4 ms·

> Isn't this fundamentally saying, "The cost of not infringing copyright is massive, so we will glibly infringe!" Copyright is not a natural human right; it's

by toyg 4y ago

> Isn't this fundamentally saying, "The cost of not infringing copyright is massive, so we will glibly infringe!" Copyright is not a natural human right; it's a construct invented and conferred by governments in order to achieve certain objectives. (It's more like a state license than a right, to be honest; using "right" was a historical masterstroke from the original inventors). As such, if those objectives can be provably achieved in a better way without copyright (or rather cutting copyright a bit smaller), there might well be a case for foregoing punishment. It's an exceptionally-hard argument to make, but it's not illogical.

icambron 4y ago
This seems like a good argument for adjusting copyright law, but seems unhelpful in interpreting it. "This law isn't a good way to achieve the government's objectives" is not the same as "this law wasn't broken". Judges do have some discretionary power in interpretation and that can take into account congress's intent, but here that would be a massive stretch. A judge would simply say it's congress's job to fix copyright if it's not the best way to achieve certain policy goals.
- toyg 4y ago
  As I said, exceptionally hard in practical terms - just not as baffling as the parent poster painted it. With the right judge anything is possible, and US history is full of controversial "overreaching" judgements. (and with the deep pockets GH/MS have, it doesn't really matter if the case eventually loses on a big principle - it's just a case of dragging it long enough that, some time through the whole process of appeals, the plaintiff will get broke enough to give up or accept a deal. This line is likely just one of many that defendants will employ.)
feoren 4y ago
> Copyright is not a natural human right; it's a construct invented and conferred by governments in order to achieve certain objectives. (It's more like a state license than a right, to be honest; using "right" was a historical masterstroke from the original inventors). I don't know of a better definition for "natural human right" than "a right/privilege/protection given to everyone automatically, even if they don't know about it or claim it, unless they specifically opt out of it." We get to decide what our "natural human rights" are, and we've decided that you automatically get copyright on your creative works even if you don't know what copyright is. Seems like a good thing, and a natural human right.
- semiquaver 4y ago
  > We get to decide what our "natural human rights" are Words have meaning. You can’t just make things up. The rights we invent through human constructs are the opposite of natural. Copyright is totally arbitrary and nothing at all like (for example) the right one has to their own life. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights_and_legal_rights https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights_and_legal_rig...
- toyg 4y ago
  > "a right/privilege/protection given to everyone automatically, even if they don't know about it or claim it That's not what copyright was, when it entered the legal landscape; and it still isn't in so many countries. And even where your definition is somewhat accepted, people disagree on what exactly it means (How long should it last? Can it be inherited? Does it apply to this or that? Etc etc). Even simply the fact that it can literally be bought and sold would indicate that it is not a human right at all - those are typically unalienable. It is a commercial right at best.
- int_19h 4y ago
  That's certainly not the conventional definition of "natural right", nor was it historically. Interestingly, Jefferson, when arguing against patents, made a point that regular property ownership is not a natural right: "It has been pretended by some, (and in England especially,) that inventors have a natural and exclusive right to their inventions, and not merely for their own lives, but inheritable to their heirs. But while it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all, it would be singular to admit a natural and even an hereditary right to inventors. It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it, but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society." (https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s25.html https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s25...)
Aerroon 4y ago
And the purpose of copyright is to aid and encourage the progress of science and the useful arts: >[The Congress shall have power] “To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”

by toyg 4y ago

icambron 4y ago

This seems like a good argument for adjusting copyright law, but seems unhelpful in interpreting it. "This law isn't a good way to achieve the government's objectives" is not the same as "this law wasn't broken". Judges do have some discretionary power in interpretation and that can take into account congress's intent, but here that would be a massive stretch. A judge would simply say it's congress's job to fix copyright if it's not the best way to achieve certain policy goals.

toyg 4y ago
As I said, exceptionally hard in practical terms - just not as baffling as the parent poster painted it. With the right judge anything is possible, and US history is full of controversial "overreaching" judgements. (and with the deep pockets GH/MS have, it doesn't really matter if the case eventually loses on a big principle - it's just a case of dragging it long enough that, some time through the whole process of appeals, the plaintiff will get broke enough to give up or accept a deal. This line is likely just one of many that defendants will employ.)

feoren 4y ago

> Copyright is not a natural human right; it's a construct invented and conferred by governments in order to achieve certain objectives. (It's more like a state license than a right, to be honest; using "right" was a historical masterstroke from the original inventors). I don't know of a better definition for "natural human right" than "a right/privilege/protection given to everyone automatically, even if they don't know about it or claim it, unless they specifically opt out of it." We get to decide what our "natural human rights" are, and we've decided that you automatically get copyright on your creative works even if you don't know what copyright is. Seems like a good thing, and a natural human right.

semiquaver 4y ago
> We get to decide what our "natural human rights" are Words have meaning. You can’t just make things up. The rights we invent through human constructs are the opposite of natural. Copyright is totally arbitrary and nothing at all like (for example) the right one has to their own life. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights_and_legal_rights https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights_and_legal_rig...
toyg 4y ago
> "a right/privilege/protection given to everyone automatically, even if they don't know about it or claim it That's not what copyright was, when it entered the legal landscape; and it still isn't in so many countries. And even where your definition is somewhat accepted, people disagree on what exactly it means (How long should it last? Can it be inherited? Does it apply to this or that? Etc etc). Even simply the fact that it can literally be bought and sold would indicate that it is not a human right at all - those are typically unalienable. It is a commercial right at best.
int_19h 4y ago
That's certainly not the conventional definition of "natural right", nor was it historically. Interestingly, Jefferson, when arguing against patents, made a point that regular property ownership is not a natural right: "It has been pretended by some, (and in England especially,) that inventors have a natural and exclusive right to their inventions, and not merely for their own lives, but inheritable to their heirs. But while it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all, it would be singular to admit a natural and even an hereditary right to inventors. It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it, but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society." (https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s25.html https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s25...)

Aerroon 4y ago

And the purpose of copyright is to aid and encourage the progress of science and the useful arts: >[The Congress shall have power] “To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”