[pp.int.general] purpose of manifesto

[Reinier Bakels]

>> The answer is short. Yes, "natural law" is (commonly seen as) a 
>> questionable concept, and you just re-invented the reasons.
> More than questionable, rejectable. Unless anyone proves the /natural/ 
> origin of author's rights -what I find impossible-.
Sure, you are right, and even lawyers would agree with you. Still, the 
concept does not disappear overnight because Carlos Ayala Varga disagrees 
with it ...
>> Yet there is a need to name "non-utilitarian rights".
> Entitled to, of course: by laws approved (and changeable) by human beings. 
> Not by nature, that's what I said.

Yes, yes, yes! Still you face a paradox. What is the origin of human rights? 
It is *not* the formal drafting and ratification process. That would imply 
that it would actually be an *arbitrary* choice, that happens to be 
supported by a political majority. The claim of human rights rather is that 
they are *universal*, perhaps even independent from codification. This is a 
question of legal and moral philosophy that has no easy answer. So it is - 
al least - understandable that some rights are designated "natural", as a 
practical way out of this philosophical jungle.

Anyway, we started from the question whether the rights on "literary and 
artisics works" (as they are called in the age-old Berne Convention) should 
be considered a construct for the benefit of the author or a construction 
for the benefit of sociaty (... if that is really conflicting). I would put 
the interests of society first, which is the premise of COPYright, not 
AUTHORSright: seem US constitution.

reinier