Recently we discussed the common misconception that "copyright in the Constitution," but this is just one example among the defenders of copyright falsification of a document support of their cause. Another favorite, often invoked by people like Rob Levine and David Lowery is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a document relatively ineffective in the United States (compared to the Constitution) but it's good to have on your side.

But here's the thing: it does not say that the defenders of copyright does. Not even close. Not only focusing on only half of the relevant articles of the Declaration

and

ignoring other details additional United Nations declaration that it intends to go along with the first ...

even the small part that focuses not agree with your position.

Let's take a look.

line in the statement that establishes the right to some form of intellectual property in Article 27, paragraph 2:

Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

the bat, we see a problem:

moral

and material rights. The United States, explicitly and intentionally (with minor exceptions) is

not

protect the moral rights of creators, the copyright system is based almost exclusively on economic rights. Thus, when supporters of copyright in the United States refer to the Declaration of Human Rights, which are in fact points to a clause in the United States

direct violation





Now that may not sound like much, after all, at least the U.S. copyright law is consistent with the "substantive rights" part. But is it? This is where we must look at the overall picture of international law. This is something I've never supporters of copyright seems to do, and it is easy to understand why. As previously mentioned, the reference is the line

second

corresponding section of the article, now let's take a look at section 1:

Everyone has the right freely to participate

the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

Now it begins to look like the Human Rights Commission intend to have a little more balance in Article 27, and they had their priorities. Sections 1 and 2, taken together, suggests (at least) that copyright should focus primarily on companies (and that patents are a fairly debatable everywhere).

subjective interpretation? By itself, yes, but do not take my word for it. Look, there's something else that supporters of copyright go out of the picture: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is only

one of three documents together form the International Bill of Human Rights (nobody accused the UN of effectiveness). Another, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights provides an important additional details on the rights of creators. Let's take a look at section 15 of this document:

1. States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of any person to:

(a) To take part in cultural life;

(b) Have the benefits of scientific progress and its applications

(c) To benefit from the protection of moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

2. Measures to be taken by the States Parties to the present Covenant to achieve the full realization of this right shall include those necessary for the conservation, development and diffusion of science and culture.

3. States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to respect the freedom indispensable for scientific research and creative activity.

. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the benefits to be derived from the encouragement and development of international relations and cooperation in the scientific and cultural fields. That's a lot of caveats and additions, all determined to ensure that the reins are copyright too tight . In fact, it seems that the text is specifically trying to distance themselves from traditional intellectual property regimes. This time, certainly do not take my word for it, because that's where we come in really

irrefutable proof: General Comment (pdf) in document of the Economic and Social Commission, which also explain the intent of all rights. Here are some quotes results:

whereas the right of everyone to benefit from the protection of moral and material interests resulting from any guarantee scientific, literary and artistic personal link between authors and their creations and between peoples, communities and other groups and their collective cultural heritage as well as their basic material interests which are necessary to ensure that perpetrators enjoy an adequate standard of living, the intellectual property regimes primarily protect business and corporate interests and investments. In addition, the scope of protection of the moral and material interests of authors referred to in Article 15, paragraph 1 (c)

not necessarily coincide with what is known as intellectual property rights

under national law or international conventions.


Find best price for : --Human----copyright--