[Algemeen] Ontwerp verkiezingsprogramma Groenlinks

[jeroen op bohol.ph]

Hi Reinier (Good to see you here...)

PP has of course some unique selling points:

- no compromise stance on the three core positions: privacy, copyright  
and patent right.

- a thought provoking name, that might also attract protest votes.

I think it will be stupid to attack those who are closest to you in your
position. Unless you have hard-as-concrete evidence that GL intends to cheat
voters on this position, we should accept their position as a valid  
and genuine
one, and the best way to make sure that they will follow through it by
cooperating on that area, and get some commitments on that stance, so  
it will be
harder for them to drop it later-on.

We also have some weaknesses...

- one issue. Yes it will be used against us, especially since a lot of
people will not automatically understand the gravity of the issue. We really
need to do some convincing here. Just look at the various internet fora how
many people support copyrights with wrong arguments. They can't just  
be all BREIN sock-puppets...

- What can we do with one seat, or even five... Our core positions will be
extremely hard to achieve even if the PP obtains five seats, and five,  
most will say that is highly unrealistic. (But note the Swedish  
precedent!) Copyright is highly entrenched in international treaties,  
and you cannot revoke those overnight. You will need to pull out all  
the political trickery and legal wrangling you can think of to  
actually make rights-holders wish they never had those excessive  
copyright or patent rights at all, or give them sweet enough deals to  
give them up voluntarily. Of course we can start ending ridiculous  
benefits currently being given to rights-holders, such as very lax tax  
regimes for all products that somehow involve proprietary rights --  
sweet enough for U2 to make them settle in Amsterdam, leaving Europe's  
tax haven number one, Ireland.

Just an example of the kind of ideas you good explore: The PP wants to  
have far shorter copyright terms. Excessive copyrights actually have  
very little current value. The 15% VAT cut we currently have on  
cultural productions is worth far more than the entire current value  
of the copyright after the first 20 years, so we can abolish the VAT  
cut, and reintroduce it as a tit-for-tat deal. You get your VAT cut,  
we get an irrevocable PD dedication in return. It only won't work for  
those few classic works that are already in their "long tail"

However, most important is that we need to build alliances with people  
who actually produce cultural goods. The one's for whose benefit the  
entire
concept of copyright is justified with. If we can convince a large  
enough group of authors, musicians, and other creative types to say  
"Excessive Copyright, No Thanks!", the fight is almost fought...

We will have an easier task getting monsters like ACTA derailed. Of  
course the interests are considerable, but we have a number of natural  
alliances. The EP has already shown that it doesn't like being  
excluded in this game. Communication Providers do not want to pay for  
all the additional overhead. Banks need secure communications, and  
even some of the smarter law enforcement officials are highly  
concerned by the increased use of encrypted and veiled communication  
systems ACTA as currently envisioned will cause to evolve. -- each of  
these institutions represent a larger fraction of the economy than  
"Hollywood".

The problem here is that smart people are playing the "start high to  
achieve a lower target" game, similarly as we have seen when an  
extension of neighboring rights was proposed to 95 years. Any  
extension was outrageous, but still now some could cry victory that it  
came out 70 years -- but in fact, that was still outrageous. ACTA is  
downright evil, and we should not be happy until the uproar it starts  
to create has actually resulted in having LESS restraints than the  
current status quo.

Jeroen.



Quoting Reinier Bakels <r.bakels op planet.nl>:

> If PPNL is a serious endeavour, it should have an answer why it is   
> needed at all, in addition to Groen Links already supporting PP   
> views. It is never wise to "aim at competition" and to disparage   
> Groen Links, but if the question is asked, there must be a   
> "positioning" answer (preferably building on our own strength rather  
>  than a an alleged GL weakness)
>
> reinier