[A2k] User Rights full circle
Jeffrey A. Williams
jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Thu Jul 2 15:25:28 2009
Eric and all,
Of course you precisely correct here. But as you know, there are
folks like Mark whom some of us have heard from before, that believe
or wish to change the fairness doctrine in such a way that suites some
small special interest groups interests exclusively and permanently.
Such
notions are of course not reasonable, have never been reasonable as
long as I have been alive, and hopefully will never be so in America and
hopefully will not remain or come into existence in other nations
either.
I do believe that the notion of access to knowledge is a 'Human'
right,
as to believe otherwise is paramount to very bad unknown consequences
that will not serve the greater good of mankind. But as you say Eric,
Access to Knowledge is not the same as access to and individuals
property without due process and such a process cannot rightfully
suggest or impose such a reality that would impose the removal of
such property in abeyance of the fairness doctrine. Unfortunately
some incidents of this occur and have occurred unjustly and a few
remain not yet corrected.
Eric Dierker wrote:
>
> Not good. I would love for there to be such dignitiy in the world.
And access 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. Think about what you are communistically
proposing. What I create is yours?? But ACCESS to KNOWLEDGE is a
different beast than access to my stuff. This is why in most
constitutions we have provision for no taking of property without due
process. 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.ac.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 famous
taper/candle metaphor) and in French Courts.
While an author keeps his/her work in his mind, or a private
manuscript, the
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 the
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. We
cleared the notion the a copyright is indeed a right -- it
most certainly is
not.
We established convincingly that users should be afforded
some freedoms and
privileges when using created works.
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. We are wrong
again. No one has, anywhere, the constitutional inalienable
right to
anothers' creative works.
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.
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.
_______________________________________________
A2k mailing list
A2k@lists.essential.org
http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k
>
Regards,
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 284k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
Abraham Lincoln
"YES WE CAN!" Barack ( Berry ) Obama
"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt
"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
My Phone: 214-244-4827