[pp.int.general] About PP Russia

[Fedor Khod'kov]

Hello Boris,

Boris Turovskiy <tourovski at gmail.com> writes:
>>> Such position is very strange in modern Russia, where government
>>> agencies are starting to recognize copyright laws as an excuse for them
>>> to harass human rights activists, environmentalists and members of other
>>> non-government organizations.
> That's true, but to me it says much more about a big problem with the
> government agencies, not with the copyright system.

Copyright law gives corrupt government agencies perfect excuse to abuse
people, and gives the government agencies an easy way to become corrupt.
This is a problem with copyright law which PPR aggressively denies.

>>> and that they are going to do so in Russia.  As said
>>> Mr Shakirov:
>>>
>>>    I don't give a f**k to those rights (the citizen's rights which free
>>>    software movement aims to protect, and the presumption of innocence
>>>    which is violated then *you* need to prove that your copy of software
>>>    is legal and many others -- F.Kh.) and don't want to use them, so let
>>>    me use that I want.  Don't destroy companies which make the product
>>>    for me without providing the working replacement!
> Yep, because you were proposing to outlaw proprietary software at that
> point and thus force Mr.Shakirov, along with many others, to switch to
> a replacement which doesn't always exist.

I'm not sure what do you mean by saying I "was proposing to outlaw
proprietary software".  I don't have the power to prohibit Mr. Shakirov
or anybody else from using any software they want to use, don't want to
have such power and don't want anybody else to have it.

The discussion was whether we (I was a member of PPR at the time) should
support the right of individuals and organizations to use software (and
other works such as textbooks or dictionaries) in their profitable work
freely, without asking permission from its authors (i.e. without buying
a licence).

Stanislav claimed what this would cause complete destruction of the
software business and kill the whole economics; and demanded 100%,
mathematically strict proof what his claim wasn't true (while refusing
to provide any proof of it, as if it was the common knowledge).  Thus,
he just used slightly modified version of notorious copyright lobbyists'
lies: while they say *any* reduce of copyright power would lead to
apocalyptic consequences, he conceded that reducing that power on
non-commercials might not lead to the world's end, but otherwise he is
fully agree with that propaganda.

There is nothing wrong with members of PP having disagreement and
discussing it.  But when member of PP uses enemy's propaganda as an
argument in such a discussion and says he doesn't care about people's
rights because this propaganda makes him believe that respecting this
rights would lead to his favorite proprietary software vendor going
broke -- it's outrageous.
-- 
Fedor.