<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:verdana,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:10pt"><div style="font-family: verdana,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">----- Mensaje original ----<br>De: Ray Jenson <ray.jenson@gmail.com><br>Enviado: sábado, 19 de enero, 2008 19:54:20<br>> Therefore, we must help educate them on the points they've promoted, rather that furthering the division. We should<br>> try to help them become more democratized, and understanding of the enemy they're picking up the cause for. I would<br>> rather they not push for a further division (an "us versus them" mentality), because the entire situation would only<br>> polarize further.<br><br>Being alone will be quite difficult to achieve our goals, and obviously being against everybody will make our duties as hard as a trip through the desert. However, when I worked as a salesman ... not the first
lesson but one of the first ones was:<br><br>"<span style="font-style: italic;">an agreement cannot always be reached</span>"<br><br>|----------------------------------------------------------------------------| A<br> B |------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|<br><br>|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
A<br> C |----------------------------------------------------------------------|<br><br>Let us imagine those two graphics as the representation of what some parts want in a concrete issue. You can see that A -i.e., us- remain the same in both cases, while B and C have different goals. With B it seems that all of A's goals wouldn't be achieved, but at least some of them
would and it wouldn't be needed to move A's stances -it would be a beginning of a good communication between A and B a win-win situation for both-.<br><br>However, no agreement is possible with C without forcing A to move its stances. Must A move its stances? Should A reach an agreement even at that cost? We in Partido Pirata believe that the answer is no, that the agreement is not always possible -even we don't believe in single majority rule, but in consenssus ... however, we don't believe that consenssus means unanimity (eventually can happen the highest consenssus but it's not quite usual); the 100 % perennial consenssus seems unnatural (even creepy) to us, because do all individuals agree in everything? we aren't bricks on the wall-.<br><br>> Radicalization is as corrupting on one side as it is on the other. Extremism is necessary in some cases, but the entire<br>> purpose of our fight is to bring things back into balance. The more I study
it, the more I believe that this is where the<br>> real power of our chief cause will be. We are picking up power and this is becoming worrisome for those already in<br>> power. Therefore, they are going to fight just that much harder to keep the control they have.<br><br>Yes, the purpose is to bring things -rights of everyone, liberties, etc- back into balance; however, what happens if some or all of the other parts stick at their incompatible -with ours- stances? do we have to reach an agreement even if that agreement means to accept almost entirely their will? If it happens then there wouldn't be much difference with the current situation.<br><br>Though I don't know everything about the swedish events, with Rick's reports it seems that some traditional politicians in Sweden have moved their stances -the traditional politicians have, not us-, so now there is an overlapping ideologic area where an agreement is possible. If we -not just us, also
civic groups- were not firm and brave defending our stances, traditional politicians wouldn't feel the need of moving theirs.<br><br>> Such polarization pollutes society by creating a false choice without compromise--and is the chief reason the Green<br>> party is not taken seriously here in the United States.<br><br>> Copyright itself has a *stated* intent (at least, here in the USA) of being for the benefit of artists and other innovators.<br>> By requiring adherence to that stated intent, we are finding that there is no fight. The interpretation of the law is clearly<br>> one of favoring the interests of commerce instead of those of the individual rights. This is an extremely conservative<br>> standpoint, and one which should likely not be taken lightly. By going back to the "tradition" of protecting artists (as<br>> the stated intent), we appeal to both liberals and conservatives, without deviating from our purpose or damaging
the<br>> public interest.<br><br>I do understand your troubles, Ray, because here in Spain, while in 1977 the two most voted parties obtained the 65 % of overall votes, in 2004 they obtained the 80 % of overall votes, so we're sadly evolving to a two-party system -many formally accepted parties, only two really significant parties-.<br><br>I think the mistake comes from obviating the effect of mass media. In merchandising school, it's said that formerly people believed that the best product makes the best sales; that cannot be more mistaken ... it's the best merchandising which makes the best sales -look for instance at the VHS vs Betamax; of course an awful product has no future without help (for instance, a monopoly created by a misguided patent system)-. So people won't trust us just because how good our ideas are, but also and specially because of how well-known they are. We don't need to assume other's ideas to be respected -because in case of
doubt the people will, between two simmilar options, choose the best known-, we need to be known.<br><br>So the point shouldn't be avoiding <span style="font-style: italic;">fight</span> -while sometimes is not recommendable, sometimes is unavoidable-, but being known. And if after being known are the others who not only misrepresent their voters, but also avoid dialogue and communication, people will fill the parliaments with other parties different from traditional ones. As we only cover a limited amount of issues, other parties with simmilar philosophy should arise, and together would we may truly represent interests of citizen at both european and national parliaments -when talking about EU- and also at EEUU, Russia, etc.<br><br>By the way, defending the authors is not incompatible with our ideology, because as article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, we have in one hand the right of citizens to gain access to culture, and in
the other hand, the author's rights -not exactly copyright, even they're not defined at UDHR ... it's WIPO which imposed Bern Convention and biased the balance between authors and rest of citizens-. And we in Partido Pirata believe that what comes from UDHR is that non-lucrative culture sharing is compatible with the defence of author's rights -even, culture sharing benefits authors- :) Regards<br><br><br> Carlos
Ayala<br> ( Aiarakoa )<br><br> Presidente de la Junta Directiva Nacional de PIRATA<br></div></div><br>
<hr size=1><br><font face="Verdana" size="-2">Web Revelación Yahoo! 2007:<br> Premio Favorita del Público - <a href="http://es.promotions.yahoo.com/revelacion2007/favoritos/">¡Vota tu preferida!</a></font></body></html>