Anthony writes:
A legal right is recognized by law. A moral right may not be.
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 definition.
Sure, but I'm not in a jurisdiction that indisputably recognizes the right to attribution.
Okay, so why are you invoking rights that you don't have?
Barring a license to use my content in that way, sure. Just like a film director has a basis to demand "the last solo credit card before the first scene of the picture".
Excuse me? Film directors don't have any legal right to such a "credit card" (I assume you mean "credit"). They may negotiate for such a credit through contract, but they don't have it in the absence of a contract.
So you're saying your legal rights are defined by "common sense"?
To some extent, sure. Not entirely by common sense, of course, but legal rights can't be understood without employing common sense.
They can't be understood without knowledge of the law, either.
--Mike
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 10:31 PM, Mike Godwin mnemonic@gmail.com wrote:
Anthony writes:
A legal right is recognized by law. A moral right may not be.
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 definition.
In ethics, "A moral right is a morally justified claim. A legal right is a legally justified claim. When one uses the term "right" without specifying the nature of the justification, one usually means a moral right." ( http://www.onlineethics.org/CMS/glossary.aspx?letter=R)
Confusing, perhaps, since the term "moral rights" (almost always plural) has another definition in copyright law.
Barring a license to use my content in that way, sure. Just like a film director has a basis to demand "the last solo credit card before the first scene of the picture".
Excuse me? Film directors don't have any legal right to such a "credit card" (I assume you mean "credit"). They may negotiate for such a credit through contract, but they don't have it in the absence of a contract.
In the absence of a contract, there wouldn't be a film. And no, I mean "credit card", as in a type of "title card". It's film jargon, derived no doubt by the fact that they used to be printed on cards.
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 10:31 PM, Mike Godwin mnemonic@gmail.com wrote:
Anthony writes:
Sure, but I'm not in a jurisdiction that indisputably recognizes the right to attribution.
Okay, so why are you invoking rights that you don't have?
Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights_(copyright_law), and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights
Just because a right isn't recognized, does not mean that I do not have it.
Sometimes I wonder whether you're being intentionally obtuse. How in the world could a lawyer familiar with constitutional law not know that? Seriously, that's appalling.
2009/1/23 Mike Godwin mnemonic@gmail.com:
Anthony writes:
A legal right is recognized by law. A moral right may not be.
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 definition.
The idea behind moral rights is that they are rights that everyone has automatically and the law is just recognising that. 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 enforce them. There is a fundamental difference between a right granted by law and a pre-existing right recognised by law. That difference is irrelevant in a courtroom, which is probably why you dismiss it, but there is a difference.
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 5:30 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
2009/1/23 Mike Godwin mnemonic@gmail.com:
Anthony writes:
A legal right is recognized by law. A moral right may not be.
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 definition.
The idea behind moral rights is that they are rights that everyone has automatically and the law is just recognising that. 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 enforce them. There is a fundamental difference between a right granted by law and a pre-existing right recognised by law. That difference is irrelevant in a courtroom, which is probably why you dismiss it, but there is a difference.
Actually, the difference is quite relevant in a courtroom, especially when dealing with constitutional issues. That's why I find it nearly impossible to believe that Mike doesn't understand this. How in the world can you defend people's constitutional rights if you think they're made up out of nowhere? Why defend free speech if it's just a couple words some guys made up and wrote down on paper? The very nature of the legal system in the United States of America is based upon natural rights. "We hold these truths to be self-evident". Self-evident. Not created by congressmen.
Maybe Mike rejects the existence of natural rights, but surely he is aware of the concept. To assume otherwise might assume good faith in this argument, but it would assume bad faith about his entire public life.
Anthony wrote:
Actually, the difference is quite relevant in a courtroom, especially when dealing with constitutional issues. That's why I find it nearly impossible to believe that Mike doesn't understand this. How in the world can you defend people's constitutional rights if you think they're made up out of nowhere? Why defend free speech if it's just a couple words some guys made up and wrote down on paper? The very nature of the legal system in the United States of America is based upon natural rights. "We hold these truths to be self-evident". Self-evident. Not created by congressmen.
It was not created by congressmen because there were no congressmen before the US Constitution was written.
The fact that they "held" their opinions to be self-evident does not make their opinions universal. Your self-serving comment is on a par with saying that God exists because the Bible says so.
Ec
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org