<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:verdana,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:10pt"><div>Apart from the nonsensical part and the contempt for citizen's will, we have the following analysis for the rest of the declaration -the parts not mentioned are, at least by the moment, found acceptable-:<br><br>> <span style="font-weight: bold;">No levies to compensate for copying should be permitted - but we allow for government scholarships or <br></span>><span style="font-weight: bold;"> similar, which</span><span style="font-weight: bold;"> are not compensation</span>. This way, it's obviously unilateral, and the copyright lobby doesn't have the<br>> implied right to accept or reject.<br><br>Of course, many national constitutions actually allow for governments to fund culture; however, what they fund are museums, libraries, conservatoriums, etc. How are such fundings related with levies?
Thus, that paragraph we think should be rewritten, as it's widely known that there is no relation between government funds for culture and levies -however, and in spite of the "<span style="font-style: italic;">which are not compensation</span>" part, we think it would may lead to confusion-.<br><br><< Author's rights & RMOs<br><br>We, PPI, are not the author's enemies. We're requesting for non-commercial culture sharing without levies, that's right; however, there are still author's rights, there are still commercial uses, there are still abuses from record companies and from RMOs; we in PIRATA think that, as long as we're demanding what we find fair about sharing, we should give protection to authors against record companies and RMOs, even banning those abusing companies/RMOs.<br><br><< <span style="font-style: italic;">Intellectual property</span>?<br><br>I know it's not mentioned in the declaration; however it's also a problem to
have it not mentioned at all, as -same as we did in our answer to EC about levies- it's really important to fight the semantic battle, to pursue the erradication of any use of the name <span style="font-style: italic;">intellectual property</span>. <br><br>> Patents<br><br>There are many concepts missing: not shelving patents -it's not forbidden in any parts of the world, and we should keep it forbidden in the EU countries where it's already forbidden; any patent should be commercially exploitable-; we also recommend that, as long as the patent holder receives the royalties, anyone should be allowed to commercially exploit any patent; and some other points regarding patents, as it's a complex issue that we think shouldn't be treated too quickly.<br><br>> Civil rights<br><br>Granting same rights inside and outside Internet should be remarked, as most citizens are not usual Internet users, so they are not so concerned about attacks on rights and
liberties on Internet; and those attacks, when become true, are easily applicable in non-Internet laws and cases-.<br><br>Also is missed a condemn against violence used to make political claims outside the law, as well as against attacks on life or integrity of people, and the exclusion or prosecution of people because of their ideology, religion or beliefs, nationality, ethnic origin, gender or sexual preferences.<br><br><< Information Society<br><br>What about universalizing Internet? what about FLOSS and the problems originated by proprietary software in the public offices? what about net neutrality? everything about information Society is missing in the declaration<br><br>XX> Voting strategy<br><br>Is it really required in a "<span style="font-style: italic;">basic plattform</span> <span style="font-style: italic;">for the European Parliaments election of 2009</span>"
-like Marten defines the declaration at the beginning of his mail-? That would may be found normal in a Uppsala briefing about PR strategies ... however, in a declaration that pretends itself to be a political platform, is skippable.<br><br>XX> EP strategy<br><br>> While working with different issues in the EU, we will keep in mind the principles that we think should be the guiding<br>> stars of the EU itself:<br><br>When has become the internal EU politics part of the PPI core issues? It exceeds PIRATA ideological scope, and even if it didn't, it requires a pretty deep debate longer than 1-2 days.<br><br><hr style="width: 100%; height: 2px;"><br>We in PIRATA think that such Uppsala Declaration need to be completely reviewed, for the good of PPI; and French, Polish and Spanish pirate parties have to be included in the reviewing.
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 <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">Correo Yahoo!</a><br>La bandeja de entrada más inteligente.<br></font></body></html>