This wiki is closed and NOT maintained! The up-to-date PPI wiki can be found at https://wiki.pp-international.net

<

Talk:Levies Questionnaire

From pp International
Jump to: navigation, search

Comments on introduction

A basic question about levies: Why compensate?' Teirdes 00:52, 7 April 2008 (CEST) Does it serve a particular purpose telling the European Commission that they are making unvalid assumptions? From a semantic perspective, I believe it is better to disregard the validity of of their presumed assumption and state that no economic harm is done immediately.

  • Aiarakoa 14:24, 7 April 2008 (CEST) Though I was taught to avoid unnecessary quarrels when carrying a negotiation, I was also taught to inmediately cut tricks by slapping tricksters with the truth; and EC is a huge trickster.
    • One may ask 200K € for a flat due to sourrounding flats having been sold at simmilar prices -false, as you know that such flats were sold for 175K €-, and you may have some options, for instance:
      • explaining that the real price for that flat is 175K €, but finding the owner stuck with the 200K € price; and falling into a stalemate
      • explaining that the real price for that flat is 175K € because sourrounding flats were sold for approx. that amount of cash;
    • are you implicitly calling the flat owner liar? of course, however, apart from the fact that you aren't explicitly calling him/her liar:
      • you're giving facts
      • you're showing a 116 % professional behaviour
      • you're showing that you know what you are talking about
    • so different things may happen
      • the flat owner, willing to sell, would accept that their arguments are false and agreeing to come to terms
        • it usually happened, as usually flat owners who negotiate the sale of their flats, are truly willing to sell
      • the flat owner, not needing/willing to sell, would dismiss the truth and search for the stalemate
        • in the EC case, it would come for international shame if they're caught working with bold lies

Teirdes 00:52, 7 April 2008 (CEST) Is peer-to-peer really only a form of private copying in some EU countries? Is there currently any nation where peer-to-peer does not allow peers to copy things from their harddrives to other peers?

  • Aiarakoa 11:33, 7 April 2008 (CEST) For instance, UK. Most Member States have private copying, but not all.

Teirdes 00:52, 7 April 2008 (CEST) Is there a particular purpose to using long Stephan Kinsella quotes on the nature of material goods? It could be better to simply refer to Kinsella for a more thorough discussion on the nature of property and leave our reply to state that immaterial goods per definition have the ability to be as abundant as we want, and that the internet in fact makes it impossible for it not to be that way.

  • Aiarakoa 11:33, 7 April 2008 (CEST) RMOs always accuse those who question the actual definition of author's rights as being agains private property; showing defenders of private property like Stephan Kinsella stating why author's rights are not private -intellectual- property will blow away such accusations. Also, with which quotation in particular do you have any problem? Maybe with the Thomas Jefferson's? with the lawnmower's? with the might vs right 's? The point in expliciting quotations is use those quotations because of their inherent value. Do you find them valuable? I do; don't you? Why?

Teirdes 00:52, 7 April 2008 (CEST) The Betamax case seems to imply the non-need for levies in one particular case of technology. Can it be used to state in a general manner that there is no economic loss to be compensated? Would it not be better to refer to any of the countless scientific reports that state that file-sharing does not pose a harm? I know such reports have been published in both sweden and the US. I'll look for references.

  • Aiarakoa 11:33, 7 April 2008 (CEST)It would be great to also refer to any of the countless -it's so good to have so many, because you'll be able to link some of those reports here, as I've done with the Betamax case-. Why to choose? Giving scientific reports, court judgments ... the key lies in giving variety of arguments, showing EC that there is no room for levies and that this statement is supported from many viewpoints. Why to empoverish, when we can enrich our stance?

About the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Article 27.

  • (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
  • (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

We'll have serious problems trying to argue against how no harm is done to the author if we refer to a declaration of rights protecting morality of copyright. Because there is a loss of morality in that an artist can no longer be said to control what routes the distribution takes.

Ole Husgaard 20:57, 16 April 2008 (CEST) This is about the two aspects of copyright:

  1. The ideal copyright, aka "droit moral". This is the right of the author to have his name on the work. We support that right.
  2. The monopoly given by copyright, giving the rightsholder a right to forbid others from copying his wirk, thus making it possible for him to extort money from people who want to copy (or make available to the public). We only support this in a limited form (only if commercial, and only for five years.


Aiarakoa 21:53, 5 April 2008 (CEST) Moral rights refer to authorship, material rights refer to copyright; so UDHR does not talk about morality of copyright, it's simply declaring two different kind of rights whose entitled owners are the authors -and scientists, etc-. What we do questioning levies, copyright lifespan, etc ... is not questioning UDHR -as it declares those rights- but redefining those rights.

Comments on question 19:

I removed the part about Rüffert and Laval. We can't put those in to the replies of a questionnaire without soundig partial. What do we mean by the EU being "hypocritical"? Is it OK for them to dump wages and let Polish people work for slave wages? Or is it only OK for them to do so if the rest of us get to file-share without levies? Is it not OK for them to neither let Polish people have slave wages nor for them to let us file-share freely? The questions raised by such a comparison are far more than the questions answered. Teirdes 18:01, 5 April 2008 (CEST)

Aiarakoa 04:25, 6 April 2008 (CEST) I'm pretty sure that you didn't understand what I said with "how hypocrite European Commission is, denying free movement of goods when talking about levies, and denying Polish workers right to earn as much money as German workers when talking about salaries (and when talking about both of them working in the same place, namely Germany)". What I'm not as sure is about what do you mean with your words.

Because I may interprete your words as if you suggest that I'm saying that is OK to fileshare without levies if Polish people have slave wages ... and such suggestion would be surrealistic and fully wrong; and because of being surrealistic and fully wrong, I think you couldn't mean it. So what did you mean with those words?

What I meant with mines ... the hypocrisy of EC would come from the fact of interpreting Treaty of Rome according to their convenience, apparently defending one thing while truly defending the opposite:

  • denying Polish workers right to earn as much money as German workers when talking about salaries is -to me- equal to denying Polish workers free movement within EU -as they would be forced to choose between working in Germany, earning Polish salaries while paying German-like prices; or staying in Poland (as German companies would only hire them through Poland-based outsourcing companies)-
    • it's very important to point that, though being Polish workers, they would work in Germany, so we are talking about German working terms
  • denying everyone the chance of buying any goods in a different Member State is -to me- equal to denying those goods free movement within EU -specially when EU bodies claim to search for "an internal market characterised by the abolition, as between Member States, of obstacles to the free movement of goods"-
    • it's very important to point that the goods would be bought at the Member State with cheaper prices and lesser levies -and maybe even lesser taxes-; if those goods would be going to be resold at the Member State with higher levies, ok, that Member State's rules should be applied

EU bodies conculcating Treaty of Rome principles -namely, free movements of goods & person (will always be needed to remember that are not the same thing)- comes to be, at least for me, a quite worrying trouble in terms of rule of the law, and this is what I was pointing. What did you pointed with your words?

Aiarakoa 04:25, 6 April 2008 (CEST) The Oberlandesgericht Celle said in their substantiation to the ECJ:

  • "The court of reference observes in this regard that the commitment to comply with the collective agreements, which construction companies of other Member States must make under the Landesvergabegesetz, obliges them to adapt the wages they pay to their workers to the normally higher level of remuneration in force at the place where the work is carried out in Germany. As a result, they lose the competitive advantage which they enjoy by reason of their lower wage costs. Consequently, according to the court of reference, the obligation to pay the collectively agreed wage constitutes an impediment to market access for persons or undertakings from other Member States"
  • "It finds in favour of the view that the obligation to pay the collectively agreed wage cannot be considered to meet overriding requirements relating to the public interest. To the extent that it contributes to protecting German building undertakings from competition from other Member States, in the view of the court of reference such an obligation serves an economic purpose, which according to the case-law of the Court cannot constitute an overriding requirement relating to the public interest justifying a restriction on the freedom to provide services."

The Oberlandesgericht Celle\'s question to ECJ was: "Does it amount to an unjustified restriction on the freedom to provide services under the EC Treaty if a public contracting authority is required by statute to award contracts for building services only to undertakings which, when lodging a tender, undertake in writing to pay their employees, when performing those services, at least the remuneration prescribed by the collective agreement in force at the place where those services are performed?’"

The ECJ's answer, "Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services, interpreted in the light of Article 49 EC, precludes an authority of a Member State, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, from adopting a measure of a legislative nature requiring the contracting authority to designate as contractors for public works contracts only those undertakings which, when submitting their tenders, agree in writing to pay their employees, in return for performance of the services concerned, at least the remuneration prescribed by the collective agreement the minimum wage in force at the place where those services are performed."

Finally, not only there is a lack of admonition from ECJ to Oberlandesgericht Celle -ECJ agrees with it-, but also ECJ's jugdment points that "the case‑file submitted to the Court contains no evidence to support the conclusion that the protection resulting from such a rate of pay – which, moreover, as the national court also notes, exceeds the minimum rate of pay applicable pursuant to the AEntG – is necessary for a construction sector worker only when he is employed in the context of a public works contract but not when he is employed in the context of a private contract" thus instead criticising the Landesvergabegesetz minimum wages, which would exceed the minimum rate applicable pursuant to the AEntG; considering that Polish workers were earning 46'57 % of LVG's minimum wages, and if Polish workers' wages were observing AEntG, LVG's minimum wages had to be extremely high ...

Teirdes 23:20, 6 April 2008 (CEST): What I meant was, by referring to Laval and Rüffert (btw: I think those cases are both disastrous and horribly wrong) by clamining HYPOCRICY, you're basically saying that they're not consequent in their judgements. In logics:

  • IF Polish people get slave wages, THEN we can't have levies.

Now, I don't want Polish people to have slave wages, so the opposite would be:

  • IF Polish people DON'T get slave wages, THEN we must have levies.

You're putting Polish workers in a rather tight spot here, because personally, I'd rather pay a levy than revert to the slave system.

Another way of looking at it is, actually, that they're being entirely consistent:

  • IF Polish people get slave wages, that is NOT good.
  • IF we pay levies, that is also NOT good.

Therefore, the Europeans lose in both situations and the European Commission has been entirely consequent in judging against the favour of the people.

Aiarakoa 11:53, 7 April 2008 (CEST) Come on, for John's sake: didn't I put crystal clear, 2-3 paragraphs above, what I meant with hypocrisy? It's fine for you to have an opinion about EU bodies' hypocrisy, but if you talk about my opinion, my opinion is that the hypocrisy for EU bodies lies on supposedly defending free movement of goods, capitals, people and services, but in the other hand obstaculizing free movement of goods and people. And according to dictionary, saying the opposite of what one's thinking and/or doing is being a hypocrite.

  • Then why do you insist in saying that I would supposedly be "putting Polish workers in a rather tight spot here, because personally", you'd "rather pay a levy than revert to the slave system". Amelia, truly, saying that I put Polish workers in a rather tight spot is as false as offensive.
  • Of course European Commission -and also European Court of Justice, because I talk about EU bodies (I don't know what are you talking about, when you refer to my words)- decide ... not always -remember Telefonica vs Promusicae, for instance-, but way too often, against the favour of EU citizens. Is it, however, consequent with the Treaty of Rome principles that those EU bodies' members sworn to defend? No, it isn't.
  • Now please read again: "how hypocrite European Commission is, denying free movement of goods when talking about levies, and denying Polish workers right to earn as much money as German workers when talking about salaries (and when talking about both of them working in the same place, namely Germany)"; and now, compare with the other statement, "the hypocrisy for EU bodies lies on supposedly defending free movement of goods, capitals, people and services, but in the other hand obstaculizing free movement of goods and people".
    • You, self-declared fan of semantics -and I guess that also of grammar-, can you see the difference between copulative conjunctions -and- and adversative conjunctions -but-?
    • So, please recant from such statements about my viewpoints.

Distribution issues

Aiarakoa 19:56, 10 April 2008 (CEST) About "FIXME: I believe the rights of photographers are irrelevant here! Only the rights of the creators ("authors") of the photographed works matter imho. RBB", actually Photography is taught in Fine Arts Colleges (Spanish)