<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-15"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Richard M Stallman wrote:<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:E1LGFcW-0002to-S7@fencepost.gnu.org" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">The road to freedom is not always short. But it is infinitely long if you give up.</pre>
</blockquote>
While I agree with such statement -rights are easy to be lost and hard
to be recovered-, I don't find it suitable for this case. I mean, if we
truly achieve the shortening of material rights -in term & scope-,
and we make such shortening permanent, do you think that it would be <i>giving
up</i>?<br>
<br>
- passing from material rights lasting until 70 years after author's
death to 5, 10, 25 ... whatever amount of years that would finally be
set as new term after the date of creation of an intellectual work<br>
- having fully free non-commercial usage of intellectual works<br>
- etc<br>
<br>
would be, in your viewpoint, <i>giving up</i>? Sorry, I have to
disagree :) It would be such a huge victory -to have the legal
framework set exactly as we want to, in term & scope- that I think
that <i>giving up</i> and such a success are incompatible concepts.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:E1LGFcW-0002to-S7@fencepost.gnu.org" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I fully support the principle of non-retroactivity _for crimes_, but that has nothing to do with the issue at hand, because we are not talking about making anything a crimes. To reduce copyright power means legalizing activities that are currently crimes, and ending certain artificial opportunities for certain peopel to sue.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<blockquote cite="mid:E1LGFcW-0002to-S7@fencepost.gnu.org" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">If they make such decisions, that would indicate they have adopted a misguided principle about artificial privileges. Perhaps the constitution needs to be amended.
</pre>
</blockquote>
For that issue there can be people who would give you more suitable
answers than mines; however, I would be surprised if they follow
something different than that <i>misguided principle</i>. e.g., in
Spain, <a
href="http://noticias.juridicas.com/base_datos/Admin/rdleg1-1996.l4t1.html#dt1">author's
rights framework</a> applies that principle to authors: "<i>modifications
introduced by this Law, which cause prejudice to rights acquired
according to the former law, will have no retroactive effect, unless as
stated in the following clauses</i>" (and it's followed by six 1987's
clauses, plus additional clauses introduced by later modifications of
the Law). About how irretroactiveness of prejudicial provisions do
affect the so-called <i>acquired rights</i> -and how does it affect
changes in author's rights legal framework-, it'd be better to ask
other people.<br>
<br>
Conclussion:<br>
<br>
- I'm afraid that constitutional courts, ECJ, etc, would revoke parts
of brand new author's rights legal frameworks -developed by PPI- that
aim to retroactively shorten material rights of existing intellectual
works<br>
- but of course that retrogressive changes, like shortening material
rights of brand new intellectual works -i.e., created after new law
being passed-, would be absolutely allowed<br>
- I deny that having term & scope of author's material rights can
be considered as <i>giving up</i>, nor as being <i>defeatist</i><br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
<br>
Carlos Ayala<br>
( Aiarakoa )<br>
<br>
Partido Pirata National Board's Chairman<br>
<br>
P.D.: These kind of details are not included in any of the Manifesto's
draft; as long as drafts talk about defending rule of law, it's assumed
that PPI would defend rule of law, with all its consequences. About the
scope of such consequences, if anyone has doubts about them, there are
more suitable law experts to be consulted.<br>
</body>
</html>