<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Reinier Bakels <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:r.bakels@pr.unimaas.nl">r.bakels@pr.unimaas.nl</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
About that FUD in the newspaper, we can also note some things:<br>
* it's an "action" of our enemies<br>
* but it's not a single action, they have their "philosophy" behind all of their actions. This is how they achieve to attack in all fronts, with the appearance of being coherent with themselves.<br>
* without their "philosophy", they would had never achieved so much restrictions and "intellectual property" laws.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Their filo$ophy is to make money, by exploiting present copyright to a maximum extent, while striving at low cost enforcement, which is criminal law.<br>
<br>
We badly need some sort of "fair use" regulation, instead of the present law that considers all copying (even of my own legally objtained CDs onto a MP3 player!) "reserved" acts in the sense of copyright.<br>
<br>
In an economic sense, information (eventually the object of copyright) is a "public good". Externalities can be internalised IF the cost of internalisation does not exceed the benefit. One way to achieve that is to let the taxpayer pay for copyright enforcement! Via criminal enforcement (effectively creating another - negative - externality). Incidentally, one of the objectives of criminal law is to deter potential tresspassers. If the probability to get caught is low, the substance of the threat must by very terrifying. Like renowned copyright professor Hugenholtz said some years ago: "why not the death penalty"?<br>
<br>
Solutions for a more balanced copyright have already been given (although admittedly on a fairly theoretical level): <a href="http://www.ip.mpg.de/ww/de/pub/aktuelles/declaration_on_the_three_step_/declaration.cfm" target="_blank">http://www.ip.mpg.de/ww/de/pub/aktuelles/declaration_on_the_three_step_/declaration.cfm</a><br>
While this is really a modest approach (within present law!) such proposals should not be ignored imho.<br>
</blockquote><div><br>Totally agree. <br><br>There are more "pirate" issues, though:<br>* software patents<br>* privacy violations: CCTV cameras everywhere, RFID tags in ourselves<br>* freedom/security balance<br>
* etc<br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Perhaps the easiest "counter-philosophy" is top argue that the persistent reference to the interests of (allegedly) poor artists is false and dishonest: they are only exploited as a pretext for the greed of record companies.</blockquote>
<div><br>So we need a "philosophy", which is supposed to be the Manifesto.<br>The Manifesto needs to address all (or most of) the main core issues, in a way that we all agree.<br><br>When we have the manifesto, we will be able to fight back the copyright lobby and all the other menaces to our freedoms.<br>
<br><br>Cheers,<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>
<br>
reinier <br>
____________________________________________________<br>
Pirate Parties International - General Talk<br>
<a href="mailto:pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net" target="_blank">pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general" target="_blank">http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br>