wikimail at inbox.org
Fri Jan 23 03:03:20 UTC 2009
> >> What is the legal distinction you're drawing
> >> here? (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.)
> > Actually, I'm purporting them to be violations of my moral rights.
> How are you distinguishing between "moral rights" and "legal rights"?
A legal right is recognized by law. A moral right may not be.
> A moral right is a kind of legal right, in those jurisdictions that
> recognize moral rights.
Sure, but I'm not in a jurisdiction that indisputably recognizes the right
> But the
> > distinction is pretty obvious - in one case the page is a click
> > away, in the
> > other case it at least requires finding internet access and typing
> > in a url,
> > and quite possibly requires jumping through even more hoops than that.
> So if you were unhappy that your attribution was at the back of a
> book, because a reader has to turn to the end and read through a lot
> of small print in order to find your name, that would give you a basis
> for objecting to that form of attribution?
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".
>> But an online attribution on a separate page (or server) when the
> >> article is offline is *not*
> >> "direct"? What is the legal (or "rights") basis for this
> >> distinction?
> > Common sense?
> 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.
> Are you sure that's the direction in which you want to take your argument?
I'm sure you'll take my comment out of context in any case.
More information about the foundation-l