The discussion on whether this should be distributed on the list is surrealist. The document is clearly an important position statement, and debating is substance should be the main focus of exchanges on the list. Let's first note that the pirates or the Greens are not the only people who believe that non-commercial sharing of all digital works should be recoognized as a legitimate practice. This is my strongly stated position (see http://paigrain.debatpublic.net/?p=1991&lang=en) and it is endorced by significant coalitions of artists, consumers and Internet freedoms groups (see http://creationpublicinternet.fr/blog/index.php?post/2011/06/28/The-proposal...), and included in the core programme of the socialist party in France, though one of the primary candidates (Hollande) has distanced himself from this position. Actually, the debate within the Greens were not even on this, but rather on the financing mechanisms that are necessary in addition to the recognition of sharing. It is on this point that one of the Pirate Party MEPs (Engstrom) has played a key role. The results are summarized here: ยง19- Non commercial sharing between individuals should be allowed, for instance by widening thescope of the existing private copying exception. If and when it can be proved that the production of cultural goods is compromised by non-commercial sharing, a content flat rate or another mechanismfor broadband users may be envisaged. Such a mechanism must not invade the privacy of internet users. The distribution of revenues should favour poor and starting creators. I have mixed views on this paragraph. I welcome the inconditional recognition of non-commercial sharing. I have strong doubts on the consequences of making it through an extension of the private copying exception. I understand that this is chosen because it appears to be possible without reopening the list of exceptions of 2001/29/CE, but in reality if seems to me much less practicable that approaches such as a return to a strong exhaustion of rights/first sale doctrine, or other schemes to delineate the scope of copyright as not applying to the non-commercial digital sphere practices of individuals. This will be no doubt debated, and in terms of implementation, it would be non-sense to exclude a path. History has shown that most important things often come thorogh strange doors. More seriously, what I truly object to I the statement that flat-rate mechanisms would be justified only if harm is done to the production of cultural goods. A statutory resource pooling can be established because it produces good, not only because it corrrects harm. I understand that Engstrom has been predominantly exposed to versions of flatrate proposals that were compensatory in nature (to harm resulting from sharing for the entertainment industry). But he did not listen much when people have tried to explain that statutory resource pooling is a key instrument for sustaining the non-market commons. Finally the references to the fact that user privacy should not be invded and the distribution of revenues should favour poor and staring creators are most welcome, though of course, it is the how that is the real challenge. Two additional comments : - I am infuriated that either TorrentFreak or the Green used Scribd that is text streaming requiring a Facebook account for download for a public policy text. How can they do a snesible cultural policy if they use such tools ? - It is very surprising that anyone would oppose the Creative Commons approach to the legal recognition of sharing and would state that the first is "legal" and the second not (through association with pirates). This ignores tha actual stated motivations of the founders of CC. Best, Philippe Aigrain