[A2k] User Rights full circle

[Claude Almansi]

Thank you for your clarifying answer, Ms/Mr cogitoergosum. Between your lin=
es:

On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 12:45 AM, <cogitoergosum@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Senior Claude,
>
> You are a good man indeed.

To clear a frequent misunderstanding due to my first name: while I am
senior (aged 57), I'm a woman.

> Clearly you are correct in your skepticism of my
> use of the "divine". I can empathise with your strong feelings and
> objections. If I were to view my use of the term the same as you must,,, =
I
> also would be adamant in staunch resistance.
>
> But most certainly your understanding is clouded by some disdain for
> anything even remotely smelling of religion. Please be careful there.=C2=
=A0Divine
> is simply something holding or emanating from god like qualities. Not to
> worry - not a God or religion. Simply really really good. Having a truth =
and
> existance beyond question. It is not a thing or a scripture or my deal or
> your deal, just really really so good it is intrinsic.

If this is what you meant, then it would have been clearer if you had
written "intrinsic" rather than "divine".

>
> The concept of Access to Knowledge is such a high ideal. Only bad can com=
e
> from its denial. Only good can come from its existence.=C2=A0 Yes like hu=
man
> rights and civil rights.
>
> My point being that Users, simply because they want to use something do n=
ot
> 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.
> Hence the full circle.

But rights do not exist in a vacuum. They are the rights of people -
i.e.   in the case of the right to access information and knowledge,
of the users of  information and knowledge. And that's what users'
rights are about.

Best

Claude Almansi

PS you have not answered about scholars and lawyers' criticism of the
anti-constitutionality of NIPMO (see below)

>
> --- On Tue, 6/30/09, Claude Almansi <claude.almansi@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 2:43 PM, <cogitoergosum@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> (...)
>>(...)
>>
>> 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 hereti=
cs?
>
> Best
>
> Claude Almansi
>