wikimail at inbox.org
Fri Jan 23 15:28:06 UTC 2009
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 10:03 AM, Mike Godwin <mnemonic at 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
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.
More information about the foundation-l