Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
EU-commissie van 24-1 leden stemt '12 voor/14 tegen' (wasRe: CO2 uitstoot van EV
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Willem-Jan Markerink
Mar 16, 2012, 4:50:11 PM3/16/12
to
Peter Manders <ju...@ask.forit> wrote in
news:j3g6m75r6dej1pku2...@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 12:30:55 +0000 (UTC), inox <on...@usenet.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>KE wrote:
>>
>>> "Peter Manders" <ju...@ask.forit> schreef in bericht
>>> news:ph66m7t6a7leqis8j...@4ax.com...
>
>>>> Voor iedereen zonder zonnepanelen zal energie dus duurder worden.
>>>
>>> Het laatste probleem ziet Duitsland nu onder ogen.
>>
>>Idem voor België, degene zonder zonnepanelen draaien op voor de
>>subsidies.
>
> We kunnen het Europese parlement erover laten beslissen want die
> kunnen dat heel erg goed. Hier is een voorbeeld van een item dat werd
> weggestemd met 12 voor - 14 tegen, terwijl er maar 23 stemmers waren.
> Een herstemming werd afgewezen. Met link naar een video als bewijs:
>
> <http://falkvinge.net/2012/03/14/european-parliament-blocks-copyright-ref
> orm-with-113-voter-turnout/>
>
> De tijd van de stemming staat erbij (zit niet aan het begin). Ik heb
> het stukje video gekeken en het klopt dat het fout zit.
Dit stukje verdient toch nog wat meer aandacht en verspreiding:
xxxxxxxx
Copyright Monopoly
In an unexpected turn of events, one of the key committees in the European
Parliament voted recently to weaken a reform of the copyright monopoly for
allowing re-publication and access to orphan works, pieces of our cultural
heritage where no copyright monopoly holder can be located.
When a work has gone orphan, it means that it is effectively lost until the
copyright monopoly expires, 70 years after the creator’s death. You can only
hope that somebody has kept a copy illegally and copied it across new forms
of storage media as they go in and out of fashion as the decades come and go,
or it will be lost forever.
The vote in committee on March 1 was supposed to end that (or, more
technically, recommend a course of ending that to the European Parliament as
a whole). However, the copyright industry lobby won key points in the voting
procedure with 14 votes against reform and 12 in favor of it, according to
the just-published protocol. This is according to a fresh report from our
Brussels office – I cannot yet find the protocol on the EU’s web pages (which
are notoriously disorganized; it may actually be published).
There’s a problem with this. There are 24 seats in the committee, and one
group (non-inscrits) was absent, lacking deputies to fill that person’s vote.
So, there should have been 23 votes at the most. But we just counted 12 votes
for reform and 14 against. That’s 26.
Yes, your reactions are correct here – that means that voter turnout on this
copyright reform issue was 113%. Also, if there were 12 reform-friendly
people with actual voting rights, then there would necessarily have been 11
against – causing reform to prevail, and the copyright monopoly to be
substantially weakened in the European Union in favor of preserving our
cultural heritage.
This rather embarrassing issue was pointed out to the committee, the fact
that there were three votes too many, and that these three votes determined
the outcome. When this was done, along with formally requesting a re-vote,
that re-vote on the points in question was denied.
“What can I say? There is a lot of room for improvement when it comes to
democracy in the European Union”, says Christian Engström, Member of the
European Parliament for the Swedish Pirate Party and member of the committee
in question.
The final kicker here is that the 113-per-cent voter turnout happened in the
Legal Affairs committee (JURI), which has the responsibility of safeguarding
the integrity and trustworthiness of the legal framework as a whole in
Europe. MEP Engström’s assistant, Henrik Alexandersson, called the phenomenon
“a temporary form of democratic surplus” in a scathing blog post.
(Finally, in the interest of full disclosure and context, it shall be said
that there’s no clear picture yet on the overall state of orphan works
reform. This was about amendments to that reform in the JURI committee, where
these 14-against-12 votes went in the wrong direction: against a good and
useful reform. The proposal as a whole is still going to the European
Parliament floor for a vote – but in what shape or form remains to be seen.)
THIS WAS NOT THE FINAL 22-0 VOTE; SEE BELOW FOR DOX ON 14-12 VOTE
Just to point this out clearly, some people have linked the JURI protocol and
said that these numbers are all wrong, that the dossier was accepted by a 22-
0 vote with one abstention. This article does not refer to that vote, but to
an amendment vote leading up to the final version. User JPMH on Slashdot
found the 12-to-14 vote on video and was thus able to confirm the story, see
Update 2 below.
UPDATED: The article originally mentioned the committee meeting as having
taken place “last week”; this was due to a mistranslation from the source. It
appears to have been March 1, see discussion in comments 8 to 8.2.
UPDATE 2, VIDEO DOCUMENTATION: Many have been asking for proof or
documentation beyond eyewitnesses, and the swarm delivers, here in the shape
of user JPMH on Slashdot. JPMH writes, “The agenda item starts at 10:27 [in
the linked video], and the voting runs from 10:31 to 10:51. The amendment in
question appears to be “Compromise 20?, voted on at 10:39, which is indeed
rejected by 12 votes to 14.”
UPDATE 3: Glyn Moody points at the complaint from the Orphan Works
rapporteur, Lidia Geringer de Oedenberg, about this. There was not only the
12-to-14 vote on Compromise 20 as mentioned, but also a 13-to-12 vote on
amendment 71 and a 13-to-11 vote (still with 23 maximum possible votes) on
amendment 32. At least three cases of “temporary democratic surplus”, for
which the rapporteur requests clarification. Also, I hope it will please “T.”
in the comments section that the rapporteur refers to these amendments as
crucial.
You've read the whole article. Why not subscribe to the RSS flow using your
favorite reader, or even have articles delivered by mail?
About The Author: Rick Falkvinge
Rick is the founder of the first Pirate Party and is a political evangelist,
traveling around Europe and the world to talk and write about ideas of a
sensible information policy. He has a tech entrepreneur background and loves
whisky.
Book Falkvinge as speaker?
Liked This?
Tweet
In an unexpected turn of events, one of the key committees in the European
Parliament voted recently to weaken a reform of the copyright monopoly for
allowing re-publication and access...
By participating in the discussion and posting here, you are placing your
contribution in the public domain (CC0). If you are quoting somebody else,
credit them.
Contributors take own responsibility for their comments.
62
1.
Democrazy « Full Mental Straightjacket
March 14, 2012 - 21:49
[...] EU har i dagarna därför ett sådant förslag precis röstats ner med
rösterna 14-12. Det i sig är inte speciellt förvånande egentligen, det som
däremot förvånar lite är att det [...]
2.
2
Dan Graves
March 14, 2012 - 21:54
And these people are supposedly the good guys, looking out for our
‘best interests’…
Good catch Mr. Falkvinge.
RESPOND TO THIS
3.
3
Éibhear Ó hAnluain
March 14, 2012 - 21:59
Reminds me of a cartoon I saw recently.
Enda Kenny, Ireland’s Taoiseach (“prime-minister”) speaking to Vladimir
Putin about the referendum that we’ll be having on the new fiscal treaty:
- “I need 100% support for this treaty”
- “Only 100%?”
RESPOND TO THIS
4.
4
Anonymous
March 14, 2012 - 22:28
Denied? There were more votes than voters. What a bunch of political
crap.
I guess they have to buy time to clean up the evidence before the
investigation into what the hell happened.
RESPOND TO THIS
5.
5
Anne Nym
March 14, 2012 - 23:15
There were more votes than voters. Change the stars on your flag to
swastika please!
RESPOND TO THIS
*
5.1
nobody
March 16, 2012 - 14:33
Nahh… Just a hammer and sickle will do.
Make sure that whatever you do it’s on a Red background so it’ll
be proper.
RESPOND TO THIS
o
5.1.1
Paul Johnson
March 16, 2012 - 17:59
You don’t get it: this isn’t a communist dictatorship
telling the people what to do, its big capitalist companies telling the
government what it must tell the people to do.
Change the flag to a golden dollar sign.
RESPOND TO THIS
6.
6
Tom Peterson
March 15, 2012 - 00:17
Is it just me or has the copyright lobbying gotten way too strong
lately that they are now able to pull something like this off, even in the
EU? We need to find a way to stop them from becoming more powerful. We need
to expose all of those involved in this and make examples out of them in
public.
RESPOND TO THIS
7.
7
pop
March 15, 2012 - 01:16
A new vote was denied on what grounds??!? This is very serious and
should be investigated. In fact, I feel that some people need to lose their
jobs over this!
Is there anything we little people can do to help?
RESPOND TO THIS
8.
8
Eduard
March 15, 2012 - 01:24
More facts, please. When exactly did this voting take place? Who
observed it? According to
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/comparl/juri/calendar_2012.pdf , the last JURI
meeting took place on 1st March. Your post is from 14th March – way too long
away than your mentioned “vote in committee last week”.
I don’t like proof-less reporting. Please provide evidence. Then I’ll
be happy to share your post around.
RESPOND TO THIS
*
8.1
Rick Falkvinge
March 15, 2012 - 01:43
You’re right on the timing. The blog post from the MEP assistant
I am referring to actually used the Swedish term häromveckan, which usually
refers to last week, but the literal translation is the other week — i.e.,
recently.
It was observed by the linked MEP in the committee, who I called
personally to verify the story after reading about it on his assistant’s
blog.
RESPOND TO THIS
o
8.1.1
Tom
March 16, 2012 - 11:51
So you read a blog post then called the source of the blog
post to verify the blog post? That is not journalism nor credible. “It’s true
because I said it is.”
I’m not saying it is not true, just that this was not
properly sourced or confirmed.
RESPOND TO THIS
*
8.2
next_ghost
March 15, 2012 - 02:01
The order of business for the March 1 meeting lists a vote
related to orphan works between 10:00-10:30
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/JURI/publications.html
RESPOND TO THIS
9.
“Die geheimen Treffen des deutschen Bruders von ACTA” |
March 15, 2012 - 01:32
[...] Vom Thema her verwandt: In einem Komitee des Europaparlaments, in
dem natürlich auch die Content-Mafia sitzt, wird über sogenannte verwaiste
Werke verhandelt. Natürlich kommen alle Forderungen der Content-Mafia durch.
Sie gewinnt die Abstimmung mit 14 zu 12 Stimmen, ob die Rechtslage bei
verwaisten Werken reformiert werden soll. Haken: In dem Komitee gibt es nur
24 Sitze und einer davon war unbesetzt. Wo kommen die insgesamt 26 Stimmen
her?! Es handelt sich übrigens um folgendes Komitee: “The Legal Affairs
committee (JURI), which has the responsibility of safeguarding the integrity
and trustworthiness of the legal framework as a whole in Europe.” No Shit,
Sherlock! Teilen Sie dies mit:FacebookTwitterDiggRedditE-MailGefällt
mir:Gefällt mirSei der Erste, dem dieser post gefällt. Dieser Beitrag wurde
unter imperiale Politik, Netzwelt, verbale Diarrhoe abgelegt und mit ACTA,
Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Technologie, Content-Mafia, IPRED,
Wirtschaftsdialog für mehr Kooperation bei der Bekämpfung der
Internetpiraterie verschlagwortet. Setze ein Lesezeichen auf den Permalink. ?
“Buchkram März 2012 – Planetenkrieg & A Rising Thunder” [...]
10.
9
mijj
March 15, 2012 - 08:02
maybe we should get advice from Russia about how to make voting a
publicly visible event.
RESPOND TO THIS
11.
10
rahel
March 15, 2012 - 09:14
Putin is amused: 9gag.com/gag/3362291
RESPOND TO THIS
12.
11
trebots
March 15, 2012 - 10:53
The story is without proof and is also false – orphan reform was passed
in committee and will presumably succeed in parliament. Oh yeah, but that
means less money for Pirate Bay
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/pressroom/content/20120227IPR39358/html
/Orphan-works-soon-to-be-online
RESPOND TO THIS
*
11.1
Rick Falkvinge
March 15, 2012 - 11:01
I don’t know what you consider “proof”, but where I come from, we
take multiple named and referenced first-hand eyewitness accounts seriously
enough. What do you want, that they should write their accounts down so it
can be scanned? Is it proof merely because you read it in another voice?
Also, if you’d read the story, you’d see that this was about key
amendments to the dossier of Orphan Works (which in itself was well
underway).
RESPOND TO THIS
o
11.1.1
Bernd
March 15, 2012 - 15:09
Still, a link to a protocol would be appreciated. If you
can phone ONE person in Strasbourg, you can also phone several and ask who
was on the meeting, where the protocol can be found and why a surplus of
votes could have been possible.
RESPOND TO THIS
+
…
Anonymous
March 16, 2012 - 12:38
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ep-
live/en/committees/video?event=20120301-0900-COMMITTEE-
JURI&category=COMMITTEE&format=wmv
13.
12
gurraburra
March 15, 2012 - 11:21
OK. This is real bad. Facebook is teaming up with political forces to
censor (at least) Falkvinge. Linking to this blog is impossible on fb.
Seeing how the site “trebots” is linking to uses facebook only makes
this far worse than I had imagined. Facebook is becoming a combined megaphone
& censoring device for the corporate political elite.
RESPOND TO THIS
*
12.1
Stefan H
March 15, 2012 - 12:20
You can post falkvinge.net-links in comments, but not as an
actual post…
RESPOND TO THIS
*
12.2
Rafinius
March 15, 2012 - 15:34
Actually, if I remember right, this only occurs with some
articles. I recently tried to link one and when it didn’t work I linked a
different one mostly just to test. The second article went up perfectly but
the first didn’t even an hour and several relogs after.
RESPOND TO THIS
*
12.3
passersby
March 15, 2012 - 18:10
I just shared this via FB without problems.
RESPOND TO THIS
14.
13
lalla
March 15, 2012 - 18:55
“The Committee adopted the amended Commission proposal and the draft
legislative resolution by 22 votes in favour and 1 abstention.”
(point 8)
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?
type=COMPARL&reference=PE-483.867&format=PDF&language=EN&secondRef=01
WTF
RESPOND TO THIS
*
13.1
Rick Falkvinge
March 15, 2012 - 19:45
See comment below.
RESPOND TO THIS
15.
14
lalla
March 15, 2012 - 18:58
Not sure if comments must be enabled by the author, if so please delete
this comment and only enable the earlier one of me. ^^
“The Committee adopted the amended Commission proposal and the draft
legislative resolution by 22 votes in favour and 1 abstention.”
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?
type=COMPARL&reference=PE-483.867&format=PDF&language=EN&secondRef=01
WTF
RESPOND TO THIS
*
14.1
lalla
March 15, 2012 - 18:59
oh sorry, i’m an impatient moron. ^^
But srsly, how can the official vote result differ that much?
RESPOND TO THIS
*
14.2
Rick Falkvinge
March 15, 2012 - 19:46
The keyword is “adopted the amended proposal”. The voting numbers
I refer to above are the vote counts for those amendments (see the last
point).
Again, this is based on eyewitness accounts from the actual
meeting.
RESPOND TO THIS
o
14.2.1
T.
March 15, 2012 - 20:17
Can’t you even clarify which amendments are you refering
to, so that we can check the official sources instead of believing blindly to
hearsay? Since you are claiming that they are key points, of course you are
already aware what exactly they are, so share their number and while you are
on it please explain why they are key points.
RESPOND TO THIS
+
…
gurra
March 15, 2012 - 20:30
What about the ACTA negotiations… They were kept
hidden from the public for as long as possible. Tell us why we should beleive
any “official claims” in the first place?
o
14.2.2
Anonymous
March 16, 2012 - 01:19
Thanks for your answer, can’t wait until more members of
that commitee come out into the open.
RESPOND TO THIS
16.
Glanzlichter 88: Ein Internetlehrer, der Quotendruck und die Mafia « …
Kaffee bei mir?
March 16, 2012 - 01:53
[...] im Europäischen Parlament ein Abstimmungsergebnis von 113 Prozent
zustande [...]
17.
COPYRIGHT MONOPOLY | TemekuNews
March 16, 2012 - 02:17
[...] here:http://falkvinge.net/2012/03/14/european-parliament-blocks-
copyright-reform-with-113-voter-turnout/ window.fbAsyncInit = function() {
FB.init({ appId : '237351279680926', // App ID status : true, [...]
18.
15
Milk
March 16, 2012 - 08:39
Hmm, strange, I just tried posting to Facebook, and the vertical bar
throbber thought about it for a while then stopped, no post. Same again when
i try to click Post again. Same on my actual profile page.
RESPOND TO THIS
*
15.1
Milk
March 16, 2012 - 11:40
Oh, working now. Silly Facebook!
RESPOND TO THIS
19.
16
int19h
March 16, 2012 - 08:57
As a Russian, I want to congratulate my European neighbors with
achieving the same superior level of democracy that my country has so long
enjoyed alone.
RESPOND TO THIS
*
16.1
int13h
March 16, 2012 - 11:49
Don’t worry my friend, we always like to be supportive. Why would
you suffer alone of democracy abuse..
RESPOND TO THIS
20.
17
hmm
March 16, 2012 - 09:02
Can’t undestand the clain; 23 seats and 22 votes given (1 absent). How
does one count the 113% vote count?
RESPOND TO THIS
*
17.1
Scary Devil Monastery
March 16, 2012 - 09:51
The vote was tallied at 14-12. This makes the sum of votes
counted 26.
However, the entire committee as a whole has 23 voters(!), one of
whom was absent.
I.e. 3 people more voted than should have been able to vote. Or
somehow some votes were counted twice. It doesn’t get much simpler than that.
RESPOND TO THIS
21.
18
hmm
March 16, 2012 - 09:03
Can’t undestand the claim; 23 seats and 22 votes given with 1 absent.
How does one count the 113% vote count?
RESPOND TO THIS
*
18.1
CptnKale
March 16, 2012 - 12:45
12+14 is 26 not 22
RESPOND TO THIS
22.
EU blocks copyright reform with a voter turnout of 113%. In a room of
23 people. | Good fucking idea.
March 16, 2012 - 09:06
[...] this, get angry. http://falkvinge.net/2012/03/14/european-
parliament-blocks-copyright-reform-with-113-voter-turnout/ Way too fucking
obvious. Give me [...]
23.
19
anon
March 16, 2012 - 09:47
This article seems to be a hoax.
“The Committee adopted the amended Commission proposal and the draft
legislative resolution by 22 votes in favour and 1 abstention”
see
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?
type=COMPARL&reference=PE-483.867&format=PDF&language=EN&secondRef=01
RESPOND TO THIS
24.
Links 16/3/2012: GNOME 3.4 Beta 2, Cinnamon 1.4 | Techrights
March 16, 2012 - 10:29
[...] European Parliament Blocks Copyright Reform With 113% Voter
Turnout Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where
readers can share and discover new web pages. [...]
25.
20
john werneken
March 16, 2012 - 11:59
A good example of why I am unalterably opposed to Government and to
Public Policy and to public Agencies and to Public Laws and to Public
Services, in any form whatsoever, except such as exclusively address external
defense, internal justice, a currency of stable value, and whatever is
necessary to address and decide about these things in a systematic way, and
to the extent necessary, to establish and to maintain and to defend the over-
all structure (aka a Decent Government) that does these things and only these
things. Something that does all this and no more, it does not matter who runs
it in fact if it’s possible to set something like this up – it has happened a
few times so I know it’s possible – the only relevance of governance
democratic or otherwise is as to dealing with mortality and succession and
what that means for continuance and stability of the Government. After all,
the sole known benefits of Democracy are continuance and stability.
I specifically include IP as one of the things that no Government
should have ANYTHING to say about. Legally there should be no such thing as
IP and no law about it. Sounds like the EU may be about to do something right
besides having a common market instead of the traditional military civil
wars, by striking a blow against Copy Wrong.
RESPOND TO THIS
26.
A temporary form of democratic surplus | The Circle Bastiat
March 16, 2012 - 12:15
[...] safeguard the “integrity and trustworthiness of the legal
framework as a whole in Europe” has voted 14-12 on a copyrights issue, even
though the committee has only 24 members. This has been aptly called “a
temporary form of democratic surplus.” Is it a fruit of the [...]
27.
Stop Acta - Side 2 - Boligdebatten.dk
March 16, 2012 - 12:23
[...] [...]
28.
¿MAFIAA le enseña aritmética al parlamento Europeo? | Federratas
March 16, 2012 - 12:31
[...] ¿El problema? El comité de Asuntos Legales tiene 23 miembros. Y
la última vez que me fijé, 14+12=26. [...]
29.
21
Segolas
March 16, 2012 - 12:46
Thank you for the nice post… too bad it’s all false propaganda. Well
done, perfect example of bad journalism.
RESPOND TO THIS
*
21.1
Rick Falkvinge
March 16, 2012 - 15:23
Could you please clarify this allegation?
RESPOND TO THIS
30.
22
T.
March 16, 2012 - 13:27
Mr. Falkvinge
Thank you for the clarification that the item in question is
“Compromise 20?. This makes it possible to contact the relevant officials for
the explanation about your claim that there was some fraud in the voting.
Now, could you explain, why this one amentment among more than a
hundred amentments is a key point? You are claiming that “, the copyright
industry lobby won key points in the voting procedure ” but nowhere in your
text do I find even a hint about that what the amentment was about. Since you
are ready to make this kind of claims surely you are already aware what the
amentment that you are speaking of is about and answering to this question
should be easy?
RESPOND TO THIS
*
22.1
Rick Falkvinge
March 16, 2012 - 15:25
Dear T.,
you keep asking me as if I were the authoritative source. I am
not. I am refering to authoritative sources in JURI, as I have already
explained; I do not have first-hand knowledge and so, I will not speculate.
RESPOND TO THIS
o
22.1.1
T.
March 16, 2012 - 15:43
You already did, when you claimed that “, the copyright
industry lobby won key points in the voting procedure “.
If you cannot back your claim, it looks like your whole
post was just a propaganda move to paint once again European Unions
institution as Bad Guys and yourself as some sort of hero by revealing them.
However this seems to be based on falsehoods. You cannot throw these kind of
speculations that you do in the original post and then say that you will not
speculate when somebody asks you to prove them.
RESPOND TO THIS
+
…
Rick Falkvinge
March 16, 2012 - 21:34
Dear T,
First, of course I have the prerogative of writing
whatever I want on my own blog. I find that quite beyond dispute. My model of
reporting may be one you’re not used to, but I use swarm techniques a lot –
publish what I have heard from reputable sources, and fill in the details as
they come (which they do).
Second, relating to that, Glyn Moody found the
original complaint from the rapporteur, which describes the amendments in
question as crucial. I hope this source is authoritative enough to meet your
bar; see Update 3 in the post.
Cheers,
Rick
31.
23
Karl
March 16, 2012 - 13:43
Some people voted both “for” and “against”, this is not fraud, just
human error (or stupidity). I imagine this happens quite a lot if people work
with this all day long, voting no yes no yes for several hours.
RESPOND TO THIS
32.
24
FredInIT
March 16, 2012 - 13:43
And they say politics in Chicago (U.S.A.) is corrupt. The JURI
committee makes the Chicago City Council, US Congress, etc. look like a bunch
of Baden-Powell’s boys.
RESPOND TO THIS
33.
25
Tomka Gergely
March 16, 2012 - 14:08
The JURI comitte has a lot of members, 40-50 or so. So someone must
have arrived late.
RESPOND TO THIS
34.
26
Longview, WA Massage
March 16, 2012 - 16:14
I am not happy about this fraud for a number of reasons. I practice
Massage and often have my patients listen to music, I don’t want somebody
trying to come in and sue me for doing this.
RESPOND TO THIS
35.
27
Anonymous
March 16, 2012 - 16:58
“a temporary form of democratic surplus”
That’s what Vladimir Putin said when accused of carousel voting.
RESPOND TO THIS
36.
28
BerserX
March 16, 2012 - 19:01
Surely, a re-vote should not have been rejected, however, why is
everyone assuming the three extra votes were all against reform? Didn’t see
anyone mention that…
This brings forth the point I’m trying, in vain, to promote myself:
All votes (in any election) MUST be published to count! Anything else
is just religion.
RESPOND TO THIS
37.
29
Spiritbx
March 16, 2012 - 21:08
its alright, because for every 100k “donated” by someone, they add a
vote, its a secret though, so don’t tell anyone :P
“And then God said, do not recount votes even in impossibility, for
they are the object of my work” this should be added to the bible, since this
is obviously a divine intervention, for the gvt to not be able to recount.
--
Bye,
Willem-Jan Markerink
The desire to understand
is sometimes far less intelligent than
the inability to understand
<w.j.ma...@a1.nl>
[note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!]
news:j3g6m75r6dej1pku2...@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 12:30:55 +0000 (UTC), inox <on...@usenet.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>KE wrote:
>>
>>> "Peter Manders" <ju...@ask.forit> schreef in bericht
>>> news:ph66m7t6a7leqis8j...@4ax.com...
>
>>>> Voor iedereen zonder zonnepanelen zal energie dus duurder worden.
>>>
>>> Het laatste probleem ziet Duitsland nu onder ogen.
>>
>>Idem voor België, degene zonder zonnepanelen draaien op voor de
>>subsidies.
>
> We kunnen het Europese parlement erover laten beslissen want die
> kunnen dat heel erg goed. Hier is een voorbeeld van een item dat werd
> weggestemd met 12 voor - 14 tegen, terwijl er maar 23 stemmers waren.
> Een herstemming werd afgewezen. Met link naar een video als bewijs:
>
> <http://falkvinge.net/2012/03/14/european-parliament-blocks-copyright-ref
> orm-with-113-voter-turnout/>
>
> De tijd van de stemming staat erbij (zit niet aan het begin). Ik heb
> het stukje video gekeken en het klopt dat het fout zit.
Dit stukje verdient toch nog wat meer aandacht en verspreiding:
xxxxxxxx
Copyright Monopoly
In an unexpected turn of events, one of the key committees in the European
Parliament voted recently to weaken a reform of the copyright monopoly for
allowing re-publication and access to orphan works, pieces of our cultural
heritage where no copyright monopoly holder can be located.
When a work has gone orphan, it means that it is effectively lost until the
copyright monopoly expires, 70 years after the creator’s death. You can only
hope that somebody has kept a copy illegally and copied it across new forms
of storage media as they go in and out of fashion as the decades come and go,
or it will be lost forever.
The vote in committee on March 1 was supposed to end that (or, more
technically, recommend a course of ending that to the European Parliament as
a whole). However, the copyright industry lobby won key points in the voting
procedure with 14 votes against reform and 12 in favor of it, according to
the just-published protocol. This is according to a fresh report from our
Brussels office – I cannot yet find the protocol on the EU’s web pages (which
are notoriously disorganized; it may actually be published).
There’s a problem with this. There are 24 seats in the committee, and one
group (non-inscrits) was absent, lacking deputies to fill that person’s vote.
So, there should have been 23 votes at the most. But we just counted 12 votes
for reform and 14 against. That’s 26.
Yes, your reactions are correct here – that means that voter turnout on this
copyright reform issue was 113%. Also, if there were 12 reform-friendly
people with actual voting rights, then there would necessarily have been 11
against – causing reform to prevail, and the copyright monopoly to be
substantially weakened in the European Union in favor of preserving our
cultural heritage.
This rather embarrassing issue was pointed out to the committee, the fact
that there were three votes too many, and that these three votes determined
the outcome. When this was done, along with formally requesting a re-vote,
that re-vote on the points in question was denied.
“What can I say? There is a lot of room for improvement when it comes to
democracy in the European Union”, says Christian Engström, Member of the
European Parliament for the Swedish Pirate Party and member of the committee
in question.
The final kicker here is that the 113-per-cent voter turnout happened in the
Legal Affairs committee (JURI), which has the responsibility of safeguarding
the integrity and trustworthiness of the legal framework as a whole in
Europe. MEP Engström’s assistant, Henrik Alexandersson, called the phenomenon
“a temporary form of democratic surplus” in a scathing blog post.
(Finally, in the interest of full disclosure and context, it shall be said
that there’s no clear picture yet on the overall state of orphan works
reform. This was about amendments to that reform in the JURI committee, where
these 14-against-12 votes went in the wrong direction: against a good and
useful reform. The proposal as a whole is still going to the European
Parliament floor for a vote – but in what shape or form remains to be seen.)
THIS WAS NOT THE FINAL 22-0 VOTE; SEE BELOW FOR DOX ON 14-12 VOTE
Just to point this out clearly, some people have linked the JURI protocol and
said that these numbers are all wrong, that the dossier was accepted by a 22-
0 vote with one abstention. This article does not refer to that vote, but to
an amendment vote leading up to the final version. User JPMH on Slashdot
found the 12-to-14 vote on video and was thus able to confirm the story, see
Update 2 below.
UPDATED: The article originally mentioned the committee meeting as having
taken place “last week”; this was due to a mistranslation from the source. It
appears to have been March 1, see discussion in comments 8 to 8.2.
UPDATE 2, VIDEO DOCUMENTATION: Many have been asking for proof or
documentation beyond eyewitnesses, and the swarm delivers, here in the shape
of user JPMH on Slashdot. JPMH writes, “The agenda item starts at 10:27 [in
the linked video], and the voting runs from 10:31 to 10:51. The amendment in
question appears to be “Compromise 20?, voted on at 10:39, which is indeed
rejected by 12 votes to 14.”
UPDATE 3: Glyn Moody points at the complaint from the Orphan Works
rapporteur, Lidia Geringer de Oedenberg, about this. There was not only the
12-to-14 vote on Compromise 20 as mentioned, but also a 13-to-12 vote on
amendment 71 and a 13-to-11 vote (still with 23 maximum possible votes) on
amendment 32. At least three cases of “temporary democratic surplus”, for
which the rapporteur requests clarification. Also, I hope it will please “T.”
in the comments section that the rapporteur refers to these amendments as
crucial.
You've read the whole article. Why not subscribe to the RSS flow using your
favorite reader, or even have articles delivered by mail?
About The Author: Rick Falkvinge
Rick is the founder of the first Pirate Party and is a political evangelist,
traveling around Europe and the world to talk and write about ideas of a
sensible information policy. He has a tech entrepreneur background and loves
whisky.
Book Falkvinge as speaker?
Liked This?
Tweet
In an unexpected turn of events, one of the key committees in the European
Parliament voted recently to weaken a reform of the copyright monopoly for
allowing re-publication and access...
By participating in the discussion and posting here, you are placing your
contribution in the public domain (CC0). If you are quoting somebody else,
credit them.
Contributors take own responsibility for their comments.
62
1.
Democrazy « Full Mental Straightjacket
March 14, 2012 - 21:49
[...] EU har i dagarna därför ett sådant förslag precis röstats ner med
rösterna 14-12. Det i sig är inte speciellt förvånande egentligen, det som
däremot förvånar lite är att det [...]
2.
2
Dan Graves
March 14, 2012 - 21:54
And these people are supposedly the good guys, looking out for our
‘best interests’…
Good catch Mr. Falkvinge.
RESPOND TO THIS
3.
3
Éibhear Ó hAnluain
March 14, 2012 - 21:59
Reminds me of a cartoon I saw recently.
Enda Kenny, Ireland’s Taoiseach (“prime-minister”) speaking to Vladimir
Putin about the referendum that we’ll be having on the new fiscal treaty:
- “I need 100% support for this treaty”
- “Only 100%?”
RESPOND TO THIS
4.
4
Anonymous
March 14, 2012 - 22:28
Denied? There were more votes than voters. What a bunch of political
crap.
I guess they have to buy time to clean up the evidence before the
investigation into what the hell happened.
RESPOND TO THIS
5.
5
Anne Nym
March 14, 2012 - 23:15
There were more votes than voters. Change the stars on your flag to
swastika please!
RESPOND TO THIS
*
5.1
nobody
March 16, 2012 - 14:33
Nahh… Just a hammer and sickle will do.
Make sure that whatever you do it’s on a Red background so it’ll
be proper.
RESPOND TO THIS
o
5.1.1
Paul Johnson
March 16, 2012 - 17:59
You don’t get it: this isn’t a communist dictatorship
telling the people what to do, its big capitalist companies telling the
government what it must tell the people to do.
Change the flag to a golden dollar sign.
RESPOND TO THIS
6.
6
Tom Peterson
March 15, 2012 - 00:17
Is it just me or has the copyright lobbying gotten way too strong
lately that they are now able to pull something like this off, even in the
EU? We need to find a way to stop them from becoming more powerful. We need
to expose all of those involved in this and make examples out of them in
public.
RESPOND TO THIS
7.
7
pop
March 15, 2012 - 01:16
A new vote was denied on what grounds??!? This is very serious and
should be investigated. In fact, I feel that some people need to lose their
jobs over this!
Is there anything we little people can do to help?
RESPOND TO THIS
8.
8
Eduard
March 15, 2012 - 01:24
More facts, please. When exactly did this voting take place? Who
observed it? According to
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/comparl/juri/calendar_2012.pdf , the last JURI
meeting took place on 1st March. Your post is from 14th March – way too long
away than your mentioned “vote in committee last week”.
I don’t like proof-less reporting. Please provide evidence. Then I’ll
be happy to share your post around.
RESPOND TO THIS
*
8.1
Rick Falkvinge
March 15, 2012 - 01:43
You’re right on the timing. The blog post from the MEP assistant
I am referring to actually used the Swedish term häromveckan, which usually
refers to last week, but the literal translation is the other week — i.e.,
recently.
It was observed by the linked MEP in the committee, who I called
personally to verify the story after reading about it on his assistant’s
blog.
RESPOND TO THIS
o
8.1.1
Tom
March 16, 2012 - 11:51
So you read a blog post then called the source of the blog
post to verify the blog post? That is not journalism nor credible. “It’s true
because I said it is.”
I’m not saying it is not true, just that this was not
properly sourced or confirmed.
RESPOND TO THIS
*
8.2
next_ghost
March 15, 2012 - 02:01
The order of business for the March 1 meeting lists a vote
related to orphan works between 10:00-10:30
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/JURI/publications.html
RESPOND TO THIS
9.
“Die geheimen Treffen des deutschen Bruders von ACTA” |
March 15, 2012 - 01:32
[...] Vom Thema her verwandt: In einem Komitee des Europaparlaments, in
dem natürlich auch die Content-Mafia sitzt, wird über sogenannte verwaiste
Werke verhandelt. Natürlich kommen alle Forderungen der Content-Mafia durch.
Sie gewinnt die Abstimmung mit 14 zu 12 Stimmen, ob die Rechtslage bei
verwaisten Werken reformiert werden soll. Haken: In dem Komitee gibt es nur
24 Sitze und einer davon war unbesetzt. Wo kommen die insgesamt 26 Stimmen
her?! Es handelt sich übrigens um folgendes Komitee: “The Legal Affairs
committee (JURI), which has the responsibility of safeguarding the integrity
and trustworthiness of the legal framework as a whole in Europe.” No Shit,
Sherlock! Teilen Sie dies mit:FacebookTwitterDiggRedditE-MailGefällt
mir:Gefällt mirSei der Erste, dem dieser post gefällt. Dieser Beitrag wurde
unter imperiale Politik, Netzwelt, verbale Diarrhoe abgelegt und mit ACTA,
Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Technologie, Content-Mafia, IPRED,
Wirtschaftsdialog für mehr Kooperation bei der Bekämpfung der
Internetpiraterie verschlagwortet. Setze ein Lesezeichen auf den Permalink. ?
“Buchkram März 2012 – Planetenkrieg & A Rising Thunder” [...]
10.
9
mijj
March 15, 2012 - 08:02
maybe we should get advice from Russia about how to make voting a
publicly visible event.
RESPOND TO THIS
11.
10
rahel
March 15, 2012 - 09:14
Putin is amused: 9gag.com/gag/3362291
RESPOND TO THIS
12.
11
trebots
March 15, 2012 - 10:53
The story is without proof and is also false – orphan reform was passed
in committee and will presumably succeed in parliament. Oh yeah, but that
means less money for Pirate Bay
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/pressroom/content/20120227IPR39358/html
/Orphan-works-soon-to-be-online
RESPOND TO THIS
*
11.1
Rick Falkvinge
March 15, 2012 - 11:01
I don’t know what you consider “proof”, but where I come from, we
take multiple named and referenced first-hand eyewitness accounts seriously
enough. What do you want, that they should write their accounts down so it
can be scanned? Is it proof merely because you read it in another voice?
Also, if you’d read the story, you’d see that this was about key
amendments to the dossier of Orphan Works (which in itself was well
underway).
RESPOND TO THIS
o
11.1.1
Bernd
March 15, 2012 - 15:09
Still, a link to a protocol would be appreciated. If you
can phone ONE person in Strasbourg, you can also phone several and ask who
was on the meeting, where the protocol can be found and why a surplus of
votes could have been possible.
RESPOND TO THIS
+
…
Anonymous
March 16, 2012 - 12:38
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ep-
live/en/committees/video?event=20120301-0900-COMMITTEE-
JURI&category=COMMITTEE&format=wmv
13.
12
gurraburra
March 15, 2012 - 11:21
OK. This is real bad. Facebook is teaming up with political forces to
censor (at least) Falkvinge. Linking to this blog is impossible on fb.
Seeing how the site “trebots” is linking to uses facebook only makes
this far worse than I had imagined. Facebook is becoming a combined megaphone
& censoring device for the corporate political elite.
RESPOND TO THIS
*
12.1
Stefan H
March 15, 2012 - 12:20
You can post falkvinge.net-links in comments, but not as an
actual post…
RESPOND TO THIS
*
12.2
Rafinius
March 15, 2012 - 15:34
Actually, if I remember right, this only occurs with some
articles. I recently tried to link one and when it didn’t work I linked a
different one mostly just to test. The second article went up perfectly but
the first didn’t even an hour and several relogs after.
RESPOND TO THIS
*
12.3
passersby
March 15, 2012 - 18:10
I just shared this via FB without problems.
RESPOND TO THIS
14.
13
lalla
March 15, 2012 - 18:55
“The Committee adopted the amended Commission proposal and the draft
legislative resolution by 22 votes in favour and 1 abstention.”
(point 8)
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?
type=COMPARL&reference=PE-483.867&format=PDF&language=EN&secondRef=01
WTF
RESPOND TO THIS
*
13.1
Rick Falkvinge
March 15, 2012 - 19:45
See comment below.
RESPOND TO THIS
15.
14
lalla
March 15, 2012 - 18:58
Not sure if comments must be enabled by the author, if so please delete
this comment and only enable the earlier one of me. ^^
“The Committee adopted the amended Commission proposal and the draft
legislative resolution by 22 votes in favour and 1 abstention.”
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?
type=COMPARL&reference=PE-483.867&format=PDF&language=EN&secondRef=01
WTF
RESPOND TO THIS
*
14.1
lalla
March 15, 2012 - 18:59
oh sorry, i’m an impatient moron. ^^
But srsly, how can the official vote result differ that much?
RESPOND TO THIS
*
14.2
Rick Falkvinge
March 15, 2012 - 19:46
The keyword is “adopted the amended proposal”. The voting numbers
I refer to above are the vote counts for those amendments (see the last
point).
Again, this is based on eyewitness accounts from the actual
meeting.
RESPOND TO THIS
o
14.2.1
T.
March 15, 2012 - 20:17
Can’t you even clarify which amendments are you refering
to, so that we can check the official sources instead of believing blindly to
hearsay? Since you are claiming that they are key points, of course you are
already aware what exactly they are, so share their number and while you are
on it please explain why they are key points.
RESPOND TO THIS
+
…
gurra
March 15, 2012 - 20:30
What about the ACTA negotiations… They were kept
hidden from the public for as long as possible. Tell us why we should beleive
any “official claims” in the first place?
o
14.2.2
Anonymous
March 16, 2012 - 01:19
Thanks for your answer, can’t wait until more members of
that commitee come out into the open.
RESPOND TO THIS
16.
Glanzlichter 88: Ein Internetlehrer, der Quotendruck und die Mafia « …
Kaffee bei mir?
March 16, 2012 - 01:53
[...] im Europäischen Parlament ein Abstimmungsergebnis von 113 Prozent
zustande [...]
17.
COPYRIGHT MONOPOLY | TemekuNews
March 16, 2012 - 02:17
[...] here:http://falkvinge.net/2012/03/14/european-parliament-blocks-
copyright-reform-with-113-voter-turnout/ window.fbAsyncInit = function() {
FB.init({ appId : '237351279680926', // App ID status : true, [...]
18.
15
Milk
March 16, 2012 - 08:39
Hmm, strange, I just tried posting to Facebook, and the vertical bar
throbber thought about it for a while then stopped, no post. Same again when
i try to click Post again. Same on my actual profile page.
RESPOND TO THIS
*
15.1
Milk
March 16, 2012 - 11:40
Oh, working now. Silly Facebook!
RESPOND TO THIS
19.
16
int19h
March 16, 2012 - 08:57
As a Russian, I want to congratulate my European neighbors with
achieving the same superior level of democracy that my country has so long
enjoyed alone.
RESPOND TO THIS
*
16.1
int13h
March 16, 2012 - 11:49
Don’t worry my friend, we always like to be supportive. Why would
you suffer alone of democracy abuse..
RESPOND TO THIS
20.
17
hmm
March 16, 2012 - 09:02
Can’t undestand the clain; 23 seats and 22 votes given (1 absent). How
does one count the 113% vote count?
RESPOND TO THIS
*
17.1
Scary Devil Monastery
March 16, 2012 - 09:51
The vote was tallied at 14-12. This makes the sum of votes
counted 26.
However, the entire committee as a whole has 23 voters(!), one of
whom was absent.
I.e. 3 people more voted than should have been able to vote. Or
somehow some votes were counted twice. It doesn’t get much simpler than that.
RESPOND TO THIS
21.
18
hmm
March 16, 2012 - 09:03
Can’t undestand the claim; 23 seats and 22 votes given with 1 absent.
How does one count the 113% vote count?
RESPOND TO THIS
*
18.1
CptnKale
March 16, 2012 - 12:45
12+14 is 26 not 22
RESPOND TO THIS
22.
EU blocks copyright reform with a voter turnout of 113%. In a room of
23 people. | Good fucking idea.
March 16, 2012 - 09:06
[...] this, get angry. http://falkvinge.net/2012/03/14/european-
parliament-blocks-copyright-reform-with-113-voter-turnout/ Way too fucking
obvious. Give me [...]
23.
19
anon
March 16, 2012 - 09:47
This article seems to be a hoax.
“The Committee adopted the amended Commission proposal and the draft
legislative resolution by 22 votes in favour and 1 abstention”
see
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?
type=COMPARL&reference=PE-483.867&format=PDF&language=EN&secondRef=01
RESPOND TO THIS
24.
Links 16/3/2012: GNOME 3.4 Beta 2, Cinnamon 1.4 | Techrights
March 16, 2012 - 10:29
[...] European Parliament Blocks Copyright Reform With 113% Voter
Turnout Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where
readers can share and discover new web pages. [...]
25.
20
john werneken
March 16, 2012 - 11:59
A good example of why I am unalterably opposed to Government and to
Public Policy and to public Agencies and to Public Laws and to Public
Services, in any form whatsoever, except such as exclusively address external
defense, internal justice, a currency of stable value, and whatever is
necessary to address and decide about these things in a systematic way, and
to the extent necessary, to establish and to maintain and to defend the over-
all structure (aka a Decent Government) that does these things and only these
things. Something that does all this and no more, it does not matter who runs
it in fact if it’s possible to set something like this up – it has happened a
few times so I know it’s possible – the only relevance of governance
democratic or otherwise is as to dealing with mortality and succession and
what that means for continuance and stability of the Government. After all,
the sole known benefits of Democracy are continuance and stability.
I specifically include IP as one of the things that no Government
should have ANYTHING to say about. Legally there should be no such thing as
IP and no law about it. Sounds like the EU may be about to do something right
besides having a common market instead of the traditional military civil
wars, by striking a blow against Copy Wrong.
RESPOND TO THIS
26.
A temporary form of democratic surplus | The Circle Bastiat
March 16, 2012 - 12:15
[...] safeguard the “integrity and trustworthiness of the legal
framework as a whole in Europe” has voted 14-12 on a copyrights issue, even
though the committee has only 24 members. This has been aptly called “a
temporary form of democratic surplus.” Is it a fruit of the [...]
27.
Stop Acta - Side 2 - Boligdebatten.dk
March 16, 2012 - 12:23
[...] [...]
28.
¿MAFIAA le enseña aritmética al parlamento Europeo? | Federratas
March 16, 2012 - 12:31
[...] ¿El problema? El comité de Asuntos Legales tiene 23 miembros. Y
la última vez que me fijé, 14+12=26. [...]
29.
21
Segolas
March 16, 2012 - 12:46
Thank you for the nice post… too bad it’s all false propaganda. Well
done, perfect example of bad journalism.
RESPOND TO THIS
*
21.1
Rick Falkvinge
March 16, 2012 - 15:23
Could you please clarify this allegation?
RESPOND TO THIS
30.
22
T.
March 16, 2012 - 13:27
Mr. Falkvinge
Thank you for the clarification that the item in question is
“Compromise 20?. This makes it possible to contact the relevant officials for
the explanation about your claim that there was some fraud in the voting.
Now, could you explain, why this one amentment among more than a
hundred amentments is a key point? You are claiming that “, the copyright
industry lobby won key points in the voting procedure ” but nowhere in your
text do I find even a hint about that what the amentment was about. Since you
are ready to make this kind of claims surely you are already aware what the
amentment that you are speaking of is about and answering to this question
should be easy?
RESPOND TO THIS
*
22.1
Rick Falkvinge
March 16, 2012 - 15:25
Dear T.,
you keep asking me as if I were the authoritative source. I am
not. I am refering to authoritative sources in JURI, as I have already
explained; I do not have first-hand knowledge and so, I will not speculate.
RESPOND TO THIS
o
22.1.1
T.
March 16, 2012 - 15:43
You already did, when you claimed that “, the copyright
industry lobby won key points in the voting procedure “.
If you cannot back your claim, it looks like your whole
post was just a propaganda move to paint once again European Unions
institution as Bad Guys and yourself as some sort of hero by revealing them.
However this seems to be based on falsehoods. You cannot throw these kind of
speculations that you do in the original post and then say that you will not
speculate when somebody asks you to prove them.
RESPOND TO THIS
+
…
Rick Falkvinge
March 16, 2012 - 21:34
Dear T,
First, of course I have the prerogative of writing
whatever I want on my own blog. I find that quite beyond dispute. My model of
reporting may be one you’re not used to, but I use swarm techniques a lot –
publish what I have heard from reputable sources, and fill in the details as
they come (which they do).
Second, relating to that, Glyn Moody found the
original complaint from the rapporteur, which describes the amendments in
question as crucial. I hope this source is authoritative enough to meet your
bar; see Update 3 in the post.
Cheers,
Rick
31.
23
Karl
March 16, 2012 - 13:43
Some people voted both “for” and “against”, this is not fraud, just
human error (or stupidity). I imagine this happens quite a lot if people work
with this all day long, voting no yes no yes for several hours.
RESPOND TO THIS
32.
24
FredInIT
March 16, 2012 - 13:43
And they say politics in Chicago (U.S.A.) is corrupt. The JURI
committee makes the Chicago City Council, US Congress, etc. look like a bunch
of Baden-Powell’s boys.
RESPOND TO THIS
33.
25
Tomka Gergely
March 16, 2012 - 14:08
The JURI comitte has a lot of members, 40-50 or so. So someone must
have arrived late.
RESPOND TO THIS
34.
26
Longview, WA Massage
March 16, 2012 - 16:14
I am not happy about this fraud for a number of reasons. I practice
Massage and often have my patients listen to music, I don’t want somebody
trying to come in and sue me for doing this.
RESPOND TO THIS
35.
27
Anonymous
March 16, 2012 - 16:58
“a temporary form of democratic surplus”
That’s what Vladimir Putin said when accused of carousel voting.
RESPOND TO THIS
36.
28
BerserX
March 16, 2012 - 19:01
Surely, a re-vote should not have been rejected, however, why is
everyone assuming the three extra votes were all against reform? Didn’t see
anyone mention that…
This brings forth the point I’m trying, in vain, to promote myself:
All votes (in any election) MUST be published to count! Anything else
is just religion.
RESPOND TO THIS
37.
29
Spiritbx
March 16, 2012 - 21:08
its alright, because for every 100k “donated” by someone, they add a
vote, its a secret though, so don’t tell anyone :P
“And then God said, do not recount votes even in impossibility, for
they are the object of my work” this should be added to the bible, since this
is obviously a divine intervention, for the gvt to not be able to recount.
--
Bye,
Willem-Jan Markerink
The desire to understand
is sometimes far less intelligent than
the inability to understand
<w.j.ma...@a1.nl>
[note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!]
0 new messages