[pp.int.general] "Natural" law (please Reinier answer this mail in the forum)

[Carlos Ayala Vargas]

First of all, Reinier: as you aren't willing to privately continue this 
debate, maybe are you willing to pay attention to Jorge Machado, Andy 
Milner and others and continue in the forum? If you are willing to, just 
reply this mail in the forum and send a final mail -regarding these 
threads; PPI list can still be used for other topics- with a link to 
your reply, to allow everyone else to continue there.

Reinier Bakels wrote:
> Granted, the words "stealing" and "theft" are inappropriate here, but 
> copyright (or author's right, for that matter) IS a property right in 
> the sense of the ECHR and for instance the German constitution.
If there is no reason to talk about /stealing/ or /theft/ is mainly due 
to being here no property to be stolen.
> If you want to contest that, you either have to bluff, or to argue 
> against established statutory rules and case law.
>
> Ergo: politics should refrain from legalistic arguments.
Ergo: lawyers should refrain from refraining us from making legal 
changes; at most, to advice us about how to do those changes ... though 
not to advice us to not doing those changes. That's why I prefer lawyers 
like David Bravo and such: they may disagree on concrete issues -e.g., 
Bravo said in an interview about PIRATA that "/*except the name* they 
chose, what I find the less advisable option, *their philosophy and 
goals are very near to me*/"-

http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=41350

however, they don't refrain us to achieve our goals, but simply 
recommend us the best path to make it. You may argue that you do the 
same with that "/don't use human rights arguments/" -you already know 
what I think about that advice- ... however, being willing to refrain us 
to change laws in order to make commercial rights not being considered 
as property rights is a pretty different thing ... well, you may advice 
it, and we in PIRATA may thank you for the advice, and also add "/no, 
thanks/".

We (at least in PIRATA, and I bet that also in the rest of parties) 
don't consider that commercial rights should be regarded as property 
anymore -how can you have property rights on something is not a 
property? what a huge fiction-; and while I think that Spanish 
Constitutional Court wouldn't allow retroactive changes to that status 
-thus creating, with the changes we in PPI want to apply, a transitory 
period until all intellectual works become under the new author's rights 
terms or in public domain-, it doesn't prevents us to make 
non-retroactive changes -also allowed by United Nations (with some 
restrictions)-.

As long as Spanish law is not same as anglo-saxon (US, British and such) 
law, case law is not that relevant, as it becomes of null effect once 
statutory law and, if required, Spanish Constitution are changed; thus 
the highest challenge in the domestic scope is to get enough seats to 
make our desired changes. What happens with the international scope? 
Well, that's one of the reasons for PPI to exist: if we aim for simmilar 
goals, and we make them in the national scope, when we clash with 
barriers like ECHR or WIPO treaties, we will be as strong as several 
worldwide countries (USA, Australia, Sweden, Chile, Spain, Germany, etc) 
asking the same. And if we keep fighting till the end, we'll gonna make it.

Who said it was going to be made tomorrow? There is a long way to be 
walked ... and I think we all want to walk it along.


                                                                                                   
Carlos Ayala
                                                                                                   
( Aiarakoa )

                                                                            
Partido Pirata National Board's Chairman