<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 21:42:22<br>On
24/03/2008,
Carlos
Ayala
<<a ymailto="mailto:aiarakoa@yahoo.es" href="mailto:aiarakoa@yahoo.es">aiarakoa@yahoo.es</a>>
wrote:><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<br>> > there?
I
think
that,
apart
from
introducing
new
issues
in
the
political
scenario,
change
the
communitary
laws
that<br>> > oppose
our
ideas,
our
goals,
our
core
issues;
and
2001/29/EC
is
one
of
those
laws.
That
directive
allows
levies
to<br>> > exist,
and
if
we
want
levies
to
not
exist
anymore,
we
need
to
change
it
properly
...
provided
that
it's
included
in
our<br>> > common
goals;
is
it
included?<br>> The
parliament
has
very
little
power
overall
as
it
is
today.
But
when the
Pirate
Parties
are
in
the
parliament,
one
of
the<br>> long
term
goals should
be
complete
reformation
of
all
the
current
directives
treating copyright.
I
think
that
there's<br>> consensus
against
all
levies
in
the Pirate
parties?<br><br>Would be glad if such consensus is confirmed :)<br><br>> >
Because
I
believe
it's
not
worthwhile
investing
time
in
finding
out
how
to implement
levies
until
we
find
out
if
we,
as<br>> > a
group,
accept
or
reject
private
copying
levies.<br>> The
below
text
is
mostly
thoughts,
and
slightly
strategical,
I
think. Don't
identify
me
too
much
with
them,
I
often<br>> change
my
opinions
when I
find
a
reason
to.<br>> <br>> The
levies
do
not
necessarily
need
to
treat
private
copying.
I remarked
you
could
very
well
see
them
as
compensation<br>> for
the
lack
of distributive
control
instead.
So
you'd
be
levying
the
fact
that
the artist
can't
control
how/where<br>> distribution
occurs,
rather
than
the copying
of
a
work
from
one
person
to
another.<br><br>Whatever the limit of author's rights whose exercising you want to put a levy on, the question remains the same: does that action -whether you're talking about private copying or the non-lucrative distribution (nonetheless, two faces of the same issue, as P2P non-lucrative sharing of copyright is legal ... though not so clearly ... in Spain because of <a href="http://noticias.juridicas.com/base_datos/Admin/rdleg1-1996.l1t2.html#a20">article 20.1 of Spanish IP law</a>, which talks about public communication of copyrighted works), you are talking about actions that are part of the same interaction- cause losses to copyright holders that ought to be compensated?<br><br>If it is, ok, let's talk about it; if not, the rest is literature. We in PIRATA believe that, for non-lucrative uses, the answer is no.<br><br>> It's
basically
the
same
thing:
levies
will
be
the
result.
But
it
would be
switching
the
debate
from
all
the
millions
of<br>> private
copies
made every
day,
to
just
one
thing:
loss
of
distributive
control.<br><br>Debate remains the same: is there any harm, any loss that ought to be compensated? No harm, no pay. Pretty simple. Unless you think -do you?- that non-lucrative filesharing poses a harm to copyright holders -harm that, by the way, must be reasoned- that should be compensated; the reasons for such believe, I think would be pretty interesting.<br><br>> It
carries
perhaps
a
risk.
Anyone
could
feel
inconvenienced
from
lack of
distributive
control,
so
it
would
perhaps<br>> become
a
legal
problem
in the
future.
However,
no
one
could
possibly
claim
that
we
need
to filter
or
censor
the
web
to<br>> protect
copyrighted
material,
if
we
have already
adopted
a
levy
because
all
distributive
control
is
lost
once something<br>> goes
online.<br>><br>> It's
like
bartering.<br><br>Hope you're read this <a href="http://www.p2pconsortium.com/index.php?showtopic=15274">interview with Piratpartiet's Chairman Rick Falkvinge</a> -article also quoted and developed in PPI's Berlin meeting last January-:<br><br>"<span style="font-style: italic;">The economic arguments are strong, but debatable. There are as many
reports as there are interests in copyright, and every report arrives
at a new conclusion. If you just shout and throw reports over the
volleyball net at the other team, it becomes a matter of credibility of
the reports. <span style="font-weight: bold;">When you switch to arguing civil liberties, you dropkick
that entire discussion</span></span> [...] <span style="font-style: italic;">we know exactly where this road leads, for we have seen many walk it
before us. And <span style="font-weight: bold;">while each step can seem convincing, we know what the
endpoint is</span></span>"<br><br>That's the point: privacy is out of question, this won't never be for us like <span style="font-style: italic;">we have to pay a price</span> (levy) <span style="font-style: italic;">to keep our privacy safe</span>. Never. It would be like RMOs & entertainment industry blackmailing, extorting us, wanting us to pay a price in exchange of keeping our rights & liberties safe. We have in Spain clear & present daily experiences about extorting and blackmailing, and what we ought to answer to such practices is <span style="font-weight: bold;">NO</span>.<br><br><span style="font-style: italic;">Extorting? Blackmailing? Oh please Carlos do not overreact ...</span> Far from overreacting, I'm just describing reality. Because I'm not the one who has raised the stakes, was the chairman of Sony-BMG Spain -thus, not exactly John Doe- who <a
href="http://www.partidopirata.es/wiki/Usuario:Aiarakoa/Transcripci%C3%B3n_SER_20-III-08_La_Ventana">stated the following (text in Spanish, I'm going to translate a relevant quotation)</a>:<br><br>"<i><b>There are two futures: one</b>, in France they've done <b>a law with Sarkozy</b>,
that's doing that when people download things from a P2P, their robbing the intellectual property </i>(sic)<i>, they give you a warning, they shut your internet connection down for a month, and after the second warning they shut your internet connection down for life, that one choice; y <b>the second one</b>, it's stupendous, you are not forbidding and you are not coercing people, is about <b>from money earned by Ceremoni...Telefónica</b></i> (sic) <i><b>in exchange of others </b><a href="http://noticias.juridicas.com/base_datos/Penal/lo10-1995.l2t13.html#c2" class="external text" title="http://noticias.juridicas.com/base_datos/Penal/lo10-1995.l2t13.html#c2" rel="nofollow"><b>robbing us</b></a> </i>(sic)<i> ... <b>forget levies</b>, I'm against levies, against all ... I'm absolutely against all that stuff, no ... <b>from money earned by Telefónica</b>, not earned for internet users to study, no ... I mean, there are statistics that say that 80 % is
used to download films and albums ... <a href="http://noticias.juridicas.com/base_datos/Admin/rdleg1-1996.l1t2.html#a25" class="external text" title="http://noticias.juridicas.com/base_datos/Admin/rdleg1-1996.l1t2.html#a25" rel="nofollow"><b>that money would be shared with those who have the right to: artists, producers, authos, music producers</b></a> ... then there is no problem, and <b>people still pay the same for their DSL connections</b>, simply <b>instead of taking all the profit the same ones, it's taken by the ones who have the right to, is a stupendous solution</b></i>"<br><br>He says "<span style="font-style: italic;">forget levies</span>" when describe charging internet connections, we say "<span style="font-style: italic;">white, liquid and bottled: milk</span>"; he says "<span style="font-style: italic;">people still pay the same for their DSL</span>", I say that, apart from Telefónica, the rest of Spanish ISPs are in red and wouldn't be
able to bear the levies we are talking about without falling in bankruptcy, so they would move the extra cost to internet connections' prices -the same that happens when actual 0'60 € levies are charged on DVDs (levies equal or higher than actual prices, so it's impossible to sell DVDs without forcing us, the final customers, to be the real debtors)-; <br><br>Sony-BMG chairman says tons of lies, also slanders -to internet users, he calls all P2P users robbers- and several offences -to some people who dare to counter his lies- in that interview; slandering, offencing, blackmailing ... I don't how is it called in other places, I undoubtably call it: cockily, coarsely posing a direct threat against citizens. How are you -not just Amelia, all of you- going to react against it?<br><br>> >
As
I
also
commented
before,
your
guessings
will
find
an
answer
after
reading
about
our
ideology:<br>> I
don't
disagree
with
the
ideology,
neither
of
Partido
Pirata
nor Piratpartiet.
I
was
merely
trying
to
state
that
there
are<br>> several different
approaches
you
could
take
to
levies.
Personally,
I
find
the one
I've
kept
in
this
e-mail
the
_least_<br>> appealing.
It
feels counter-intuitive
to
put
levies
on
broadband
because
it's
like strangling
its
development.<br><br>All such approaches need to start from a common starting point: is there any loss to be compensated? The rest, as I commented before, is just literature. Semantics are essential in language: there is no room for compensation if there is nothing to be compensated.<br><br>> But
like
above,
if
anything
should
at
all
be
compensated,
it's
_not_ the
fact
that
private
copies
are
made,
but
that
the<br>> artist/copyright holder
_loses
the
right
to
control
distribution_.
And
if
we
get
into the
European
Parliament
next
year,<br>> we'll
probably
have
to
keep
an
open mind
for
rhetorical
ways
to
by-pass
the
current
private-copying hysteria.<br><br>I worked as salesman in a real estate agency -well I was more like a mediator, a negotiator between parts in conflict (the seller and the buyer)-; the first rule was fight until death for a deal; the second rule was deal is not always possible.<br><br><span style="font-style: italic;">Deal is not always possible? What a crappy mediator you are!</span> Do you believe it? Would you give up everything to make possible a deal? Or is there a limit which, after surpassing it, one yells <span style="font-style: italic;">enough</span>, stands and leaves the round table? I prefer the second version, the one described by Falkvinge in the interview I quoted before: "<span style="font-style: italic;">when you switch to arguing civil liberties, you dropkick
that entire discussion</span>"<br><br>Some issues come to be unnegotiable; civil liberties are one of those issues; the very basis of civil law -compensating only things to be compensated- is another one. Does the Sarkozy-Olivennes-like solution match both requirements? No? Then there isn't anything else to discuss about. Yes? Ok let's going to hear how can it be ...<br><br>... so that how I see it, <a href="http://www.partidopirata.es/wiki/Statute/En#Article_2:_Scope_and_goals">that's how PIRATA sees it</a> -"we reject the formulas of indiscriminate compensatory remuneration, also called canon, of private copies", "<span style="font-style: italic;">it is our goal that the fight against delinquency and terrorism is in
agreement with the rights and liberties recognized in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, with strong attention to those
related to presumption of innocence, privacy and freedom of speech</span>"-. How do all of you see it? Regards<br><br><br> Carlos
Ayala<br> ( AIarakoa )<br><br> Partido Pirata National
Board's Chairman<br><br>P.S.: Hope my speech results passionate to you, rather than harsh, Amelia; don't want to bother you. It's simply that everytime I remember Carlos López -Sony-BMG Spain Chairman-, Pedro Farré -SGAE (Spanish biggest RMO) spokesperson- and all such sort of people's words, my heart beats louder, and my indignations grows stronger.<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>