[A2k] Users' rights

[A.C.Story]

I want to emphasise what Fede has said.

The main issue ---and my starting point --- was the problem in using the ph=
rase "copyright limitations and exceptions" and the ideological/political/l=
egal assumptions of this wording. (What is the best alternative is, at leas=
t for the moment, a secondary matter.)

So I will repose the question: do people thinking there is a problem with t=
his phrase which, as Peter has just told, is part of the "received wisdom"?

Alan


Alan Story
Senior Lecturer, Intellectual Property Law
Kent Law School
University of Kent
Canterbury Kent
United Kingdom      CT2 7NS
acs3@kent.ac.uk
Phone: +44 (0)1227 823316
________________________________________
From: Federico Heinz [fheinz@vialibre.org.ar]
Sent: 29 June 2009 14:54
To: James Love
Cc: A.C.Story; Janice Pilch; a2k@lists.essential.org
Subject: Re: [A2k] Users' rights

On 29/06/2009, James Love wrote:
> I think it is appropriate to set out rights for different stakeholders,
> without having to prove in all cases that the rights meet a particular
> standard used for human rights.

That was not my point. I was agreeing with Alan in the idea that thinking i=
n
terms of "limitations and exceptions" is a problem, and only pointing out t=
hat
"user's rights" may not be the best alternative because it bolsters an
artificial creator/consumer dichotomy.

I realize that "human rights" has its own problems, because it is usually
interpreted in a narrow sense as defined by the Human Rights declaration,
that's why I offered "people's rights", but there are probably better
alternatives which I am too stupid to think of.

        Fede