<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: Amelia Andersdotter <teirdes@gmail.com><br>Enviado: lunes, 24 de marzo, 2008 19:53:09<br>> >
I
see
a
risk
with
that
approach:
merging
levies
and
State
role
in
culture,
thus
losing
the
focus.<br>> Is
there
a
risk?
Levies
and
involuntary
fees
would
create
such
a
merge anyway.
You're
extracting
a
fee/tax/levy
by<br>> legislation
so
as
to compensate
culture-makers.State
collection
of
money
is
better
when
not used
as
a
restriction
on
an<br>> emerging
market.
Instead,
put
this levy/fee/tax
on
a
market
that
you
wish
to
dampen
or
preferably
go away.<br><br>That levies and involuntary fees would create a merge between levies and the State role in culture is, at least, questionable; why? Because, first of all, the very existence of levies should be accepted ir order to enter such discussion , and we -and I hope that we all- disagree about accepting their existence to be sustained.<br><br>Changing subject, actually PIRATA is as far as one can imagine from extracting any levy from legislation so as to compensate culture-makers.<br><br>> Of
course,
the
argument
is
only
valid
if
you
agree
that
fees
or
levies to
compensate
artists
is
at
all
desirable.<br><br>As I said before -and, though I thought it remained clear from my former mails (in
which I stated that we think in PIRATA that we should talk about <span style="font-style: italic;">why</span> levies should be, before discussing <span style="font-style: italic;">how</span> levies should be), may be needed to remind it- "<a style="font-style: italic;" href="http://www.partidopirata.es/wiki/Statute/En#Article_2:_Scope_and_goals">we reject</a><span style="font-style: italic;"> the formulas of indiscriminate
compensatory remuneration, also called canon, for private copying</span>" (<span style="font-style: italic;">canon</span>=levy). Thus, <span style="font-weight: bold;">we <span style="text-decoration: underline;">don't</span> find desirable at all the private copying levies to exist</span>.<br><br>> >
2001/29/EC
talks
about
compensation
for
the
limits
(established
by
laws)
of exclusive
author's
commercial
rights-<br>> > actions,
and
if
such
actions
supposedly
cause
losses
to
copyright
holders so
this
is
not
about
to
tax
or not
to
tax,<br>> > but
to
find
out
if
there
is
something
to
be
compensated.<br>> If
we
if
were
to
use
2001/29/EC
as
a
basis
for
arguments
questioning the
levies,
we
don't
get
much
leeway.
No
matter<br>> how
you
look
at
it, digital
material
is
or
will
be
available
for
free
in
a
way
the
artist cannot
control.
That
breaches
the<br>> premise
of
the
copyright
owner's control
over
distribution.
_Why_
should
we
compensate
copyright owners?
Because<br>> the
their
rights
are
infringed
upon
(according
to
the directive).
The
only
thing
left
the
_how_.<br><br>I think <span style="font-weight: bold;">it's mandatory to know where we are, to be able to know how to get where we want to be</span>. And where we are is defined by 2001/29/EC.<br><br>If we reach Strasbourg -and I believe we can, though it's an obviously hard goal to achieve-, what are we going to do there? I think that, apart from introducing new issues in the political scenario, change the communitary laws that oppose our ideas, our goals, our core issues; and 2001/29/EC is one of those laws. That directive allows levies to exist, and if we want levies to not exist anymore, we need to change it properly ... provided that it's included in our common goals; is it included? We should find it out, I think, by questioning first of all <span style="font-style: italic;">why</span> private copying levies have to exist -I gave some answers in my former mails related to PIRATA ideology, though to have a common answer, in a PPI context, it would
be necessary for all of us to make a common effort and share every pirate party their stance about this issue-.<br><br>Because I believe it's not worthwhile investing time in finding out <span style="font-style: italic;">how</span> to implement levies until we find out if we, as a group, accept or reject private copying levies.<br><br>> Of
course,
it's
possible
to
argue
that,
say,
a
broadband
levy
would compensate
for
the
lack
of
control
over
distribution<br>> rather
than
the (presumed)
loss
of
income
incurred
by
each
downloaded
copy.
That
could be
used
as
an
argument
for<br>> involuntary
fees:
you
don't
pay
to
get access
to
copyrighted
material,
you
pay
because
you're
supporting
a medium<br>> that
incurs
the
loss
of
control
over
distribution
of
that
same material.
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Same
shit,
different
name</span>.<br><br>May I guess that you, as well as us, reject levies? That's great :)<br><br>> I
realise
I've
picked
up
a
habit
from
a
friend
of
answering
in different
ways
to
different
parts
of
e-mails
I've
read.
The<br>> above thoughts
are
actually
mutually
exclusive:
either
you
want
a
state
tax or
levy
to
compensate
artists.
In
that
case<br>> my
first
thought
of
making said
tax/fee
relate
to
something
else
holds.<br>><br>> Or
you
don't
want
that,
and
in
that
case
the
directive
doesn't
hold.<br><br>As I commented before, I think we have to know where we are to be able to know how to get where we want to be. Thus, it becomes mandatory to perfectly know communitary laws regarding author's rights. Directive itself doesn't hold, when compared to the thought of those of us who reject levies and, at the same time, defend free non-lucrative sharing of cultural works; the thing is that 2001/29/EC doesn't seem to be fully compatible with that thoughts, so I believe we should invest our efforts in finding out the best way of rewriting it.<br><br>> Or
you
would
want
the
fee
to
be
explicitly
tied
to
the
material
that's copyrighted,
in
which
case
my
third
thought
about<br>> loss
of
control would
work.<br><br>As I also commented before, your guessings will find an answer after reading about <a href="http://www.partidopirata.es/wiki/Statute/En#Article_2:_Scope_and_goals">our ideology</a>: "<a style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;" href="http://www.partidopirata.es/wiki/Statute/En#Article_2:_Scope_and_goals"></a><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">we reject the formulas of indiscriminate
compensatory remuneration, also called canon, for private copying</span>", and also "<span style="font-style: italic;">culture is one of the goods that every citizen has right to access;
then, not only we do consider that <span style="font-weight: bold;">free cultural collective exchanges
and enjoyment</span> are not a crime, but also <span style="font-weight: bold;">we do consider it as a fair and
efficient way of promoting culture</span></span>". <br><br>Hope not only that PIRATA's stance has become clear, but also to know the stances of other pirate parties about this issue; it will help a lot in the search for a common stance about this issue. Regards<br><br><br> Carlos
Ayala<br> ( Aiarakoa )<br><br> Partido Pirata National Board's Chairman<br></div></div><br>
<hr size=1><br><font face="Verdana" size="-2">Enviado desde Correo Yahoo!<br><a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mailuk/taglines/isp/control/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=52431/*http://es.docs.yahoo.com/mail/overview/index.html">Disfruta de una bandeja de entrada más inteligente.</a>.<br></font> </body></html>