3 ms·

There are similar inalienable rights in copyright, collectively referred to as "moral rights": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights#In_Europe https://en.w

There are similar inalienable rights in copyright, collectively referred to as "moral rights": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights#In_Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights#In_Europe It's a bit murky, especially in an international context. But they generally aim to protect authors, specifically in the author<->publisher relationship. It may seem counter-intuitive that taking away "your right to relinquish your rights" may be protecting you. But the idea is the same as whatever law stops you from selling yourself into slavery.

Certhas 9y ago
This is completely typical in consumer protection laws. You can't legally sign away your right to warranty for example, and I believe that in some jurisdictions you can't sign away your right to sue (like you would if you agree to binding arbitration). I'd really like to see a more thorough argument than the linked blog on whether or not the proposed section is really a huge problem, and/or does nothing to protect legitimate rights holders who are in an asymmetric relationship with google that is maybe not to dissimilar to the consumer situation.
- michaelmrose 9y ago
  It's unalienable because a reasonable party would just refuse to pay for the privilege of linking to you and a reasonable content creator would realize that losing 50-80% of traffic coming from the people who you think ought to pay to promote you would be a bad bargain. Its inalienable to short circuit the normal results of negotiations between big companies because they don't like the end result.
sgc 9y ago
Except the current proposal goes against a very widespread and desirable use of copyright, which is to share freely while retaining attribution and control over reuse. And there are no human rights violations involved. As a result, the proposal in hand seems draconian - and since it basically deals with money, not at all similar to moral rights.
pbhjpbhj 9y ago
Slight clarification: for example, the "moral right" of recognition isn't inalienable, one can publish [pseudo-]anonymously. Indeed your linked Wikipedia makes clear inalienability is not a characteristic of all moral rights depending on jurisdiction. (I don't think you were asserting this, but it seemed you were on first reading, hence "clarification")
- nabla9 9y ago
  Anonymity is not exception to copyright. overview: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Anonymous_works https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Anonymous_works

Certhas 9y ago

This is completely typical in consumer protection laws. You can't legally sign away your right to warranty for example, and I believe that in some jurisdictions you can't sign away your right to sue (like you would if you agree to binding arbitration). I'd really like to see a more thorough argument than the linked blog on whether or not the proposed section is really a huge problem, and/or does nothing to protect legitimate rights holders who are in an asymmetric relationship with google that is maybe not to dissimilar to the consumer situation.

michaelmrose 9y ago
It's unalienable because a reasonable party would just refuse to pay for the privilege of linking to you and a reasonable content creator would realize that losing 50-80% of traffic coming from the people who you think ought to pay to promote you would be a bad bargain. Its inalienable to short circuit the normal results of negotiations between big companies because they don't like the end result.

sgc 9y ago

Except the current proposal goes against a very widespread and desirable use of copyright, which is to share freely while retaining attribution and control over reuse. And there are no human rights violations involved. As a result, the proposal in hand seems draconian - and since it basically deals with money, not at all similar to moral rights.

pbhjpbhj 9y ago

Slight clarification: for example, the "moral right" of recognition isn't inalienable, one can publish [pseudo-]anonymously. Indeed your linked Wikipedia makes clear inalienability is not a characteristic of all moral rights depending on jurisdiction. (I don't think you were asserting this, but it seemed you were on first reading, hence "clarification")

nabla9 9y ago
Anonymity is not exception to copyright. overview: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Anonymous_works https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Anonymous_works