<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE></TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content=text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.5730.13" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY text=#000000 bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2>(resent because of
technical problem)</FONT></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> Sunday, December 28, 2008 11:49
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [pp.int.general] where is
the manifesto?</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2></FONT><BR></DIV>Reinier
Bakels wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=mid:1708A444F3EC42EB90329E2163FD12E7@RBB2008
type="cite">The confusion is simple. The term "intellectual property" is
WRONG - as is recognised by legal scholars. Some even argue it is a
deliberate lie. But "property rights" are something else (Vermögensrechte in
German - a perhaps less confusing concept).<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV>Sorry I got lost with that. I mean, while I have clear that you defend to
respect the current status of material rights for existing intellectual works
-i.e., not allowing retroactiveness-:<BR><BR>- do you defend to reduce term
& scope of material rights -also, <B>not considering that intellectual
works can be considered in any sense as properties</B>- for new intellectual
works?</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2> Yes,
if it is about new works, the rights are perhaps reduced in the abstract (i.e.
in the legal code) but not concrete rights owned by concrete persons. Here
there are perhaps problems with compatibility with TRIPS, Berne and
European directives, but property rights are not hurt.</FONT><BR>- or you
defend to respect the current status of material rights for existing
intellectual works, and although dismissing the <I>intellectual
pro...whatever</I> expression -and even reducing their material rights term-,
<B>considering that intellectual works are some kind of property</B>?</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2> The
first half of the sentence is correct. but the boldface text is incorrect, or
at least confusing. Yes, some intellectual words are <U>actually</U>
considered intellectual works, but not automatically by virtue of their nature
as"intellectual works". There is a "closed system": the principle is
information freedom, and all exceptions need <EM>explicit</EM> legal
codification: copyright, patents, trademark law, etc.<BR></FONT><BR>I think it
would be quite important to know it, Reinier.<BR><BR><FONT
face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2>Hope my answer is clear. And don't
kill me if it is not 100% clear, T type this at the CC
conference.</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></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>