Re: Napster destroys Western Civilization

On Thu, 18 May 2000, Marty Hayes <9ball[_at_]hostsite.net> wrote:
>
> 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:

    This, however, is a circular argument. It's not grounds to justify copyright (particularly as an inherent or moral right) to say that, given copyright law, copying is interfering with author's rights and therefore we need copyright law.

    I guess it seems to me (not being a legal scholar) there are 2 sorts of law here, one recognizing and enforcing a natural state of affairs and/or natural rights, and the other creating bargains. Laws governing physical theft fall into the first category, copyright law falls into the second. That is, I have a natural monopoly on a physical thing in my possession -- if someone else has it, I don't. There is no such natural monopoly on copying, only ones we make up (at least in the US).

    In regards to your previous post about the divergence of inherent rights in continental Europe and the US, all I would say is that "inherent" does not mean "exists in nature independent of human society". All it means is that we (as a whole) believe these rights inhere in the individual by virtue of being human. For example, it's clear the right to life does not exist in nature, yet we still consider it an inherent right. Perhaps someone else could express it better (Robert Cumbow?).

Lynn

Lynn Winebarger
<owinebar[_at_]free-expression.org> Received on Fri May 19 2000 - 12:06:21 GMT