[pp.int.general] where is the manifesto?
Richard M Stallman
rms at gnu.org
Tue Dec 30 08:32:33 CET 2008
Am Monday 29 December 2008 11:23:27 schrieb Richard M Stallman:
> So if the constitution is changed, as I suggested above, that judgment
> may change. Thus, I think you have been too quick to give up.
The problem here is that - as Reinier already said - article 14 is among the
basic rights which are protected from being changed through article 19.
Furthermore there is no definition of what is considered property and what
not. It just says "Property and right of succession are guaranteed."
This is what gives us an opportunity. Article 14 cannot be changed,
but there is a considerable conceptual gap between article 14 and this
decision. Crossing that gap is a matter of reasoning, and it depends
on other assumptions. So changes in other articles of the
constitution (existing or new articles) can change them and thus
change this outcome, even though article 14 remains the same.
It seems to me we need to distinguish between confiscating a specific
item of property, on the one hand, and legislating out of existence a
certain aspect of property which was created by a previous law, on the
other hand. Article 14 should apply to the former.
1.Change the term for all works
2.Change the term only for new works
3.Keep the term for the authors' rights at lifetime +70 but establish a new term for the commercial exploitation rights so that they expire much earlier.
#1 or #3 would be adequate. #2 is not adequate -- even if we did it,
we would still face, for the rest of our lives, the almost the same
amount of the same injustice that made us get active on this issue.
More information about the pp.international.general