<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Reinier Bakels wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:121A7F9BD1AC49468DEBB6D94626B61C@RBB2008"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<meta content="MSHTML 6.00.5730.13" name="GENERATOR">
<style></style>
<div><font color="#0000ff">Strictly speaking, "commercial rights"
afaik is no legal concept.</font></div>
</blockquote>
Strictly speaking, moral rights ... are a legal concept and -according
to your own words- not a property; simply you want to discredit
commercial rights as something that can be configured not as a sort of
property.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:121A7F9BD1AC49468DEBB6D94626B61C@RBB2008"
type="cite">
<div><font color="#0000ff"> 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>
Why do you still talking about expropriation, if we are talking about
post-change (i.e., new) works? I ask you for the status of commercial
rights for new works.<br>
<br>
How can it be a property right, if we make it <b>for new works</b> not
transferable nor heritable? Even you say later:
<blockquote cite="mid:121A7F9BD1AC49468DEBB6D94626B61C@RBB2008"
type="cite">
<blockquote
style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(0, 0, 255); padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 5px; margin-left: 5px; margin-right: 0px;">
<div><font color="#0000ff">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.</font></div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
So, why do you block your mind and refuse to read me when I say: let's
configure commercial rights <b>for post-change (i.e., new) works</b>
so they cannot be considered property by any approached logic?<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:121A7F9BD1AC49468DEBB6D94626B61C@RBB2008"
type="cite">
<blockquote
style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(0, 0, 255); padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 5px; margin-left: 5px; margin-right: 0px;">
<div><font color="#0000ff"> 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>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
Why do you talk about depriving authors from commercial rights, when
even yourself have just talked about redefine them -i.e., reducing
their term & scope- <b>for new works</b>? You continue talking
about things not related; I talk about retrogressiveness, you talk
about retroactiveness, I talk about configuring rights for new works,
you talk about expropriation, I talk about how to make commercial
rights for new works being impossible to be considered property, you
talk about how do you see moral rights as no property while -with same
arguments- you see commercial rights as property.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:121A7F9BD1AC49468DEBB6D94626B61C@RBB2008"
type="cite">
<blockquote
style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(0, 0, 255); padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 5px; margin-left: 5px; margin-right: 0px;">
<div><font color="#0000ff">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.</font></div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
It's amazing to see you saying <font color="#000000">"<i>moral rights
can not by transferred (almost by definition), so they can not be sold
and thus do not represent property rights</i>" and "<i>neither the
moral nor the exploitation right can be transferred</i> [...] <i>the
exploitation right (including the right to grant licences) can be
transferred</i> [...] <i>in practice the difference is minor</i>"</font>
in the same mail. Pure contradiction. Your will to defend the
commercial side of intellectual works as property, no matter whether it
applies only to new works, no matter how those rights are configured,
is unconceivable.<br>
<br>
<br>
Carlos Ayala<br>
( Aiarakoa )<br>
<br>
Partido Pirata National Board's Chairman
</body>
</html>