<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 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="font-family: verdana,helvetica,sans-serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">> </span><font style="font-family: verdana,helvetica,sans-serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" color="#0000ff" face="Comic Sans MS" 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-family: verdana,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<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> </body></html>