[LAU] ASCAP Assails Free-Culture, Digital-Rights Groups

[drew Roberts]

On Friday 16 July 2010 07:36:24 Pedro Lopez-Cabanillas wrote:
> On Friday, July 16, 2010, drew Roberts wrote:
> > On Thursday 15 July 2010 19:11:22 you wrote:
> > > I don't normally contribute to the "intellectual property" vrs
> > > "freedom" threads ... but maybe it is time :)
> > >
> > > My simple minded beliefs includes that a "creator" has certain rights
> > > to his creation. If he/she wants to share (freely) with the rest of
> > > the world, great. If they think that only people who pay a certain sum
> > > of money can share it, that's their right as well.
> >
> > Well, I think it is clear that people are using the word "right" to mean
> > different things. Are you meaning what people call Natural rights, or are
> > you meaning Legal Rights which some call privileges?
> >
> > Are these rights you speak of something someone is justified in using
> > force against another person to secure? Do all natural rights justify the
> > use of force to secure? Legal rights? (Speaking person to person, not
> > state enforced.)
>
> A majority of us agreed to some extent with a set of rights that should be
> applicable to all human beings. We even have a written document with the
> list of those rights.
>
>     "Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and
> inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of
> freedom, justice and peace in the world..."

Inherent dignity.
Inalienable rights.
>
>     The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
>     http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr
>
> Being on topic with the subject of this thread ...
>
>     Article 27.
>
>     * (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life
> of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement
> and its benefits.
>     * (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and
> material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic
> production of which he is the author.

A couple of points, Since 2 comes after 1 is it reasonable to hold that you 
cannot interpret 2 in a way that denies 1?

Does 2 allow for the assignment of these material interests to another? Does 
it allow for the taking away of these material interests in a lawsuit 
situation for debt or?
>
>
> Regards,
> Pedro

all the best,

drew