[pp.int.general] Are there "good" and "wrong" Rigths?

[Kenneth Peiruza]

Well, just going back to reality:

1) every pirate party accepts Uppsala's declaration as our starting
point of ideology
2) in 20 months, nobody has ever tried to change so in our statutes,
whilst anyone could have tried it freely, and we're 765 so far.
3) we decided to interpret UDHR in the most "happy-flower-openmind" way,
so, we are against deportations, against prosecuting immigrants, against
any kind of racial, sexual, orientation, religious or political
discrimination/prosecution, we are in favor of full access to culture,
knowledge and information.
4) as said, our statutes require any modification to be voted twice,
separated by 3 months, and with 2/3 or more of votes in favor.

So far, no pro-copyright or anti-right-to-life group has more than a
bunch of "ciberactivists" in Catalonia (out of 7,5M people).

Moreover as our membership basis is a 33 year old guy with university
studies that participates/has participated in NPO's... we're quite far
away from that "troll profile". That could start to be an issue if we
jumped instantly from our current membership figures to 2300 members,
were the latest 1500 were just trolls. Believe me, we would notice.
Every time a singular event in membership arises, we investigate about
it. Once we got 6 new members in a 10km area outside Barcelona, all them
above 50 years old, so, we deeply inspected each one. We even checked
the ID cards against alteration or looking for them if present on the
Internet. Figure out if we received 1500 new online affiliations in 1 month.

In fact, we designed the statute rule to vote two times before changing
statutes for these situations. If we ever get a controversial vote like
these ones, we'll have 6 months to get loads of new members to vote
against it. So, this could even be recycled into growing a bit more :)


If people starts thinking that right to life is lesser important than
death penalty, our problem is not an ideology or a voting system, our
problem is that part of the population itself. In such a case, we'd 
probably switch from open-membership to something like "you must have 2
members introducing you to be able to become a member", like many
assembly-driven collectives do in order to avoid "übertrolling".


Best regards!

Kenneth

Al 29/03/12 13:09, En/na mattias.bjarnemalm at piratpartiet.se ha escrit:
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 12:37:43 +0200, Dario <i at dario.im> wrote:
>> El 29 de marzo de 2012 12:09, <mattias.bjarnemalm at piratpartiet.se>
>> escribió:
>>
>>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 11:29:34 +0200, Dario <i at dario.im> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> Moral rights are, generally, the right of
>>>>
> attribution<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_%28copyright%29>,
>>>> the right to have a work published
>>>> anonymously<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymity>or
>>>> pseudonymously <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudonym>, and the
> right
>>> to
>>>> the integrity of the work. The first and the former are recognized in
>>>> Creative Commons licenses.
>>> Trying to profit from material interests is not missuse. It is to use
>>> that
>>> material interest. There is no way around the fact that the line "the
>>> right
>>> to the protection of the [...] material interests resulting from any
>>> scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author"
> is
>>> in direct conflict with the core of the IPR critique within the Pirate
>>> movement.
>>>
>>>
>> I still think it is more about abusing of this protection. Let me show
> you
>> my point with an example: if you write a book and release it under CC or
>> public domain. If you want to sell it, are you in conflict with yourself
> as
>> pirate? :) What about "No safe harbor" of PP-US?
>>
>> Another example: you have a succesful website with some freemium model.
>> Aren't you using it for material interest? Even if you are fully open
>> source?
>>
>> This is about abuse. If IPR is used in a fair way, without monopolies
> nor
>> attacks against our freedoms, would there be Pirates? :)
> I am not arguing that individuals can benefit materially outside of the
> current copyright regime. I am arguing that according to the udhr they have
> a right to protection. Now, if that is their right it is then up to them
> how they want to exploit that right, and trying to reduce IPR to the level
> of cc would infringe on their rights. Personally I have no problem with
> that, but I am not as naive as to think that it will not be perceived as
> counter to the intention of udhr. Especially as long as the pirate movement
> is not strong enough to influence the position of WIPO, who, being an UN
> entity, will most likely be seen as the rightful interpreter of those
> lines.
>
>>> This does not hinder us from supporting HR in general. But we should
>>> always avoid referring to the udhr or any other UN document when
> arguing
>>> for HR.
>>>
>>>
>> It is hard to support something without any kind of content about what
> are
>> you supporting :)
> I've actually never had a problem doing that. Either you refer to external
> content like the udhr, or you create the content yourself when you need to
> present it.
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general