<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Ole Husgaard wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:49559249.6020001@sparre.dk" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I am glad to hear that PP.se agrees with PP.dk here. This is why we have protested that amendment 3 (aka. the RMS amendment) was removed shortly before the deadline for proposing amendments.
</pre>
</blockquote>
First: rightholders is not the same as authors -at least not currently;
e.g., Michael Jackson is holder of material rights on some Elvis and
Beatles songs-, and two of current three drafts doesn't merely talk
about rightholders, but about authors; second, the other draft includes
<i>Stallman's Amendment</i> -I have to say that I disagree with that
blocking attitude towards this issue, the attitude of avoiding debate-.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:49559249.6020001@sparre.dk" type="cite">
<pre wrap=""><!----><irony>If the law is about video surveilance, the views of producers of video surveilance cameras should be taken into account. We need to balance the interest of video surveilance camera producers against the interest of society.</irony>
</pre>
</blockquote>
Such simile doesn't apply, as long as there are few producers of video
surveillance but millions of authors -maybe <b>most citizens actually
are authors</b>-.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:49559249.6020001@sparre.dk" type="cite">
<pre wrap=""><irony weight="heavy">Video surveilance camera producers have a right to make money. If we outlaw video surveilance, we put an entire industry out of business. The surveilance camera producers have invested heavily in factories for producing their cameras, and outlawing video surveilance means that
these factories are worth nothing. But making the property of these factory owners worth nothing is a violation of the human right to property.</irony>
I hope you get my point.
</pre>
</blockquote>
It still doesn't apply.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:49559249.6020001@sparre.dk" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Policymaking is not about listening to all parties</pre>
</blockquote>
Oh, yes, it is. You may argue about which are the parties -i.e., who
are the stakeholders-; however, once identified, excluding one or some
of them I think that it's not appropriate.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:49559249.6020001@sparre.dk" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">When lobbyists put pressure on lazy politicians policymaking becomes dumb lawmaking where politicians think all parties have analyzed the issue at hand; where politicians think they only have to balance the interests of the interested parties to find a compromise.</pre>
</blockquote>
In my country, concerning author's rights, I don't know any MP who
thinks about balancing anything: they just fulfil the pro-copyright
lobbies' requests, only listen to labels and RMOs -which, by the way,
don't truly represent authors-. I don't know if things are different in
your country.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:49559249.6020001@sparre.dk" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Policymaking is about properly analyzing what you and others think might need to be changed.</pre>
</blockquote>
<b>Policymaking</b>, when you are a member of a parliament -i.e., <b>representative</b>
of eligible voters-, <b>is to represent eligible voters</b>. Of course
we would have a platform and people would give us a higher or lower
amount of votes (and, thus, of seats); however, we wouldn't be in
parliaments to do our will, but to do the will of eligible voters.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:49559249.6020001@sparre.dk" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">And then deciding what is best for the people and society as a whole.</pre>
</blockquote>
<blockquote cite="mid:49559249.6020001@sparre.dk" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Of course we need to listen to all involved parties to be able to fully analyze. But we also need to be critical of their motives. And we do not in general need to balance anything; we just need to find out what is best for the people and society as a whole</pre>
</blockquote>
What is best for the people and society as a whole must be decided by
the people and by the society as a whole -of course there won't never
be a 100 % consensus; however, to be as close as possible, all parts
have to be listened (specially in this case where we all are authors or
potential authors); and when I talk about stakeholders I don't talk
about a RMO like SGAE which has 85.000 members but only represents less
than 1.000 of them (because those less than 1.000 has more than 51 % of
rights to vote, thus controlling SGAE) ... I talk about collectives of
copyrighting and copylefting authors and interpreters which represent
hundreds of thousands, even millions of people; you said policymaking
would not be about listening all parts ... are you willing to leave
such amount of people out of such an important agreement?-.<br>
<br>
Deciding what is best for the people and society <b>without</b> the
people and society -or at least without significant parts of them- is
not a new doctrine, and I fully dislike it. Regards,<br>
<br>
<br>
Carlos Ayala<br>
( Aiarakoa )<br>
<br>
Partido
Pirata National Board's Chairman<br>
</body>
</html>