[A2k] User Rights full circle

[Eric Dierker]

--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
Not good.=A0 I would love for there to be such dignitiy in the world. And a=
ccess to knowledge is just as you describe. But no way does "users rights" =
elevate to such an intrinsic need and basic element of our human existance.
=A0
Think about what you are communistically proposing.=A0 What I create is you=
rs??
=A0
But ACCESS to KNOWLEDGE is a different beast than access to my stuff.
=A0
This is why in most constitutions we have provision for no taking of proper=
ty without due process.=A0 This is also why copywrites expire. This is also=
 the fairness doctrine as intended.

--- On Wed, 7/1/09, Mark Perkins lists <lists@markperkins.info> wrote:


From: Mark Perkins lists <lists@markperkins.info>
Subject: RE: [A2k] User Rights full circle
To: cogitoergosum@sbcglobal.net, manon.ress@keionline.org, A.C.Story@kent.a=
c.uk, a2k@lists.essential.org
Cc: "'Jeff Williams'" <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wednesday, July 1, 2009, 10:43 PM


This is debatable.

My understanding is that the term 'users rights' is being used in relation
to 'human rights' rather than 'current US Constitutional rights'.

It can clearly be argued that 'users rights' are in fact 'human' or
'natural' rights; this has been done both in the USA ( Ben Franklin's famou=
s
taper/candle metaphor) and in French Courts.

While an author keeps his/her work in his mind, or a private manuscript, th=
e
work is clearly his/her own and no-one else has a 'right' to it.

BUT when s/he publishes (as in makes publically available), then 'users'
have a human right to use their natural faculties to read, copy, translate,
etc the work. The author's 'copyright' is in fact a privilege carved out
from these natural 'users rights'.

However, it can also be argued that, users do not have a 'natural right' to
plagarise, libel, distort, misattribute the work as this would impact on th=
e
authors reputation, his 'natural rights' or 'moral rights'....

Regards
Mark



-----Original Message-----
From: a2k-admin@lists.essential.org [mailto:a2k-admin@lists.essential.org]
On Behalf Of cogitoergosum@sbcglobal.net
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 11:43 PM
To: manon.ress@keionline.org; A.C.Story@kent.ac.uk; a2k@lists.essential.org
Cc: Jeff Williams
Subject: [A2k] User Rights full circle

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


It is very ironic indeed that we have gone all the way around the horn.=A0 =
We
cleared the notion the a copyright is indeed a right -- it most certainly i=
s
not.
=A0
We established convincingly that users should be afforded some freedoms and
privileges when using created works.
=A0
And now we are all speaking as though there is some universal "user rights"
as though they are devinely given like Human or Civil rights.=A0 We are wro=
ng
again.=A0 No one has, anywhere, the constitutional inalienable right to
anothers' creative works.
=A0
This makes abundantly clear that these esoteric linguistic philospher
threads are essential to our debate and understanding of the concepts
involved in Access to Knowledge.
=A0
the below indicates a leap from interests to rights without debate;
=A0
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=
.
_______________________________________________
A2k mailing list
A2k@lists.essential.org
http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k