"A Minnesota university has suspended one of its graduate students who sent two e-mail messages to school officials supporting gun rights.
Hamline University also said that master's student Troy Scheffler, who owns a firearm, would be barred from campus and must receive a mandatory "mental health evaluation" after he sent an e-mail message arguing that law-abiding students should be able to carry firearms on campus for self-defense."
The whole article is insane to be honest. Our institutions of higher learning are not interested in teaching our youth to think for themselves, to express those thoughts, and to defend their point of view unless it agrees with the status quo at the university.
I didn't post this to start a discussion on gun rights because it doesn't matter what right the student was promoting or whether you agree with his viewpoint or not. He was suspended and ordered to undergo psychiatric evaluation for having his viewpoint! He was stupid in the way he worded it (Read the article) but was not threatening.
What's even worse is the school won't even lay out all of the allegations against him or allow him to confront his accusers per their own policy.
Man this is disappointing on one level and on another not so much. I have been a fan of The Cure for a very long time and to see Smith speak out of ignorance like this is very disappointing. However I learned long ago, by watching Hollywood, that the stars usually talk out of their asses on most issues. This is no different. He didn't look into anything just popped off a gut reaction. It's not even shocking to be completely honest. It's sad to be sure but it is to be expected of the stars. They listen to their lawyers and friends and don't actually know much of anything.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright is not constitutional in the first place
I have not said that people have a right to copy what others own. I have tried to explain that copyright was created from the right to copy (derogating this from the right to liberty).
Your words were "the people's right to copy" and I have challenged you to find any enumeration of this right. It doesn't exist. You can claim, as you have, it comes from the right to liberty but this is not true. If the right to estate grants ownership and the right to liberty does not override the right to estate, which you have stated, then you can only have permission to copy. Ownership is transferable and stems from the right to estate. So the transference of copyright is a transference of ownership. You state that creation does grant ownership but somehow in your logic you come to the conclusion that either ownership is not transferable or that ownership is a temporary state and neither of those bears out in the face of logic.
Article 1, section 8 gives congress the power to grant exclusive rights to discoveries. This is a monopoly whether you want it to be or not. It is a power given to congress by the Constitution. If the granting of exclusive rights is not the granting of a monopoly then I am not sure we are even speaking the same language. It would seem to me that exclusive rights is the definition of monopoly.
Your use of Paine, out of context, shows how little you understand the framers. The right to vote is not a natural right as there is no right to democracy or even a right to participate in selecting leaders. The right to vote, called such by the Constitution, is a granted or legal right. It is a right which can be removed and granted by law. It is still a right. It is obvious from the context, which you excluded, that Paine is referring to natural rights. Rights are not exclusively inherent. This is clear through multiple writers from the same period as Paine. Paine speaks on natural rights and you are trying to stretch those words to cover all rights. You cannot formulate an argument that all rights are natural. Natural rights are inalienable and legal rights are not. Representation is another legal right and not a natural right. It does not stem from life, liberty, or estate. It is a right granted to us by the Constitution. It is not inalienable. All we have to do is look further back in history to early Judaism to see how this is not a natural right. However we do have that right in US and it is granted by the Constitution.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright is not constitutional in the first place
Your argument that creation confers ownership is inconsistent with your, completely made up, "right to copy". The right to copy something someone else owns is not part of natural right to liberty. Whether tangible goods or not ownership allows the dictation of use. Just as your right of liberty does not allow to use the land I own as a shortcut to your land your right of liberty does not allow you to copy that which I have created. You are adding rights to the three natural rights that Locke states. I feel there are more natural rights than Locke states but your position is inconsistent.
You completely fail to understand what the Constitution is if you believe that is cannot grant legal rights. Just because it is the highest law in the land does not mean, by an stretch of the imagination, that it cannot grant legal rights. In fact it does just that. It enumerates some natural rights as seen by the founders and grants legal rights. Both of these are then interpreted by SCOTUS for practical legal usage.
The right to vote is a precise example of a legal right. It is a right. "The right of citizens of the United States to vote..." (from article 15). This is a right granted by law, the highest law we claim to have for the land, and is not simply a privilege. It is a right that is also not inalienable. I do not choose to term the right to vote as a right, it is in the Constitution as such. Are you willing to argue that the Constitution is wrong on what is a right and what is not? I even mentioned trying to re-define legal rights as privileges which you tried to do with the right to vote which is spelled out in the words I quoted from article 15.
Your position is untenable as you have re-defined the term "right" to include only natural rights. You fail to recognize legal rights. And you state conflicting positions.
Your claims that copyright is not Constitutional based on falsehoods and a lack of understanding. Article 1 section 8 clearly allows for copyright and does not restrict congress in any manner. I despise the current state of IP in US but your arguments just don't hold water. You claim the Constitution cannot grant rights, which it specifically does. You claim creation confers ownership but then contradict that statement by claiming some public right to copy which would disallow the controlled of something owned.
Your lack of understanding is quite important to the argument as you are re-defining terms and using blatant logical fallacies. You want to stick to the argument but then wish to tie the hands of those confronting you by asking them not to point out failings in your understanding?
I challenge you to find any right of the public to copy enumerated anywhere, whether legal or natural.
Article 1, section 8 clearly states there is a right to exclusive use and that congress is responsible for defining that right. It is a right. It is stated as a right. It is also stated that it is to be for a limited time. This is legal right. It is defined by congress making laws and it is alienable. Your wish to define "rights" as all inalienable is the biggest flaw in your argument. The second is your statement that the Constitution does not recognize legal rights is outright false as large portions of the document deal with legal rights. The next major flaw is the false idea that somehow there is a right to copy in the natural right to liberty. Then you weaken your position further with conflicting statements. You have taken a wholly untenable position with no merit.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright is not constitutional in the first place
I fact if you look into the history of natural rights you will find that ownership of creation is present in some of the defining thinker's ideas of natural rights. (Yeah I know I shouldn't try to lead a horse to water and make him drink but I am bored)
John Locke defined three natural rights:
Life- everyone is entitled to live once they are created.
Liberty- everyone is entitled to do anything they want to so long as it doesn't conflict with the first right.
Estate- everyone is entitled to own all they create or gain through gift or trade so long as it doesn't conflict with the first two rights.
This discussion would be so much easier if you just researched what rights actually are and aren't. While I don't necessarily agree with Locke on everything you will find that your position, rights are all inalienable, is not supported by any of the major thinkers on rights. Natural rights may be inalienable by definition but natural rights are not the only rights.
I will go read something else while you try to sort of out a response.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright is not constitutional in the first place
Rights are inalienable, and that means they are not transferable.
You fail to understand that not all rights are inalienable. There are two basic types of right, natural and legal, and only one of those type is inalienable. For instance the right to vote is a legal right and is not inalienable. It can be quite legally removed and yet it is still a right whereas freedom of speech was seen by the founders as an inalienable right. Your lack of a basic understanding of "rights" is enough to discredit your entire argument. To state that all rights are inalienable is ludicrous on its very face. Don't bother trying to argue that legal rights are only privileges as that is also a false statement.
You'll find that copyright is a privilege and transferable (because it is a privilege not a right), even if the privilege does help secure the author's exclusive right to their writings.
Legal rights are transferable. I strongly suggest you do some research on the difference between natural and legal rights. Your entire argument is based on a falsehood that you continue to state and that is that all rights are inalienable which is simply not true.
Copyright is called 'copyright' because it suspends the people's right to copy and grants it as a transferable privilege, attached to an original work - purportedly an incentive to printers to fund the production and publication of new works for the public's benefit.
There is no right to copy anywhere in our body of law, the constitution, or any other document. It is simply not a right. You have now framed your arguments with two falsehoods. You are presenting, at best, a classic false dilemma and at worst an honest position with no understanding of the elements involved.
This ideal has been around for while. I think TD stands out because of their constant fight against the abuses of IP laws that are prevalent in our system.
From the late Richard Mitchell (All of his works are available freely here: http://www.sourcetext.com/grammarian/)
____________________________________________________________
A little note from the author: Permission to Copy and Plagiarize
Freedom of the Press and License, too
"WE are often asked permission to reprint or duplicate or in some other way to circulate the pieces that appear in The Underground Grammarian. It always seems to us a good idea, and we always grant such permission. In fact, you may take this little notice as prior written permission to do likewise in any fashion that seems good to you. We neither ask nor expect any form of payment, but we would like to be cited as the source. But if admitting that you read this sheet will get you into hot water, we will be the first to understand.
"One reader wrote recently to apologize for plagiarism, since he had woven some of our stuff into a speech he had given and made no attribution. Since then we have also had word of a man who wrote, to the editor of some newspaper, a letter that was, in fact, made entirely of our words. The paper caught him, chastised him, and barred him from their letters column forever. Somehow, we feel that something only sort of like justice has been served here. So now we have to add a new rule. Plagiarism is also permitted. Go ahead. Make our day."
____________________________________________________________
So expressly granted permission to plagiarize is not new and not crazy. It is obvious that the hypothetical situations presented here are actually not concerning to those who take this route. I have no doubt they have considered all of the issues and are quite cool with them.
Now if I can only find a way to publish a book of techdirt postings and get some crazies to pay me for it...
On the post: Student On Probation For Expressing A Negative Opinion About An Instructor On Facebook
It's not just talk against profs either...
"A Minnesota university has suspended one of its graduate students who sent two e-mail messages to school officials supporting gun rights.
Hamline University also said that master's student Troy Scheffler, who owns a firearm, would be barred from campus and must receive a mandatory "mental health evaluation" after he sent an e-mail message arguing that law-abiding students should be able to carry firearms on campus for self-defense."
The whole article is insane to be honest. Our institutions of higher learning are not interested in teaching our youth to think for themselves, to express those thoughts, and to defend their point of view unless it agrees with the status quo at the university.
I didn't post this to start a discussion on gun rights because it doesn't matter what right the student was promoting or whether you agree with his viewpoint or not. He was suspended and ordered to undergo psychiatric evaluation for having his viewpoint! He was stupid in the way he worded it (Read the article) but was not threatening.
What's even worse is the school won't even lay out all of the allegations against him or allow him to confront his accusers per their own policy.
On the post: Cure Singer Blasts Radiohead, Saying Name-Your-Own-Price Can't Work; Apparently Unaware That It Did Work
On the post: The Troubling Implications Of Recognizing 'Hot News' As Property
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright is not constitutional in the first place
Your words were "the people's right to copy" and I have challenged you to find any enumeration of this right. It doesn't exist. You can claim, as you have, it comes from the right to liberty but this is not true. If the right to estate grants ownership and the right to liberty does not override the right to estate, which you have stated, then you can only have permission to copy. Ownership is transferable and stems from the right to estate. So the transference of copyright is a transference of ownership. You state that creation does grant ownership but somehow in your logic you come to the conclusion that either ownership is not transferable or that ownership is a temporary state and neither of those bears out in the face of logic.
Article 1, section 8 gives congress the power to grant exclusive rights to discoveries. This is a monopoly whether you want it to be or not. It is a power given to congress by the Constitution. If the granting of exclusive rights is not the granting of a monopoly then I am not sure we are even speaking the same language. It would seem to me that exclusive rights is the definition of monopoly.
Your use of Paine, out of context, shows how little you understand the framers. The right to vote is not a natural right as there is no right to democracy or even a right to participate in selecting leaders. The right to vote, called such by the Constitution, is a granted or legal right. It is a right which can be removed and granted by law. It is still a right. It is obvious from the context, which you excluded, that Paine is referring to natural rights. Rights are not exclusively inherent. This is clear through multiple writers from the same period as Paine. Paine speaks on natural rights and you are trying to stretch those words to cover all rights. You cannot formulate an argument that all rights are natural. Natural rights are inalienable and legal rights are not. Representation is another legal right and not a natural right. It does not stem from life, liberty, or estate. It is a right granted to us by the Constitution. It is not inalienable. All we have to do is look further back in history to early Judaism to see how this is not a natural right. However we do have that right in US and it is granted by the Constitution.
On the post: The Troubling Implications Of Recognizing 'Hot News' As Property
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright is not constitutional in the first place
You completely fail to understand what the Constitution is if you believe that is cannot grant legal rights. Just because it is the highest law in the land does not mean, by an stretch of the imagination, that it cannot grant legal rights. In fact it does just that. It enumerates some natural rights as seen by the founders and grants legal rights. Both of these are then interpreted by SCOTUS for practical legal usage.
The right to vote is a precise example of a legal right. It is a right. "The right of citizens of the United States to vote..." (from article 15). This is a right granted by law, the highest law we claim to have for the land, and is not simply a privilege. It is a right that is also not inalienable. I do not choose to term the right to vote as a right, it is in the Constitution as such. Are you willing to argue that the Constitution is wrong on what is a right and what is not? I even mentioned trying to re-define legal rights as privileges which you tried to do with the right to vote which is spelled out in the words I quoted from article 15.
Your position is untenable as you have re-defined the term "right" to include only natural rights. You fail to recognize legal rights. And you state conflicting positions.
Your claims that copyright is not Constitutional based on falsehoods and a lack of understanding. Article 1 section 8 clearly allows for copyright and does not restrict congress in any manner. I despise the current state of IP in US but your arguments just don't hold water. You claim the Constitution cannot grant rights, which it specifically does. You claim creation confers ownership but then contradict that statement by claiming some public right to copy which would disallow the controlled of something owned.
Your lack of understanding is quite important to the argument as you are re-defining terms and using blatant logical fallacies. You want to stick to the argument but then wish to tie the hands of those confronting you by asking them not to point out failings in your understanding?
I challenge you to find any right of the public to copy enumerated anywhere, whether legal or natural.
Article 1, section 8 clearly states there is a right to exclusive use and that congress is responsible for defining that right. It is a right. It is stated as a right. It is also stated that it is to be for a limited time. This is legal right. It is defined by congress making laws and it is alienable. Your wish to define "rights" as all inalienable is the biggest flaw in your argument. The second is your statement that the Constitution does not recognize legal rights is outright false as large portions of the document deal with legal rights. The next major flaw is the false idea that somehow there is a right to copy in the natural right to liberty. Then you weaken your position further with conflicting statements. You have taken a wholly untenable position with no merit.
On the post: The Troubling Implications Of Recognizing 'Hot News' As Property
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright is not constitutional in the first place
John Locke defined three natural rights:
Life- everyone is entitled to live once they are created.
Liberty- everyone is entitled to do anything they want to so long as it doesn't conflict with the first right.
Estate- everyone is entitled to own all they create or gain through gift or trade so long as it doesn't conflict with the first two rights.
This discussion would be so much easier if you just researched what rights actually are and aren't. While I don't necessarily agree with Locke on everything you will find that your position, rights are all inalienable, is not supported by any of the major thinkers on rights. Natural rights may be inalienable by definition but natural rights are not the only rights.
I will go read something else while you try to sort of out a response.
On the post: The Troubling Implications Of Recognizing 'Hot News' As Property
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright is not constitutional in the first place
You fail to understand that not all rights are inalienable. There are two basic types of right, natural and legal, and only one of those type is inalienable. For instance the right to vote is a legal right and is not inalienable. It can be quite legally removed and yet it is still a right whereas freedom of speech was seen by the founders as an inalienable right. Your lack of a basic understanding of "rights" is enough to discredit your entire argument. To state that all rights are inalienable is ludicrous on its very face. Don't bother trying to argue that legal rights are only privileges as that is also a false statement.
You'll find that copyright is a privilege and transferable (because it is a privilege not a right), even if the privilege does help secure the author's exclusive right to their writings.
Legal rights are transferable. I strongly suggest you do some research on the difference between natural and legal rights. Your entire argument is based on a falsehood that you continue to state and that is that all rights are inalienable which is simply not true.
Copyright is called 'copyright' because it suspends the people's right to copy and grants it as a transferable privilege, attached to an original work - purportedly an incentive to printers to fund the production and publication of new works for the public's benefit.
There is no right to copy anywhere in our body of law, the constitution, or any other document. It is simply not a right. You have now framed your arguments with two falsehoods. You are presenting, at best, a classic false dilemma and at worst an honest position with no understanding of the elements involved.
On the post: Why Is It So Difficult To Opt-Out Of Copyright?
Not so revolutionary
From the late Richard Mitchell (All of his works are available freely here: http://www.sourcetext.com/grammarian/)
____________________________________________________________
A little note from the author: Permission to Copy and Plagiarize
Freedom of the Press and License, too
"WE are often asked permission to reprint or duplicate or in some other way to circulate the pieces that appear in The Underground Grammarian. It always seems to us a good idea, and we always grant such permission. In fact, you may take this little notice as prior written permission to do likewise in any fashion that seems good to you. We neither ask nor expect any form of payment, but we would like to be cited as the source. But if admitting that you read this sheet will get you into hot water, we will be the first to understand.
"One reader wrote recently to apologize for plagiarism, since he had woven some of our stuff into a speech he had given and made no attribution. Since then we have also had word of a man who wrote, to the editor of some newspaper, a letter that was, in fact, made entirely of our words. The paper caught him, chastised him, and barred him from their letters column forever. Somehow, we feel that something only sort of like justice has been served here. So now we have to add a new rule. Plagiarism is also permitted. Go ahead. Make our day."
____________________________________________________________
So expressly granted permission to plagiarize is not new and not crazy. It is obvious that the hypothetical situations presented here are actually not concerning to those who take this route. I have no doubt they have considered all of the issues and are quite cool with them.
Now if I can only find a way to publish a book of techdirt postings and get some crazies to pay me for it...
;)
Next >>