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

[Reinier Bakels]

> Slavery was abolished anyway, as it was considered a violation of human
> rights and not in society's best interest.

Let us try to get back on track. This rather unfruitful conversation started 
from a debate on the role of human rights in this context.

My experience is that it is not very helpful at all to refer to human rights 
considerations in a political context. Political arguments are different 
from legal arguments anyway, and if you still want to address specific legal 
issues or proposals, it is helpful to be careful not to give your opponents 
(IFPI etc.) the arguments for saying: these people are irresponsible. That 
risk is particularly high with human rights.

But to give still just one more legal argument: often the *exercise* of a 
(property) right is violating other rights. That even applies to genuine 
real property. If you own a piece of land, the government can only take it 
from you with a complicated expropriation procedure, if you are unwilling to 
sell it voluntarily. But you can abuse it. And that is not allowed, even if 
you are the owner. Similarly, certain ways to exercise copyrights, patents, 
trademark rights etc. are unlafful and eventually illegal.

And for copyright, there are the collective rights organisations. This is a 
complete Sodom & Gomorra. Incidentally, authors who use the services of such 
organisations loose the right to prohibit publications - which is a central 
(also moral) aspect of the copyright as it was designed. And the levies. 
They are the final step to make copyright to a kind of information tax. 
Collective rights organisations are supposed (sometimes even by law) to 
spend some of the money the collect for general cultural purposes. So they 
are effectively supposed to make cultural policy p a preposterous idea given 
thefact that their best customers are record companies and popular artists 
(usually not very "cultural"). Ever heard of the rule "no taxations without 
representation"?

And isn't - in practice - the prime task of the PP to counter the dominance 
of the distributors, who are no longer needed in the Internet era - and try 
to prolong their life by ugly legal methods? This calls for better copyright 
contract law, among other things.

But stay away from human rights. As you all know, I have extensively 
cooperated in the campaign against software patents. But I always advised my 
fellow activists not to use amateur human rights arguments. If only 
because - at best - their efforts will duplicate the work of real lawyers, 
while no one cares for the social substance of the problem, e.g. the 
(alleged) stiffling effects of software patents. Then you get the kind of 
conversation:  "This is a disaster all over Europe". Answer: "Give me one 
example" - and then there no example, but just hearsay from the US (where 
the patent system is definitely different).

To some extent it is a blessing in disguise, that the disasters in the field 
of copyright are more obvious. On the other hand, the PP arguments are 
slightly counter intuitive vs. the "poor" artists.

reinier