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 definition.
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 have any.
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.
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 works.
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?
That 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.
--Mike
2009/1/23 Mike Godwin mnemonic@well.com:
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 definition.
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 have any. [snip]
There is a world outside the legal profession, Mike. Either learn that, or restrict the recipients of your emails to other lawyers. I, for one, don't care about your extremely narrow minded views.
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 10:03 AM, Mike Godwin mnemonic@well.com wrote:
Thomas Dalton writes:
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.
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 works.
Maybe you could explain the etymology of that term for us, Mike. Your last paragraph seems to imply that you understand it.
In any case, how do you propose that we can continue in a way that doesn't confuse you with sentences like "moral rights are a type of moral rights"?
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?
Sure, it's based on whether or not the jurisdiction recognizes the right.
That 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.
In what way is the concept of moral rights a religious belief?
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.
You could have saved us a lot of time by saying that instead of pretending you didn't know what I was talking about.
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.
That would be odd if it were true. But it isn't. Theft and slavery are morally wrong, in addition to (and regardless of) being illegal.
Anthony wrote:
Maybe you could explain the etymology of that term for us, Mike. Your last paragraph seems to imply that you understand it.
Per Eric Partridge's "Origins," both words are Latin in origin. "Moral" is from "mores" the plural of "mos" indicating "a way of carrying oneself, hence especially of behaving; a custom as determined by usage, not by law." "Morose" is from the same source. "Right" derives from "rex" meaning "the king"; it took a king to set things straight. Is there something "natural" in that?
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.
In what way is the concept of moral rights a religious belief?
U.S. courts still have witnesses who swear to tell the truth, "So help me God," with one hand on the Bible; this only shows that the separation of church and state is far from perfect. The concept of larger moral rights (rather than those associated with copyrights) is religious because it is based on faith alone.
That would be odd if it were true. But it isn't. Theft and slavery are morally wrong, in addition to (and regardless of) being illegal.
Theft has been quite consistently viewed as wrong throughout history, with possible exemptions for kings.
To say this of slavery, however, in the US context, would be to say that Christian slave-owners before the Emancipation Proclamation were all immoral.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Anthony wrote:
That would be odd if it were true. But it isn't. Theft and slavery are morally wrong, in addition to (and regardless of) being illegal.
Theft has been quite consistently viewed as wrong throughout history, with possible exemptions for kings.
(Off-topic)
Or as authorized by the state by letters of marque or other instruments of the kind. Most prominently the case with state sponsored piracy.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org