[nylug-talk] silly DMCA tricks

[Peter C. Norton]

On Fri, May 02, 2003 at 02:04:17PM -0400, Mordy Ovits wrote:
> On Friday 02 May 2003 01:49 pm, Peter C. Norton wrote:
> > > There is no
> > > principled way to argue for a fundamental "right" not to have things you
> > > utter ever uttered by others, and in fact something that we *do*
> > > recognize as a fundamental right, freedom of speech, is exactly counter
> > > to the law of copyright.
> >
> > This damages your argument, because copyright doesn't grant protection
> > for anyone's every utterance.  What it does cover is the writer of the
> > utterance, the person who recorded an utterance, etc.  But anyone
> > else can say the same thing.
> 
> Copyright covers books too, not just sound.  Just because I retype your book 
> w/ a new layout and font doesnt mean it's my copyright now, so I *can't* say 
> the same thing.

Absolutely.  I meant that to be covered when I wrote "the writer of
the utterance".

> Michael is right that copyright is a more artificial right than the "natural"
> ones.  That's why normal property law wasn't enough.

But it is a "right" that's conferred by law.  I am not at all
convinced that the argument that michael puts forward, that copyright
is "A fiction of the legal system" followed by "There is no principled
way to argue for a fundamental "right" not to have things you utter
ever uttered by others" is valid, since the law doesn't cover
utterances.  It could be a reductio ad absurdum that's actually based
in a valid argument

That said, "natural [rights]" are also conferred on to us by law. More
"natural" rights, like free speach, life, liberty and persuit of
happiness, etc. are legal constructs that are only available to us as
long as they are enforced by law, and are malleable and constantly
being refined, eroded and built back up (keeping my fingers crossed
that Ashcroft goes to hell sooner rather then later). 

-Peter

-- 
The 5 year plan:
In five years we'll make up another plan.
Or just re-use this one.