<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: miércoles, 26 de marzo, 2008 2:12:04<br>On
25/03/2008,
Rick
Falkvinge
(Piratpartiet)
<<a ymailto="mailto:rick@piratpartiet.se" href="mailto:rick@piratpartiet.se">rick@piratpartiet.se</a>>
wrote:<br>> >
In
all
this
talk
about
levies,
I
have
yet
to
see
somebody
answer
the
fundamental
questions:<br>> >
Why
is
who
is
going
to
be
compensated
for
what,
and
how?<br>> I've
answered
this
question
at
least
a
couple
of
times:
the
claim
for compensation
would
be
that
copyright
holders<br>> have
lost
the
right
to control
distribution.
This
right
could
be
argued
to
be
economical,
but is
essentially
moral:
the
right<br>> of
the
artist
to
control
the
use
of his/her
own
work<br><br>You haven't answered, because answering is not just saying yes or no, but also giving reasons that support your stance, and you haven't given any not wrong reason.<br><br><span style="font-weight: bold;">You say copyright is moral, statement that's wrong</span>. Only authorship & right to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or
other derogatory action in relation to, the said work, which would be
prejudicial to his honor or reputation are moral rights, the copyright rights -right to make copies & right to perform & right to broadcast
& right to translate & right to make derivative works- are material ones; are you putting UDHR in doubt, when <a href="http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html">article 27.2 UDHR</a> clearly distinguish between <span style="font-style: italic;">moral and material interests</span>? UDHR declares, not defines, author's rights -though UDHR includes that main distinguishment-, so if you are wanting to redefine actual legal status of copyright turning it into moral stuff, reasons for such redefinition would be welcomed.<br><br>> The
how
is
details.
License.
Whatever.
The
reason
licenses
can
be accepted
is
because
it
a)
leaves
time
to
focus
on<br>> shortening
copyright terms
and
b)
probably
gains
some
sympathies
from
those
who
have
doubts about
disregarding<br>> the
moral
copyright
arguments.<br><br>Even if finally loss becomes proven -hard to believe it- or if we finally had to swallow such bitter pill -because not having enough strength to change communitary laws-, as Rick explained, <span style="font-style: italic;">how</span> determines whether levies are compliant with civil rights and liberties -being, as I commented in my former mails, rule of the law the most important, specially when levies are closely related with the duo debtor(the one who causes the supposed loss)-creditor(the one who suffers the supposed loss)-.<br><br>If anyone different that the one who suffers the supposed loss finds himself/herself receiving the compensation, system doesn't work; if anyone different that the one who causes the supposed loss finds himself/herself paying the compensation, system doesn't work; and, as Rick explained, if in order to avoid the former and guarantee that debtors and creditors are properly identified, civil rights and
liberties become conculcated, system doesn't work. Thus, <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">how</span><span style="font-weight: bold;"> is not details, but relevant issue</span> -of course, just in case it would have been proven that loss exist and has to be compensated-.<br><br>Are you going to agree with such levies, even if the only way to make them compliant with civil law requirements for compensations is to conculcate privacy? Hope you don't :)<br><br>> Note
also
that
there
is
only
ever
one
claim
made
here:
the
loss
of control
of
distribution.
That
is
the
only
thing
that<br>> merits compensation
so
every
artist
gets
the
same
amount
-
what's
lost
once can't
be
lost
again.
Why
would
you
need<br>> anything
to
be
more
"fair" than
that?<br><br>Note that for an unfair claim, being the only claim does not make it better. By the way, you continue telling us <span style="font-style: italic;">what</span> -levies on distribution- but also continue not telling us <span style="font-style: italic;">why</span> -why loss of control would mean a loss to be compensated, if in our context we defend the free non-lucrative sharing of cultural works;<br><br>> Carlos:
The
semantic
difference
between
"strategy"
and
"tactics"
is that
tactics
win
the
battles,
strategy
wins
the
wars<br><br>That's the reason for me to find it hard to assume, because what's more important? Winning the battle of stopping RMOs and entertainment industry whining -and slandering and offencing-? Or securing the achievement of our goals in the middle-long term? <span style="font-weight: bold;">Extorters and blackmailers never get satisfied</span>, they only take a break just to come back with further threats, slanders and offences; if we result to be taken into this RMOs & entertainment industry pantomime -giving what they ask without having them proven the rightfulness of their demands-, we'd be showing a fatal weakness that would be exploited sooner or later. Because, as you correctly pointed out in your last mail, in Spain -and in France, and in other countries which suffer with special harshness RMOs abuses- we know much about this RMOs behaviour.<br><br>So, you can still defending the -wrong- statement about copyright being moral; stating
-wrongly- that how to collect, manage and deliver levies is just details; and believing -pretty much naïve, I think- that extorters and blackmailers will find themselves satisfied if we cede with levies. Or you can finally assume facts, assuming that author's rights are composed by moral and material rights -copyright not being moral but material stuff-, assuming that even if forced to accept levies, the <span style="font-style: italic;">how</span> is pretty relevant to be sure about if such levies are compliant with human rights- and getting ground about the blackmailers.
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>