<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: martes, 25 de marzo, 2008 16:59:26<br>On
25/03/2008,
Carlos
Ayala
<<a ymailto="mailto:aiarakoa@yahoo.es" href="mailto:aiarakoa@yahoo.es">aiarakoa@yahoo.es</a>>
wrote:<br>> >
Debate
remains
the
same:
is
there
any
harm,
any
loss
that
ought
to
be
compensated?
No
harm,
no
pay.
Pretty<br>> > simple.
Unless
you
think
-do
you?-
that non-lucrative
filesharing
poses
a
harm
to
copyright
holders
-harm
that,
by<br>> >
the
way,
must
be
reasoned-
that
should
be
compensated;
the
reasons
for
such
believe,
I
think
would
be
pretty<br>> > interesting.<br>> Copyright
owners,
or
artists/authors,
lose
the
right
to
control distribution.
With
copyright
being
essentially
a
moral
right,<br>> there
is a
moral
claim
to
compensation.
Such
a
moral
claim
could
also
work around
other
problems.
Bear
with
me<br><br><a style="font-weight: bold;" href="http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html">Copyright is not a moral right, but a <span style="font-style: italic;">material interest</span></a><span style="font-weight: bold;">;</span> and nonetheless <span style="font-style: italic;">material interests</span> -material, commercial, economic rights- declared in the UDHR can be redefined -for instance, we are trying to shorten the lifespan of copyright, shortening that comes to be a redefinition of a material- without changing UDHR.<br><br>As I commented in former mails, Amelia, it's required to completely know where we are, to be able to know how to get where we want to be; knowing that copyright is not a moral right, but something included within the author's material rights, it's one of those required previous steps.<br><br>> >
That's
the
point:
privacy
is
out
of
question,
this
won't
never
be
for
us like
we
have
to
pay
a
price
(levy)
to
keep
our<br>> > privacy
safe.
Never.
It
would
be
like
RMOs
&
entertainment
industry
blackmailing,
extorting
us,
wanting
us
to
pay
a<br>> > price
in
exchange
of
keeping
our
rights
&
liberties
safe.
We
have in
Spain
clear
&
present
daily
experiences
about<br>> > extorting
and
blackmailing, and
what
we
ought
to
answer
to
such
practices
is
NO.<br>> If
you
compensate
them
for
the
_loss
of
control_
they
can't
whine about
having
lost
it
(which
is
essentially
what
they<br>> do
today).
They would
have
no
further
claims
to
infringe
on
civil
liberties
as
their very
cause
of
action
has
already
been<br>> accounted
for<br><br><span style="font-weight: bold;">Extorters and blackmailers are never satisfied</span>; if they find a breach, if they find a weakness, from time to time they'll try once and again and again to demand further claims.<br><br>Do you really believe, Amelia, that people like Carlos López -SonyBMG Spain Chairman- are gonna be satisfied with the new Spanish digital levies? Or that people like him would be satisfied with DSL levies? Never. Some time after having achieved it, they would claim that such levies have -according to such people- shown to be insufficient, and the would claim for more. This is always the same mechanism.<br><br>So <span style="font-weight: bold;">let's gonna focus on what really matters: is there something to be compensated?</span> That's the question.<br><br>> The
infringement
of
civil
liberties
claims
rely
on
you
having
to surveil
who
downloads
what
and
when
-
with
a<br>> compensation
for
the
loss of
distributive
control
itself
that
would
be
completely
unnecessary. You
would
have<br>> essentially
already
compensated
them
for
not
being
able to
control
what
or
where
their
creative
works
go
-
it
would
be<br>> quiet absurd
if
we'd
first
legislate
don't
have
any,
and
can't
have
any, control
whatsoever
and
then
try
regain
the
same<br>> control.<br><br>As Rick Falkvinge pointed out, <span style="font-weight: bold;">surveillance is not only unnecessary, but unbearable anywise. So it's for me out of question</span>, I hope none of us would sit in a round table with people like Carlos López, people who threat us with the "<span style="font-style: italic;">Sarkozy-like measures, or DSL levies</span>" false dicotomy.<br><br>To make myself understood: I'm not gonna pay nothing to anyone, just because being told "<span style="font-style: italic;">pay me or I'll beat you</span>"; not being beaten is, for me, out of question ... is there something to be compensated? Ok let's gonna find it out, if there is something we'll be able to discuss how to compensate it ... however, if nothing has to be compensated, thinking about how to stop their whining -and their slandering, and their offencing, etc- by ceding anything is ... an idea pretty hard to get, do you agree?<br><br>> A
tax/levy
as
described
above
is
also
no
hinder
to
shortening
the length
of
copyright
terms.
Most
of
the
other
issues,<br>> like
shortening commercial
copyright
terms
to
5
years,
would
be
completely
unaffected. In
a
long-term
perspective,<br>> you
could
remove
the
tax/levy
as
well.<br><br>I see. Thus, would be our strategy to continue ceding -for reasons still undisclosed- before just starting to bring up our claims? Pretty hard to agree with it.<br><br>Reasons have to be put, in my opinion, on the table; reasons about why is there something to be compensated -and not just because they're whining; I mean from a civil law basis-. After having such reasons on the table, I think discussion will be more focused; if future laws force us, like current ones do, to accept levies -because we wouldn't have enough strength to change such laws-, then we would discuss how those levies -never forget that such levies are not taxes, but exactions directly related with the supposed harm (very important: supposed harm), so are exactions directly to be paid to the copyrighted holders of the corresponding works- should be implemented to be compatible with civil rights and liberties; however, if we aren't forced to, we need to follow reasons, not
whinings -and of course, not slandering nor offencing like the ones shown by SonyBMG Spain Chairman, or by RMOs- ... and if only whinings, slanders and offences are put on the table, such pack should be ignored; because at the end the ones who really suffer, apart from citizens and SMEs, are the very authors not the bestselling ones, but the vast majority of authors. 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=52434/*http://es.docs.yahoo.com/mail/overview/index.html">Más formas de estar en contacto.</a><br></font> </body></html>