[pp.int.general] Are there "good" and "wrong" Rigths?

[mattias.bjarnemalm at piratpartiet.se]

On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 12:37:43 +0200, Dario <i at dario.im> wrote:
> El 29 de marzo de 2012 12:09, <mattias.bjarnemalm at piratpartiet.se>
> escribió:
> 
>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 11:29:34 +0200, Dario <i at dario.im> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> > Moral rights are, generally, the right of
>> >
attribution<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_%28copyright%29>,
>> > the right to have a work published
>> > anonymously<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymity>or
>> > pseudonymously <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudonym>, and the
right
>> to
>> > the integrity of the work. The first and the former are recognized in
>> > Creative Commons licenses.
>>
>> Trying to profit from material interests is not missuse. It is to use
>> that
>> material interest. There is no way around the fact that the line "the
>> right
>> to the protection of the [...] material interests resulting from any
>> scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author"
is
>> in direct conflict with the core of the IPR critique within the Pirate
>> movement.
>>
>>
> I still think it is more about abusing of this protection. Let me show
you
> my point with an example: if you write a book and release it under CC or
> public domain. If you want to sell it, are you in conflict with yourself
as
> pirate? :) What about "No safe harbor" of PP-US?
> 
> Another example: you have a succesful website with some freemium model.
> Aren't you using it for material interest? Even if you are fully open
> source?
> 
> This is about abuse. If IPR is used in a fair way, without monopolies
nor
> attacks against our freedoms, would there be Pirates? :)

I am not arguing that individuals can benefit materially outside of the
current copyright regime. I am arguing that according to the udhr they have
a right to protection. Now, if that is their right it is then up to them
how they want to exploit that right, and trying to reduce IPR to the level
of cc would infringe on their rights. Personally I have no problem with
that, but I am not as naive as to think that it will not be perceived as
counter to the intention of udhr. Especially as long as the pirate movement
is not strong enough to influence the position of WIPO, who, being an UN
entity, will most likely be seen as the rightful interpreter of those
lines.

> 
>> This does not hinder us from supporting HR in general. But we should
>> always avoid referring to the udhr or any other UN document when
arguing
>> for HR.
>>
>>
> It is hard to support something without any kind of content about what
are
> you supporting :)

I've actually never had a problem doing that. Either you refer to external
content like the udhr, or you create the content yourself when you need to
present it.