<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 1:46 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;"><div class="Ih2E3d">
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><div class="Ih2E3d">
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>
</div></blockquote>
</blockquote><div> <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;">
OK ,we are getting close now. To play the devils advocate:</blockquote><div><br>Right, you're opposing the Pirate core issues in the Pirate Party International list...<br><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;">
* Doesn't someone who contributes a brilliant trick for building software have the "human" right of a software patent? It is his (her) labour and creativity, anyhow ...</blockquote><div><br>I'm a software developer, so I can't ask this question.<br>
<br>1) Patents are not a human right<br>2) The right should not be for this "someone", but for the whole "society". Software patents aren't a benefit fot the society<br>3) I'm "standing on shoulders of giants". I can do "this brilliant trick" because the giants didn't patent their inventions!<br>
4) Computer Science is just like maths. Maths can't be patented<br>5) If there where software patents, I could not make a living from programing, as every single idea on software is patented (see "double click")<br>
6) etc... lots of other arguments that have been debated for years, and that I should not repeat.<br><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;">
* Don't we need pervasive surveillance in a world full of terrorist threat + "ordinary" criminality such as street violence? Isn't personal integrity a human right? Elderly people are very happy if cameras are installed e.g. in public transportation because it gives them a feeling of safety.</blockquote>
<div><br>No, as it has been demonstrated (lots of times) that surveillance cameras don't cause any decline in crimes.<br>Well, prisons have lots of surveillance (cameras, guards, fences, etc) and drugs, cellphones and weapons are smuggled all the time, and violent crimes are commited again and again...<br>
<br>Even it that wasn't true, I stil prefer to live with the menace of terrorism that with the menace of a totalitarian state.<br><br><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;">
These arguments - I repeat - are by no means nonsensical. The proponents of such ideas only make different trade-offs.<br>
</blockquote><div><br>No trade-off.<br>They just took these measures, without debates, without consulting the experts, without the public opinion. They did it <i>por cojones</i>[1], because it was beneficial for the lobbies who confused, bribed and lied to them. Just like the "draconian copyright restrictions on music" that you mentioned before.<br>
<br><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;">
In sum, if you need a philosophy, human rights simply do not give the answers. It is the trade-off that matters. Restore the balance. Which needs counterweight on the political balance. Which is the PP.</blockquote><div>
</div><div>I haven't mentioned the Human Rights yet. Why do you mention it so often? Are you really against HR?<br><br>I agree with the trade-off & conterbalance theory, but only in the appropiate cases.<br>* No "trade-off" possible in the software patents system, as it is inherently <b>EVIL</b><br>
* A possible trade-off in certain cases about the security cameras (ie. put them only in the most critical places, put the cameras pointing the politicians, etc) as long as they don't steal my freedom and privacy.<br>
* A possible trade-off with the music & movies copyright: they can keep some restrictions against the comercial use, but not against the non-comercial use (and NEVER messing with my comunications, my privacy, my software...)<br>
<br><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;">
Last monday I heard a visionary lecture about the future of copyright, by a renowned professor who is known to be critical on copyright proliferation. Harmonisation in Europe is a failure, despite numerous diectives. We need a European copyright act. Which should be fundamentally restructured. Presently, the conntinental European "authors right" system has "limitations and restrictions". Actually, with the Anglo-Saxon "fair use" principle it is not essentially different: the suggestion of such regulations is that the principle is a very broad right, while the "limitations and restrictions" are the exceptions. The professor argued that a very different perspective is needed: it is wrong to talk about exceptions: they are an integral part of the regulation. Some have argued that is better to talk about "user rights".</blockquote>
<div><br>So, again to my point: they have their philosophy, so they can achieve their abjectives and take out our rights.<br>We need our philosophy (manifesto), so we can fight them.<br><br><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;">
Having said all this, I am afraid it is very ambitious for the PP to propose some sort of 21th century copyright blueprint. Altering the utterly unbalanced political decision making process is a realistic, short-term objective, and, realistically, a major overhaul of copyright is unlikely anyway. Small steps should lead the way. For a political party, it is pretty logical to limit (at least initially) the ambition to improving the process. Not: economists say A so you should adopt regulation B, but: have you asked expert advice from economists (preferably more than one!), and have you taken that advice into account?</blockquote>
<div><br>Right, but:<br>1) this steps are consensed (PPI),<br>2) this steps are part of a long-term strategy (PPI Manifesto)<br>Else the steps will fail.<br> <br><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;">
As I reported earlier, the EU Commission recently blatantly ignored advice it actually commissioned (=paid) itself! <a href="http://www.ivir.nl/nieuws/open_letter_concerning_european_commissions_intellectual_property_package.html" target="_blank">http://www.ivir.nl/nieuws/open_letter_concerning_european_commissions_intellectual_property_package.html</a><br>
</blockquote><div><br>EU Comission = Evil<br> <br><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;">
Incidentally, for a more balanced decision making no political reforms are required: if only the PP is there, it can exert influence! It is the "catalytic" approach I recommended earlier. Asking questions will also trigger other politicans.</blockquote>
<div><br>Right, but some points cannot be debated. Some issues are out of the debate.<br><br>Ie, if they propose "to kill 1.000 people", shall be recommend "to kill only 500 people"? "to kill only 10 people"? No, we should defend "don't kill nobody". It's not a trade-off.<br>
<br><br>Cheers,<br><br><br>David</div></div>