On 10/31/07, Richard Lockwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Let me rephrase. For this argument, your choice of terminology is not > important. You don't have the automatic right to redistribute someone > else's artistic endeavours. Trying to argue that you do, simply because you > can is not a valid reason. Bringing in irrelevant metaphors does not make > you right. Using emotive language like "friendship" and "community", or > trying to argue that your doing the moral equivalent of fighting racism does > not make what you wish a fact. You don't automatically have that right.
Actually Richard, we would - were it not for copyright law. There is *no* natural / moral property right in intangible creative works (see the case of Donaldson vs Beckett in 1774 that finally decided this issue in the UK - http://www.copyrighthistory.com/donaldson.html) Therefore, since there are no preexisting natural rights to control creative work (under UK law at least), by default, we do 'automatically have that right'. However, we, as a society choose to suspend that right for a certain period, in order to offer an incentive to authors to create new work - an incentive we call copyright. Copyright is not a 'natural' or 'moral' right, it is a 'statutory right' - one created by the law, rather than a preexisting one. Dave is arguing that the terms of this statutory right ought to be redefined, and that some of the natural rights of the public that it curtails ought to be restored. This is a perfectly reasonable position. This debate is not about 'property' or 'moral rights', as copyright is neither of these things, so why confuse the debate by continually arguing in these terms? IANAL, TINLA. Cheers, Tim - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
