|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 25 2012 @ 09:33 PM EDT |
>But the enshrining in the Constitution of the fact that intellectual
property rights can be granted by Congress rather dramatically undercuts the
basic premise of your argument that these rights shouldn't be respected at all.
I did not argue that those rights shouldn't be respected at all. I argued that,
according to the U.S. constitution, they should only be respected to the extent
that respecting them could accomplish a very specific social goal.
And what extent is that? Which might turn out, upon investigation to be
"not at all", or "to some limited extent". (such an
investigation should proceed apace.)
But in and of themselves, "intellectual property rights" in the
commercial realm deserve no respect at all.
The European notion of "moral rights" is something else. Certainly in
the scientific and academic realms, attributing an idea to its originator (and
vice versa) is a kind of search for truth: that attribution is worth nothing to
the dead person, or his heirs--but may be very precious (what is truth worth?)
to the person who hears the idea. And so society should put a value on correct
attribution. (How? I do not know. The European model is an abomination fit only
to be taken over by rights societies as yet another means for the thought
control so beloved by so many European ideologies. But _something_?)
As you say, the constitution doesn't address property, as the authors didn't
address inalienable rights (their opinion on that subject being already on
record). The constitution merely describes how certain alienable rights would be
alienated (that is, abrogated to this new federal government.)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: artp on Thursday, October 25 2012 @ 11:24 PM EDT |
So, do you make a lot of money, or are you a public
defender?
My opinion on the matter is that if the artist doesn't want
anybody pirating their work, then they should keep it
private. That way there is absolutely no chance of anyone
pirating it. [Assuming that the terms intellectual property
and piracy of said property has any meaning at all.]
Of course, most of us would agree that the real value of an
artistic work is in the PUBLIC performance. So which do you
prefer? You can't have both. You can't create and publicly
perform without someone whistling the tune without
permission - because they liked it. That is the point of
culture. And what you are defending is allowing certain
individuals to take culture private.
That, sir, is a crime.
---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
