Re: Napster destroys Western Civilization

On Tue, 9 May 2000, Lynn Winebarger <owinebar[_at_]free-expression.org>wrote:
>
> On Mon, 8 May 2000, Jonathan Miller <jonmesq[_at_]aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > I respectfully add that one basic premise of all copyright law is
> > the protection of the integrity of author in light of the concept
> > that act of creation is particular and has value. If I publish
> > something you may not use it without my permission, may not adopt
> > it without attribution, and you may not alter it. Various legal
> > doctrines protect these simple concepts. You may name them.
>
> Nonsense. The inherent right is the right to copy. We trade
> these in a social bargain to encourage writers and artists. But
> that does not mean monopolies so established have any claim to
> being natural rights. Of course, if you live in Continental Europe,
> the story may be different.
>
> > Furthermore, the author of a creative work has the right benefit
> > financially from that creative work. Thus the economic model is
>
> Why would they have that inherent right? And if they do, why
> should that extend beyond any initial compensation (I don't see
> anyone proposing that the carpenter who built a door should get
> paid every time someone passes through it, though they might well
> have a right to be paid for the labor of creation)?
>
> > spectacular for works in music, film and literature. Copyright
> > acknowledges value in the act of manifesting the uncreated answering
> > the age old question: Why bother?
>
> Copyright does acknowledge value, it just doesn't acknowledge any
> inherent rights.
>
> And, of course, the proper answer for "Why bother?" is "Because I
> must". That is, internal drive for answering various questions (whether
> through writing, art, or science) is the proper motivation. People who
> can't help but do what they do. It has nothing to do with economics.

With all due respect, Lynn, there is no more "inherent right" TO copy than there is NOT to copy. In fact, there is no *natural* right to ANYTHING. As an individual, I can choose to do anything I want to -- the only caveat is whether or not I'll violate any laws in my actions. Therefore, any *right* we have is conferred by law -- the right to free speech; the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness; etc.

Given that rights are conferred by the law and part of the law is copyright, I would say that Jonathan's assessment is right on.

Marty Hayes
<9ball[_at_]hostsite.net> Received on Thu May 11 2000 - 18:02:09 GMT