No subject

protection of material interests under article 15, paragraph 1 (c)</i>
(of the Covenant)<i>, need not extend over the entire lifespan of an
author. Rather, the purpose of enabling authors to enjoy an adequate
standard of living can also be achieved through one-time payments or by
vesting an author, <b>for a limited period of time</b>, with the
exclusive right to exploit his scientific, literary or artistic
production</i>". So, simply, you're not right about whether material
interests of authors declared in 27.2 UDHR can be limited in time or
not. They can, of course, they currently are, and we in PPI want to
shorten their lifespan.
 
<blockquote cite="mid:00a901c96543$fa5357f0$6400a8c0 at RBB2007"
 type="cite">
  <div><font color="#0000ff">It should be noted that the UDHR is not
enforceable, unlike the ECHR.</font></div>
</blockquote>
It may not be in your country; however, in Spain, <a
 href="http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Spanish_Constitution_of_1978/Part_I">Spanish
Constitution</a> states that "<i>provisions relating to the fundamental
rights and liberties recognized
by the Constitution shall be construed in conformity with the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and international treaties and agreements
thereon ratified by Spain</i>"; of course, currently it includes ECHR;
however, obviously and explicitly includes the obligation to enforce
UDHR and interprete each article from 15th to 29th in the light of UDHR.<br>
<br>
And I'll say more: we in PIRATA don't like ECHR, at least not fully; we
think that it has too many flaws. e.g. -to name a few-:<br>
<br>
- "<i>deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in
contravention
of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more
than absolutely necessary</i> [...] <i>in order to effect a lawful
arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained</i>"
(supposedly it should only happens if the detainee answers with brutal
or even deadly violence, as 2.2.a ECHR states) or "<i>in action
lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection</i>"
(again, supposedly it should only follow the provision from 2.2.a ECHR)<br>
- "<i>no one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following
cases </i> [...] <i>the lawful arrest or detention of a person to
prevent his effecting an
unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action
is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition</i>" (in spite
of a recent EU Directive considering illegal inmigration not as a
crime, but merely illegal; however, illegal inmigrants can be jailed up
to 18 months) or "<i>alcoholics or drug addicts <b>or vagrants</b></i>"
(it doesn't talk about offering vagrants a refuge, but arresting them!
we had, during Franco ruling, a law called Vagrants &amp; Crooks law;
it has not good memory for us)<br>
- despicable clauses, like when talking about the right "<i>to defend
himself in person or through legal assistance of his own
choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal
assistance, to be given it free <b>when the interests of justice so
require</b></i>" (thus, not always?) or that the <i>nullum poena sine
lege</i> principle "<i>shall not prejudice the trial and punishment of
any person for any act
or omission which, at the time when it was committed, was criminal
according to the general principles of law recognised by civilised
nations</i>" (in spite of 7.1 ECHR explicitly talking about
international law?)<br>
- now compare <a
 href="http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Spanish_Constitution_of_1978/Part_I#Division_1._Fundamental_Rights_and_Public_Freedoms">Spanish
Constitution's article 18</a>, "<i>no entry or search may be made <b>without
the consent of the householder or a legal warrant, except in cases of
flagrante delicto</b></i>", with ECHR's article 8 (8.2 is beloved by
RMOs and pro-copyright lobbies after the famous Telefonica vs
PROMUSICAE judgment), "<i>everyone has the right to respect for his
private and family life, his home and his correspondence</i> [...] <i>except
such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic
society in <b>the interests of national security, public safety or the
economic well-being of the country</b>, for the <b>prevention of
disorder or crime</b>, for the <b>protection of health or morals</b> </i>(morals!)<i>,
or for the <b>protection of the rights and freedoms of others</b></i>
(e.g., RMOs and pro-copyright lobbies)"; no allusion to legal warrants,
nor <i>flagrante delicto</i>, just a huge margin to invade homes,
e-mails, etc, without a warrant<br>
- etc (don't want to make this mail longer)<br>
<br>
ECHR, while could be even worse, it's a bunch of fuzzy, tricky articles
full of evilish clauses which annul the previous wording and give
Member States enough margin to demolish civil rights and liberties. Do
you prefer ECHR? We in PIRATA prefer UDHR -UDHR is not flawless, though
for the good of the understanding one has to choose a reference and we
find UDHR way better ... and worldwide effective (not just EU-wide)-.
(Continue in another mail, to avoid making this one longer)<br>
<br>
<br>
                                                                                                   
Carlos Ayala<br>
                                                                                                   
( Aiarakoa )<br>
<br>
      
                                                                   
Partido Pirata National Board's Chairman
</body>
</html>