Tagged: Natural Rights Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • R 1:25 pm on May 27, 2013 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , Natural Rights   

    Fundamental property rights come first over artists/industry survival 

    Well, this is the disconnect I guess. You admit you only hold this view because of the detrimental effects (you think) are impacting the industry. You are asserting that a fundamental aspect of property rights and consumer rights as it has existed since the beginning of trade should be adjusted and recodified on a per-industry basis, not because it’s inherently bad or unethical, but just because you think it’s a threat to the industry’s health. Which means you are essentially arguing for protectionism for corporations–consumers are free to exercise their consumer rights only up to a certain point, but if that free exercise is perceived to threaten the viability of the industry, then their rights must be limited in order to save the industry.

    I don’t think I can put into words my disgust at this demeaning display of groveling at the feet of your game developer overlords. Less a die-hard laissez-faire capitalist, but because even a capitalist would accept that sometimes industries die and that’s the way the world works. As much as I enjoy games, there is no inherent good in this industry to claim ‘public good’. The ends do not justify the means here; there is nothing that makes the gaming industry inherently worthy of preservation, not to the point that would justify carving out a special exemption for them. Just because your favored set of content producers couldn’t properly adapt does not justify rewriting the rules of what “property ownership” means and fundamentally removing the ability to preserve, inherit, pass on, lend, and share its products.

    The industry does not come first; consumers do.

    • modified from neogaf post about first sale doctrine, but it is applied in the same way to real property rights and the right to manufacture copies of your own property for others. Substitute “industry’s health” with “artist’s rights to a living”.


  • R 12:16 am on May 25, 2013 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Natural Rights   

    The right to translate is a real natural human right 

    The right to translate is a real natural human right (& not a statutory one). if we have the right to freedom of expression, it therefore follows that we have the right to Express ourselves in our own languages using Somebody-Else’s expression (so long as this other person had willingly published it and it wasn’t stolen from him).

    Then how can copyright also be a human right if it contradicts this one?

    (Protip: one of them isn’t a human right.)

  • R 8:45 pm on April 10, 2013 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Natural Rights   

    A response I wrote to an attorney employed by Mangagamer to threaten me with a coercive take down 

    Below is a response I wrote to an attorney from Greenville, Delaware (US), who was employed by Mangagamer to threaten me with a coercive take down of a Da Capo III fan translation. The first part of my response is here.

    This is the 2nd half.

    These advantages (copyright) I mentioned, is in the handing out of exclusive rights to the artist to copy & distribute one particular work. An exclusive right is simply an euphemistic way of saying the destruction of everyone else’s right to copy in order to give the artist an economical advantage, let me explain. So an exclusive right, is not the same as a natural human right. Statutory rights work by necessarily rewriting other people’s real rights.

    So say for example.
    my legitimate copy of Da Capo III is sitting here on the shelf in front of me. Everything in the box is mine. Including the DVD. The DVD is a physical object and I have a physical property right in the DVD. Here when I say physical property right, I mean that I am justified in the use of (sufficient) violence to thwart any attempts by anyone who dares to intrude on my exclusive use of this object. And that moral justification exists outside of legislature. It is before Any State legislations factor in to the protection of these rights, Before there is even law, I was already entitled to the full use my physical disc in anyway I like, be it to play it, to break it, to play frisbie with it, or to print the data on it onto another disc and then give it out to my neighbour (because the 2nd disc is also my property). Outside of legislature, I am already justified in the use of violence in defence of this piece of property, because it is my property. And that includes my right to copy the disc.

    Now Enter 18th century copyright.
    Now one of my rights in my physical property, the right to copy, is denied, because a law created by legislature steps in and explicitly takes away those rights that I had in my disc. But not just one right. A total of Six rights are taken away. (ie. copy/distribute, derivative work, sell copies, perform in public, display work publicly, & audio transmission, USC Section 17, chapter 1, para 106). The argument that I want to make is that copyright is necessarily the rewriting of the customer’s real physical property rights (in their purchases) so as to give an economic advantage to the artist or publisher, and therefore, constitutes theft. For all Statutorily-created rights work by necessarily rewriting other people’s real rights. Either we fully respect real physical property rights, or we rewrite real physical property rights to make way for copyright. There is no in between. [see thomas paine rights of man]

    We are all born with the right to copy – today as well as prior to 1709. It is merely a law that says otherwise, that this right should be annulled and held, by exclusion, in the hands of ‘copyright holders’ for their commercial exploitation. It is not that people abuse copyright, and are even now, trampling on the author’s humananity into non-existence, but that copyright abuses people. In fact, you can deduce this in just a couple of sentences:

    “Copyright grants its holder certain rights.”

    What rights does copyright grant to the holder?

    “The right to produce copies or reproductions?”

    No, the holder already can do that. He does not need the government to tell him that he can.

    “The right to make adaptations and derivative works.”

    No, again the holder already can do that.

    “The right to perform or display the work publicly?”

    Again, this isn’t a right being granted to the holder, he is permitted to perform the work as he sees fit. None of these rights are granted to the holder by copyright law; they exist independently. What copyright law does is take away the rights of everyone else to do these things.

    That is why I can make the moral argument that I have a right to improve on my own purchased copy of Da Capo III, and then share those improvements to whomever I wish, but that these rights were merely annulled temporarily by the State for a default total of 14 years…. (*cough*) ahem… I mean life of artist + 50yrs.

    The last argument I make is that freedom of speech, is incompatible with copyright.

    “Congress shall make no law… prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the (people’s) freedom of speech,”

    It does not say, “Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise or abridging the freedom of speech, unless someone wants to repeat someone else’s speech.”

    Stopping people from repeating each other’s speech IS abridging the freedom of speech.

    So these people cannot even obey the very first law in their lawbook. [See No Law: Intellectual Property in the Image of an Absolute First Amendment]

    Anyways regardless of my views, I have done as you’ve asked. All localization efforts have been ceased and all distribution stopped (including seeding of the torrent).

    After all, you are the one with the guns.

    First half is here: http://visualnovelaer.fuwanovel.org/2013/03/da-capo-iii-fan-translation-cease-desisted-by-mangagamer

  • R 6:31 pm on October 31, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , Natural Rights   

    “Some men say the earth is flat.
    Some men say the earth is round.
    But if it is flat. Could Parliament make it round?
    And if it round. Could the kings command flatten it?”

    • St Thomas More, arguing as his own lawyer for alleged treason, for refusal to acknowledge Henry VIII as the head of the Roman Catholic Church of England. For that refusal he was beheaded.

    When he was making his case to the jury, well of course the parliament or the king cannot make the round earth flat. Of course they cannot make a flat earth round. He is not only appealing to the common sense of his juries, he is appealing to their understanding of the natural law. Their understanding of the order of things, their understanding of the immutable laws that regulate and control even the king!

    It is unfortunate that our present day kings, in their incredible arrogance, still seem to think that, they can make things in the world of ideas, behave in exactly the same way as things in the physical world.

    Don’t you know that things in the world of ideas are non-scarce and non-rivalrous? They are what Ludwig von Mises calls “Free Goods”, because copies are potentially limitless. They “do not need to be economized.”

    Our kings of today are in fact, playing God.

    • Aaeru 6:35 pm on October 31, 2012 Permalink | Reply

    • Daniel Flynn 2:10 pm on June 29, 2017 Permalink | Reply

      Yes. Natural must be a given. If the world is round it is round. Congress cannot make it flat; nor can Congress make ” income” as defined in dozens of Supreme Court cases; as Corporate profit and gain. Not working for a living to give sustenance to One’s self and family. Working to feed One’s self is a natural right. You cannot be taxed for the enjoyment of a right( unless it’s apportioned among the states. (Cases that have never been overturned ) yet every day the IRS the DOJ and Congress puts American workers into servitude( in order to get campaign donations from Corporations who either pay less or nothing at all in many cases) involuntary servitude if you object and attempt to redress with IRS. You get an orange jumpsuit with nice white sneakers. The sad truth is you don’t even have ” income”. But the King/ Congress and the IRS/DOJ says you do have “income”. Do not pass go ; go directly to jail. A biblical tragedy in our midst.

  • R 7:11 pm on September 24, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Natural Rights   

    Copyright is a legal right 

    “Let’s start at the beginning and look at what a copyright is.

    Primarily, a copyright is a person’s right to stop other people from copying something. It is a legal right, not a moral one. That means it is created by law to bring about some practical effect, rather than something that people believe people are naturally entitled to.

    The primary effect that copyright seeks to bring about is that an author gets paid for what he created. Some people believe that is a valid goal itself, because an author has a natural right to the value that he creates. But historically, that isn’t the real goal of copyright. The real goal is secondary to making the author get paid for his work: It causes the author to create in the first place. An author is more likely to spend time and money writing if he will get paid for it.”

    13. Copyright Considerations With LKMs

  • R 9:34 am on September 17, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Natural Rights   

    Copyright isn’t actually a right 

    “Economically speaking, it doesn’t matter if it’s moral or amoral. Morally speaking, it doesn’t matter if it’s legal or not. Legally speaking, it doesn’t matter if it’s right or wrong. Realistically speaking, it doesn’t matter if it’s moral, legal, or right. You see how nothing actually relates in this situation? The fact that you won’t acknowledge the fact that reality does not line up with the law any more speaks volumes about you.

    Here’s where you may be getting confused. Copyright isn’t actually a right, it’s a privilege granted to you for a limited time by the people who copyright is suppose to benefit, us, the public. So when you start talking morality, you’re already off track when talking about copyright. If you want to talk morality, then it’s moral to ignore copyright because copyright itself has become amoral (wasn’t when it was created, now it is).” – Chronno S. Trigger

    “Personally, I would take this a step further back and point out that copyright is a suspension of everyone else’s right to do as they please with elements of culture, that there is no inherent exclusive natural right to exclude others from copying your book or song or whatever. It is, instead, an artificial marketplace convenience founded on suspending everyone else’s natural rights.

    If you want to get moral about it, copyright is a slight immorality that we all tolerate so long as copyright results in a net benefit to society.” – anonymous


    • Crosbie Fitch 10:50 am on September 17, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      People still have difficulty with the idea that Queen Anne and her Stationers’ Company might not have been as pure as the driven snow when copyright was established in 1709. Similarly, people presume James Madison was a philanthropist at heart when he re-granted it in 1790.

      The myth that copyright was always enacted with the people at heart (not the press or state) is simply too appealing – the alternative too horrific.

      Copyright was always immoral, always unethical, always an instrument of injustice, always an abomination. Giving it a sugar coating may make it more palatable, but it doesn’t stop it being a societal poison and cultural carcinogen.

      • lowestofthekeys 1:27 pm on September 17, 2012 Permalink | Reply

        “Copyright was always immoral, always unethical, always an instrument of injustice, always an abomination.”

        I don’t think that copyright is inherently evil, but I think it coaxes greed in people. Companies like Disney gained success from the public domain, but because they’re greedy they use copyright to guard their IP from going into the public domain. It’s essentially become a misused tool with little to no regulation.

    • Aaeru 2:55 pm on September 17, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      No economic incentive justifies the creation of ‘rights’. Even if parliament enacted it with a desire to serve the ‘public good’, mechanically it is still monopoly. And monopoly can’t be justified.

  • R 7:05 am on September 11, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Natural Rights,   

    What rights does copyright grant to the holder? 

    “Copyright grants its holder certain rights.”

    What rights does copyright grant to the holder?

    “The right to produce copies or reproductions?

    No, the holder already can do that. He does not need the government to tell him that he can.

    “The right to make adaptations and derivative works.”

    No, again the holder already can do that.

    “The right to perform or display the work publicly?”

    Again, this isn’t a right being granted to the holder, he is permitted to perform the work as he sees fit.
    None of these rights are granted to the holder by copyright law; they exist independently. What copyright law does is take away the rights of everyone else to do these things

  • R 6:50 am on August 22, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , Natural Rights,   

    Free Culture 

    “A free culture is one in which everyone is free to share and build upon any work they see, hear or receive – all mankind’s published art and knowledge – that which by natural right already belongs to the public, the people.”

    –Digital Productions: The Flower of Free Culture

  • R 6:44 am on August 22, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Natural Rights   

    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?


  • R 9:12 am on August 1, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Natural Rights   

    John F. Kennedy 

    “The rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.”

    • John F. Kennedy
  • R 1:31 pm on July 31, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , Natural Rights   

    Crosbie Fitch: Law isn’t meant to BENEFIT anyone. 

    The Law isn’t meant to BENEFIT anyone. Law recognises our natural rights. It is not for publishers’ enrichment, nor even artists’.

    • Crosbie Fitch
  • R 11:45 am on July 30, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Natural Rights   

    Copyright and patents are the exception and limitation. Not fair use 

    Ima Fish’s comment concerning the problem of people calling things like fair use a “limitation and exception,” when reality is it’s the opposite:
    It’s actually worse than that. Copyright and patents are the exception and limitation. Not fair use.

    “Property rights are considered inalienable rights in the Constitution. They’re also considered natural rights. They can be thought of as inherent rights. They’re not given by government. They are given by nature itself. The purpose of government is not to give such rights, but to protect such rights. And the government can only intrude upon such rights through due process.

    Unlike property rights, copyrights and patents needed to be explicitly included in the Constitution because they were not natural. The concept of giving out monopoly rights to ideas was contrary to nature. Thus, such monopolies were by their nature an exception and highly limited.

    As pointed out here before. Copyrights originally lasted only 15 years. And even more interesting, copyrights did not cover music or literature.

    But as money was made on these limited monopolies, those who collected the rents needed more gates from which to collected upon. So music was added. Literature was added. The length of time was increased. The monopoly on publishing was not enough. Soon performances were added. And now we’re stuck with a convoluted draconian system where we need to pay a license to combine music with video, separate from the publishing right, and separate from the performance right.

    The reason we think of fair use as a limitation and an exception, is because for over two centuries, copyright law has turned on its head.


  • R 1:19 am on July 19, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , Natural Rights   

    Andrew Westlake: Economic benefit alone is not a justification or spur for the creation of rights 

    “Real property like apples, are property by natural right, and this right is not ‘given’ by anyone. Intellectual property on the other hand, is a false, State created right that does not exist in nature, unlike property rights in lawfully acquired goods.

    The economic and social value of real property rights are not relevant to the correctness of those rights. Economic benefit alone is not a justification or spur for the creation of rights; if economic benefit alone were sufficient to create rights, it could be successfully argued that anything beneficial to ‘society’ should be enshrined as a right by the State.

    Authors and creators of things have a property right in those things; what they cannot claim is a right to control other people’s property. This is only possible today because the State enforces this idea, and of course, the origin of copyright and monopolies goes right back to the monarchy of England. Did you know that the Monarch of England retains ‘copyright’ of the King James Bible, and that this intellectual property has lasted for 400 years, and that if you wish to read from it on a stage, you must pay royalties?

    Why do you think they call it ‘ROYALties’?!

    Once again the difference then between normal property and intellectual property is the difference between THE STATE giving someone control of one apple and control of all apples, and this example is not so far fetched today. Monsanto and other companies are patenting forms of life (‘patenting’ meaning requesting and receiving government monopolies on who can reproduce a form of life, like an apple) which means that they can now literally own all apples of a certain type, forbidding you from growing them with the force of law.

    Copyright and Patents are per se bad. by Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine have demonstrated that intellectual property is entirely corrosive and in fact not needed at all to foster creativity and profitability; the main pretext that the pro IP lobby uses to justify their existence and these bad laws:


    Its an unmissable and highly enlightening read.

    When you say “We may therefore be willing to tolerate the ex-post costs” who exactly are you talking about? Are you talking about the people who are dying because medicines are too expensive thanks to patents, or are you talking about software developers who cannot use ‘other person is typing’ features in their products because Microsoft owns the ‘Patent’ for that? (for example).

    Right and wrong are not negotiable, and evil should not be tolerated. as is demonstrated in ‘Against Intellectual Monopoly’, these bad laws are retarding progress by decades, and the cross pollination and synergetic effects of sharing ideas that is now impossible mean that the actual amount of lost progress is probably measured in centuries.”

  • R 3:07 pm on July 15, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , Natural Rights, ,   

    “Intellectual Property” law is not an Inherent Natural Law 

    “Intellectual Property” law is not an inherent natural law, it is a “product” of human design, it wasn’t here “before the beginning of time” like property was and we just had to articulate it and write it down as a law. Unlike real physical property law, it was designed by a few people and then forced upon the rest of us.

    The fact is that property exist even among animals, they can’t articulate (they can’t talk) they certainly can’t understand it, but try to take something away from a dog… he will defend it because it is his property. The same was true for us. Before we evolved into homo sapiens, our ancestors started to live in groups (the predecessor of society) and they couldn’t speak, they couldn’t articulate their “thoughts”, but they already had the concept of property because that was the only way to achieve a peaceful coexistence. If something was scarce and rivalrous, it was a designated an owner and it was shared only under the “blessings” of this owner and that it can be exchanged for other property and they did this even though they didn’t understand any of the concepts behind their actions.

    We consider theft a crime, not because of the “ten commandments”, not because the “people who wrote the law” said it shall be like this, but because it was a law long before we could articulate such a thing as law much less write it down on paper. This is why we tolerate and (most of us) accept the confiscation of unlawfully obtained property because it doesn’t disrupt the peace it actually makes the peace more stable.

    This is why the majority of the internet does not accept “Intellectual Property” (even though they say they do), this is why there are so many “thieves” out there downloading music, movies, books, software. These people are doing it because they “know” it does not disrupt the peace, they “know” it is something we can do without injuring another individual, and if we injure nobody then we are not disrupting the spontaneous order and consequently we are not disrupting the peace.

    When a large majority of the population doesn’t care for some “law” and/or they care about it only because of severe punishments, it is not law at all, it is just some bad and counterproductive command from the “authorities” forced on us in order to serve the interests of some groups at the expense of other groups. Real laws are those respected by the large majority even without the threat of punishment from the government – only a small minority (the criminals) need to be forced to respect a real law, that is why we call it law, because the large majority “know” it emerged in order to save the peace, not designed in order to serve somebodies interest.

    • rob8urcakes 9:16 am on September 5, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Awfully well put Aaeru, even to the extent that I’m certain all politicians Worldwide currently bribed by “the industry” to pass more unjust, antisocial laws would understand why what they’re doing is so wrong on so many different levels.

      This outright corruption by the entertainment cartel MUST now cease because we, the people, require the freedom to share without penalty and without restriction.

      The “industry” must now adapt to modern needs and demands or die and be replaced with those who understand the new economic and technological reality of today.

  • R 12:58 am on July 10, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Natural Rights   

    Jeffrey Tucker: Despotism 

    “This is just the way things are. It is for us not to question but to obey. So it is with all despotisms in human history. They become so woven into the fabric of daily life that absurdities are no longer questioned. Only a handful of daring people are capable of thinking along completely different lines. But when they do, the earth beneath our feet moves.”

    • Jeffrey Tucker


  • R 12:54 am on July 10, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Natural Rights   

    Bastiat: The Law 

    “It is not true that the function of law is to regulate our consciences, our ideas, our wills, our education, our opinions, our work, our trade, our talents or our pleasures. The function of law is to protect the free exercise of these rights, and to prevent any person from interfering with the free exercise of these same rights by any other person.”

    • This is from Bastiat’s The Law, one of the great political essays to emerge from the whole Continental world of the 19th century.

    Copyright strays outside of what the Law is justified to do.

Compose new post
Next post/Next comment
Previous post/Previous comment
Show/Hide comments
Go to top
Go to login
Show/Hide help
shift + esc