<!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>Would you think that commercial rights, then, have to be property rights?
You say yes, I say no. You say why, I say I do know:<BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2>Strictly speaking,
"commercial rights" afaik is no legal concept. Eventually the logic of the
system says it all: the goverment can not take away something that represents
money, either by expropriation or by a change of law that pertains to existing
rights. That makes it a property right,whatever words are used.</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=mid:53D320C94DC14EDAB3385113F2693804@RBB2008 type="cite">
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(0,0,255) 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff>Well, this is what I meant above. You just don't
believe me. Assume youare right. Then that iseven more a reason not to
believe my explanation on the property rights concept
...</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV>Because:<BR><BR>- if intellectual works are not appropriable, thus not
any sort of properties, I don't want them to be associated in any way to the
property concept</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2>A fine illustration are
the moral rights existing today. Moral rights can not by transferred (almost
by definition), so they can not be sold and thus do not represent property
rights. The purpose of moral rights is - in short - the right of the author to
prevent his work from being damaged. But the other aspect of copyright, the
exploitation right, serves to make money (that's why it is called
exploitation right). So depriving someone from this right leads to a
potential financial loss.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2>In countries with a
so-called monistic system like Germany, neither the moral nor
theexploitation right can be transferred ("assigned"), while with a dualistic
system (such as in NL), the exploitation right (including the right to
grant licences) can be transferred, while the autthor keeps the moral right.
But in practice the difference is minor. I deliberately refrained from
publishing in a German professional magazine because the editor would not have
allowed me to publish my article on the internet. Logically the publisher gets
the first right for publication, but not the exclusive right afterwards.
(For completeness, I don't get any money for such publications!)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff
size=2>reinier </FONT><BR>-
furthermore, I want to avoid it because I want to avoid giving arguments to
the lobbies<BR><BR>If that means making commercial rights untransferable
-i.e., just licensable, so author would remain as the rightholder-, if that
means searching -to avoid inheritance of commercial rights in case the author
dies prior to their expiracy- alternatives to give the authors "<I>an adequate
standard of living</I>", I'll work to define commercial rights in a manner
that, when property lays somewhere, they lay in the opposite part of the legal
universe.<BR><BR><BR>
Carlos
Ayala<BR>
( Aiarakoa
)<BR><BR>
Partido Pirata National Board's Chairman </DIV>
<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>