[pp.int.general] purpose of manifesto

[Carlos Ayala Vargas]

Reinier Bakels wrote:
> Sorry, I made a mistake. (Am I allowed to make mistakes? Perhaps we 
> exchange too many messages!)
Sure you're allowed, though it's not the first time that I talk about 
/retrogressive/ (shortening term & scope for post-change works) and you 
reply with the /retroactive/ stuff. Considering the end of this mail 
-your /going against what human rights protect/ statement-, I don't 
believe you did a mistake, but a deliberated move.
> But I also answered this question before. Rights become "property 
> rights" by their properties (sorry, the word "property" here has a 
> very different meaning), not because they are designated as such.
Fully disagree: cultural works aren't appropriable anymore -there is no 
scarcity there: if I use (even just partially and non-commercially) your 
home you are not able to fully use it, while if I (non-commercially) use 
your intellectual creation you're still able to fully use it; i.e., I'm 
not depriving you from anything-, thus I find no reason to talk about 
property rights when you talk about rights on cultural works. Why, then, 
do you treat songs and films like if they were real estates or bonds?

Cultural works are not property, and it doesn't matter whether you use 
quotes or not, as indeed you've said property -if it weren't property, 
you would be able to use another word-.
> So the question boils down to the question whether it would be 
> possible to design a right on a "literary or artistic work" that does 
> not have the properties of a property right. Good question! I guess 
> still if the right is marked non-transferable (= is not marked 
> trasferable), it is a "property right" as long as it can be 
> commercially exploited.
Again, disagree: specially if you erase the inheritability and the 
transferability from commercial rights, you remove any possible link 
between property-like rights and author's rights.
> To conclude, I do not manage to devise a right on "works" which is not 
> a property right. You need help from someone else.
Then there is an almost full disagreement between your viewpoints and 
PIRATA viewpoints on author's rights

- you complain about the rejection of concepts like /intellectual 
pro...whatever/ and the /c...word/ (you think that such rejection makes 
any debate cumbersome), PIRATA finds that the first one simply doesn't 
exist and that the second one simply doesn't apply to the Spanish legal 
framework
- you complain about demanding a shortening of commercial rights term & 
scope, PIRATA finds it a not-to-be-given-up goal
- you don't manage to devise a right on cultural works which is not a 
property right, we first deny cultural works being property nor 
/property/, then find moral rights as obviously not property-like 
rights, and finally (if transferability and inheritability are disabled) 
commercial rights would neither be property-like rights

It's like if you were in Pluto and PIRATA in Earth ... still in the same 
solar system, but so far ...
> Perhaps it may help to restate the problem. The issue obviously is not 
> that you don't want a "property right" per se.
But of course it's the issue ... for PIRATA. You can deal with whatever 
issues you want to.
> *If you mean* that the government should be free *to alter the right 
> after creation* if and when desired, changing the monetary value of 
> the right, I *don't think there is a solution*. Because *that is 
> exactly what human rights* like art. 1 of the first protocol to the 
> ECHR and art. 14 of the German Constitution *protect* ...
What are you talking about? It's again that fallacy from you which tries 
to present PIRATA's /goals/ -actually a /strawman/ version of them- as 
violating human rights, what's plainly false and a fully rejectable 
statement. I've repeatedly stated that we in PIRATA don't want to alter 
the rights of existing pre-change works, but to change the law which 
defines the right -thus not affecting existing pre-change works, but 
affecting new post-change works-.

Are you so short of arguments that you need to distort what PIRATA 
defends? It's almost as nonsensical as the rest of your attempts to /ad 
hominem/ me just because I reject most of your viewpoints.


                                                                                                  
Carlos Ayala
                                                                                                  
( Aiarakoa )

   
                                                                         
Partido Pirata National Board's Chairman