<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Reinier Bakels wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:CF648AFA87444A1497940904BC08C96C@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;">
<blockquote cite="mid:4D0D8F40DACE41BFB42B9F7D376115DB@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>Then I simply don't understand why you use to talk about
it like if it were a contemporary issue ...<font color="#ff0000"><font
color="#000000">.</font></font></div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<p><font color="#0000ff">Because some things that have been
invented over 1000 years ago are still alive and kicking today. Private
law fundamentals are the typical example.</font></p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
You said <i>intellectual pro...whatever</i> is only a thing which
usage started at the 1980's, and I've proved that, at least in Spain,
that's not right. So again, I don't understand why you use to talk
about it like if it were a contemporary issue if you say that
considering author's rights as property is a fallacy that comes from
times of the Roman Empire.<br>
</body>
</html>