[pp.int.general] where is the manifesto?

[Reinier Bakels]

Hi Ole,
The confusion is simple. The term "intellectual property" is WRONG - as is
recognised by legal scholars. Some even argue it is a deliberate lie.
But "property rights" are something else (Vermögensrechte in German - a
perhaps less confusing concept).
The essence is that in a (decent) society the government should protect
(transferable) object that represent a monetary value - otherwise trade
would be impossible. As I just explained in another note, conceivably  a
right may be considered NOT transferable. Actually copyright is not
according to German law - but licences have the same effect.
Domain names are an interesting test case for law. Some years ago I wrote an
article in a (Ducth legal magazine) that domain names should not be
transferable. Else names like "business.com" would become objects of trade.
The reality is that they actually are. And then there is no way back: if
someone paid > $1.000.000 for such a (generic) domain name, and perhaps used
as a pawn for a bank loan, the legislator can not take it away (without
compensation).
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ole Husgaard" <pirat at sparre.dk>
To: "Pirate Parties International -- General Talk"
<pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net>
Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2008 10:33 AM
Subject: Re: [pp.int.general] where is the manifesto?


> Richard M Stallman skrev:
>>     and investigate the reason for such a right. Some human rights
>> provisions
>>     can be changed by a (complicateed) democratic process, but others
>> can't,
>>     like the first 20 articles of the German constitution - which include
>> the
>>     "protection of property" provision.
>>
>> I can see two ways around that:
>>
>> * To declare that copyrights are not property, so this does
>> not apply.
>>
> At least in danish copyright law, it has never been declared a property
> right. It is, and has always been, defined as "exclusive right" (in
> danish "eneret"; a right that you have, but others don't have). I think
> the same may apply in other countries.
>
> Calling intellectual rights "intellectual property" is relatively new.
> It was (almost) never used before the 1960ies. Another more recent
> example is "copyright violation is theft". No, it does not legally
> become theft just because some people say so. And just like intellectual
> rights did not become "intellectual property" because an organisation
> called World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) was created,
> copyright violation does not become theft just because an organization
> called "Federation Against Copyright Theft" (FACT in the UK) is created.
> This is imho typical orwellian wordplay trying to change the mindset of
> people by using incorrect words (like "war is peace").
>
> Because law systems change slowly, compared to our culture and language,
> I would not be surprised if no copyright system anywhere in the world
> has been changed to legally make copyright or patents a form of
> property. Such a change is rather fundamental, and raises a lot of
> issues that have to be adressed. For example, what when the copyright or
> patents expire? Is that a kind of expropriation, where he rights holders
> have to be compensated?
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Ole Husgaard.
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general