[pp.int.general] purpose of manifesto

[Carlos Ayala Vargas]

Reinier Bakels wrote:
>> 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 ...
Such concept is not /aiarakocentric/: simply, it is what it is, i.e., 
author's rights are defined by a set of laws, codes and treaties not 
defined by Mother Nature but defined (and changeable) by human beings.
>> 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.
Such claim is false, as two dates prove it: 1789 & 1948.

If human rights were "/universal/" and independent from codification, 
considering that -as far as I know- the 1789 Declaration of the Rights 
of Man and of the Citizen still works as a built-in in French 
Constitution, there wouldn't have been the need for the 1948's UDHR. 
Were the enlightened XVIII people unable to see the "/universal/" human 
rights? Simply, the /natural/ approach is false, as depending of the 
century what we are talking about, societies find as /natural/ different 
things -as I said, not so many centuries ago, the customary law allowed 
slavery, while now customary law forbids slavery-.

I bet that if UDHR hypothetically didn't exist and had to be created 
nowadays, some parts would change, e.g., that of article 16(1)'s 
"/without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the 
right to marry and to found a family/" -incorporating the sexual 
preferences (together with race, nationality or religion) as issues 
invalid as reasons to limitate right to marry-, and maybe some explicit 
mention to environmental issues -remember all those UN efforts 
concerning climate change-.

You may think I'm wrong, you may think that if UDHR hypotethically 
didn't exist and had to be created now, it would be worded letter by 
letter literally with the same wording as 1948's UDHR; however, if you 
agree on a today's hypothetically new UDHR wording being different, then 
it cannot be /natural/ anymore, but how people from that century 
understands it.

Another example of why human rights are not "/universal/" nor 
"/natural/" is that *nowadays*, for different societies, the /natural/ 
thing is to eat people (think of the Liberian horror), to marry under 
aged people (even arrange those marriages even against the will of one 
of the spouses, normally an under aged girl), to crush and even genocide 
their neighbours (think of the Ruanda drama), to submit teenagers to 
cruel initiation rituals, and/or a large /et cetera/. *I know people 
that even find documents like UDHR /antinatural/* ... and *probably 
because of being /antinatural/, such people enjoy them, because* 
(sometimes) *allow people and nations to settle their quarrels without 
appealing to violence* -because *probably without such document, the 
/natural/ law would be the /law of the jungle/* (the rule of the 
strongest, which in the author's rights scenario wouldn't be PPI nor 
most authors nor most citizens, but the pro-/copyright/ lobby)-.
> 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.
I deny it. Understandable by who? Name people who understand it as such.

Rather than practical, I find it politically suicidal ... you often talk 
about the lobby's counterarguments: how would you argument  supporting a 
change in the author's rights legal framework, if you prior to that 
state that author's rights /are natural/ rights -not just moral rights, 
but also commercial rights-?

PIRATA encourages a very different approach: assuming as valid the 
existence of moral rights -i.e.: authorship (x is the author of the 
cultural work y) and integrity (x's work is y; if you talk about yy, Y, 
etc, they may be derivative works but will never be y)- and commercial 
rights, once both (moral and commercial) are assumed as declared, and as 
long as they are not /natural/ but made by human beings, commercial 
rights can be redefined -i.e., shortening term & scope-. If you rather 
encourage a /natural/ approach ... ok, you may achieve to preserve the 
current state of things (if it were its /natural/ state, it /shouldn't/ 
change), i.e., preventing a term & scope enlengthening ... however also 
preventing a term & scope shortening, thus simply everything would 
remain the same.

I think nobody here in PPI wants the current state of things to remain, 
but to change -and change only for good (i.e., shortening commercial 
rights term & scope, allowing non-commercial cultural works sharing, 
protecting authors from RMOs and abusive contracts, etc)-.
> 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.
In spite of you always talking about balance, you always forget that 
there is not just 27(2) in UDHR, but also citizen's rights on culture 
worded in 27(1). And you also forget that, in the /c word/ universe 
-think of USA, UK, etc-, there is no private copying, there is no 
filesharing, etc ... fair use? I bet US fair use is more restricted 
that, e.g., Spanish private copying -even considering the restricted 
2006 model, never mention pre-2006 model which was nearly non-commercial 
full private copying (not exactly free filesharing because it didn't 
allow free non-commercial usage of shared works)-.

If you always talk about /c word/, then for a concrete work (and during 
the commercial rights term) anyone except of the rightholder wouldn't 
have true rights, but mere exceptions to the rights of the holder. 
PIRATA finds it fully rejectable, as there are author's rights and there 
are citizens rights on culture, and citizens rights on culture are not 
exceptions of author's rights but true rights. So thanks for your 
advice, though -at least for PIRATA- no, thanks.


                                                                                          
Carlos Ayala
                                                                                          
( Aiarakoa )

                                                                     
Partido Pirata National Board's Chairman