[pp.int.general] purpose of manifesto

[Carlos Ayala Vargas]

Reinier Bakels wrote:
> remember thgat copyright and "droit d'auteur" really are different 
> things:
> - copyright is utilitairan, for the benefit of society, see american 
> constitution.
It's anglo-saxon right, thus I'm not fully aware of which are its roots. 
If you say it's utilitarian, may be, don't know.
> - droit d'auteur is a "natural" right for the author, because he 
> "deserves" it
However I'm pretty sure about author's rights not being /natural/.

/Natural/ is to expect Newton's apple falling over his head -if 
something lacks of any base or subjection, gravity rules-. Author's 
rights were, however, agreed -as you said in former mails-

- if we aim for anglo-saxon roots, which is that law's name -as I said, 
I'm not fully aware-? Queen Anne's decree?
* also, the US Constitution -not extracted from a sacred oak, but 
developed and signed by human beings-
- if we aim for french roots, by the 1789 Declaration -neither extracted 
from a sacred oak-
- by 1948 UDHR
- by WIPO Treaties
- (in EU scope) by 2001/29/EC and related directives
- (in Spanish scope) by Law 23/2006 which modified Royal Legislative 
Decree 1/1996

All laws and agreement made by human beings and, thus, changeable -at 
least in term & scope- by human beings.

Furthermore, equating human-made laws with natural law is in my opinion 
plainly impossible, because if ever someone claims any law or principle 
to be /natural/, how does that person know it?

- if just because it always was that way, there is always the slavery 
counterexample -now is customary law to forbid slavery, however a few 
centuries ago it was the opposite thing, *because (in this case, 
fortunately) some customs change*-
- if just because one philosopher and/or lawyer thinks it's /natural/ 
well ... opinions are just opinions
- if that philosopher and/or lawyer /knows/ it's /natural/, where are 
the scientific evidences? I mean, when I drop the apple, the apple falls 
due to gravity, and you and me can test it as many times as we want to; 
how would we /know/ that creating a cultural work /naturally/ gives the 
author -according to the current legal framework- exclusive right to 
reproduce it?

I personally deny the existence of /natural/ laws (in legal context) due 
to the former reasons, and recommend you to counter anyone who tells you 
that author's rights are /natural/ rights -when actually (and specially)
> while pirates may be inclined to prefer the former, remember that open 
> source licences like gnu depend on the latter perspective
I think RMS is not going to enjoy by hearing that you call GNU License 
an /open source/ license.


                                                                                           
Carlos Ayala
                                                                                           
( Aiarakoa )

                                                                       
Partido Pirata National Board's Chairman