Thomas Dalton writes:
This must be
your own idiosyncratic application of the term "moral
right." In copyright, "moral rights" refers to inalienable legal
rights that are recognized in law. If you are in a jurisdiction that
does not recognize "moral rights," then you don't have them, by
The idea behind moral rights is that they are rights that everyone has
automatically and the law is just recognising that.
I understand what the *rhetoric* of moral rights is. But in the
absence of law establishing and protecting moral rights, you don't
If you are in a
jurisdiction that doesn't recognise moral rights then (from that POV)
you still have moral rights, the state is just immoral and doesn't
A more nuanced and accurate view of the term "moral rights" is that it
is a term of art relating to copyright and other rights in creative
There is a fundamental difference between a right
granted by law and a pre-existing right recognised by law.
Is this difference based on anything in the physical world?
difference is irrelevant in a courtroom, which is probably why you
dismiss it, but there is a difference.
It's true that religious beliefs don't have great force in Western
courtrooms. I dismiss this particular religious belief not because
it's irrelevant in a courtroom, however, but because there is no
evidence in the physical world that this difference exists.
Thomas, you may believe that the longstanding debate between natural
law and positivists has been resolved in favor of the former, but
there's no sign that this is true with regard to copyright. If what
you were saying were widely accepted, it would be odd that "moral
rights" obtain as to copyright/creative expression but not as to
things like property ownership and personal liberty.