I must be happy with that? Of course, politicians rarely 
accept arguments from opponents *directly*. One the other hand, even a 
minority can prevent certain topics (such as copyright and patent policy) to 
be treated as mere formalities (for specialists). Many of the PP issues are 
in that realm.
>> It is the "catalytic" approach I recommended earlier. Asking questions 
>> will also trigger other politicans.
> Not in Spain. Maybe in other countries with pirate parties, those pirate 
> parties can be luckier than PIRATA.
Really? Usually even a small minority can prevent that a topic is not 
discussed at all, and accepted without debate. Having a debate is the first 
step towards winning a debate! While there is sometimes a quorum to decide 
whether a topic is a mere formality or deserves to be discussed, usually no 
majority is required, and opposition parties will be happy to join the PP.
Well, if it is not perceived as "extremist" (another caveat for the PP!). 
For instance in NL, a far right wing anti-muslim party is hardly ever 
supported by anyone else. But the animal party (yes, we have one!) gets much 
more sympathy and support from other political parties.

reinier