[pp.int.general] Bullshit EU consultation

[Daniel Riaño]

2013/1/3 Richard Stallman <rms at gnu.org>

>     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?
>

I think so. And a paragraph with this sentiment ("I object ...  acceptance
of it") should be inserted to all our answers to the questionnaire.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.international.general/attachments/20130103/e9b4e900/attachment.html>