<!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:F3B41DEA770F42DDADF8E0DF7F2DE389@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">I betthe Spanish civil law only considered
"intellectual property" as a kind of property right <u>to the extent</u>
that it is protected by ony of the specific legal regimes: copyright,
patents, trademarks, etc. For a lawyer this is so obvious that I can
hardly imagine anything else. Civiil law usually is hardly politically
loaded, or controversial.</font></div>
</blockquote>
First of all: the <i>c word</i> as such doesn't exist in Spanish legal
terminology -unless you use <i>false friends</i> while translating-;
you can check it by comparing the <a
href="http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache:DG6MD25JkNsJ:www.euromedaudiovisuel.net/Files/2007/05/03/1178195806664.doc+2001/29/EC&hl=es&ct=clnk&cd=21&gl=es">English
2001/29/EC version</a> with the <a
href="http://www.boe.es/g/es/bases_datos/doc.php?coleccion=iberlex&id=2001/81549">official
Spanish translation</a> ... where in one talks about the c word, in the
Spanish one talks about <i>derechos de autor</i> (author's rights).<br>
<br>
About Spanish <b>1889</b> Civil Law, <i>Intellectual pro...whatever</i>
is not in "<i>author's rights, patents and trademarks</i>" section but
in "<i>special types of property</i>" <b>together with water &
minerals</b>; <a
href="http://noticias.juridicas.com/base_datos/Privado/cc.l2t4.html#c3">see
it by yourself</a>:<br>
<br>
"<i>The author of a literary, scientific or artistic work, has the
right to exploit and have the use of it at his will"</i><br>
<br>
"<i>The <a
href="http://noticias.juridicas.com/base_datos/Admin/rdleg1-1996.html">Intellectual
Property Law</a>
</i>(for the purposes of the original 1889 Civil Law, it referred to <a
href="http://derecho-internet.org/node/365"><b>1879</b>'s IP Law</a>,
even prior to Berne Convention)<i> determines people who are
rightholders, the ways to exercise it and its term. In cases not
considered nor solved by such special law <b>general rules on property</b>
included in this Code will apply</i>"<br>
<br>
Thus, it wasn't considered as a kind of property to the extend that it
was protected by author's rights regime; it simply was considered so;
IP law was used only to define specific issues; and Civil Law covered
the rest of related topics. So, <b>even prior to Berne Convention</b>,
in Spain -and probably in other countries-, unfortunately it already
existed. Probably it was the fault of some lawyers who considered -who
knows why- that inmaterial works can be appropriable -as Spanish Civil
Law states, currently in Spain inheritance, transferability and other
characteristics of property are applied to commercial rights-; as you
can see, <b>lawyers can be harmful when they choose to serve to
harmful purposes -like considering author's rights as property</b> (?)-.<br>
<br>
And as you can see, the legal changes to be applied in Spain are a huge
bunch, to make our author's rights legal framework match with our goals
-i.e., to abolish levies, to reduce term & scope of commercial
rights, to allow free non-commercial filesharing, etc-<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:F3B41DEA770F42DDADF8E0DF7F2DE389@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">I agreee, it is confusing. The term
"intellectual property" exists for a long time as a generic concept.
But specific rules depending (only!) on a decision "is this
intellectual property" did not exist, until very recently. The route
always was: this is copyrigh (Y/N) so it belongs to the group
"intellectual property" (Y/N).<br>
</font></div>
</blockquote>
Wrong. Check again 1889 Spanish Civil Law: it declared (declares) what
can be considered as <i>intellectual pro...whatever</i>. Spanish IP
Law doesn't discuss what is and what is not, but it does define its
characteristics.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:F3B41DEA770F42DDADF8E0DF7F2DE389@RBB2008"
type="cite">
<div><font color="#0000ff">Not that the statutes usually do not
define a concept such as "civil law" either. Some qualifications (jn
terms of concepts) have legal consequences, others haven't.</font></div>
</blockquote>
Which are, according to you and in this case (1889 Civil Law), the
concepts not having legal consequences?<br>
<br>
<br>
Carlos Ayala<br>
( Aiarakoa )<br>
<br>
Partido Pirata National Board's Chairman<br>
</body>
</html>