<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Reinier Bakels wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:007601c96695$8ef5bf40$6400a8c0@RBB2007"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; ">
<meta content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16705" name="GENERATOR">
<style></style>
<div><font color="#0000ff">Some comments:</font></div>
<div><font color="#0000ff">- I am afraid this war is over, there is
little to do against it.</font></div>
</blockquote>
First of all, we can report about it. Later, if we achieve
representation in Europarliament, we can go further.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:007601c96695$8ef5bf40$6400a8c0@RBB2007"
type="cite">
<div><font color="#0000ff">- Having said that, please note that the
scope is relatively limited (of the Spanish transposition is not, the
ECJ may correct it).</font> <font color="#0000ff">It is only for works
of art like paintings that are sold via professional art galeries and
auctions, and there is a threshold.</font></div>
</blockquote>
While it's restricted, it's enough to be harmful.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:007601c96695$8ef5bf40$6400a8c0@RBB2007"
type="cite">
<div><font color="#0000ff">- The purpose is to prevent the "Vincent
van Gogh" syndrome: a poor painter selling his works for next to
nothing because heen needs the money quickly, finding that only a few
years later his works are traded for zillions of euro's. Isn't that
a noble, social purpose?</font></div>
</blockquote>
And the <i>van Gogh syndrome</i> also forces EU to calculate the levy
from the resale price instead of the increase of value -i.e.,
collecting the levy even where there is a loss in the resale-? The <i>van
Gogh syndrome</i> is just an excuse.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:007601c96695$8ef5bf40$6400a8c0@RBB2007"
type="cite">
<div><font color="#0000ff">- This situation leads to the more general
question: what is *justice* if someone created something, and got very
little money for it - that later turned out to be VERY valuable. It is
a kind of market failure that can not be remedied by "internalisation".
Sometimes copyright and patent law can help, but not always: copyright
does not prevent the sale of a physical painting. In basic science, the
problem is probably even worse: there are often decades if not
centuries between scientific discoveries and actual application.</font></div>
</blockquote>
We are not talking about inventions, but about intellectual works
-furthermore, the levy is not applied to the intellectual work but to
the physical medium where the work is placed!-. You are asked to make a
painting, you agree a price, you sell the painting, you earn the money;
isn't it enough? Collecting levies for further resales seems abusive to
me.<br>
<br>
<br>
Carlos Ayala<br>
( Aiarakoa )<br>
<br>
Partido Pirata National Board's Chairman
</body>
</html>