[pp.int.general] Bullshit EU consultation

[Richard Stallman]

    As Amelia (rightly, to my mind) pointed out, while we can agree that the
    questionnaire is biased, there is no point in ignoring it, since doing so
    just contributes to make our point ignored.

That makes sense, tactically -- if it is useful to answer the
questions.  I read through them quickly, and most seemed to be aimed
at rightsholders, which means that most of us would have nothing to
say.  Have you found questions on which we would have an answer to
give?

In any case, it is not straightforward to answer without endorsing the
toxic assumption in the questions.  I offer two suggestions, but I
don't know if either of them is actually possible, given the details.

Is there room, in the answers, for a statement like this?

  I object to the bias imposed by covering copyright law
  and patent law in a single survey under a single name
  which pretends to cover the two.  Although I have squeezed
  answers into that misguided framework, that does not signify
  acceptance of it.

Is it possible for one respondent to submit one answer about copyright
and one about patents, as a way of insisting that they should not be
lumped together?

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
  Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call