On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 11:49:58AM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
> So, a "natural right" is whatever is considered a right according to
> whatever happen to be the morals of the dominant society of the age,
> whereas the other type of right is whatever is considered a right
> (or convenient, or profi
On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 11:49:58AM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
> So, a "natural right" is whatever is considered a right according to
> whatever happen to be the morals of the dominant society of the age,
> whereas the other type of right is whatever is considered a right
> (or convenient, or profi
On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 11:37:31PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> I think I can give a useful example here: the ancient Greeks and
> Romans also kept slaves. Doing so was acceptable according to
> their culture and laws, but we still think it was wrong.
> The difference is precisely that we con
On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 03:44:47PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 10:30:38AM -0500, Bob Hilliard wrote:
> > Euclid lived and worked in a Greek culture, under Greek laws.
> > The apostles lived and wrote in predominantly Greek cultures, under
> > Roman Laws.
>
> I thi
On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 07:41:15PM +1100, Paul Hampson wrote:
> At this point, I looked back at the original email, and I can't see
> what you're suggest copyright is, if not a right... Neither 'privelege'
> nor 'responsibility' seemed to appear in your email, and those are the
> words I immediatel
You guys have been following up to both lists, when both the headers and
body of the original message in this thread explicitly requested to
followups to -legal only. Please stop ignoring this.
On Sat, Feb 01, 2003 at 02:13:13PM +1100, Paul Hampson wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 09:34:13AM -060
[Folloups were set to -legal only; please don't ignore that.]
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 10:30:38AM -0500, Bob Hilliard wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 11:16:24PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> > Now, then, do
> > you think Euclid held a co
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 10:03:02AM +, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > The Universal Declaration of Human
> > Rights[0], adopted by the United Nations in 1948, lists many other
> > rights commonly thought of as "natural rights" or "civil rights"
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 02:48:04AM -0600, J.B. Nicholson-Owens wrote:
> Thanks for the thoughtful essay. Since you're "pulling an RMS" you might
> reconsider using the term "intellectual property" in the context of
> combining disparate areas of law (like patents and copyrights). You could
> have
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 01:20:51PM +1300, Philip Charles wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Brandon's arguments are based on the reasoning of the Founding Fathers
Whose arguments?
> > when they first put together US. Copyright was given by the government
> > to the artist
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 10:21:26PM -0800, Terry Hancock wrote:
> A nice collection of arguments, but I'm really uncertain why you're posting
> it here. Isn't this kind of "preaching to the choir"? Or did I miss
> something so that the "cluebat" needs to be used on me? :-D
Grep your debian-devel
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 10:30:38AM -0500, Bob Hilliard wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 11:16:24PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> > Now, then, do
> > you think Euclid held a copyright in the _Elements_? Did the apostles
> > of Jesus hold
On Friday 31 January 2003 22:13, Paul Hampson wrote:
> To me a right (as compared to a privelege) is something you can do,
> and no-one can take that away from you.
This would make a persons's set of rights empty.
Lynn
On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 09:34:13AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 07:41:15PM +1100, Paul Hampson wrote:
>
> > > I'm saying that you seem to be confused by the word. You're analyzing
> > > its etymology and deriving its meaning and properties based on that.
> > > This is the
On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 07:41:15PM +1100, Paul Hampson wrote:
> > I'm saying that you seem to be confused by the word. You're analyzing
> > its etymology and deriving its meaning and properties based on that.
> > This is the wrong way to analyze a legal term. Instead, you should be
> > looking at
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 11:09:31PM -0800, Craig Dickson wrote:
> Paul Hampson wrote:
>
> > Copyright Act 1968 Section 31:
> > http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s31.html
>
> I'm not at all sure that copyright works the same in all countries. I
> suppose the related intern
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 11:16:24PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Now, then, do
> you think Euclid held a copyright in the _Elements_? Did the apostles
> of Jesus hold a copyright in the gospels? If so, when did these
> copyrights expire,
Paul Hampson wrote:
> Copyright Act 1968 Section 31:
> http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s31.html
I'm not at all sure that copyright works the same in all countries. I
suppose the related international conventions impose a fair degree of
uniformity, but it may not be per
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 08:16:29AM -0800, Craig Dickson wrote:
> Paul Hampson wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 11:16:24PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > [Followup to -legal.]
> > >
> > > Okay, I'm going to a pull an RMS and plead for a change in our
> > > collective use of certain terms.
>
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 08:47:21PM +1300, Philip Charles wrote:
> > On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
> >
> > > [Followup to -legal.]
> > >
> > > Okay, I'm going to a pull an RMS and plead for a change in our
> > > collective use of certain
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 11:45:23PM +1100, Paul Hampson wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 11:16:24PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> ...
>
> > If one is unconvinced that copyrights are fundamentally different from
> > natural rights, one may wish to perform a thought experiment. Do you
> > believe
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Because copyrights are not inherent, are not natural rights, are not
> granted by God, but in fact merely incentive programs instituted by
> governments, one does not "violate" the rights of anyone when one
> disregards or acts contrary to a p
> According to how I read the FSF's page, the problem is not avoided by using
> another phrase to replace "intellectual property".
You are right. But I think I am too :)
> Any opinions you convey about copyright (for instance) probably are not true
> for patents, and vice versa.
Definitely. I
On Wednesday 29 January 2003 09:58 am, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > * Because copyrights are not inherent, are not natural rights, are not
> > granted by God, but in fact merely incentive programs instituted by
> > governments, one does not "violate" the rights of anyone when one
> > disregards
/alessandro wrote:
> The problem here is that no alternatives are suggested.
Yes, specificity is the recommended alternative. The page
(http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#IntellectualProperty)
says:
"To give clear information and encourage clear thinking, never speak or
write
Scripsit Lynn Winebarger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wednesday 29 January 2003 12:58, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > The right to be identified as the work's author,
> > etc., and the monpoly on copymaking, are two facets of the very same
> > legal concept, at least in Danish law and to the best of my kn
On Wednesday 29 January 2003 12:58, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > * Some countries, particularly some in Europe, have a concept of "moral
> > rights" that attach to creative works. I admit I am not too familiar
> > with these, but they are not the s
Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * Under U.S. law and the laws of most countries I'm familiar with,
> copyright IS NOT A NATURAL RIGHT.
...
> So, let us not speak of "copyrights" in the same way we do "rights".
Your point seems to be that you think that the word "right" by itse
[Paul Hampson]
> If I write a book, isn't it mine to control who reads it?
But if you publish it, you have no right to control who reads it.
Paul Hampson wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 11:16:24PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > [Followup to -legal.]
> >
> > Okay, I'm going to a pull an RMS and plead for a change in our
> > collective use of certain terms.
> >
> > * Under U.S. law and the laws of most countries I'm familiar with,
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 11:16:24PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> * Some countries, particularly some in Europe, have a concept of "moral
> rights" that attach to creative works. I admit I am not too familiar
> with these, but they are not the same thing as copyright and have
> little in c
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 08:47:21PM +1300, Philip Charles wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> > [Followup to -legal.]
> >
> > Okay, I'm going to a pull an RMS and plead for a change in our
> > collective use of certain terms.
> >
> > * Under U.S. law and the laws of most count
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 11:16:24PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> [Followup to -legal.]
>
> Okay, I'm going to a pull an RMS and plead for a change in our
> collective use of certain terms.
>
> * Under U.S. law and the laws of most countries I'm familiar with,
> copyright IS NOT A NATURAL RIG
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The Universal Declaration of Human
> Rights[0], adopted by the United Nations in 1948, lists many other
> rights commonly thought of as "natural rights" or "civil rights".
> You'll note that the terms "copyright", "trademark", and "patent" do
> n
> reconsider using the term "intellectual property"
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#IntellectualProperty
The problem here is that no alternatives are suggested. We in Italy
tendo to use "intellectual patrimony" (like heritage) or "intellectual
paternity" (like parenthood), ac
You wrote:
> Okay, I'm going to a pull an RMS and plead for a change in our
> collective use of certain terms.
>
> If you share either of these perspectives, then you might also wish to
> help restore sanity to modern discussions of intellectual property law by
> not referring to allegedly infri
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
> [Followup to -legal.]
>
> Okay, I'm going to a pull an RMS and plead for a change in our
> collective use of certain terms.
>
> * Under U.S. law and the laws of most countries I'm familiar with,
> copyright IS NOT A NATURAL RIGHT. It is a governmen
On Tuesday 28 January 2003 08:16 pm, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Okay, I'm going to a pull an RMS and plead for a change in our
> collective use of certain terms.
> []
A nice collection of arguments, but I'm really uncertain why you're posting
it here. Isn't this kind of "preaching to the choir
On Wed, 2003-01-29 at 05:16, Branden Robinson wrote:
> * Under U.S. law and the laws of most countries I'm familiar with,
> copyright IS NOT A NATURAL RIGHT. [...]
> This means that one should not use the
> terminology or rhetoric of natural rights (such as the right to free
> speech, exer
[Followup to -legal.]
Okay, I'm going to a pull an RMS and plead for a change in our
collective use of certain terms.
* Under U.S. law and the laws of most countries I'm familiar with,
copyright IS NOT A NATURAL RIGHT. It is a government-granted limited
monopoly to make and distribute copies
40 matches
Mail list logo