<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content=text/html;charset=UTF-8>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16705" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY text=#000000 bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2>Hi Carlos,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2>First of all, if the
Manifesto is not usable in our view, we just don't use it. or at least, I would
propose not to use it. If you engage in a legal debate, you must be very
precise, otherwise you loose the debate with lawyers. We have just seen that in
another field (software patents). Sometimes you may argue that policy is first
and law is second, but you don't always win the debate with that argument,
especially if you start with a legal argument
first. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2>Secondly, the human rights
issue is indeed complicated - but the confusion imho can be resolved. You refer
(I presume) to art. 27(2) UDHR: "Everyone has the right to the protection of the
moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic
production of which he is the author." Well, in practice there is little
disagreement that this provision should not be taken literally. It is
widely recognised that copyright has limitations. Firstly, the subject-matter is
limited (= the object). In simple terms: copyright protects expressions, not
ideas. Secondly, the rights are limited, both in time and in contents. If it
would be a genuine human right, neither time nor contents should be limited
(except in case of plain abuse). But time is life+70, generally, and the
contents are limited by the fair use doctrine in the US, and the closed system
of limitations in continental Europe.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2>The US constitution
explicitly refers to the utilitarian purpose: "</FONT><FONT face="Comic Sans MS"
color=#0000ff size=2>The Congress shall have Power ... To promote the
Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors
and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries".
Here the interests of society are leading.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2>It should be noted that the
UDHR is not enforceable, unlike the ECHR. I actually referred to art. 1 of the
first protocol to the ECHR: </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2>Article 1 - Protection of
property. Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of
his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the
public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the
general principles of international law. [...]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2>In this provision,
"property" includes "intellectual property". Legal theory usually emphasises
that the two are essentially different. The common denominator is however that a
"property right", ONCE AND TO THE EXTENT IT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED, deserves
protection against expropriation (without a proper compensation). The logic
behind this is that a right representing some (monetary) value should not be
taken away from its owner, in a decent society.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2>It is a mistake however to
assume that any production of information is entitled to be protected by
law, let alone as a full property right, implying full control by the
owner. This is in particular important in patent law: not all result of
brainwork is considered an invention. There is no legal protection of mere ideas
if only because they potentially have a very wide scope. The effort is actually
immaterial: basic science results are not patentable. Another sign that it
is not a human rights is that an independent rediscovery is not patent-eligible.
If it would be a true human right, it could not depend from what others
coincidentally did (i.e. making the inventions first). </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2>In sum, for the pirate
party the essence is:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2>YES we recognise the (human
rights) protection of information (or whatever overarching term you want to use)
ONCE AND TO THE EXTENT IT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2>NO we do not assume that
all creativity automatically leads to such rights, and we even challenge
the present rights. The present limits are the output of a political process,
rather than human rights requirements, so they are subject to change whenever
political conceptions change.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2>And it is the objective of
PP to challenge the objects and contents of such rights. Not to deprive
people from existing rights (without compensation). Only the latter would
violate human rights.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2>Is that clear? A literal
interpretation of the above UDHR provision would mean the end of the PP - but it
would also invalidate the ECHR, the US Constitution and similar Constitutional
regulations.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff
size=2>reinier </FONT> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Groeten, Grüße, Regards, Cordialement, Hälsningar, Ciao, Saygilar,
Üdvözlettel, Pozdrowienia, Kumusta, Adios, Oan't sjen, Ave, Doei, Yassou,
Yoroshiku, Slán, Vinarliga, Kær Kveðja<BR>>>> REINIER B. BAKELS PhD
LL.M. MSc<BR>private: Johan Willem Frisostraat 149, 2713 CC Zoetermeer, The
Netherlands telephone: +31 79 316 3126, GSM ("Handy") +31 6 4988 6490, fax
+31 79 316 7221</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=aiarakoa@yahoo.es href="mailto:aiarakoa@yahoo.es">Carlos Ayala
Vargas</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net
href="mailto:pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net">Pirate Parties
International -- General Talk</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, December 23, 2008 9:29
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [pp.int.general] where is
the manifesto?</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Reinier Bakels wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=mid:011d01c964f3$cfd28280$6400a8c0@RBB2007 type="cite">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16705" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff>Thanks! </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff>If it is not final, does that mean that there
is still an opportunity to propose changes? (Sorry, I really had no time to
do that earlier).</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>If you have contacted Samir
earlier, you would might have had the chance some days ago, when a debate
session was summoned. About the rest of your mail, only want to answer
this<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=mid:011d01c964f3$cfd28280$6400a8c0@RBB2007 type="cite">
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff>And there are some basic mistakes. There is no
point in saying that autor's rights and patents are no "property rights".
The essence is to focus on the limitations of substance and contents. But a
decent society respects property rights, whenever and to the extent they are
established. It is a human right!</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>Talking about basic
mistakes, if you state that <I>intellectual pro...whatever</I> is a human
right, while <A
href="http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/898586b1dc7b4043c1256a450044f331/03902145edbbe797c125711500584ea8/$FILE/G0640060.pdf">UN
states that not only it is not a human right, but also that it's just to
defend corporate interests</A> ... who should I follow? I think that I should
follow UN -while I can sometimes disagree with UN, I think that UN is the most
authoritative entity for the interpretation of human rights; nonetheless, they
wrote them :)-. <B>Author's rights -i.e., <I>moral and material interests of
authors</I>- are considered by UN as human rights; <I>intellectual
pro...whatever</I> is not</B>.
Regards,<BR><BR><BR>
Carlos
Ayala<BR>
( Aiarakoa )<BR><BR>
Partido Pirata National Board's Chairman<BR>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>____________________________________________________<BR>Pirate Parties
International - General
Talk<BR>pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net<BR>http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>