[Foundation-l] Re-licensing

[Anthony]

On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 5:30 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com>wrote:

> 2009/1/23 Mike Godwin <mnemonic at 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.