[pp.int.general] About PP Russia

[Reinier Bakels]

While we all intuitively feel what pirates want, there are many pitfals if 
you really try to phrase the ambitions.
>
> 1) Rights or every citizen, specially about their privacy, communication
> secrecy and freedom of speech. *PRIVACY*
Safety and protection of property are also honorable human rights. Angela 
Merkel once said: we won't refrain from using technology that protects 
against terorism threat if it is available. Other governments voice similar 
ideas. The problem is that they are not entirely nonsensical. If someone 
asks me: do you want to accept the risk that your train is blown up by a 
terrorist bomb? the answer is obviously "no". It is the balance that 
matters. If the solution is a police state, with a risk of being arrested by 
mistake without reason much higher than the risk of an actual attack, people 
may be prepared to take the risk.
>
> 2) Right to non-commercially receive, copy, modify and share  every
> single work there is ever published. *NON-COMMERCIALLY*
- There is a reason for "moral rights" (nonexistent in the US). If you 
produce a really personal work of authorship, you don't want it to be 
modified by anybody. The "creative commons" model licences allow for this 
flexibility. Citations and samples should be less restricted, on the other 
hand.
- Note that Open Source depends on copyright (is commercial application the 
same as application by a commercial entity)?
>
> 3) Commercial protection to last 5-10 years from the time work is
> published. *COMMERCIAL*
Here I would advocate a more radical approach. A five year term will include 
most current pop music. If the moral rights are maintained/strengthened, the 
exploitation rights may be abolished.
I would adocate the abolishment of taxpayer paid public television, and 
spend the money to *culturally* intersing artists that otherwise can't 
survive. Market failures should be corrected, but there is no reason for 
pervasive "compensation".
(Present public television - at least in NL - is very siomilar to commercial 
television - but competes commercial television in an unfair manner with 
taxpayer money).
US public radio/TV is what it should be: a "niche" facility catering for the 
intersting boradcasts that are not commercially viable.
>
> 4) Software- and medical patents must be abolished, other patents must
> be carefully investigated for for are they really worthy. *CAN ANY
> PATENT BE BENEFIT FOR THE PEOPLE*
According to the US Constitution, that is the sole purpose of patents! There 
is no similar base in EU though.
In my perception, a fundamental problem is that there are institutions 
(European Patent Office, WIPO) have the (statutory) objective to *push* 
patents. The implied presumptrion of public benefit is no longer contested.
>
> 5) Mostly not concerned for PPRU but for EU, but in general; All
> decision-making of the government must be as public and checkable as
> possible for the citizens, *TRUST TO GOVERNMENT?*
Constitutional reform is a tricky and very complicated subject. But imho it 
is the only solution to this problem. politicians can never be trusted, 
unless the system forces them to be "trustworthy". And there are no simple 
solutions. I think that the German constitution is pretty strong (the 
"benefit" of WW II), with its enforcement by a constitutional court. but 
German pirates will be ready to argue that it still does not warrant really 
sound politics. And the germans are faced by bad EU legislation: e.g. the 
Data Retention Directive is irreconcilable with the german constitution.

On all themes, PP (and Greens etc.) should first of all strive to promote 
politication of  the essential themes of the information age (no traditional 
politician cares about copyright patents re privacy), and then to restore 
the balance: corporate lobbyists are in the driving seat. The EU Commission 
is known to invoke expert advice and then to throw it away and ignore it.

reinier.