[pp.int.general] Bullshit EU consultation

[Andrew Norton]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 1/2/2013 10:49 PM, Richard Stallman wrote:
> http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/consultations/2012/intellectual-property-rights_en.htm
> is a sleazy propaganda attack on patent law in the EU.
> 
> The central premise of this consultation is that copyright law and
> patent law (and several other laws) should be treated alike (or at
> least, more alike than now).  It establishes this premise by taking it
> for granted in the act of llumping them together.  It rehearses people
> in this misguided conceptual practice by having them answer dozens of
> questions, each of which is based on lumping them together.
> 
> I think this needs to be denounced as brainwashing.  Is anyone
> interested?
> 
> The questionnaire is aimed primarily at those enforcing copyrights,
> patents, and various other unrelated privileges -- so there is no use
> responding to it.

If you say nothing, then you've done nothing.

If you respond, you've at least got some input. I tend to disagree with
the questions and see what I can rephrase things as, when I get a
consultation like this, and sometimes it gets results.

When I did one for the UK IPO last March, I disagreed with most of their
assertions, to the point they actually delayed releasing the responses
for a few weeks, while they 'sanitized' things. They actually censored
comment on collecting societies, and also on the UMG takedown of the
MegaSong last December, ostensibly on libel grounds
(http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120729/02544819867/uk-government-censors-copyright-consultation-submission-about-how-awful-collection-societies-are.shtml).
That alleged libel included links to ECJ rulings (which any law student
knows is exempt from libel through qualified privilege) so they climbed
down SOME
(http://www.ktetch.co.uk/2012/09/ipo-admits-censorship-overreach-in.html) but
not all, which led me to escalate.

However, it gave me an 'in' to start digging through FOI's
(http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/discussions_on_redactions_in_col), and
so far I've found that the reason is that they censor any 3rd party
links from people not likely to have consulted a lawyer first
(http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/130694/response/332796/attach/html/2/Andrew%20Norton%20request%20redacted%20emails.pdf.html).
It's a great way to undermine public comment, and now it's becoming more
well known.

Had I not responded, we'd never know about this.

Churlishness gets nothing done, and just becomes more noise, and one
easier to discredit because of it's content.

Andrew
- -- 
Andrew Norton
http://ktetch.co.uk
Tel: +1(352)6-KTETCH [+1-352-658-3824]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQ5fvrAAoJECjjuYTW3X5HBkkIAMZ+JQd0/4pzesnR6pyjKrOj
WrDQ7pdsiOhg6O4MFyL17sttRSOEM09TIB1yV2IP4koQiK43tSrstt64X9sj3b42
ehTsa6uzUhIDFdvq7Jbe/YGYJsM7XcPdSsqYsiiAOq8qxGd8R3f14tx4Rs/Q8PJa
l9jZHtSbk0szRl1IydsjL+ZlAc/bplMNZqK13+LQnlinVtXWc+A//OknTML22LkZ
qa22Y8h2YJ+D1B+iWbX8gdC6n7DUICk4rZY2ZEa7Y6RH+nYIXXJtgZJI0VOJiARR
odWxB4mNUORG4e8x+rap2hNN2Rvv7GQHW6xIq8b5jsl2tEHgV/n/mO0aABgDTos=
=mItg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----