[pp.int.general] philosophy vs. action

[Reinier Bakels]

>> The underlying philosophical argument is that it is (perhaps) a *right* 
>> of the public.
> /Perhaps/? What do you think Reinier? Has it to be a right for you, or it 
> hasn't?
Here I quote someone elses argument. The rights of the public are defined in 
art. 10 ECHR which is not just the freedom of speech ("seinding") but also 
includes the right to receive information. The solution is *not* 
straighforward. An easy counter-argument is that without a "strong" 
copyright no literature/music/art will be produced anymore, because artists 
must eat and need money for that. I know, there arer counter-arguments, but 
it is not black and white.

> Probably what you suggest may be achieved faster; however, *faster != 
> better* (at least, not necessarily). There is a proverb against your 
> proposal -I don't know the English equivalent-: "/bread for today, hunger 
> for tomorrow/"; it's applied to all proposals who only aim for the short 
> term, because they're supposed to bring short-living prosperity in 
> exchange of durable misery.

So you are afraid of getting right for the wrong reasons, because that does 
not provide a solid basis? Again, that is a position for activists, not for 
politicians.

Besides, I wonder what your fundamental revision of, eh, information law 
would look like.

reinier