<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 01/27/15 14:18, carlo von lynX
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:20150127131847.GA9922@lo.psyced.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 12:30:25PM +0100, Amelia Andersdotter wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Unfortunately there is little choice. Julia's report is cautious and
disingenous. She is actually hindering the European Commission from
being as reformist as the Commission wants to be.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
This is an interesting point we should have debated collectively and
given Julia guidance in due time. How have you reached out to her?
How have you reached out for the Pirate movement to give feedback?
Should we have founded a PP-EU Working Group on Copyright to dissect
these points? Should we have deliberated an official European Pirates
position on a euroliquid platform that by shameful events hasn't been
instantiated?
One thing I know for sure is that having one of the last prominent
figures in the Pirate movement publicly criticizing another of the
last prominent figures by communicating via the media has been
exactly the sort of problem resolution strategy that has driven the
popularity of the Piratenpartei below the surface. Public squabbles
is seen in the population as the main reason to not take us seriously.
It may seem way too late now, but I would propose to create the
necessary decisional platform for the Pirate Movement to collectively
pass a regulation for ALL Pirate Parties to forbid individuals from
criticizing Pirate representatives via the public media UNLESS there
has been a legitimate collective process that comes to the conclusion
that parliamentary XY has been acting outside the Pirate consensus.
What do you think of that?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://juliareda.eu/2015/01/press-release-eu-copyright-report/">https://juliareda.eu/2015/01/press-release-eu-copyright-report/</a><br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.discuto.io/en/consultation/6240">https://www.discuto.io/en/consultation/6240</a><br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://twitter.com/senficon/status/557173214615711744">https://twitter.com/senficon/status/557173214615711744</a><br>
<br>
Do you have comments, criticism or additions to my report on EU <a
href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/copyright?src=hash"
data-query-source="hashtag_click" class="twitter-hashtag
pretty-link js-nav" dir="ltr"><s>#</s><b>copyright</b></a>? You
can share them here: <a href="https://t.co/64gAWRC3bm"
rel="nofollow" dir="ltr"
data-expanded-url="https://www.discuto.io/consultation/6240"
class="twitter-timeline-link" target="_blank"
title="https://www.discuto.io/consultation/6240"><span
class="tco-ellipsis"></span><span class="invisible">https://www.</span><span
class="js-display-url">discuto.io/consultation/6</span><span
class="invisible">240</span><span class="tco-ellipsis"><span
class="invisible"> </span>…</span></a><br>
<br>
<br>
So doing a bit of research i got these links. <br>
<br>
Because there is no liquid it the input was done via discuto. If you
have a look you see generally a lot of approval with the voters on
everything. <br>
So how come Julia gets the shitstorm?<br>
Also i think not everything in the torrentfreak article was fair
critisism. in the report articles 12 13 14 (numbered 18 19 20) seem
pretty piratey to me.<br>
<br>
<span class="text_paragraph current no_tracking">13. Calls for the
adoption of an open norm introducing flexibility in the
interpretation of exceptions and limitations in certain special
cases that do not conflict with the normal exploitation of the
work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of
the author or rightholder;<br>
</span><br>
<span class="text_paragraph current no_tracking"><span
class="text_paragraph current no_tracking">14. Urges the
European legislator to ensure technological neutrality and
future-compatibility of exceptions and limitations by taking due
account of the effects of media convergence; in particular, the
exception for quotation should expressly include audio-visual
quotations in its scope;<br>
<br>
13 seems to be the remixing clause<br>
14 seems to be the anti-drm clause.<br>
<br>
in the TF article however, this is written:<br>
<br>
"</span></span><br>
<span class="text_paragraph current no_tracking"><span
class="text_paragraph current no_tracking">While the Commission
acknowledges remixing and transformative uses are important to a
large number of users, Julia ”notices with interest” that
remixing occurs. She praises the level of balancing between
rightsholders’ interests that the European copyright laws
achieve. The Commission acknowledges instead that neither
citizens or authors feel that such a balance exists. Is she
making anyone happy?<br>
"<br>
<br>
well i think that clause 13 does more than "noticing with
interest". And i would like to see where the commission has put
forward more progressive stuff about this because it would be
the first positive thing i hear about oetinger.<br>
<br>
<br>
I prefer to hear solutions not problems. I dont think Carlo's
solution is the right one, but i applaud him for at least coming
up with one.<br>
<br>
<br>
</span></span>
</body>
</html>