<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<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>This is the kind of situation that the protection of property (NOT
"intellectual property") is supposed to solve. I don't know whether you
understand any Dutch or german, but they talk about "vermogensrechten" or
"Vermögensrechte". Words that do not remind of intellectual property. <BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>I slightly understand German, and -if I am not wrong- <I>vermöge</I>
translates as <B>patrimony</B> or <I>good</I> -in the sense of <B>ownable</B>
<I>good</I>-.<BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2>Well, I refer to a very
specific concept in private law, which is perhaps hard to explain to
non-lawyers, but I don't suggest changes to it. Patrimony is not a proper
explanation/transformation, I guess.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>In PIRATA, it is commented as a possible solution <B>to prevent
commercial author's rights from being transferable at all</B>: that is, if
Reinier is the author and Rick the publisher, Reinier can license Rick -until
the commercial rights expiracy, i.e., prior to entering public domain-
commercial usage of his works; the commercial usage can be settled by a fixed
amount or by a variable one -i.e., a percentage of sales-; even, Reinier can
allow Rick some specific cases of relicensing -i.e., if Rick's label is a
holding, it may have several firms (one for luxury editions, one for low-cost
editions, etc)-. However, if you have paid attention to my example, <B>Reinier
is always the one who licenses, as he would always be the rightholder</B> -he
is the author, and UDHR talks about "<I>moral and material interests of
authors</I>"; of authors, and of nobody else (if we don't deal carefully with
this issue, the spirit of such provision would be perverted again)-; <B>the
editor, thus, would not be rightholder anymore</B> -he just uses a
license-.<BR><BR>Even, the worrying case of the author's own expiracy -i.e.,
dying before the 5/10/20/30-year commercial term- generates a debate,
as:<BR><BR>- if you allow the author's heirs to behave as rightholders until
complete expiracy, in some way you're allowing rights inheritance, thus giving
arguments to the lobby<BR><BR>- if you don't allow the author's heirs to
behave as rightholders -it would happen if commercial rights were defined to
expire if the author dies prior to the end of the commercial term-, the
property fallacy would be contained; however, it would truly become the <I>van
Gogh paradox</I> that Reinier talked about last day<BR><BR>- maybe there can
be a third solution: UN ESC <A
href="http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/898586b1dc7b4043c1256a450044f331/03902145edbbe797c125711500584ea8/$FILE/G0640060.pdf">talks
about</A> ensuring authors an "<I>adequate standard of living</I>"; this can
be solved in many ways without exclusively thinking of fixed terms; variable
terms, and exclusive and non-exclusive (i.e., everyone being able to
commercially exploit intellectual works not belonging to public domain, as
long as those who exploits commercially the works pay royalties to the
authors) commercial exploitation scenarios; I think that UN conditions give us
a considerable margin to act<BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2>Authors rights (in the
continental tradition) are divided in to moral and exploitation rights.
Exploitation is economic. For existing copyrights, the government should
respect justified expectations it created. That's all</FONT></DIV><FONT
face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2></FONT><FONT face="Comic Sans MS"
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT>
<DIV><BR>Finally, Reinier, retaking my unanswered question -you have avoided
twice to answer it-: would you consider, in the light of PPI proposed reforms
on the author's rights framework, commercial rights as property? <BR><BR><FONT
face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2>No, I did answer it, but you thought
I did not. IIRC PP proposes a 5 year (exploitation) copyright. Then it
is unavoidable to consider it a property right. Only full abolishment allows
it not to be considered as such.</FONT></DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS"
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"><FONT
face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2>reinier</FONT>
<DIV><BR>
Carlos
Ayala<BR>
( Aiarakoa
)<BR><BR>
Partido Pirata National Board's Chairman<BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<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>