[A2k] User Rights full circle

[cogitoergosum@sbcglobal.net]

--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]

Senior Claude,
=A0
You are a good man indeed. Clearly you are correct in your skepticism of my=
 use of the "divine". I can empathise with your strong feelings and objecti=
ons. If I were to view my use of the term the same as you must,,, I also wo=
uld be adamant in staunch resistance.
=A0
But most certainly your understanding is clouded by some disdain for anythi=
ng even remotely smelling of religion. Please be careful there.=A0Divine is=
 simply something holding or emanating from god like qualities. Not to worr=
y - not a God or religion. Simply really really good. Having a truth and ex=
istance beyond question. It is not a thing or a scripture or my deal or you=
r deal, just really really so good it is intrinsic.
=A0
The concept of Access to Knowledge is such a high ideal. Only bad can come =
from its denial. Only good can come from its existence.=A0 Yes like human r=
ights and civil rights.
=A0
My point being that Users, simply because they want to use something do not=
 elevate to such rights or divinity. But both Access and Knowledge do. And =
combined in synergism there is no question as to their high moral value. He=
nce the full circle.

--- On Tue, 6/30/09, Claude Almansi <claude.almansi@gmail.com> wrote:


From: Claude Almansi <claude.almansi@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [A2k] User Rights full circle
To: cogitoergosum@sbcglobal.net, "a2k discuss list" <a2k@lists.essential.or=
g>
Date: Tuesday, June 30, 2009, 9:21 PM


On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 2:43 PM, <cogitoergosum@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> (...)
>
> And now we are all speaking as though there is some universal "user right=
s" as though they are devinely given like Human or Civil rights.=A0 We are =
wrong again.=A0 No one has, anywhere, the constitutional inalienable right =
to anothers' creative works.

No one alleged that users' rights are "devinely given" in this thread.
And Human and Civil Rights declarations never purported to be
"devinely given" either (a darned good thing too, considering the
whimsical-tyrannical attitude towards mankind ascribed to godheads by
most religions).

>
> This makes abundantly clear that these esoteric linguistic philospher thr=
eads are essential to our debate and understanding of the concepts involved=
 in Access to Knowledge.
>
> the below indicates a leap from interests to rights without debate;
>
> Under the proposed regulations, if a university chooses not to seek
> intellectual property protection, the National IP Management Office
> (NIPMO), a proposed body with a staff of experts in IP,
> commercialisation and patents, has the right to reassess the decision.
> If NIPMO disagrees with the university, it may itself acquire
> ownership of the research and IP rights. If, however, NIPMO agrees
> with the assessment, the university is free to assign its rights to
> the research to the inventor.

About the South African NIPMO and IPR Research Regulations instituting
it, see Andrew Rens' :

- "IPR Research Regulations are unconstitutional"
<http://aliquidnovi.org/?p=3D281>
- "Privatising Public Knowledge Draft Regulations: confusing the
public domain and the commons" <http://aliquidnovi.org/?p=3D293>

and see Eve Gray's: "IPR Act Regulations promulgated - the death knell
for open science in South Africa?"
<http://blogs.uct.ac.za/blog/gray-area/2009/04/21/ipr-act-regulations>.

Or do you consider NIPMO as "devinely given" and these scholars as heretics=
?

Best

Claude Almansi