Copyright is just an euphemism.

Copyright: the ability to veto what your customers can and cannot do with pieces of information that you have sold to them, is NOT a natural inherent right.

As everyone should know, rights are not created – we are born with them. But your government is in a position to create ‘privileges’ – through the derogation of the rights we already have.
(“It is a perversion of terms to say that a charter gives rights. It operates by a contrary effect — that of taking rights away.” See Rights of Man by Thomas Paine 1791)

These privileges are like rights, but they are created through legislation, hence lawyers prefer to term them ‘legally granted rights’, ‘legal rights’, or simply ‘rights’ (much to the delight of giant copyright holders because it confuses people into thinking that it is an inherent right).

A ‘rightsholder’ is really just an euphemistic term for someone who is privileged with the suspension of YOUR rights for the commercial exploitation thereof.

Copyright is an euphemism. It is in fact, no right at all.

Copyright is called ‘copyright’ because it is the suspension of the people’s right to copy in order to reserve it into the hands of those privileged few who hold that privilege, hence ‘copyright holders’. Copyright is HELD from you. They HOLD YOUR right to copy. That is why copyright is always held, not owned.

Now there IS such thing as an Author’s Right.
Authors have the natural and inalienable right to ‘Freedom of Expression’.
Those authors who would wish to exercise their freedom of expression, utilizing pieces of expression that they have legally acquired (i.e. sampling) are justified in doing so. For expression cannot be owned. How can you own the way you say something?

http://culturalliberty.org/blog/index.php?id=171

Advertisements