And we should take the word of a copyright maximalist for that, I’m sure. Independent observation points the other way.

Namely that Dotcom is the current victim of a DoJ blunder without any basis in evidence.

So why should we distance ourselves from a businessman who appears to have been unjustly framed?

“”1: It means abandoning a 900% profit margin in favor of a more reasonable one.”

Do you have an actual, independant, varifiable source for that 900% figure you’ve quoted?”

Actually, that’s a typo. Now fixed. 90% margin is the proper approximation of a mid-sized sales run. Mea Culpa.
However, that margin does go up the more units get shipped, as no more cost, save manufacture and shipping will ever be associated with it. Where that limit stops is anyone’s guess. Any album still selling five years after recording is almost pure profit.

The artist, in reality, gets, on average, 2% of the sales price. Depending on how much numbers shuffling has been done. Advance, packaging charge, reserves, free goods, distribution, manager, business managers, etc.

http://www.theroot.com/views/how-much-do-you-musicians-really-make?page=0,1

Re: property rights, see my posts about 9.99 not being enough to grant you property rights to the content.

Well, what about the point in clause 2 stating that the author has the right to the material interests?

Here are some more points arguing that “freely” is not the same as “for free” as it seems the source of the confusion is indeed the english language.
The problem is that english doesn’t have a commonly used separate word for “without paying”, so we can take a look at the same passage in some other languages that do have a word for it.

The passage we’re debating is “Everyone has the right freely to participate [..]” .
In swedish the same passage is “Var och en har rätt att fritt delta [..]“. There’s still some ambiguity there with the word “fritt”, but the swedish word “gratis” which stands for “without paying”, and is commonly used in such context, is nowhere to be found.
In finnish the passage goes “Jokaisella on oikeus vapaasti osallistua[..]“. “Vapaasti” being the operational word here. Once again the word “ilmaiseksi” which would be an unambiguos way of saying “for free”, is nowhere to be found.
In french it becomes “Toute personne a le droit de prendre part librement [..]“. “Librement” is the word here. The word “gratuit” which would mean “for free” is nowhere to be seen.

In all, this supports my reading of the declaration. The purpose and meaning of clause 2 is to clearly state that the creators right to compensation supersedes anyone’s right to take part, in cases where payment is asked for.

Take one long look at the current fiscal system and how money is in it. Now check the growth rate per year. That dollar in your pocket is NOT the same value today as it was in 1950. Why do you think that is so?

All currency fluctuates with supply and demand.

“If we agree with the line of thought that leads to clause 2 in the debated UN article 27, then it isn’t morally proper.

The only way a creator can have protection of his material rights when it comes to (intangible) art is by deciding who can copy and distribute it.
If that decision is removed from them, then so is the protection.”

Still not good with the english language, I see?
If clause 2′s reference to “moral right” would mean direct control over the property of third parties then article 27, clause 2 would be in direct violation to numerous other articles in the UN human rights declaration, which it is not allowed to be. Not to mention in flagrant contradiction with clause 1.

What is more to the point, Clause 1 of article 27 actually DOES grant the right to partake of culture, freely and uninhibited. So your line of thought doesn’t lead anywhere but to the point that Article 27 both as a whole and in parts expressly contradicts modern copyright.

“Moral right” has only ever meant one thing – the right to stand as Author, and the right to determine representation.

Meaning that as a creator you are allowed to deny your work being publicly represented in order to support a cause for which you do not stand, for instance. And very properly, there are laws pertaining to this which have nothing to do with “copyright”.

You know, SoundnuoS, if you want to convince us you are worthy of an intelligent debate, then trying to rewrite, misquote, or redefine the UN articles is the wrong approach. Or for that matter redefining the context and meaning of the english language.

Copyright is fundamentally in opposition with the UN articles, not in accordance with them.