Post by account_disabled on Jan 11, 2024 11:17:22 GMT
All atheist foresters of its legislators (that is, everyone who did not live in Supra-Equatorial America) was discussed. But while the bishopric and archbishopric fought for a time, tariff and barrier-free relaxation for the catechism to be adopted, the cardinal of software corporations had another vision.
These cardinals spoke fervently about the inefficient and ineffective performance of the church in its crusade to catechize forest dwellers so that they can, one day, when dead, reach the worlds of the first heaven. “Our crusade is unprecedented when it comes to catechizing digital Indians,” said a black UN archbishop.
“But it is ineffective because Special Data it does not question the demonological impasse arising from article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Copyright cannot fit into a provision that concerns access to culture and knowledge. We have to transform culture into property, along the lines of article 17 of the same declaration, or rather, almost. We can create property that is more than conventional property that is transferable and imprescriptible. We, who have the media and content, can impose that culture is property. 'From table' we demoted the artist to 'cultural producer'. AND…"
At that moment he was interrupted by a yellow UN archbishop. “It turns out that all of us, participants in this council, signed this declaration.”
“So we rejected it”, replied the one interrupted, an Anglo-Saxon cardinal. “The time has come for the Universal Declaration of Corporate Rights!”
Silence. Bishops looked at each other. Archbishops looked at each other and smiled. The cardinals did not look at each other, nor did they smile.
“However, brother”, pointed out the black archbishop who defended the digital crusades, “how do you 'create' property? Property is not created; one buys, one inherits, one steals. but it is not created.” And the Anglo-Saxon cardinal immediately replied:
“The brothers must understand that property cannot be acquired just 'through the plundering of indigenous people, the exploitation of servants, through inheritance, nor through speculation' 1 . There is something beyond the added value that can be acquired through the work of third parties — and it already exists. Why not add it to other forms of accumulation of wealth and exploitation of man by man and corporations? We have the media. Therefore, convincing is easy. After all, isn’t that how we convinced humanity that work, the first biblical curse, dignifies man?” two
Discussions broke out. To make a long story short: there was a split between the bishops and archbishops of the WTO and the UN and the software house cadetship, giving birth to the Universal Church of Patents and Intellectual Property, Iuppi.
In a short time, this new religious faction gained the support of the cardinals of the European Community, Australia, Canada and England, thus consigning that scientific knowledge, education and the arts should be treated as “intellectual property”, even if the property intellectual property does not maintain the main characteristics of property: imprescriptibility and the right to full enjoyment. “Intellectual property” is, in fact, semi-property; she is the semi-virgin of corporations; is one that never existed. It is the convenience of Anglo-Saxon interests.
Thus, thanks to the undeniable dedication and determination of Iuppi, article 27 of the Declaration of Human Rights, signed by all those who were part of the Council, was declared heresy and corporations were prohibited from creating “properties”.
These cardinals spoke fervently about the inefficient and ineffective performance of the church in its crusade to catechize forest dwellers so that they can, one day, when dead, reach the worlds of the first heaven. “Our crusade is unprecedented when it comes to catechizing digital Indians,” said a black UN archbishop.
“But it is ineffective because Special Data it does not question the demonological impasse arising from article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Copyright cannot fit into a provision that concerns access to culture and knowledge. We have to transform culture into property, along the lines of article 17 of the same declaration, or rather, almost. We can create property that is more than conventional property that is transferable and imprescriptible. We, who have the media and content, can impose that culture is property. 'From table' we demoted the artist to 'cultural producer'. AND…"
At that moment he was interrupted by a yellow UN archbishop. “It turns out that all of us, participants in this council, signed this declaration.”
“So we rejected it”, replied the one interrupted, an Anglo-Saxon cardinal. “The time has come for the Universal Declaration of Corporate Rights!”
Silence. Bishops looked at each other. Archbishops looked at each other and smiled. The cardinals did not look at each other, nor did they smile.
“However, brother”, pointed out the black archbishop who defended the digital crusades, “how do you 'create' property? Property is not created; one buys, one inherits, one steals. but it is not created.” And the Anglo-Saxon cardinal immediately replied:
“The brothers must understand that property cannot be acquired just 'through the plundering of indigenous people, the exploitation of servants, through inheritance, nor through speculation' 1 . There is something beyond the added value that can be acquired through the work of third parties — and it already exists. Why not add it to other forms of accumulation of wealth and exploitation of man by man and corporations? We have the media. Therefore, convincing is easy. After all, isn’t that how we convinced humanity that work, the first biblical curse, dignifies man?” two
Discussions broke out. To make a long story short: there was a split between the bishops and archbishops of the WTO and the UN and the software house cadetship, giving birth to the Universal Church of Patents and Intellectual Property, Iuppi.
In a short time, this new religious faction gained the support of the cardinals of the European Community, Australia, Canada and England, thus consigning that scientific knowledge, education and the arts should be treated as “intellectual property”, even if the property intellectual property does not maintain the main characteristics of property: imprescriptibility and the right to full enjoyment. “Intellectual property” is, in fact, semi-property; she is the semi-virgin of corporations; is one that never existed. It is the convenience of Anglo-Saxon interests.
Thus, thanks to the undeniable dedication and determination of Iuppi, article 27 of the Declaration of Human Rights, signed by all those who were part of the Council, was declared heresy and corporations were prohibited from creating “properties”.