<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<STYLE type=text/css>DIV {
MARGIN: 0px
}
</STYLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16608" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2>Anyway, I'd suggest to make
the "philosphical" part the priority, as that is definitely the "added
value" of the PP. If we don't save civilisation, who else will? ;) So the
priority is to make a table of contents, or to reuse a document e.g. from
Sweden. I am prepared to transate the letter we wrote to the NL parliament some
months ago (but it is on a slightly different topic).</FONT><FONT
face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2>Yes, I am aware of the
"policy laudering" process. A kind of "best practices", always in the rights
owner interest, suprisingly. It happened as well with IPRED2. If you can compile
the facts for Spain, excellent. I am aware of some turmoil on the "Stichting
Thuiscopie" (literally: home copy foundation) in NL, as its organisational
overhead was unacceptable (the difference between the money collected and the
money redistributed), but that is old, and public news.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV>Groeten, Grüße, Regards, Cordialement, Hälsningar, Ciao, Saygilar,
Üdvözlettel, Pozdrowienia, Kumusta, Adios, Oan't sjen, Ave, Doei, Yassou,
Yoroshiku<BR>>>> REINIER B. BAKELS <BR>private: Johan Willem
Frisostraat 149, 2713 CC Zoetermeer, The Netherlands telephone: +31 79 316 3126,
GSM ("Handy") +31 6 4988 6490, fax +31 79 316 7221</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=aiarakoa@yahoo.es href="mailto:aiarakoa@yahoo.es">Carlos Ayala</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net
href="mailto:pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net">Pirate Parties
International -- General Talk</A> ; <A title=rrpp@partidopirata.es
href="mailto:rrpp@partidopirata.es">rrpp@partidopirata.es</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, March 29, 2008 3:06
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [pp.int.general] levies
consultation</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: verdana,helvetica,sans-serif">
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: verdana,helvetica,sans-serif">-----
Mensaje original ----<BR>De: Reinier Bakels <<A
href="mailto:r.bakels@planet.nl">r.bakels@planet.nl</A>><BR>Enviado:
sábado, 29 de marzo, 2008 14:23:10<BR>> > Is there any reason to find
not desirable to answer all the questions, apart from RMOs being utterly
surprised? If<BR>> > you're willing to, I may send you a report about
actions from Spanish RMOs and also about opacity regarding levies<BR>> >
in Spain -and also may Valentin (reporting about SACEM) and other PPI folks do
the same with their national levies<BR>> > issues- to let you see why we
shouldn't care if RMOs become disgusted > with our inquiries.<BR><SPAN
style="COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); FONT-FAMILY: verdana,helvetica,sans-serif">>
</SPAN><FONT
style="COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); FONT-FAMILY: verdana,helvetica,sans-serif"
face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2>yes, there is more than one
reason:<BR>> </FONT> <FONT size=2>1. time: only three weeks are left
and imho the priority would be to write an excellent "strategy" paper that -
at last -<BR>> clarifies the copyright paradox. Also: the situation in all
member states is different (that is why the Commission thinks<BR>> about
harmonising), so the "facts" effort must be made member state by member state,
which is well beyond our reach<BR><BR>Clearly three weeks are not a huge
deadline. However, it shouldn't prevent us to do the proper efforts; only lack
of personnel, only lack of people working in this stuff would prevent us to
develop the paper you comment & to answer the questionnaire. While we can
put the <SPAN style="FONT-STYLE: italic">pre</SPAN> paper as a priority, let
the following days determine how many answers will we be able to give for the
questionnaire.<BR><BR>About the facts, giving a picture about situation
regarding levies in some countries becomes useful, when you want to avoid that
situations to become a reality in the EU -and the reality from RMOs like SGAE
or SACEM I strongly believe is highly necessary to be avoided; I repeat my
offer about giving you a report about it-. Not in vain, what RMOs want to
apply is the <SPAN style="FONT-STYLE: italic">weakest leg</SPAN> theory -to
extend liberticide measures like the Olivennes agreement to all the EU
countries, and to harmonize levies (first securing levies' existence, and
later securing the highest possible size of collected levies)-.<BR></FONT>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); FONT-FAMILY: verdana,helvetica,sans-serif">
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>> 2. need: the quoted Commission website itself says that
not all respondents must answer all questions<BR><BR>To be precise, <A
href="http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/levy_reform/index_en.htm">EC
states</A>: "</FONT><FONT style="FONT-STYLE: italic" size=2>Answers and
comments, which <SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold"><SPAN
style="TEXT-DECORATION: underline">may</SPAN> cover all or only a limited
number of the issues mentioned</SPAN> in the background document</FONT><FONT
size=2>", so we are allowed to answer as many questions as we are able to :)
Thus, it's a flexibility we are given by EC, instead of a reason to not answer
everything -instead of a need, it's a mere option-.<BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>> The example you give is a tricky one: if you say
you are not aware of whatever, then you must be pretty sure that not<BR>>
perhaps indeed it happened outside your scope. Then you only demonstrate you
lack knowledge.<BR><BR>Actually it is far from being tricky, but a simple
issue: they ask if we are aware to, the answer is no, and also that we should
be aware of, as we are required to pay but no reasons are given to us -if you
are client of a mobile phone company and that company suddenly raises four
times the tariffs you surely would ask <SPAN
style="FONT-STYLE: italic">why?</SPAN> (or even just quitting that company and
becoming client of a different one); why should we then accept the <SPAN
style="FONT-STYLE: italic">because it's the right thing</SPAN> formula from
public offices, instead of requiring them to put evidences, data, reasons on
the table to support things like levies?-.<BR><BR>Thus, it's in my opinion a
matter of transparency vs opacity -transparency should always be, I think, the
choice-.
Regards,<BR><BR> <BR>
Carlos
Ayala<BR>
( Aiarakoa )<BR><BR>
Partido Pirata National Board's
Chairman<BR></FONT></DIV></DIV></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>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>____________________________________________________<BR>Pirate Parties
International - General
Talk<BR>pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net<BR>http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>