[Nuitari]

I'm going to be very upset if there is an attempt to ram this through without a great deal of discussion and calls from membership for it's inclusion into the platform.

You know full well it's been debated to great extents, you were there on the older forums.
None of the debates were conclusive.

As for the cost to ISPs, as pretty much all business have to collect GST and QST it shouldn't be hard for them to use the existing infrastructure to collect the levy.

There are many ways of implementing a levy, it could simply be a different GST rate for Residential Internet. Most accounting and billing software easily can handle that and it wouldn't be very hard to implement. It wouldn't even cost the ISP much.

I'd be inclined to vote against it too... Partly because ISP levy would likely be warped by existing parties into something akin to the Blank Media Levy which only started paying out to artists like last year or something despite being in place for over a decade.

Existing parties could also warp non-commercial file sharing once we get voted out...
The point is that once we're in power we get to implement our agenda, the way we like it.

[Mikkel Paulson]

It has been debated, but the idea of adding it as an official platform element has not. Is this a vote in principle, or are there specific points to this proposal?

[Jay Frank]

You know full well it's been debated to great extents, you were there on the older forums.
None of the debates were conclusive.

Why would you seek to add something to the platform that is inconclusive?
There is no call from membership for this to be implemented and I don't see it as something the majority would rally and unite behind.

It's my feeling that everyone agrees with the substance of the existing platform and to add ISP Levy to it will cause some division.
I know it certainly will for me as I have no desire to smite my employer or jack up our customers bills to promote "artist welfare".

J

[Jay Frank]

The platform writing was started after the last meeting, as per these minutes.

http://meetings.pirateparty.ca/2010-05-19_minutes.pdf

Mikkel posted in this thread the past discussions about the levy:

http://www.pirateparty.ca/forum/index.php?topic=108.msg0#new

Looking through these minutes and I see nothing about ISP Levy.

""Nuitari moved that the interim directors write the core platform, including
most of the details.""

If you mean this - well...my thoughts on this were that Directors would be working on more documentation for the EXISTING core platform points.
The second link posted leads to an error.

J

[Mikkel Paulson]

That's because I've merged the duplicate threads on the subject. The post in question can now be found earlier in this thread.

[Nuitari]

It has been debated, but the idea of adding it as an official platform element has not. Is this a vote in principle, or are there specific points to this proposal?

I think it would be part of the ideas we advance on copyright.
The plan itself is the 5th post in this thread. If it is rejected, then there should be a vote on the idea in principle.

One of the big problems is that publishers and the government are pushing this negative frame of pirates being freeloaders, which we aren't. We can't easily redirect this frame without looking like a bunch of 5 year olds (no it's you the freeloader), and the public at large still (sadly) equates CD sales as artist revenue.

The next option is to counter the frame, that is to present something strongly enough that it says that they are the ones that don't know what they are talking about. It's much harder and we need something convincing to do that. The levy goes into that direction as it says that we understand that artists might lose revenue (or perceived to lose), and we're ready to help artists that need the help.

Also, the levy is something that the WGC (Writer Guild of Canada) and the SAC (Songwriter Association of Canada) have asked. This could also help us gain a tremendous foothold with artistic organizations in Canada and make the frame seem even more Made in the USA.

We would of course take it out of the control of the CRIA and put it under the control of the government. And we'll make sure artists are paid in a timely manner. The government is already excellent at collecting money so that won't be a problem.

[Concerned Citizen]

The thing I dont like about levies is they presuppose that everyone is guilty of something. I have a stack of probably 50 DVD R/RWs on my desk and all of them have Linux ISOs on them. How much money have I been ripped off of because they presumed I was doing something with them that I was not?

It may be hard but redirecting the frame is possible but you do not try to reflect but deflect. All you need to do is get the public asking questions. 'Why isnt the levy money distribution public knowledge?' 'How exactly do these companies come up with their numbers for 'piracy'?' 'How come studies and surveys that suggest Pirates BUY MORE than your average consumer are being ignored or discredited?' You can always question the funding of any survey/study which a majority of it comes from the government or content provider industries. There needs to be more transparency in these surveys/studies...the problem is they fund things that will only agree with them so those researching are pushed in the direction with funding as the carrot and the stick.

[CraigNobbs]

After peeking at that PDF that Mikkel (Thanks for doing the btw Mikkel) posted, I recalled it instantly.  The entire idea was, at least in that thread, mine.  I have to say, that it being my idea that I thought I'd be involved in creating the document in some fashion...  which, I'm not.

Aside from that, I always maintained that it was the best idea that I could come up with and it wasn't one that I was particularly fond of either.  As a matter of fact, the vast majority of posts were against it with only a few being in favor, and the others undecided about it.  I cannot believe that we would actually attempt to vote on something like this without the biggest proponent (me) even have been part of the discussion of the creation of the document and being so heavily disliked/hated with the majority of the PPoC membership that we would try to make it part of our platform.

Having absolutely nothing to do with the fact that I wasn't involved in the creation of the document, I would be voting against it for the simple reason that the majority of people were against it. 

[Nuitari]

Aside from that, I always maintained that it was the best idea that I could come up with and it wasn't one that I was particularly fond of either.  As a matter of fact, the vast majority of posts were against it with only a few being in favor, and the others undecided about it.  I cannot believe that we would actually attempt to vote on something like this without the biggest proponent (me) even have been part of the discussion of the creation of the document and being so heavily disliked/hated with the majority of the PPoC membership that we would try to make it part of our platform.

A vast majority of posts coming from 6 people, including a couple that are very vocal and repetitive hardly makes it a majority of the party.

Having absolutely nothing to do with the fact that I wasn't involved in the creation of the document, I would be voting against it for the simple reason that the majority of people were against it. 

If people stopped doing that, we wouldn't have the government we have.

[CraigNobbs]

There may have been only 6 that were vocal against, but how many were vocal for?

[Nuitari]

There may have been only 6 that were vocal against, but how many were vocal for?

The only way to really know is by having a vote at the meeting.

[CraigNobbs]

I don't think that we should be doing it this way.  What we should be voting on is:

All those in favor of having open discussions about a levy becoming part of the PPoC platform.


We shouldn't be rushing something like this.  Changing the core platform which embodies the entire party is a HUGE thing.  I am strongly opposed to it as are many and even though I was playing devil's advocate in the last forum about it, I did not support it in its form.  I was even the one coming up with the modifications to respond to peoples issues with it and I still didn't like it.

Not only that, but now there are talks in both the US and Canada about subsidizing old media by placing taxes on internet connections.  Clearly, everyone is going to want a piece of this pie and it is a bad road to start to go down.

Let's not make this terrible mistake by making something that isn't at our roots and inline with other PPs of the world part of our platform.  Drop the question, nix the idea, and let's not waste time on a clearly bad idea.

[Mikkel Paulson]

I agree with Craig. This isn't the way to go. If it goes to a vote, it will be defeated. If you want to give it a chance of passing, it needs discussion and compromise before we even think about adopting it.

[Nuitari]

I agree with Craig. This isn't the way to go. If it goes to a vote, it will be defeated. If you want to give it a chance of passing, it needs discussion and compromise before we even think about adopting it.

Then let's bring this discussion at a close, it has been going on and off for a year now...

[CraigNobbs]

Nuitari,

   I cannot say that I agree with the stopping of a discussion based upon that reasoning.  The point of the discussion was to hammer out (or at least try to) something that we could all put some measure of support behind.  We had never intended that the last discussion thread was to be voted upon in any manner and most certainly not in fashion that the PPoC should adopt it.

   I think that the vote would be jumping the gun.  I also think that a discussion shouldn't end simply because someone wants it to.

   The point of this forum is to have open discussions about what we, as members, see fit to discuss or what we believe should be discussed.  Since it isn't trolling, ranting, or otherwise a negative thread, I see no reason to stop that discussion if it is brought up again.  I also see no reason to force it into some premature vote.

   If there is a reason or reasons that I am not aware of that the topic should no longer be discussed, with or without forcing a vote, please, I would love to know them.  If I have missed something, then please let me know.  I am most willing to discuss them.

Craig