Attribution is in law a right, under the Berne convention, to which the U.S. is a party. The U.S. Senate implemented the moral rights provision by declaring that moral rights are already provided by U.S. common law.
(Paris Text 1971)
"(1) Independently of the author's economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the said work, which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation."
I agree that it is a misrepresentation to change another's work without permission. Additionally, doing so without permission, even with clear qualifications, can be offensive to the artist and to others, and harmful to the artist's reputation.
I assume all rights are reserved whether there is a notice to that effect or not. It would take an express waiver to abrogate them. In any event I would never assume that such a reservation is limited to copyright.
In Canada at least, moral rights are not aspects of copyright although they are found in the Copyright Act. As it says in the Berne convention quoted above "independently ... of economic rights..."
Anonymity and pseudonimity can have more purposes than privacy alone. Often one sees on the cover of books that the book is by "X" writing as "Y". Authors may use these rights, for example, to hit different markets, to have credibility when writing about new subjects, to come up with a more marketable name, etc.
As to whether copyright is a right or a privilege, it has been treated as the former until recently in Canada. However now the Supreme Court has decided it is a bargain, that in exchange for publication the author gets copyright.
I am dying to defend a Canadian infringement case where copy protection or restrictive license terms curtail the exceptions to copyright, to see if I can get the Court to render the copyright unenforceable. This would make copyright a contract, which authors have the privilege to accept, and make the exceptions to copyright into user rights, which it would be a breach of the contract to limit.
I have been rereading the classic novel 1984 about the poor schloob (spelling uncertain) whose job it is to retroactively revise newspapers. The old newspapers must be retrieved, every last one, and replaced by editions in which the government forecasts what now turns out to be the case, government officials quoted then who have now disappeared are excised, etc. It is a big job. Is "1984" now an Ohio Civil servant's handbook?
Who was the genius who said that getting content off the internet is like getting pee out of a swimming pool?
An independent invention defense would discourage people from searching patent office records to use the technology that is published there. It would also be difficult to prove, because the invention they just made is, ex hypothesi, published in the patent office in sufficient detail to be adopted by anyone knowledgeable in the field.
For the first time in history the pace of invention has exceeded the term of patents. So the question is: Do we need patents any more? (If we ever did). Do they really incentivise inventions?
Maybe there is a compromise: compulsory licensing. Your patent may not get you exclusivity, it may get you cash and partial exclusivity.
1) what is a 'rolling" code?
2) Can owners sue the garage door company for trespass for excluding them from their own property the first time the remote doesn't work, or even for conspiring with each other and the dealer to do so?
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by david allsebrook.