[pp.int.general] purpose of manifesto

[Reinier Bakels]

> meme that "copyright infringement is theft". That's the real fallacy  that 
> needs to be met. The average internet user isn't thinking about 
> "intellectual property" versus "immaterial rights", he is thinking  about 
> "sharing" versus "theft". And it is in the "sharing copies"  versus 
> "stealing works" divide that I think is the most useful to  drive a wedge 
> ito.

I could not agree more! But politics is emotion, not logic, and then they 
say "yes, but it feels like theft". Then you perhaps better resort to 
completely different arguments, like: those who benefit are actually the big 
record companies, currently WW concentrated in just a handful of 
conglomerates, with an excellent risk spread, who consistently claim to 
represent the interests of artists with crocodile tears in their eyes, while 
actually stealing FROM THEM!

Thats is why the Max Planck institute in its position statement against the 
"50->95 extension" explains that it is likely to hurt rather than benefit 
the position of artists, by distracting the attention from the need of 
better copyright contract law. Artists are often forced at the start of 
their career to agree on very unfavourable contracts with record companies 
because they do not (yet) have a good negotiation position.

Don't the persistent efforts of interested parties to extend copyright ever 
more actually STEAL from the publlic domain, hence from the general public?

Uh, who are the criminals here, anyway???

reinier