Re: copyright and natural law?

On Fri, 18 Sep 1998, Robert Cumbow <cumbr[_at_]perkinscoie.com> wrote:
>
> On Sep 16, 1998, Joseph Riolo <riolo[_at_]voicenet.com> wrote:
> >
> > ...
> > From the dawn of history (or world), it is very plain as the sun in
> > the blue sky that every individual has the freedom or right to copy
> > anything that comes into his or her area or possession. After all,
> > in order for the Nature to survive, it must ensure that all living
> > things must be able to reproduce themselves. Reproduction cannot
> > occur without the means of copying something.
> >
> > Against this "natural" freedom or right of copying anything, copyright
> > is truly very artificial, far from being as plain as the sun in the
> > blue sky...
>
> Don't confuse freedom with rights. You have the freedom to do whatever
> you wish; but you must be prepared to pay the penalty is what you
> do violates the rights of another. I'm not sure it makes a lot of
> difference whether the rights are characterized as "natural" or
> "artificial". If they are rights, they are protectable and enforceable
> ... and when an absolute freedom meets an enforceable right, as the
> songwriter says, "somethin's gotta give."

This is just a tip of the philosophical iceberg. I do not think that the majority of the members of this list is pleased to see another thread of hairsplitting. So, I will not continue it. (This is not to say that your statements have no value.)

My reason for presenting the other side of the coin is to demonstrate that Mr. Henderson and I do not agree on the same fundamentals. Accordingly, it is best that we simply disagree than to continue the arguments. Such as:

If a book that you want to buy is out of print, is not available for reproduction by any legitimate company or organization such as UMI, cannot be located through book search services, and is not found in any nearby used book stores:

     From the perspective of Mr. Henderson, it is morally wrong
     and unethical (and not lawfully at least in the U.S.) to
     copy the whole book. (He did not say these exact words but
     that is the basic sum of all of his posts.)  (Therefore,
     copyright law should be strengthened.)

     From my perspective, it is morally right and ethical (but
     unfortunately not lawfully in the U.S.) to copy the whole
     book.  (Therefore, copyright law should be changed.)

Joseph Pietro Riolo
<riolo[_at_]voicenet.com> Received on Tue Sep 22 1998 - 23:35:25 GMT