<!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">
Reinier Bakels wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:8EFBB1DEEAA542A2A17760C50D641511@RBB2008"
type="cite">My experience is that it is not very helpful at all to
refer to human rights considerations in a political context. Political
arguments are different from legal arguments anyway, and if you still
want to address specific legal issues or proposals, it is helpful to be
careful not to give your opponents (IFPI etc.) the arguments for
saying: these people are irresponsible. That risk is particularly high
with human rights.
<br>
</blockquote>
If the opponents are going to say that, I'm going to laugh at them
-people who knows about RMOs in Spain vary from laughing to blaming
RMOs when they publicly dismiss human rights like privacy -violated by
SGAE-, right to associate -violated by SGAE-, obligation to have inner
democracy within an association -violated by SGAE-, etc.<br>
<br>
The thing is, Reinier: do you find irresponsible that we, in PPI, refer
to human rights? Truly, as long as PIRATA refer, in its very Statute,
to human rights and UDHR, it doesn't matter to me; human rights are so
important for us that what seems irresponsible for me is to dismiss
them.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:8EFBB1DEEAA542A2A17760C50D641511@RBB2008"
type="cite">And for copyright, there are the collective rights
organisations. This is a complete Sodom & Gomorra.</blockquote>
<a href="http://www.imdb.com/find?s=all&q=gomorra">Gomorra</a>, yes.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:8EFBB1DEEAA542A2A17760C50D641511@RBB2008"
type="cite"> Incidentally, authors who use the services of such
organisations loose the right to prohibit publications - which is a
central (also moral) aspect of the copyright as it was designed. And
the levies.<br>
</blockquote>
There is a proverb, "<i>you are preaching a converse</i>" -about the
harm made by levies and RMOs; about other issues we are actual and
obviously antagonists-; I think that the PPI answers to the levies
consultation already show how we reject levies and how we reject the
current role of RMOs -the problem is not in RMOs existing, but in RMOs
hijacking some author's rights (RMOs must serve authors, not the
opposite)-.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:8EFBB1DEEAA542A2A17760C50D641511@RBB2008"
type="cite">And isn't - in practice - the prime task of the PP to
counter the dominance of the distributors, who are no longer needed in
the Internet era - and try to prolong their life by ugly legal methods?
This calls for better copyright contract law, among other things.<br>
</blockquote>
This call, first of all, to forget the <i>c word</i> and the <i>intellectual
pro...whatever</i> concept; and talk about author's rights. If you are
so worried about RMOs, first of all I think you should avoid to use
they language.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:8EFBB1DEEAA542A2A17760C50D641511@RBB2008"
type="cite">But stay away from human rights.</blockquote>
I have to wholeheartedly say that I totally dismiss <i>advices</i>
like "<i>stay away from human rights</i>" -whatever the context in
which such words may be said-.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:8EFBB1DEEAA542A2A17760C50D641511@RBB2008"
type="cite">As you all know, I have extensively cooperated in the
campaign against software patents. But I always advised my fellow
activists not to use amateur human rights arguments.</blockquote>
Bad for them if they paid attention to such <i>advices</i>. In EU,
biopatents are allowed; in EU, monopolies from patents can arise; while
the EU patent system may not present as much problems as US system, it
indeed has problems.<br>
<br>
And strictly about software patents, why is it so bothering to you to
hear your fellow activists to talk about, e.g., the <a
href="http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/03/rim-ntp-settle-for-612-million-finally/">Blackberry
(RIM vs NTP) scandal</a> and other <b>real</b> dangers of the US
patent system? It's a great idea to show how things are in other
countries, to convince people to not follow bad examples, and it of
course can be done within the software patents concept.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:8EFBB1DEEAA542A2A17760C50D641511@RBB2008"
type="cite">If only because - at best - their efforts will duplicate
the work of real lawyers, while no one cares for the social substance
of the problem, e.g. the (alleged) stiffling effects of software
patents.</blockquote>
There is a misconception about the importance of real lawyers: being a
real lawyer doesn't imply that such lawyer is going to give you good
advices, or that is going to make good usage of laws; simply, it
implies that such lawyer knows about laws. However, that knowledge can
be used for evilish purposes -I see it in Spain, where Law scholars,
even constitutional experts, while I don't doubt that they perfectly
know about Spanish Constitution and constitutionalism, I neither doubt
about the reasons for their lies about those issues-.<br>
<br>
If a trustable lawyer tells me "<i>you cannot inmediately adapt all the
system; you can change the framework for new items, and manage a
transitional period for old items to harmonize</i>", I'll make usage of
the lawyer's wisdom, as long as that lawyer shows how to make changes
without violating rule of law. However, if that lawyer states "<i>you
cannot adapt the system</i>" ... I search for other lawyer.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:8EFBB1DEEAA542A2A17760C50D641511@RBB2008"
type="cite">Then you get the kind of conversation: "This is a
disaster all over Europe". Answer: "Give me one example" - and then
there no example, but just hearsay from the US (where the patent system
is definitely different).
<br>
<br>
To some extent it is a blessing in disguise, that the disasters in the
field of copyright are more obvious. On the other hand, the PP
arguments are slightly counter intuitive vs. the "poor" artists.<br>
</blockquote>
Again, I disagree with your unjustified viewpoints. How do you say that
PPI (not PP, we are not PP) arguments are slightly counter intuitive?<br>
<br>
- having less than 1.000 <i>poor artists</i> controlling a
85.000-member RMO like SGAE is pretty intuitive and people who knows
about it understands it very quickly<br>
- collecting a fee for media and devices, no matter whether you are
going to use them for copyrighted works or not, is pretty intuitive<br>
- dangers of initiatives like US <i>Choruss</i> and France's <i>Olivennes
Agreement</i> -their threats against privacy and other fundamental
rights (those rights you <i>advice</i> to stay away from ... no
thanks)- are pretty intuitive.<br>
<br>
And I don't talk about PPI supporters; I talk about people who have
never heard about us, hairdressers, bartenders, etc, who after hearing
the wonders made by RMOs inmediately understand the threat that it
implies. So please don't be so disrespectful with our arguments.<br>
<br>
<br>
Carlos Ayala<br>
( Aiarakoa )<br>
<br>
Partido Pirata National Board's Chairman<br>
</body>
</html>