[pp.int.general] From 50 to 95 years, next tuesday: how are WE going to react to extension of commercialrights?

[Reinier Bakels]

>> I am working on it, I will present it in Helsinki, and it will contain no
>> surprises. Let me be clear, I don't care about "winning" from the 
>> existing
>> manifesto proposals. They are not binding anyway. And in my perception, 
>> they
>> suffer from major shortcomings, for the reason that they start from a 
>> legal
>> perspective, human rights! Didn't you say that politics are emotion?
>
> That will be too late. Hard for members to discuss and vote on it, in
> time FOR Helsinki, if you're going to wait until then, especially as
> not every party will be there; no US, no Australia, who knows who else
> won't be there. Best not bother then. Yet again, all talk, and no
> show.

It seems we first need a "meta-manifesto", in order to agree on some format 
questions. And I will make practical proposals.

I am not sure whether it is feasible at all to make a universal manifesto 
for worldwide use. In Europe we have the benefit of a special Court for 
Human Rights, and a relatively modern Convention on Human Rights, that 
allows effective enforcement of human rights, if a country fails to observe 
human rights itself. The UN decraration on human rights is basially not 
enforceable.

And in Europe we have the European Union as a problem, with its (widely 
acknowledged) "democratic deficit", its Commission which is not really a 
government, and the European Parliament which is not really a European 
Parliment but an extension of national parliaments. Besides, European 
politics are badly covered by media. Which is a chicken and egg problem: 
media don't cater for things people are not interested in, and they are not 
interested because they do not know what is happening. The opaque 
environment of European politics is a paradise for corporate lobbyists.

The good news is that whoever endeavours to get "hands-on" involved in 
Brussel and Strasbourg, can indeed exert influence. As became apparent in 
the fight on the software patents. And it is a major opportunity for Pirate 
Parties.

Please note also that in Europe, unlike the US, there is no "fair use" 
exception in copyright - which leads to preposterous results. In Europe, the 
(so-called) "exceptions and limitations" are listed limitatively in the 
statute.

Even the differences between European countries may be such that different 
PP policies are required. E.g. in Germany with its troubled history they get 
very upset about mass surveillance, whereas in my country it ts hardly an 
issue at all in mainstream politics. People rather want video surveillance 
because they believe that it improves safety in the public space.

Germany has a constitutional provision (Art. 14 GG) that warrants the 
protection of property, and even some respected (but in our eyes crazy) 
professors argue that this provision calls for pervasive intelletual 
property protection.

I also noted that in former east block countries, the protection of property 
(equated to intellectual property ...) is a sensitive matter. In Poland I 
was told that under communism, property was not respected, so it is a 
complicated message to tell the Polish, now free from communist suppression, 
that to much property protection is wrong again.

> If you put half as much effort into doing stuff, as you did in writing
> your emails, Reinier, the Dutch party would probably be ready to seat
> their first candidate next election.

Writing a concise, to the point (meta-)manifesto is a lot more work. Last 
week, I was in the US, and due to jet lag, I woke up *very* early in the 
morning. And then I worked on the mailing list ... Sitting on the edge of my 
bed, I did not have the concentration (and the documentation) to work on a 
manifesto. And franly, I learned a lot from the debate (though admittedly 
not alsways in an efficient manner ...)

reinier