<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Reinier Bakels wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:00a901c96543$fa5357f0$6400a8c0@RBB2007"
type="cite">
<div><font color="#0000ff">I actually referred to art. 1 of the first
protocol to the ECHR: </font></div>
<div><font color="#0000ff">Article 1 - Protection of property. Every
natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his
possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the
public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and
by the general principles of international law. [...]</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font color="#0000ff">In this provision, "property" includes
"intellectual property". Legal theory usually emphasises that the two
are essentially different. The common denominator is however that a
"property right", ONCE AND TO THE EXTENT IT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED,
deserves protection against expropriation (without a proper
compensation). The logic behind this is that a right representing some
(monetary) value should not be taken away from its owner, in a decent
society.</font></div>
</blockquote>
In a decent society! Well, most pirate parties signed an answer to an
EC Consultation which <a
href="http://int.piratenpartei.de/Levies_Questionnaire#The_premise_of_copyright_levies">stated</a>
that PPI doesn't consider author's rights as private property -among
other reasons, because not even the highest supporters of private
property (liberalism) consider author's rights as private property,
thus finding <i>intellectual pro...whatever</i> a fallacy-.<br>
<br>
Thus, are you calling all signatories of that answer to the Levies
Consultation ... indecent? Are you calling us indecent, Reinier?<br>
<br>
About <i>the logic</i>, please <a
href="http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/898586b1dc7b4043c1256a450044f331/03902145edbbe797c125711500584ea8/$FILE/G0640060.pdf">read
UN's ESC</a> before making such statements.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:00a901c96543$fa5357f0$6400a8c0@RBB2007"
type="cite">
<div><font color="#0000ff">In sum, for the pirate party the essence
is:</font></div>
</blockquote>
For the PPI, <i>with your permission</i> -actually, even without it
:)-, the essence will be agreed, or not agreed, by all pirate parties,
i.e., by their members. That is, by signing any of the proposed drafts,
or not signing any of them -and which draft to sign being
democratically and internally decided by each pirate party-.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:00a901c96543$fa5357f0$6400a8c0@RBB2007"
type="cite">
<div><font color="#0000ff">YES we recognise the (human rights)
protection of information (or whatever overarching term you want to
use) ONCE AND TO THE EXTENT IT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED</font></div>
<div><font color="#0000ff">NO we do not assume that all creativity
automatically leads to such rights, and we even challenge the present
rights. The present limits are the output of a political process,
rather than human rights requirements, so they are subject to change
whenever political conceptions change.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font color="#0000ff">And it is the objective of PP to challenge
the objects and contents of such rights. Not to deprive people from
existing rights (without compensation). Only the latter would violate
human rights.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font color="#0000ff">Is that clear? A literal interpretation of
the above UDHR provision would mean the end of the PP - but it would
also invalidate the ECHR, the US Constitution and similar
Constitutional regulations.</font></div>
</blockquote>
"<i>Is that clear?</i>" "<i>the latter would violate human rights</i>" "<i>would
mean the end of the PP</i>" I truly hallucinate with your mail :) In
Spain, we have a Political Parties Law which enables Government to
illegalize parties which behave against the rule of the law and against
the law itself; PIRATA states that intellectual property is a fallacy
and, up to date, no letter from Ministry of Interior has arrived to us
notifying a process to illegalize us.<br>
<br>
So no, it's not clear at all, as you aren't right: nobody is going to
legally illegalize us because of defending author's rights while
rejecting wicked concepts like <i>intellectual pro...whatever</i>.<br>
<br>
About "<i>depriving people from existing rights (without compensation)</i>",
you're going against UN provisions. Considering the <a
href="http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/898586b1dc7b4043c1256a450044f331/03902145edbbe797c125711500584ea8/$FILE/G0640060.pdf">UN
ESC's 2005 paper</a>, and as long as <b>UN allows retrogressive
measures regarding author's rights if the State party which propose
such measures proves that they come after careful consideration of all
alternatives and that they are duly justified in the light of the
totality of the human rights recognized in the Covenant</b> (paragraph
27 of that paper),
the term of material author's rights can be shortened falling
considerably below current term and even maybe not extending over the
entire lifsepan of the author, levies can be fully eliminated, and free
non-commercial filesharing can be enabled -as long as we consider that
non-commercial filesharing causes no prejudice to be compensated-.<br>
<br>
Please, document yourself way more prior to <i>menacing</i> us with
illegalization or simmilar if we continue rejecting the <i>intellectual
pro...whatever</i> concept, or accusing us of being indecent and being
violating human rights -it seems that you went too far, don't you
agree, Reinier?-. Regards,<br>
<br>
<br>
Carlos Ayala<br>
( Aiarakoa )<br>
<br>
Partido Pirata National Board's Chairman
</body>
</html>