[A2k] User Rights full circle

Wed Jul 1 12:15:20 2009

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

Let me apologize for my ignorant bias on your name. Let me confess, for a m=
an Claude is passe' like Eric, but for a woman of stature it conjours up ma=
jesty.
=A0
To the point of access; I would gladly risk life for a notion so pure as fu=
ll access to knowledge. I have defended against violence to the property* o=
f another. I hold these concepts higher than an "intrinsic" worth or value =
-- more sacrosanct.
=A0
I sure as hell do not include "I property" in this category and agree the t=
erm is misused as applied by negotiators, politicians and of course mass me=
dia.
=A0
Your statement "rights do not exist in a vacuum" is not accurate. "Rights" =
simply exist. You cannot escape or destroy "Rights".=A0 When we say "they t=
ook away his rights", we mean that he lost a physical attribute, a thing or=
 activity or even breath. One can kill a man but not his Rights.
=A0
As to the constitutionality of a bureaucratic institution originally establ=
ished for the appropriate management of the properties of intellectualism a=
s a natural/national resource.
There is no doubt it is constitutional. In a vacuum;-).=A0 So now we begin =
the arduous task of following Bob Jollife in questioning whether allowable =
and legitimate due process is adhered to in the actual interference of the =
excercising of creative property rights and useage.
=A0
I thank you and Bob for keeping a fine focus to the inquiry and assisting i=
n giving us the inside scoop.=A0 Our hope of course is that we learn from t=
his and others will have access to our gathering of knowledge.

=A0
*I refer not to ownership or the mortgage debacle of property, I refer to b=
eing safe in one's place of refuge regardless of titles and deeds.
--- On Wed, 7/1/09, 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: Wednesday, July 1, 2009, 12:17 PM

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.=A0D=
ivine
> 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.=A0 Yes like human
> 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.=A0=A0=A0in the case of the right to access information and knowledge,
of the users of=A0 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
>