[pp.int.general] International day of Sharing - September 12

[Reinier Bakels]

>
>    1. "Natural law" is generally perceived by lawyers as a very weak =
>    proposition from a methodological perspective. It means: it is 
> naturally =
>    so - don't ask any further questions - or in less polite terms: shut 
> up!
>
> These decisions are political rather than legal, which means they are
> not made directly by lawyers.  Many politicians are lawyers, but few
> of them practiced copyright law.  So even if philosophically inclined
> lawyers have a basis to resist this influence, its influence is very
> strong on politicians and the public.
You are right, the claim for a "natural right" is first of all a political 
claim.The bad thing is that "natural right" *claims* "naturality", some sort 
of legal justification, which is NONEXISTING!
>
>    Scholars soon acknowledged that this was incorrect. If you want =
>    to cite an authoritative source: the great German scholar Joseph Kohler 
> =
>    (1849-1919) proposed "immaterial goods rights" =
>    (Immaterialg=C3=BCterrechte in German)
>
> I don't know German, but I have a vague (perhaps mistaken) feeling
> that "recht" does not correspond perfectly to the English word
> "right".  Can it also mean "law" or "justice"?  Perhaps there is a better
> way to translate his term, one which would avoid the implication of
> "rights" in English.

In German (and Dutch, my native language) the same word "recht" is used both 
for law (=justice) and right. So we distinguish rights as "subjective 
rights" = rights belonging to someone. This is basic undergratuate law 
terminology, without any prejudice to the legitimacy of rights. The essence 
of professor Kohlers statement was a denial of the "intellectual property" 
concept - don't we agree on that?

reinier