Crosbie Fitch 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (937)

• On the post: That Was Fast: Hollywood Already Browbeat The Republicans Into Retracting Report On Copyright Reform

  

  Crosbie Fitch ( profile ), 19 Nov, 2012 @ 09:53am

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

  Ridiculous? Don't worry, the cartel are already at work on this lovely propaganda: "Copyright is the new civil rights movement".
  
  Yup, amazing ain't it? Do a Google search. So this is why Martin Luther King's estate are suing anyone who copies or distributes the 'I have a dream' speech without a license - because it's a civil rights issue!
  
  Whereas slavery takes away all the liberties of a few, copyright takes away a few liberties from us all.

• On the post: That Was Fast: Hollywood Already Browbeat The Republicans Into Retracting Report On Copyright Reform

  

  Crosbie Fitch ( profile ), 18 Nov, 2012 @ 11:41pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

  "Maybe it's just dew"
  
  VERY GOOD!

• On the post: That Was Fast: Hollywood Already Browbeat The Republicans Into Retracting Report On Copyright Reform

  

  Crosbie Fitch ( profile ), 18 Nov, 2012 @ 01:24am

  Re: Just keep doing what we've done best.

  The prohibition of alcohol collapsed into repeal from staunch bipartisan support rather suddenly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repeal_of_Prohibition
  
  It can happen.
  
  The copyright cartel may have just done a Streisand on this, bringing to far more people's attention a dry reform proposal that would otherwise have come and gone, noticed as remarkable only by the interested.
  
  The elite copyright vampires just got a tad sunburnt by some fool opening the Overton window, and now they'll do a purge to ensure it doesn't happen again.

• On the post: Literary Agent: Authors Don't Need Middlemen, They Need Partners

  

  Crosbie Fitch ( profile ), 15 Nov, 2012 @ 12:27am

  Kickstarter is quite a good 'middleman'.

• On the post: Faulkner Estate Keeps Suing: Sues Washington Post Over Ad That Quoted One Sentence

  

  Crosbie Fitch ( profile ), 02 Nov, 2012 @ 12:43am

  That might be just what they want.

  That might be just what they want.
  
  There's nothing like a ridiculous lawsuit to obtain publicity (presumably cheaper and more effective than mere advertising), and presumably an increase in book sales and revenue to the estate (and perks to the holders thereof).

• On the post: Copyright: The New Mercantilism

  

  Crosbie Fitch ( profile ), 29 Oct, 2012 @ 03:00am

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Congress has no power to grant copyright anyway

  > I'm saying that if there is any doubt about what the
  > Constitution says, you look to the intent of the people who wrote it.
  
  Those who ratified the Constitution did so according to what it said (and meant according to the language of the time).
  
  Each clause wasn't attributed to specific authors, with the implication that each clause should have been read whilst inferring the intent and ulterior motive of each specific author.
  
  > It's pretty clear in this case that Clause 8 was written
  > specifically to address post-publishing monopoly rights.
  
  You mean the privilege of a state granted monopoly I take it?
  
  Madison may well have written the clause to enable him to later re-enact the Statute of Anne along with patent law, but Madison's intent is not the same as the understanding of those who ratified the Constitution.
  
  
  > Madison was likely talking about Millar v. Taylor, the
  > English case that
  > thought the Statute of Anne had removed artists' common-law
  > copyrights. It
  > was overturned in Donaldson v. Beckett. Why Madison said this
  > is a subject of some controversy:
  
  As you keep telling me, Madison and Jefferson knew that the Statute of Anne and patents were state granted monopolies. Madison wasn't expressing his knowledge, he was merely stating a fact (at odds with his knowledge), that he was highly likely to know had been overturned by a more recent 'solemn judgement'.
  
  If you know the Statute of Anne is a state granted monopoly, and consequently that there is no such thing as a common law right to prohibit others making fair copies of one's published works (or otherwise communicating/performing them), and yet you state that it "has been solemnly adjudged to be a right of common law" then you are misdirecting your audience (others call it lying).
  
  > It has also been suggested that Madison was relying on
  > Burrow's report of the Donaldson case, in which it was reported
  > that the advisory judges were of the opinion that copyright was
  > a common-law right, but one that had been divested by the
  > Statute of Anne.
  
  Madison wrote the clause for an audience some of which he considered would be operating on the assumption that there was a common law right - that Congress should have power to later secure for limited times (by a copy of the Statute of Anne).
  
  > In any case, Madison later took the position that the English
  > common law was deliberately not made applicable in the United
  > States by the new Constitution.
  
  This stands to reason in any case. There is no law preceding the Constitution aside from natural law - the rights people are born with.
  
  > This seems to preclude any argument that Madison believed
  > that the Clause was "securing" a pre-existing right.
  
  Again, the meaning of the clause is not determined by what Madison believed. Madison knew well that there was no common law right.
  
  However, a clause that empowered Congress to grant monopolies would have rung alarm bells in readers.
  
  The clause didn't empower Congress to grant monopolies, but Madison knew it would easily be enough to allow him/Congress to pass the Statute of Anne (and patents similarly) knowing that many others believed this constituted the securing of common law rights - which the clause empowered Congress to do.
  
  > Except it doesn't actually say "the author's natural lifespan," nor even
  > suggest it, and none of the discussion around the Clause even mentions it.
  
  You were asking how the clause should be read: "Moreover, if the Clause was not meant to give Congress the right to grant post-publication monopolies, then how could it even possibly be read?"
  
  I suggested how.
  
  > That is not at all the case. Jefferson wanted something inserted into
  > the Bill of Rights that said that the federal government could not grant
  > monopolies under any circumstances.
  
  

  I like [the declaration of rights] as far as it goes, but I should have been for going further. For instance, the following alterations and additions would have pleased me:
  [...]
  Article 9. Monopolies may be allowed to persons for their own productions in literature, and their own inventions in the arts, for a term not exceeding -- years, but for no longer term, and no other purpose.
  

  
  
  > Except that such language (or similar) was in the earlier drafts of the
  > Clause, so the Framers certainly knew what was being discussed, and they
  > didn't strike it out.
  
  By 'Framers' here, I assume you mean Madison and his cronies?
  
  Yes, there were a few variations of the clause proposed, which indicates that the clause eventually selected was carefully chosen to maximise its chances of being ratified ('scarcely questioned').
  
  > This recommendation was not "immediately struck out." In fact, it was a
  > driving force behind the copyright laws in serveral states.
  
  That reproduction monopolies were favoured in various states (including Madison's) prior to the Constitution is not in dispute. It is similarly likely they were also sanctioned on the invalid basis of securing a common law right.
  
  Few people today know that people used to think the Statute of Anne was seen as an abridgement of an author's (presumed) natural right to veto reproductions of their work. See http://culturalliberty.org/blog/index.php?id=49
  
  > Nobody in their right mind thinks that the Constitution was protecting
  > "natural rights" in e.g. Clause 7, "To establish Post Offices and post
  > Roads;" or the latter part of Clause 5, to "fix the Standard
  > of Weights and
  > Measures." The "copyright clause" should be read the same way: as a purely
  > utilitarian power of a functional government - not as the protection of any
  > sort of "natural right."
  
  Those utilitarians in support of copyright may like to do as you suggest, however this does not mean that this is how those who ratified the Constitution read the clause.
  
  It is a rather weak ending for you to conclude that a clause empowering Congress to secure authors' and inventors' rights would be read by them in the same sense as a clause empowering Congress to establish post offices.
  
  Bear in mind that the grant of a monopoly is a priori an abridgement of liberty, whereas the securing of a natural right is not. Rights are not mere public utilities.

• On the post: No, Copyright Is Not A Human Right

  

  Crosbie Fitch ( profile ), 28 Oct, 2012 @ 11:46am

  Re: copyrights deserve zero respect

  The 'charge for smelling my fart' is Monsanto's model. They prosecute farmers who unwittingly grow crops with patented GMOs that have contaminated their land.

• On the post: Copyright: The New Mercantilism

  

  Crosbie Fitch ( profile ), 28 Oct, 2012 @ 03:04am

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Congress has no power to grant copyright anyway

  > No idea what Obama has to do with this, but whatever.
  
  My point is that if you start claiming that the Framers' intent supersedes the Constitution you can get away with murder. 'Intent' is highly malleable, to say the least. Have you heard of the 'disposition matrix'?
  
  > Moreover, if the Clause was not meant to give Congress the
  > right to grant post-publication monopolies, then how could it
  > even possibly be read?
  
  As Madison said, copyright has been adjudged to be a right of common law, i.e. and so to be SECURED because we are recognised to already have it. The clause only allows Congress to SECURE the right authors already have, i.e. their natural right to exclude others from their writings.
  
  For limited times is not at all at odds with the limited time of the author's natural lifespan.
  
  NB Corporations are not natural beings and so have no natural rights to be secured, whether you would class them as authors or not.
  
  > after that, everyone in the U.S. would have
  > access to your unpublished works.
  
  An author cannot naturally exclude others from their writings beyond the grave. To believe they could would require them to be imbued with supernatural powers.
  
  No doubt the inheritors of the author's estate would appoint an executor to share out any writings found, perhaps influenced by an author's previously declared preferences.
  
  
  > The Framers certainly did, and I linked to quotes from them
  > that showed they did.
  
  They weren't discussing the Constitutional clause. They were angsting over the utility of monopolies.
  
  > Yes, he certainly did write more than that.
  
  Yes, plenty, but not about the clause.
  
  Remember, we're talking about the clause, not monopolies.
  
  Jefferson was suggesting to Madison that he insert something into the Bill of Rights saying that monopolies may be granted to authors and inventors. Madison did not do so.
  
  That is wholly different from the progress clause.
  
  
  > All of the sources I quoted were from when the Continental
  > Convention was still in session, or during the ratification
  > debates. None were from after the Copyright Act of 1790 was enacted.
  
  Discussion between Madison & Jefferson concerning monopolies is a separate issue from discussions among the Framers concerning the intent/meaning/purpose/utility of the progress clause in the Constitution.
  
  I have always agreed that Madison was keen to see copyright & patent legislated by Congress. This does not mean all the other Framers were, and nor does it mean that the progress clause would be understood by those Framers as doing any more than securing a right authors were endowed with by nature.
  
  Bear in mind that if Madison had written the clause as "To grant to authors and inventors monopolies over the reproduction, communication and use of their work" then it would have been immediately struck out by other Framers.
  
  
  > Still, as I said, his particular viewpoint had nothing to do
  > with the "copyright clause." He wasn't at the Convention, did
  > not have a hand in writing it, and never commented on it.
  >
  > This is not to say that Paine's viewpoints were not important
  > - they certainly were. Just not in regards to Article 1,
  > Section 8, Clause 8.
  
  I quote Edison to emphasise that it is by no means unfortunate to quote Paine with respect to understanding the meaning of the US Constitution - including the meaning of the progress clause.
  
  

  The Declaration and the Constitution expressed in form Paine?s theory of political rights. He worked in Philadelphia at the time that the first document was written, and occupied a position of intimate contact with the nation?s leaders when they framed the Constitution.
  
  Certainly we may believe that Washington had a considerable voice in the Constitution. We know that Jefferson had much to do with the document. Franklin also had a hand and probably was responsible in even larger measure for the Declaration. But all of these men had communed with Paine. Their views were intimately understood and closely correlated. There is no doubt whatever that the two great documents of American liberty reflect the philosophy of Paine.

• On the post: Copyright: The New Mercantilism

  

  Crosbie Fitch ( profile ), 27 Oct, 2012 @ 02:31pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Congress has no power to grant copyright anyway

  >Crosby, your views are provably false.
  
  Excellent Carl. I have been looking forward to a proof that my argument is false for quite some time.
  
  >You may personally think the Constitution did not allow
  >Congress to create post-publication monopoly rights, but
  >that was clearly the intent of the Founders and the
  >Copyright Clause.
  
  I expect President Obama agrees with you that it is the intent of the Framers of the Constitution that should take priority over what the Constitution actually says (and means according to the language of the Framers).
  
  NB The Framers didn't call it the 'the copyright clause', nor did they write anything about creating rights, but I will think on your suggestion that one can prove the Constitution empowered Congress to create rights such as copyright by inferring this as the Framers' intent.
  
  >The Founders who wrote the Clause discussed it in terms
  >of a monopoly.
  
  No, I think you'll find the Framers didn't.
  
  Madison and Jefferson discussed copyright and patent as monopolies, which of course they are.
  
  There was very, very little discussion of the progress clause (at least, that was recorded).
  
  Madison didn't do much more discussion of the clause than this:
  http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa43.htm
  
  "The utility of this power will scarcely be questioned."
  
  In other words "Nothing to see here, please move along. Only fools will question this power.".
  
  "The copyright of authors has been solemnly adjudged, in Great Britain, to be a right of common law."
  
  Those less charitable would describe this as a lie.
  
  If Madison implies knowledge of judgements in Britain, then no doubt Madison?s work in the Virginia state legislature (1776?79) informed him of Donaldson v Beckett (1774), the ruling in the House of Lords that denied the existence of a perpetual common law copyright and held that copyright was a creation of statute and could be limited in its duration.
  
  "The right to useful inventions seems with equal reason to belong to the inventors."
  
  Well, yes, but given the other reason is false then so is this.
  
  "The public good fully coincides in both cases with the claims of individuals."
  
  "Both privileges benefit the public, because I say so". Great argument. It should be telling that Madison feels the need to say that monopolies benefit the public. Laws that secure natural rights don't need such reassurance.
  
  "The States cannot separately make effectual provisions for either of the cases, and most of them have anticipated the decision of this point, by laws passed at the instance of Congress."
  
  Monopolies don't work if they're only recognised in some states. And some states are so keen to enjoy monopolies, they've already legislated them.
  
  Anyway, despite mentioning copyright, and alluding to patent, Madison doesn't actually discuss the clause in terms of a monopoly. He doesn't even say that the clause empowers Congress to grant these privileges (it doesn't). But then he wouldn't say that would he? As he erroneously declared, copyright is a right of common law - to be secured, not a privilege to be granted. Therefore, if you want to go by Madison's intent (which is not necessarily the same thing as the reading of this clause by other Framers), Congress only has power to secure common law rights.
  
  > From what survives from the newspapers of the period,
  >everyone in the Colonies also viewed it as a monopoly.
  
  Yes, quite a lot of people recognised copyright as a reproduction monopoly. However, we're talking about the Constitutional clause, not the monopoly of copyright granted much later.
  
  >It's also unfortunate (for your argument) that you quote
  >Paine, because Paine believed that copyright was a natural
  >property right, not just a monopoly:
  
  I quote Paine because he was a contemporary of the Framers and understood natural rights, and had some very incisive things to say about them, e.g. the privileges that annulled them.
  
  Beliefs and intents are easy to allege, but perhaps you can quote Paine stating that Queen Anne's statute of 1709 was the recognition of a natural right, not the granting of a monopoly that abridged the people's liberty, annulling their right to copy, to leave it, by exclusion, in the hands of a few.
  
  

  "It may, with propriety, be remarked, that in all countries where literature is protected (and it cannot flourish where it is not), the works of an author are his legal property; and to treat letters in any other light than this, is to banish them from the country, or strangle them at birth."

  
  
  I agree with Paine that one should recognise an author's intellectual work as their natural property, and that law should recognise this. It's the privilege abridging the liberty of those to whom the author gives their property that is unethical.
  
  >He was in the minority among the Founders, and had nothing
  >at all to do with the Copyright Clause, but it's what he believed.
  
  Try "The Philosophy of Paine" by Thomas A. Edison, June 7, 1925
  
  

  Tom Paine has almost no influence on present-day thinking in the United States because he is unknown to the average citizen. Perhaps I might say right here that this is a national loss and a deplorable lack of understanding concerning the man who first proposed and first wrote those impressive words, ?the United States of America.? But it is hardly strange. Paine?s teachings have been debarred from schools everywhere and his views of life misrepresented until his memory is hidden in shadows, or he is looked upon as of unsound mind.
  
  We never had a sounder intelligence in this Republic. He was the equal of Washington in making American liberty possible. Where Washington performed Paine devised and wrote. The deeds of one in the Weld were matched by the deeds of the other with his pen. Washington himself appreciated Paine at his true worth. Franklin knew him for a great patriot and clear thinker. He was a friend and confidant of Jefferson, and the two must often have debated the academic and practical phases of liberty.
  
  I consider Paine our greatest political thinker. As we have not advanced, and perhaps never shall advance, beyond the Declaration and Constitution, so Paine has had no successors who extended his principles. Although the present generation knows little of Paine?s writings, and although he has almost no influence upon contemporary thought, Americans of the future will justly appraise his work. I am certain of it. Truth is governed by natural laws and cannot be denied. Paine spoke truth with a peculiarly clear and forceful ring. Therefore time must balance the scales. The Declaration and the Constitution expressed in form Paine?s theory of political rights. He worked in Philadelphia at the time that the first document was written, and occupied a position of intimate contact with the nation?s leaders when they framed the Constitution.
  
  Certainly we may believe that Washington had a considerable voice in the Constitution. We know that Jefferson had much to do with the document. Franklin also had a hand and probably was responsible in even larger measure for the Declaration. But all of these men had communed with Paine. Their views were intimately understood and closely correlated. There is no doubt whatever that the two great documents of American liberty reflect the philosophy of Paine.

• On the post: Copyright: The New Mercantilism

  

  Crosbie Fitch ( profile ), 27 Oct, 2012 @ 03:13am

  Re: Re: Congress has no power to grant copyright anyway

  Mike, for me, the US Constitution and the 18th century privilege of copyright that preceded and followed it is not a matter of belief - though it may be so for most.
  
  The person (James Madison viz Congress) who passed the first US Copyright law (a slightly altered copy of Queen Anne's 1709 statute) in 1790 was just ONE of the Framers of the US Constitution 1787.
  
  It is not in dispute that Madison wanted the old world monopolies of copyright and patent brought into the US. The issue is that the clause he inserted into the Constitution didn't empower Congress to grant those privileges. It might have enabled him to later point to that clause as implicitly sanctioning their granting, but that's not the same thing.
  
  Remember that Madison granted copyright & patent as a fait accompli 3 years after the Constitution had been drafted. Did every single one of the other Framers appreciate that via the clause that only empowered the securing of rights (unalienable rights, endowed to us by our creator - "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men") the monopolies of copyright & patent would be granted by Congress three years later?
  
  It is not necessary to pretend to understand the Constitution more than the Framers. One needs only to understand it as they did, in the language of the day - in which 'right' was not corrupted in meaning by a privilege granted three years later that in the 20th century came to be understood by the layman as equivalent to a natural right, and the right that the clause empowered Congress to secure. See http://culturalliberty.org/blog/index.php?id=289
  
  Because of this corruption in the meaning of 'right', we now have to qualify natural rights with 'natural' to distinguish them from privileges (legislatively created 'rights' - see Paine).
  
  Does the following ring true?
  
  

  We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are recognised to be equal, that they are endowed by their government with certain transferable rights, that among these are copyright, patent and the pursuit of infringers. ? That to enforce these rights, law firms are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the government's corporate sponsors

  
  
  Mike, I am not interested in eliminating from my arguments anything that jeopardises being taken seriously. I am not a politician. I am interested in understanding the nature of rights, and whether copyright is ethical, and compatible with humanity, and if not, how artists and inventors can ethically and practically do business with those who want them to continue doing what they do.
  
  You can read the Constitution as empowering Congress to grant copyright if you want to believe it does, but it doesn't actually do so, and if you can conceive of the possibility that it might not be a ridiculous infatuation to argue against that belief (like this chappie here: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120521/03345318988/youre-only-making-things-worse-yourself-us-too-media-industries-part-ii.shtml#c239 not anonymous to you) then you might respect the argument rather than simply poo poo it as infra dig.
  
  You are not exactly a stranger to the situation of being ridiculed for a lack of faith in the holy goodness of copyright and patent. Pointing out that the Constitution didn't empower Congress to grant copyright (as it empowered Congress to grant Letters of Marque) is sacrilege only to devout copyright worshippers and Madisonians, not to the Constitution and natural rights libertarianism.

• On the post: Copyright: The New Mercantilism

  

  Crosbie Fitch ( profile ), 27 Oct, 2012 @ 12:55am

  Congress has no power to grant copyright anyway

  "limit the nature of the "exclusive rights" that Congress may grant"
  
  The Constitution never empowered Congress to grant copyright or patent in the first place. People just think it did - because Congress did grant those privileges and it's unthinkable not to believe that the Constitution empowered Congress to do so.
  
  See http://culturalliberty.org/blog/index.php?id=289
  
  So, making an amendment that Congress should only have power to secure the exclusive rights that authors and inventors possess by nature (vs by legislation - privileges subsequently granted that resemble such rights), is redundant because that's all the Constitution stipulated in the first place.

• On the post: No, Copyright Is Not A Human Right

  

  Crosbie Fitch ( profile ), 26 Oct, 2012 @ 03:40pm

  Re: Re: ?Copyright grants its holder certain rights.?

  If a copyright holder finds an infringement acceptable then the infringement is acceptable. Hence infringement is perfectly legal - it is not an arrestable offence.
  
  If a copyright holder hasn't sued, then you might assume they found an infringement acceptable, but who knows for sure?
  
  Copyright is a cultural sword of Damocles.
  
  And don't forget, you can be sued by a copyright holder for infringement even if you haven't infringed their copyright - they can merely allege that you have. It is a matter of money really. Copyright is a means by which the wealthy & powerful keep the less wealthy & powerful at bay. It also funds lawyers' lavish lifestyles.

• On the post: No, Copyright Is Not A Human Right

  

  Crosbie Fitch ( profile ), 26 Oct, 2012 @ 03:23pm

  Re: Re: Re: It still looks like a right to me. . .

  Natural rights are so called, because they are evident in nature. They are not aspirational, e.g. "It's natural for authors to want to control what others do with their work, ipso facto they have a natural right to exert such control"
  
  It's an easy trick to play, to lead the gullible astray, but it doesn't make piracy (liberty) go away.
  
  I have a natural right to exclude others from copying the poem in my pocketbook, because I naturally, physically control my pocket and the pocketbook within it. However, if I start printing and distributing copies of my poem to all and sundry, it should be self-evident to all except the most corrupt copyright supporters that I have zero natural, physical control over what umpteen recipients are able to do with the poem they've received from me. Such an pretence of control must be granted by the powerful, e.g. Queen Anne in 1709, and Congress in 1790.

• On the post: No, Copyright Is Not A Human Right

  

  Crosbie Fitch ( profile ), 26 Oct, 2012 @ 02:27pm

  Re: Re: It still looks like a right to me. . .

  Moral rights are natural rights (deriving from the right to truth).
  
  Copyright is a privilege (our right to copy annulled - held by copyright holders).
  
  This is not to say that some legislation protecting moral rights (in some jurisdictions) isn't polluted by copyright.

• On the post: No, Copyright Is Not A Human Right

  

  Crosbie Fitch ( profile ), 26 Oct, 2012 @ 02:14pm

  Re: It still looks like a right to me. . .

  There are no natural exceptions to natural rights. 'Exception' describes privileges such as copyright that are 'exceptions; to liberty, or legislated limitations to privileges such as 'fair use'.
  
  Free speech means that the state does not interfere with its citizens' speech, i.e. censorship. If we have free speech, we are free to say ANYTHING TO ANYONE. If we don't have free speech, the state will monitor what we say and censor speech it considers undesirable (prevent it reaching those it otherwise would have).
  
  Free speech is distinct from liberty. That is, while we are free to say anything, some things we say may violate others' rights, e.g. violate another's privacy, commit fraud, or incite murder. Securing people's rights means prohibiting acts that violate them. It doesn't mean the state can censor speech to pre-empt potential violation.
  
  Copyright is a privilege, the suspension of a natural right for the benefit of a few (the crown/state, and the Stationers' Company and every publishing corporation since).
  
  The only ones who say copyright is a human right are those who don't know what human rights are, and those who don't want them to know.

• On the post: No, Copyright Is Not A Human Right

  

  Crosbie Fitch ( profile ), 26 Oct, 2012 @ 01:21pm

  Re: Choose One

  Well, if you read really carefully, without allowing copyright to pollute the reading, these two statements aren't mutually exclusive.
  
  It's like some people can't read the Constitution without interpreting it as granting (or empowering Congress to grant) copyright, even though it doesn't mention Queen Anne's statute.
  
  What you'll find is that it is copyright that is incompatible with that second clause of the UDHR.
  
  Ah, but, copyright is a 'material interest resulting' you may say. Well, perhaps, but that would only be because the state granted this privilege in 1709 (repeated 1790 in US). And as we know, privileges annul the corresponding right in the majority to leave it by exclusion in the hands of a few.
  
  It is copyright that is an abrogation of our cultural liberty, a suppression of our right to freely share and build upon our own culture.
  
  The protection of any NATURAL moral or material interests arising in an author's work has no such impact. It is no impact on my liberty if the state protects your moral right to be identified as the author of your works, nor does it impact upon your liberty if the state protects my natural right to exclude you from copying my private memoirs, thus protecting their resulting material interest.
  
  Copyright is not a human right, and if it was abolished tomorrow as it should be, there is nothing in the UDHR that requires it to be granted back again.
  
  Thus, if you read those two clauses again, but from a post-abolition perspective, they are not mutually exclusive. Therefore, if they should not be mutually exclusive today, copyright should not exist today (or ditch the UDHR and keep copyright!). The UDHR isn't wrong (nor is the US Constitution). It is copyright that is wrong.

• On the post: No, Copyright Is Not A Human Right

  

  Crosbie Fitch ( profile ), 26 Oct, 2012 @ 12:05pm

  Re: Re: ?Copyright grants its holder certain rights.?

  Tell that to YouTube

• On the post: Will Proposed Pan-Africa Intellectual Property Organization Enable The West To Impose Its Monopolies?

  

  Crosbie Fitch ( profile ), 26 Oct, 2012 @ 01:52am

  What is a rights holder?

  A ?rightsholder? is a euphemistic term for someone who is privileged with the suspension of your rights and the commercial exploitation thereof, e.g. as in ?testiclesholder? (it is not their goolies they?ve been granted a grip on, but yours).
  
  Thus those who are privileged with the holding of your right to copy or build upon the works of art you may purchase are known as ?copyright holders?. This is because your natural right to copy was suspended in the 18th century to create this privilege of ?copyright?. Your right to copy, like all natural rights, is supposed to be inalienable, but such wee technicalities may be pushed aside in the favour of commerce and those merchants who lobby so handsomely.
  
  http://culturalliberty.org/blog/index.php?id=171

• On the post: Could Co-operatives Save Newspapers — And Investigative Journalism?

  

  Crosbie Fitch ( profile ), 17 Oct, 2012 @ 12:26am

  1p2U

  My http://1p2U.com project was along these lines - letting readers crowdfund the journalist. Almost finished it too... :-/

• On the post: DOJ Lawyer Explores 'Copyright Freeconomics'; Suggests Copyright Needs To Change

  

  Crosbie Fitch ( profile ), 04 Oct, 2012 @ 12:53pm

  Re: Moral rights

  Moral rights are natural rights. Copyright is a privilege (a legally created 'right'). Or more precisely, copyright is a right - it's the people's natural right to copy, annulled in the majority, to be left, by exclusion, in the hands of a few (hence "copyright holders") - annulled.
  
  Shakespeare cannot waive his right to be attributed as the author of his work. 1) He's dead. 2) He couldn't do it if he was alive (see inalienable). 3) Attributing any work of Shakespeare as 'by Fred Bloggs' is a lie - fraud.
  
  People being taught that copyright is a right has had the side effect of giving rights a bad name.
  
  See http://culturalliberty.org/blog/index.php?id=292

Next >>