Thomas Dalton writes:
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.
I'm sorry, Thomas, but until people learn to use jurisprudential concepts such as "moral rights" properly, I have a moral obligation to point out where they are used mistakenly. This is not a question of "the world outside the legal profession" (and, indeed, if you were a member of the legal profession -- or a philosopher -- you wouldn't make the mistake of supposing this). Philosophy of law is accessible to people who aren't lawyers -- even you. But it's clear that the word "moral rights" is being thrown around here by people who are only casually familiar with the concept. When you have actually given some study to jurisprudential philosophers (see, e.g., H.L.A. Hart and Lon Fuller) and can offer some more sophisticated philosophical analysis than you offer here, I will be able to take your pronunciamentos more seriously.
Do you understand what the term "term of art" means?
By the way, most members of the legal profession are not students of the philosophy of law. It is your misfortune that, in me, you have come across someone who is. I'm not disqualified from pointing out philosophical mistakes merely because I can hang out a shingle.
--Mike
I'm sorry, Thomas, but until people learn to use jurisprudential concepts such as "moral rights" properly, I have a moral obligation to point out where they are used mistakenly. This is not a question of "the world outside the legal profession" (and, indeed, if you were a member of the legal profession -- or a philosopher -- you wouldn't make the mistake of supposing this). Philosophy of law is accessible to people who aren't lawyers -- even you. But it's clear that the word "moral rights" is being thrown around here by people who are only casually familiar with the concept. When you have actually given some study to jurisprudential philosophers (see, e.g., H.L.A. Hart and Lon Fuller) and can offer some more sophisticated philosophical analysis than you offer here, I will be able to take your pronunciamentos more seriously.
Where do you think laws come from? Do you think they appear from nowhere? They are created by politicians (and sometimes judges) based on moral values. Those moral values imply certain moral rights whether they are written down in statute (or case law) or not.
Do you understand what the term "term of art" means?
Honestly? No, I'd have to look it up. However, I don't need to know fancy lawyer speak to understand the concept of morality.
By the way, most members of the legal profession are not students of the philosophy of law. It is your misfortune that, in me, you have come across someone who is. I'm not disqualified from pointing out philosophical mistakes merely because I can hang out a shingle.
Well, maybe when you progress a little further in your studies you'll actually know something about the subject. I'm a mathematician, I am well trained in logic and reasoned argument. That's not dissimiliar to the training philosophers have (well, those that argue about vaguely meaningful things, rather than angels and pins, anyway). While I may not be an expert on the relevant facts, I can follow an argument and see if it makes sense, and yours rarely do.
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 8:22 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
I'm sorry, Thomas, but until people learn to use jurisprudential concepts such as "moral rights" properly, I have a moral obligation to point out where they are used mistakenly. This is not a question of "the world outside the legal profession" (and, indeed, if you were a member of the legal profession -- or a philosopher -- you wouldn't make the mistake of supposing this). Philosophy of law is accessible to people who aren't lawyers -- even you. But it's clear that the word "moral rights" is being thrown around here by people who are only casually familiar with the concept. When you have actually given some study to jurisprudential philosophers (see, e.g., H.L.A. Hart and Lon Fuller) and can offer some more sophisticated philosophical analysis than you offer here, I will be able to take your pronunciamentos more seriously.
Where do you think laws come from? Do you think they appear from nowhere? They are created by politicians (and sometimes judges) based on moral values. Those moral values imply certain moral rights whether they are written down in statute (or case law) or not.
Used relative to copyright law, the term unambiguously means what Mike is saying, the rights that Europe (and others) have assigned to actual authors distinct from copyright owners etc.
The specific term as used in copyright law (as Mike says, a "term of the art" in that field) has no legal utility in the United States, as those rights in question are not acknowledged by US copyright law or precedent.
This is a discussion about copyright law and licenses under / related to it, is it not? And not philosophy writ large?
There was a slight danger in the Foundation chosing to hire Mike as counsel, that he has a long-established tendency to poke fun at people ( cf. Godwin's Law, and more long painful Usenet discussions from 20 plus years ago than I care to remember at the moment...). This is going over rather badly with some people's sense of moral indignation over licensing and copyright issues.
2009/1/23 George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com:
This is a discussion about copyright law and licenses under / related to it, is it not? And not philosophy writ large?
It was, I think we drifted a little off-topic.
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 5:13 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.comwrote:
Used relative to copyright law, the term unambiguously means what Mike is saying, the rights that Europe (and others) have assigned to actual authors distinct from copyright owners etc.
If you look at the context in which I used the term "moral rights", I think you will agree that I used the term properly to mean rights which are not based on social conventions.
Mike said "(I ask for the "legal distinction" because you are articulating your concern in terms of what you purport to be violations of your legal rights.)"
I replied: "Actually, I'm purporting them to be violations of my moral rights."
George Herbert wrote:
Used relative to copyright law, the term unambiguously means what Mike is saying, the rights that Europe (and others) have assigned to actual authors distinct from copyright owners etc.
The specific term as used in copyright law (as Mike says, a "term of the art" in that field) has no legal utility in the United States, as those rights in question are not acknowledged by US copyright law or precedent.
It is acknowledged in section 106A, but that seems to have been added more as a form of lip-service to international treaties. At the same time US law seems to be at pains to make sure that it has no meaningful legal effect.
Ec
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Where do you think laws come from? Do you think they appear from nowhere? They are created by politicians (and sometimes judges) based on moral values. Those moral values imply certain moral rights whether they are written down in statute (or case law) or not.
From politicians, Yes. But more as matters of expediency, lobbying, and helping one's friends. I would avoid making a general imputation of motives based in moral values to politicians.
Ec
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Mike Godwin mgodwin@wikimedia.org wrote:
I'm sorry, Thomas, but until people learn to use jurisprudential concepts such as "moral rights" properly, I have a moral obligation to point out where they are used mistakenly.
You have a moral obligation? I thought you dismissed morality as a religious belief for which there is no evidence in the physical world.
Or is it merely the concept that we ought to give credit to authors that you deem to be religious in nature?
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Mike Godwin mgodwin@wikimedia.org wrote:
I'm sorry, Thomas, but until people learn to use jurisprudential concepts such as "moral rights" properly, I have a moral obligation to point out where they are used mistakenly.
You have a moral obligation? I thought you dismissed morality as a religious belief for which there is no evidence in the physical world.
Or is it merely the concept that we ought to give credit to authors that you deem to be religious in nature?
This discussion has descended far below the threshold of usefulness now. If there's nothing else to talk about besides thinly-veiled ad hominems and "I know more philosophy then you" mental masturbation, could this discussion please go off-list?
--Andrew Whitworth
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 5:54 PM, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Mike Godwin mgodwin@wikimedia.org wrote:
I'm sorry, Thomas, but until people learn to use jurisprudential concepts such as "moral rights" properly, I have a moral obligation to point out where they are used mistakenly.
You have a moral obligation? I thought you dismissed morality as a religious belief for which there is no evidence in the physical world.
Or is it merely the concept that we ought to give credit to authors that you deem to be religious in nature?
This discussion has descended far below the threshold of usefulness now. If there's nothing else to talk about besides thinly-veiled ad hominems and "I know more philosophy then you" mental masturbation, could this discussion please go off-list?
Hear, hear. I'm glad that I can respond to Andrew's post here, because if I had been replying to either Thomas, Anthony or Mike the following would have seemed to be directed at someone specifically, which it is not:
Please Stop It.
This thread used to be on the "Re-licensing" issue, which is an issue many people are interested it. Thus, you can't even bring up the usual "Well, it's off-topic, but everyone can filter it out of their inbox by a subject-filter" counter-argument, because many people actually *do* care about the Re-licensing and do not intend at all to filter it out of their inbox. What has happened, though, is that the thread has first been hijacked by a discussion about "moral rights" and other legal and philosophical concepts (which I myself found at least interesting, if completely off-topic) and now, it has gone down to a rather pathetic "I have studied philosophy, you have no clue." "I don't need to have studied philosophy to have a clue." "I have studied Mathematics and you are a bad philosopher" type of chat, which is an absolute no-go.
Really, take it offlist. I hope I don't need to enforce this plea because I'm not actually in the mood to do so.
Michael
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org