Re: Napster destroys Western Civilization

On Wed, 17 May 2000, Lynn Winebarger <owinebar[_at_]free-expression.org> wrote:
>
> Personally I see a "right to copy" as a part of a general principle
> whereby acts of an individual that don't deny or otherwise interfere
> with other's rights are, um, rights (or part of the right to liberty,
> in a sense).

Therein lies the problem, though. When you make a copy that does not satisfy the criteria of fair use without obtaining permission from the copyright holder, you *do* deny or interfere with another's right. You deny or interfere with the copyright holder's exclusive rights to:

1. reproduce the copyrighted work in copies
2. to distribute copies of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending

The fracture in this discussion appears to center around "rights" and how each individual posting is perceiving the term rights. I would suggest that there are "legally protected" rights which govern our behavior as it applies to the law, and there "moral" rights which govern our behavior according to our beliefs (conscience). Sometimes they exist in harmony, and other times don't. There are some rights protected by law that a given individual wouldn't exercise because doing so would be wrongdoing according to his beliefs. There are some rights that would allow specific behaviors when measured against an individual's moral barometer but would be wrongdoing according the law.

> The only real argument I see for copyright as a moral right has
> nothing to do with money or a right to earn a living...

Here's where I think the issue has moral connotations.

In the M/W dictionary, the following are listed definitions of the word "steal":

• to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully;
• to take surreptitiously or without permission

That dictionary (M/W) then goes on to say, "Steal may apply to any surreptitious taking of something and differs from other terms (purloin, filch, etc.) by commonly applying to intangibles as well as material things."

These definitions may or may not be what society recognizes as the yardstick to define stealing in a legal arena. By these definitions, though, denying or interfering with someone's legal right to exclusivity is stealing, and most people consider stealing to be a moral transgression.

Regards,
Marty

Marty Hayes
<9ball[_at_]hostsite.net> Received on Thu May 18 2000 - 16:10:22 GMT