<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: Reinier Bakels <r.bakels@planet.nl><br>Enviado: sábado, 29 de marzo, 2008 11:00:20<br><font style="font-family: verdana,helvetica,sans-serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" color="#0000ff" face="Comic Sans MS" size="2">> This cross-post is an
emergency. I see lots of thoughts about the EU levies consultation, but what
should we do now?<br>> We only have three weeks (until 18/4), and the
questionaire contains many factual questions definitely not directed at<br>> information freedom activists such as ourselves. Fortunately the invitation on<br>> <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/levy_reform/index_en.htm">http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/levy_reform/index_en.htm</a> says
"All stakeholders are invited to comment<br>> on the
issues in the attached second call for comments. Answers and comments, which may
cover <u>all or only a limited<br></u>> <u>number</u> of the issues mentioned in the
background document, should reach the e-mail address <a rel="nofollow" ymailto="mailto:markt-d1@ec.europa.eu" target="_blank" href="mailto:markt-d1@ec.europa.eu">markt-d1@ec.europa.eu</a><br>> by 18 April
2008." (Underscores added). I think we MUST not answer those factual
questions, because they will wonder<br>> why we did that at all.<br><br>They may wonder why did we answer at all. I hope they wonder about our answers, because first of all it would imply that they would have read them -thing about what I'm not pretty sure ;)-.<br><br>Also, I see no problem in answering all the questions, even only to say "<span style="font-style: italic;">you trickster</span>" -they are just questioning <span style="font-style: italic;">how</span> to manage levies, so they are assuming levies <span style="font-style: italic;">should</span> exist anyway (without even questioning <span style="font-style: italic;">why</span>); what a tricky questionnaire then-. Obviously without calling them directly trickster, but pointing at how tricky the questions are.</font><br><br>> <font size="2">I think it is time to draft
a "table of contents". Imho it should start with an explanation to turn the
Commission 180<br>> degrees. They apparently enivisage a harmonisation on the
executive level, assuming as a given that there is<br>> definitely a reason for
levies - only the tariffs must not be out of step (perhaps I am slightly
exaggerating but not<br>> much).<br><br>You don't exaggerate at all: as I said before, they assume as a given that there <span style="font-style: italic;">is</span> definitely a reason for levies to exist.<br><br>> We must explain 1) why a levy system can not
work (no proper measure, no basis for a fair distribution, huge<br>> transaction cost, a police state needed for enforcement, no restoration of
market failure) 2) and more fundamentally,<br>> why the present copyright system
principles are unsound, in particular the idea that all and any copy is due a
copyright,<br>> with only a few exceptions that actually "confirm the rule". After
such an introduction, obviously there is no reason<br>> whatsoever anymore to spend
any word on "fair" levy collection and distribution systems!<br><br>Yes, we already had yesterday a PPI meeting and arrived to simmilar conclusions; such explanation would serve as a reference for EC to understand our answers -to understand for the whole document why do we find such questionnaire a tricky one-.<br></font><div style="font-family: verdana,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<div><font size="2"> </font></div>
<div><font size="2">> Hasn't such a document been
written by any of you? How about the EFF in the US? I heard the Swedish PP
website has<br>> lots of documents that "only" have to be transated from the Swedish?
</font><font size="2">Or should we rework the
"Jeroen Hellingman"<br>> letter written to the Dutch parliament a few months
ago?<br>><br></font><div><font size="2">> In sum: 1. Could we
reuse an existing document? 2. Or: what could be a "table of contents" for a new
document?</font></div>
<br><font size="2">Not sure about if there are existing ones already sent to authorities, but the concepts are solid if there were the need for writing a new document. 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> </body></html>