<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Reinier Bakels wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:022401c965fd$94513110$6400a8c0@RBB2007"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<meta content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16705" name="GENERATOR">
<style></style>
<div><font color="#0000ff">I have found the document you refer to</font></div>
</blockquote>
Congratulations :) I was afraid that, as I only linked it several
times, you might have found difficult to find it.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:022401c965fd$94513110$6400a8c0@RBB2007"
type="cite">
<div><font color="#0000ff">I am not sure about its authority. These
are legal issues, and hardly ever in law there is THE truth. I repeat:
the UN can only make statements, unlike the European Court of Human
Rights, that can make binding decisions.</font></div>
</blockquote>
For me is enough to consider UDHR as reference -in its true
interpretation, not in the one given by you (I cannot believe that you
give yourself authority to interprete UDHR while you deny authority ...
to United Nations! Simply unbelievable)-. After having a reference, a
basis to work with, the rest of legal frameworks can be modified
according to it and to our viewpoints.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:022401c965fd$94513110$6400a8c0@RBB2007"
type="cite">
<div><font color="#0000ff">Making change to rights *after* they have
been granted (or recognised (*)) in my view is really forbidden.</font></div>
</blockquote>
Making false or forged statements is not forbidden, though it should be
highly recommendable not to be done.<br>
<br>
Who has talked here about forgetting rule of law? Pirate Manifesto
explicitly acknowledges rule of law -one of its principles being
irretroactivity of prejudicial changes-; so please stop falsely
accusing people.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:022401c965fd$94513110$6400a8c0@RBB2007"
type="cite">
<div><font color="#0000ff">That does not mean however that political
action can have no effect: if the law is changed, NEW (subjective)
rights may be different, or perhaps may not be recognised/granted at
all. But existing rights must be respected until they expire - or the
owner must be compensated. The reason is actually pretty obvious. If I
write something, I get the copyright, and I may sell the copyright to
someone else, e.g. the publisher. Because he has paid the money, he can
expect the government to protect his purchase.</font></div>
</blockquote>
Current EU legal framework states that "<i>in certain situations <b>where
the prejudice</b> to the rightholder <b>would be minimal, no
obligation to payment may arise</b></i>" (2001/29/EC, preamble,
paragraph 35). So we may discuss whether non-commercial filesharing
causes or not none or minimal prejudice to rightholders -I say yes, it
causes none or nearly none, I guess you say no; I can give arguments to
my answer, hope you are able to give some for yours-.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:022401c965fd$94513110$6400a8c0@RBB2007"
type="cite">
<div><font color="#0000ff">Of course, a true pirate will wonder
whether the copyright should be recognised at all. This is something
that can change - but only for NEW creations.</font></div>
<div><font color="#0000ff">Legislators should warrent legal
certainty, but that does NOT mean it can not change the law - a common
misconception.</font></div>
</blockquote>
Why do you suppose that we are suffering that misconception? Again,
read the Pirate Manifesto drafts, they talk about rule of law.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:022401c965fd$94513110$6400a8c0@RBB2007"
type="cite">
<div><font color="#0000ff">(*) Patents are granted. Copyrights come
into existence by the act of creation. It is a philosohical question
whether the right is created automatically, or whether it is created
"naturally" by the creativity of the author and only protected by the
legal system. Well, that is just a detail.<br>
</font></div>
</blockquote>
I found very amusing your viewpoint about <i>copyrights</i> being
naturally created with the act of intellectual works creation -actually
I find it bizarre even the usage of <i>the C word</i>-. Ĺet's rather
talk about author's rights and ... unless Mother Nature, God or the
Flying Spaghetti Monster have told you that <i>the C word</i> is in
the very nature of intellectual works -by the way, it would be quite
worrying having you talking with any of those entities-, also forget
that <i>true/natural/logical</i> words ... are you willing to give
your statements a sort of halo that makes them untouchable ... or
something? <b>Laws, in democracy, are not passed by God nor by Mother
Nature, but by human beings; and what is made by human beings can be
changed by human beings</b>.<br>
<br>
<br>
Carlos Ayala<br>
( Aiarakoa )<br>
<br>
Partido Pirata National Board's Chairman
</body>
</html>