[A2k] User Rights full circle

[Roberto Verzola]

This is actually the *heart* of the debate, from my perspective:
the question, "what I create is yours?" Of course it is not
going to be somebody else's. The point we are raising is that
intellectual creations cannot be private property, in the same
sense as a car or a house, even if the legal system insists they
are. So my response to this question will be: what you create is
yours, only as long as you keep it to yourself. When you make it
public, it becomes part of the world's storehouse of knowledge.

Roberto Verzola


On Thursday 02 July 2009 8:25:36 am Eric Dierker wrote:
> --
> [ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
> Not good.=A0 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.=A0 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.=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.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.=A0 We cleared the notion the a copyright is indeed a
> right -- it most certainly is 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 wrong 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;
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> A2k mailing list
> A2k@lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k