Re-licensing

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
85 messages Options
12345
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re-licensing

geni
2009/1/23 Erik Moeller <[hidden email]>:

> E our attribution model, which is the
> result of many months of deliberation and consultation,

Evidences?

> "However, we think that the notion that print-outs of massively
> collaborative works should carry author attribution over multiple
> pages, that spoken versions should contain many seconds of
> text-to-speech generated author lists, that indeed any re-user will
> have to worry about this problem, is completely counter to the
> principles of free culture.

{{fact}}

> So, for your past edits, please click this
> button. We will always attribute you by name as long as we use your
> text, and we will probably remove your edits over time.

Questionable. For example the heavily edited [[Siege]] has text that
is recognizably mine from 2004.


> It would be, IMO, a completely defensible way to deal with a situation
> where a minority is trying to impose standards on an entire community
> which are counter to its objectives. I'm not necessarily saying that
> this reflects the situation we have today: I don't know how widespread
> the belief in the need for distribution of excessive author metadata
> is. I think it would be worth the effort to find out. It's my personal
> belief that such metadata requirements are harmful examples of
> non-free licensing terms, and I would be surprised to see many people
> defend excessive attribution as in the
> http://books.google.com/books?id=BaWKVqiUH-4C&pg=PT979#PPT959,M1
> example (even if it's aesthetically well done and obviously pleasing
> to lots of German mothers).

Err your proposed solution wouldn't greatly change the situation there
since it could require up to a quarter of a million credits and about
50,000 urls. Since most wikipedia nics are rather shorter than URLs I
find it questionable that that would count as an improvement.

Hmm it has pics as well attaching urls to the pics instead of author
nics actively makes things worse.

> The above solution would still result in the odd situation where the
> article on [[France]] would say: 'See (url) for a list of authors,
> including Foo and Bar'. But that is a problem that could be solved
> over time by removing those people's contributions. It seems to me
> that, essentially, some people have been operating under the
> assumption that they are contributing in a fashion that would make the
> resulting work effectively non-free in much the same way other onerous
> restrictions do. It's too bad that they've made that assumption, given
> how strongly and clearly we've always emphasized the principles of
> freedom.

The phrase "Reasonable to the medium or means" in the CC license
pretty much makes what you suggest impossible using credits. If you
want to do that copyright notices are a far better attack line.


> Flexible and vague clauses can work well when you're dealing with
> issues with few stakeholders who all have a shared and tacit
> understanding of what they want to accomplish. By definition, massive
> collaboration isn't such a situation: any one of hundreds or thousands
> of contributors to a document can behave unreasonably, interpreting
> rules to the detriment of others. The distributed ownership of
> copyright to a single work is an example of what Michael Heller calls
> 'gridlock' or an 'anticommons'. Ironically, even with free content
> licenses, the gridlock effects of copyright can still come into play.

If you think CC licenses don't have large flexible and vague areas you
haven't read them or have a poor understanding of international IP
law.

> I believe it's our obligation to give our reusers protection from
> being hassled by people insisting on heavy attribution requirements,
> and to create consistency in reuse guidelines.

Those two directly contradict.

> Really, WMF and its
> chapters can hardly develop partnerships with content reusers if we
> can't give clarity on what's required of them.

You cannot give clarity for them whatever you do. You are not a
government. The cost however  of your attempt would be that wikipedia
is unable to be a reuser.

> A great deal of free
> information reuse may not be happening because of fear, uncertainty
> and doubt.

"may". So speculation.

> I would much rather remove all doubt that our content is
> free to be reused without onerous restrictions.

You might want to but there is no way you can actually do it. There is
very little caselaw when it comes to free licenses (heh we can't even
show that CC licenses are something that can be meaningfully agreed to
in say France).

--
geni

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re-licensing

Anthony-73
In reply to this post by Mike Godwin-3
> >> What is the legal distinction you're drawing
> >> here? (I ask for the "legal distinction" because you are articulating
> >> your concern in terms of what you purport to be violations of your
> >> legal rights.)
> >>
> >
> > Actually, I'm purporting them to be violations of my moral rights.
>
> How are you distinguishing between "moral rights" and "legal rights"?


A legal right is recognized by law.  A moral right may not be.


> A moral right is a kind of legal right, in those jurisdictions that
> recognize moral rights.
>

Sure, but I'm not in a jurisdiction that indisputably recognizes the right
to attribution.

> But the
> > distinction is pretty obvious - in one case the page is a click
> > away, in the
> > other case it at least requires finding internet access and typing
> > in a url,
> > and quite possibly requires jumping through even more hoops than that.
>
> So if you were unhappy that your attribution was at the back of a
> book, because a reader has to turn to the end and read through a lot
> of small print in order to find your name, that would give you a basis
> for objecting to that form of attribution?


Barring a license to use my content in that way, sure.  Just like a film
director has a basis to demand "the last solo credit card before the first
scene of the picture".

>> But an online attribution on a separate page (or server) when the
> >> article is offline is *not*
> >> "direct"?  What is the legal (or "rights") basis for this
> >> distinction?
> >
> > Common sense?
>
> So you're saying your legal rights are defined by "common sense"?


To some extent, sure.  Not entirely by common sense, of course, but legal
rights can't be understood without employing common sense.


> Are you sure that's the direction in which you want to take your argument?


I'm sure you'll take my comment out of context in any case.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re-licensing

Anthony-73
In reply to this post by Thomas Dalton
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 5:51 PM, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]>wrote:

> 2009/1/22 Mike Godwin <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > Anthony writes:
> >
> >> Come to think of it, forking under GFDL 1.3 would probably be the most
> >> appropriate.  Then, since Wikipedia intends to dual-license new
> >> content, new
> >> Wikipedia content could be incorporated into the fork, but new forked
> >> content couldn't be incorporated into Wikipedia.
> >
> > You haven't reviewed the FAQ.  As Richard Stallman explains, CC-BY-SA-
> > only changes, including imports from external sources, will bind
> > Wikipedia and re-users of Wikipedia content.
>
> I think it's obvious Anthony means "almost all new Wikipedia content"
> - CC-BY-SA only edits obviously can't be used under GFDL, do you
> really think Anthony's that stupid or are you just taking every
> opportunity you can to resort to (somewhat subtle, I'll grant you) ad
> hominem attacks because you know you're talking nonsense?
>

Thanks.  By "new Wikipedia content" I meant content first contributed to
Wikipedia.

To answer Mike's other comment, about why I don't fork now.  1) I never said
I was the one who was going to do the fork, I only said a 10% level would
likely be enough of a critical mass to pull it off; and 2) I don't think the
WMF has managed yet to piss off enough people to make a fork viable.  *IF*
more than 10% or so of voters want direct attribution, and *IF* the WMF goes
ahead and tells reusers that attribution by URL is acceptable, *THEN* I
think a fork would be viable.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re-licensing

Mike Godwin-2
In reply to this post by Klaus Graf
Anthony writes:

> A legal right is recognized by law.  A moral right may not be.

This must be your own idiosyncratic application of the term "moral  
right."  In copyright, "moral rights" refers to inalienable legal  
rights that are recognized in law. If you are in a jurisdiction that  
does not recognize "moral rights," then you don't have them, by  
definition.

> Sure, but I'm not in a jurisdiction that indisputably recognizes the  
> right
> to attribution.

Okay, so why are you invoking rights that you don't have?

> Barring a license to use my content in that way, sure.  Just like a  
> film
> director has a basis to demand "the last solo credit card before the  
> first
> scene of the picture".

Excuse me?  Film directors don't have any legal right to such a  
"credit card" (I assume you mean "credit").  They may negotiate for  
such a credit through contract, but they don't have it in the absence  
of a contract.

>> So you're saying your legal rights are defined by "common sense"?
>
> To some extent, sure.  Not entirely by common sense, of course, but  
> legal
> rights can't be understood without employing common sense.

They can't be understood without knowledge of the law, either.


--Mike




_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re-licensing

Mike Godwin
In reply to this post by Klaus Graf
Anthony writes:

> A legal right is recognized by law.  A moral right may not be.

This must be your own idiosyncratic application of the term "moral  
right."  In copyright, "moral rights" refers to inalienable legal  
rights that are recognized in law. If you are in a jurisdiction that  
does not recognize "moral rights," then you don't have them, by  
definition.

> Sure, but I'm not in a jurisdiction that indisputably recognizes the  
> right
> to attribution.

Okay, so why are you invoking rights that you don't have?

> Barring a license to use my content in that way, sure.  Just like a  
> film
> director has a basis to demand "the last solo credit card before the  
> first
> scene of the picture".

Excuse me?  Film directors don't have any legal right to such a  
"credit card" (I assume you mean "credit").  They may negotiate for  
such a credit through contract, but they don't have it in the absence  
of a contract.

>> So you're saying your legal rights are defined by "common sense"?
>
> To some extent, sure.  Not entirely by common sense, of course, but  
> legal
> rights can't be understood without employing common sense.

They can't be understood without knowledge of the law, either.


--Mike




_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re-licensing

Erik Moeller-4
In reply to this post by geni
2009/1/22 geni <[hidden email]>:
> Err your proposed solution wouldn't greatly change the situation there
> since it could require up to a quarter of a million credits and about
> 50,000 urls. Since most wikipedia nics are rather shorter than URLs I
> find it questionable that that would count as an improvement.

A single URL could point to a list of all contributors for all
articles. I agree that under the proposed principles of attribution, a
lot of individual names would still have to be included, though
probably far fewer than right now. (They could actually be more
visibly included as 'credit: foo, bar' under the articles, which IMO
underscores that the proposed regime, where direct credit is given,
encourages it to be more visible and significant.)  One of the
interesting things about the German book is that it's a collection of
many thousands of tiny article summaries, which still triggers the
worst of any attribution regime that requires direct name attribution.

I do agree with you, Mike and others who have pointed out that we want
to retain flexibility in application. I'm not arguing for absolutely
rigid attribution requirements, and to the extent that the current
proposal suggests that, it should be revised. I am, however, arguing
for articulating principles and demonstrating them through guidelines
and examples, so that there's no ambiguity about our general
understanding of what we mean with reasonable applications.
--
Erik Möller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re-licensing

Anthony-73
In reply to this post by Mike Godwin-2
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 10:31 PM, Mike Godwin <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Anthony writes:
>
> > A legal right is recognized by law.  A moral right may not be.
>
> This must be your own idiosyncratic application of the term "moral
> right."  In copyright, "moral rights" refers to inalienable legal
> rights that are recognized in law. If you are in a jurisdiction that
> does not recognize "moral rights," then you don't have them, by
> definition.
>

In ethics, "A moral right is a morally justified claim. A legal right is a
legally justified claim. When one uses the term "right" without specifying
the nature of the justification, one usually means a moral right." (
http://www.onlineethics.org/CMS/glossary.aspx?letter=R)

Confusing, perhaps, since the term "moral rights" (almost always plural) has
another definition in copyright law.


> > Barring a license to use my content in that way, sure.  Just like a
> > film
> > director has a basis to demand "the last solo credit card before the
> > first
> > scene of the picture".
>
> Excuse me?  Film directors don't have any legal right to such a
> "credit card" (I assume you mean "credit").  They may negotiate for
> such a credit through contract, but they don't have it in the absence
> of a contract.
>

In the absence of a contract, there wouldn't be a film.  And no, I mean
"credit card", as in a type of "title card".  It's film jargon, derived no
doubt by the fact that they used to be printed on cards.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re-licensing

Anthony-73
In reply to this post by Mike Godwin-2
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 10:31 PM, Mike Godwin <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Anthony writes:
> > Sure, but I'm not in a jurisdiction that indisputably recognizes the
> > right
> > to attribution.
>
> Okay, so why are you invoking rights that you don't have?
>

Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights_(copyright_law), and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights

Just because a right isn't recognized, does not mean that I do not have it.

Sometimes I wonder whether you're being intentionally obtuse.  How in the
world could a lawyer familiar with constitutional law not know that?
Seriously, that's appalling.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re-licensing

Nikola Smolenski
In reply to this post by Andrew Whitworth-2
On Thursday 22 January 2009 23:23:17 Andrew Whitworth wrote:
> * I make the blanket assumption that everybody here is being perfectly
> reasonable.

What an unreasonable assumption! :)

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re-licensing

Thomas Dalton
In reply to this post by Mike Godwin-2
2009/1/23 Mike Godwin <[hidden email]>:
> Anthony writes:
>
>> A legal right is recognized by law.  A moral right may not be.
>
> This must be your own idiosyncratic application of the term "moral
> right."  In copyright, "moral rights" refers to inalienable legal
> rights that are recognized in law. If you are in a jurisdiction that
> does not recognize "moral rights," then you don't have them, by
> definition.

The idea behind moral rights is that they are rights that everyone has
automatically and the law is just recognising that. If you are in a
jurisdiction that doesn't recognise moral rights then (from that POV)
you still have moral rights, the state is just immoral and doesn't
enforce them. There is a fundamental difference between a right
granted by law and a pre-existing right recognised by law. That
difference is irrelevant in a courtroom, which is probably why you
dismiss it, but there is a difference.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re-licensing

Anthony-73
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 5:30 AM, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]>wrote:

> 2009/1/23 Mike Godwin <[hidden email]>:
> > Anthony writes:
> >
> >> A legal right is recognized by law.  A moral right may not be.
> >
> > This must be your own idiosyncratic application of the term "moral
> > right."  In copyright, "moral rights" refers to inalienable legal
> > rights that are recognized in law. If you are in a jurisdiction that
> > does not recognize "moral rights," then you don't have them, by
> > definition.
>
> The idea behind moral rights is that they are rights that everyone has
> automatically and the law is just recognising that. If you are in a
> jurisdiction that doesn't recognise moral rights then (from that POV)
> you still have moral rights, the state is just immoral and doesn't
> enforce them. There is a fundamental difference between a right
> granted by law and a pre-existing right recognised by law. That
> difference is irrelevant in a courtroom, which is probably why you
> dismiss it, but there is a difference.


Actually, the difference is quite relevant in a courtroom, especially when
dealing with constitutional issues.  That's why I find it nearly impossible
to believe that Mike doesn't understand this.  How in the world can you
defend people's constitutional rights if you think they're made up out of
nowhere?  Why defend free speech if it's just a couple words some guys made
up and wrote down on paper?  The very nature of the legal system in the
United States of America is based upon natural rights.  "We hold these
truths to be self-evident".  Self-evident.  Not created by congressmen.

Maybe Mike rejects the existence of natural rights, but surely he is aware
of the concept.  To assume otherwise might assume good faith in this
argument, but it would assume bad faith about his entire public life.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re-licensing

Mike Godwin
In reply to this post by Klaus Graf
Thomas Dalton writes:

>>  This must be your own idiosyncratic application of the term "moral
>> right."  In copyright, "moral rights" refers to inalienable legal
>> rights that are recognized in law. If you are in a jurisdiction that
>> does not recognize "moral rights," then you don't have them, by
>> definition.
>
> The idea behind moral rights is that they are rights that everyone has
> automatically and the law is just recognising that.

I understand what the *rhetoric* of moral rights is.  But in the  
absence of law establishing and protecting moral rights, you don't  
have any.

> If you are in a
> jurisdiction that doesn't recognise moral rights then (from that POV)
> you still have moral rights, the state is just immoral and doesn't
> enforce them.

A more nuanced and accurate view of the term "moral rights" is that it  
is a term of art relating to copyright and other rights in creative  
works.

> There is a fundamental difference between a right
> granted by law and a pre-existing right recognised by law.

Is this difference based on anything in the physical world?

> That
> difference is irrelevant in a courtroom, which is probably why you
> dismiss it, but there is a difference.

It's true that religious beliefs don't have great force in Western  
courtrooms. I dismiss this particular religious belief not because  
it's irrelevant in a courtroom, however, but because there is no  
evidence in the physical world that this difference exists.

Thomas, you may believe that the longstanding debate between natural  
law and positivists has been resolved in favor of the former, but  
there's no sign that this is true with regard to copyright.  If what  
you were saying were widely accepted, it would be odd that "moral  
rights" obtain as to copyright/creative expression but not as to  
things like property ownership and personal liberty.


--Mike




_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re-licensing

Thomas Dalton
2009/1/23 Mike Godwin <[hidden email]>:

> Thomas Dalton writes:
>
>>>  This must be your own idiosyncratic application of the term "moral
>>> right."  In copyright, "moral rights" refers to inalienable legal
>>> rights that are recognized in law. If you are in a jurisdiction that
>>> does not recognize "moral rights," then you don't have them, by
>>> definition.
>>
>> The idea behind moral rights is that they are rights that everyone has
>> automatically and the law is just recognising that.
>
> I understand what the *rhetoric* of moral rights is.  But in the
> absence of law establishing and protecting moral rights, you don't
> have any.
> [snip]

There is a world outside the legal profession, Mike. Either learn
that, or restrict the recipients of your emails to other lawyers. I,
for one, don't care about your extremely narrow minded views.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re-licensing

Mike Godwin-3
In reply to this post by Klaus Graf

Anthony writes:

>> Anthony writes:
>>> Sure, but I'm not in a jurisdiction that indisputably recognizes the
>>> right
>>> to attribution.
>>
>> Okay, so why are you invoking rights that you don't have?
>>
>
> Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights_(copyright_law), and
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights

Please understand that I am entirely familiar with the notions of  
"moral rights" and "natural rights." (I suspect I am more familiar  
with this notions than you are.)

> Just because a right isn't recognized, does not mean that I do not  
> have it.

I have a right to your house.   Oh, sure, it's not recognized by  
anyone, but I promise I have it!

> Sometimes I wonder whether you're being intentionally obtuse.  How  
> in the
> world could a lawyer familiar with constitutional law not know that?
> Seriously, that's appalling.

I suppose it is appalling to anyone who cherishes naive notions about  
the meaning of a specialized term like "moral rights" that other  
people may choose not to employ them naively. To be frank, those of us  
who actually have to work with such terms don't have the luxury of  
using them sloppily and naively.


--Mike




_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re-licensing

Thomas Dalton
2009/1/23 Mike Godwin <[hidden email]>:
>> Just because a right isn't recognized, does not mean that I do not
>> have it.
>
> I have a right to your house.   Oh, sure, it's not recognized by
> anyone, but I promise I have it!

Like I say, there's a world outside the legal profession. Just because
something isn't recognised by the law doesn't mean it isn't recognised
by anyone.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re-licensing

Anthony-73
In reply to this post by Mike Godwin
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 10:03 AM, Mike Godwin <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Thomas Dalton writes:
>
> If you are in a
> > jurisdiction that doesn't recognise moral rights then (from that POV)
> > you still have moral rights, the state is just immoral and doesn't
> > enforce them.
>
> A more nuanced and accurate view of the term "moral rights" is that it
> is a term of art relating to copyright and other rights in creative
> works.
>

Maybe you could explain the etymology of that term for us, Mike.  Your last
paragraph seems to imply that you understand it.

In any case, how do you propose that we can continue in a way that doesn't
confuse you with sentences like "moral rights are a type of moral rights"?


> > There is a fundamental difference between a right
> > granted by law and a pre-existing right recognised by law.
>
> Is this difference based on anything in the physical world?
>

Sure, it's based on whether or not the jurisdiction recognizes the right.


> > That
> > difference is irrelevant in a courtroom, which is probably why you
> > dismiss it, but there is a difference.
>
> It's true that religious beliefs don't have great force in Western
> courtrooms. I dismiss this particular religious belief not because
> it's irrelevant in a courtroom, however, but because there is no
> evidence in the physical world that this difference exists.
>

In what way is the concept of moral rights a religious belief?

Thomas, you may believe that the longstanding debate between natural
> law and positivists has been resolved in favor of the former, but
> there's no sign that this is true with regard to copyright.


You could have saved us a lot of time by saying that instead of pretending
you didn't know what I was talking about.


> If what
> you were saying were widely accepted, it would be odd that "moral
> rights" obtain as to copyright/creative expression but not as to
> things like property ownership and personal liberty.


That would be odd if it were true.  But it isn't.  Theft and slavery are
morally wrong, in addition to (and regardless of) being illegal.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re-licensing

Anthony-73
In reply to this post by Mike Godwin-3
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 10:24 AM, Mike Godwin <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Anthony writes:
> > Just because a right isn't recognized, does not mean that I do not
> > have it.
>
> I have a right to your house.   Oh, sure, it's not recognized by
> anyone, but I promise I have it!
>

Why would you call it *my* house, then?

In any case, moral rights are recognized by many people, just not
indisputably under Florida law.

> Sometimes I wonder whether you're being intentionally obtuse.  How
> > in the
> > world could a lawyer familiar with constitutional law not know that?
> > Seriously, that's appalling.
>
> I suppose it is appalling to anyone who cherishes naive notions about
> the meaning of a specialized term like "moral rights" that other
> people may choose not to employ them naively. To be frank, those of us
> who actually have to work with such terms don't have the luxury of
> using them sloppily and naively.


I see, so you *were* being intentionally obtuse.  To try to teach me a
lesson.  I have to admit I'm glad that's what it was.  To have to conclude
that you were a complete dolt would have been much more shocking than the
conclusion that you're a troll.

And I did learn a lesson.  I learned about your ignorance of right and
wrong, and got a glimpse of the nihilism it stems from.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re-licensing

Mike Godwin-3
In reply to this post by Klaus Graf

Thomas Dalton writes:

>> I understand what the *rhetoric* of moral rights is.  But in the
>> absence of law establishing and protecting moral rights, you don't
>> have any.
>> [snip]
>
> There is a world outside the legal profession, Mike. Either learn
> that, or restrict the recipients of your emails to other lawyers. I,
> for one, don't care about your extremely narrow minded views.

I'm sorry, Thomas, but until people learn to use jurisprudential  
concepts such as "moral rights" properly, I have a moral obligation to  
point out where they are used mistakenly.  This is not a question of  
"the world outside the legal profession" (and, indeed, if you were a  
member of the legal profession -- or a philosopher -- you wouldn't  
make the mistake of supposing this).  Philosophy of law is accessible  
to people who aren't lawyers -- even you. But it's clear that the word  
"moral rights" is being thrown around here by people who are only  
casually familiar with the concept. When you have actually given some  
study to jurisprudential philosophers (see, e.g., H.L.A. Hart and Lon  
Fuller) and can offer some more sophisticated philosophical analysis  
than you offer here, I will be able to take your pronunciamentos more  
seriously.

Do you understand what the term "term of art" means?

By the way, most members of the legal profession are not students of  
the philosophy of law. It is your misfortune that, in me, you have  
come across someone who is. I'm not disqualified from pointing out  
philosophical mistakes merely because I can hang out a shingle.


--Mike




_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re-licensing

Thomas Dalton
> I'm sorry, Thomas, but until people learn to use jurisprudential
> concepts such as "moral rights" properly, I have a moral obligation to
> point out where they are used mistakenly.  This is not a question of
> "the world outside the legal profession" (and, indeed, if you were a
> member of the legal profession -- or a philosopher -- you wouldn't
> make the mistake of supposing this).  Philosophy of law is accessible
> to people who aren't lawyers -- even you. But it's clear that the word
> "moral rights" is being thrown around here by people who are only
> casually familiar with the concept. When you have actually given some
> study to jurisprudential philosophers (see, e.g., H.L.A. Hart and Lon
> Fuller) and can offer some more sophisticated philosophical analysis
> than you offer here, I will be able to take your pronunciamentos more
> seriously.

Where do you think laws come from? Do you think they appear from
nowhere? They are created by politicians (and sometimes judges) based
on moral values. Those moral values imply certain moral rights whether
they are written down in statute (or case law) or not.

> Do you understand what the term "term of art" means?

Honestly? No, I'd have to look it up. However, I don't need to know
fancy lawyer speak to understand the concept of morality.

> By the way, most members of the legal profession are not students of
> the philosophy of law. It is your misfortune that, in me, you have
> come across someone who is. I'm not disqualified from pointing out
> philosophical mistakes merely because I can hang out a shingle.

Well, maybe when you progress a little further in your studies you'll
actually know something about the subject. I'm a mathematician, I am
well trained in logic and reasoned argument. That's not dissimiliar to
the training philosophers have (well, those that argue about vaguely
meaningful things, rather than angels and pins, anyway). While I may
not be an expert on the relevant facts, I can follow an argument and
see if it makes sense, and yours rarely do.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re-licensing

Anthony-73
In reply to this post by Mike Godwin-3
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Mike Godwin <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I'm sorry, Thomas, but until people learn to use jurisprudential
> concepts such as "moral rights" properly, I have a moral obligation to
> point out where they are used mistakenly.


You have a moral obligation?  I thought you dismissed morality as a
religious belief for which there is no evidence in the physical world.

Or is it merely the concept that we ought to give credit to authors that you
deem to be religious in nature?
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
12345