[pp.int.general] purpose of manifesto

[Carlos Ayala Vargas]

Reinier Bakels wrote:
>> while pirates may be inclined to prefer the former, remember that 
>> open source licences like gnu depend on the latter perspective
> i forgot to say that under the natural rights perspective authors
Note: author's rights are not /natural/ rights but rights developed and 
approved by human beings.
> lopgically have the right to forbid their words to be used in certain 
> ways. such as music for torture purposes at guantanamo bay and in 
> secret cia prisons (in poland and romania?)
> here the "property"(*) aspect is relevant indeed. you can not buy my 
> car either, it is my property and i may decided you don't get it, 
> whatever price you are prepared to pay! 
> (*) remember that the rejection of the "intellectual property" concept 
> does not preclude that e.g. a patent is called a "property right". but 
> that is at a different level: the level of *respecting* (acknowledged) 
> rights rather than the level of *granting* rights.
Though I think you already asked this question, just to clarify your 
point: are you comparing cultural works with material properties? Also, 
if we achieve to change the commercial rights term & scope, would you 
consider those rights -when applied to works created *after* such legal 
change (very important: I'm not talking about current works, Reinier, 
but future, post-change works)- as /property/ rights?


                                                                                             
Carlos Ayala
                                                                                             
( Aiarakoa )

                                                                       
Partido Pirata National Board's Chairman