From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2016 19:32:36 -0600
Except, as Peter well knows, in European law "moral rights" are a
fundamental part of copyright and are regarded as a form of natural
right. So, while it is true that US law treats copyright in terms of
economic incentives and only gives very limited recognition to moral
rights (in relation to works of fine art), other copyright traditions
do consider copyright as a "god-given natural right."
> From: "Peter B. Hirtle" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2016 14:37:48 +0000
> "'Copyright is not a god-given natural right.' Well, I'm not a lawyer
> and only an amateur theologian, but I'm pretty sure that Article 1 of
> the Constitution is quite explicit about copyright as a right."
> Wrong. The Constitution gives Congress the authority to grant a
> copyright to the authors of creative works, but there is nothing that
> says that Congress has to use that power. And indeed, historically
> Congress has elected not to protect certain creative works. For
> example, sound recordings only received copyright protection in 1972,
> architecture in 1990, and fashion still does not receive copyright
> protection (for the sensible reason that no incentive is needed to
> encourage creativity in fashion).
> In short, copyright is a government-created limited monopoly, and not
> a god-given natural right.
> Peter B. Hirtle