Maybe you should educate yourself about artistic copyright before being snarky. For example, you could buy a photo of mine, the "negative" (or digital equivalent) even but that would not give you the right to alter the art or claim it as your own unless I gave express permission for you to do so. Since the artist is in this case deceased, he cannot give that permission. There might be a provision for that in foreign copyright law (it's my understanding these were bought overseas) but if tehre is, I haven't heard of it.
Edited to clarify, since it's late: What I mean is that just because you buy a piece of work (even for a steep price) you are merely buying the right to hang it in your house and that's it. In 99% of cases you are not buying the full copyright to do to it what you wish. Unless foreign copyright laws are vastly different, the only way they would have the "right" to do this if the original 13 owners had a transfer of copyright from Hitler while he was alive. I doubt that is the case. They are just hedging their bets that no one will objet to the vandalism because no one wants to stand up for Hitler.
I was just pointing out the oddness of caring a great deal about one kind of law, in this case art related laws, and then constantly harping about how we need less laws and regulations, when as neccessary legistlation goes this sort of thing is really low on the totem pole.
Then you don't understand my philosophy at all. Laws should exist to protect individuals and their property, to essentially keep a citizen (or the gov't itself) from infringing on the rights of another citizen. I'm not sure where I gave the impression along the line that I think it's okay for an individuals property to be destroyed.
I am for less laws and regulations, but only those laws and regulations which infringe on individual rights.
Actually, I'd have to disagree with you: copyrights that extent beyond the life of the artist require a more intrusive state than its worth. Most libertarians would disagree with you on this.
Actually, I'd have to disagree with you: copyrights that extent beyond the life of the artist require a more intrusive state than its worth. Many libertarians would disagree with you on this. Anything that involves partial property rights requires surveillance on fairly private matters. You can see the contradiction here?
How do you justify a statement like "require a more intrusive state than its worth"? It requires a similar level of surveillance into private matters to make sure that someone doesn't embezzle or what have you.
How do you justify a statement like "require a more intrusive state than its worth"?
Easily. And there a long history of copyright reform within the Libertarian movement from Benjamin Tucker, onwards. Given that the individual is dead, his rights die with him, so appealing to that is some tenuous. But, unless you accuse of me of a redherring, I will explain: if the owner of a piece of property changes it, regardless of what it is, that is within usage rights if the individual who created it is dead. Who is going to report it? The community? The estate? Many one can argue for the legitimacy of the estate, as most of recognize the inheritance of property, but not of the community. Plus there is the problem of tacit contracts involved with partial property rights, contracts that aren't expressed. Should you be limited in how you listen to something, alter it, extra, if you do not make money off of it? Should state monitor all such transactions in lieu of the deads' ability to enforce it? Is such a tacit contract moral? If a tacit contract is moral, then what about such tacit contracts as the social contract. I suppose one can argue that the state would have rights to look into this if anyone claimed to have a legitimate copyright problem, and I could back that even in a more libertarian state, but the onus of responsibility for enforcing the copyright would be on the owner of that copyright ideally, and it would generally take a PUBLIC act against the work (such as this one) to bring that out.
It requires a similar level of surveillance into private matters to make sure that someone doesn't embezzle or what have you.
Generally you report that you are being embezzled against AND then the audit begins to find who. I can't think of any places where embezzlement was found by the government BEFORE it caused a fiscal crash. Here's the rub, I may be an English teacher and an artist, but I have worked as Insurance auditor, so I know your field reference well. Note where the onus of responsibility is... and you must be alive to be embezzled from. Its a fundamentally different act.
In fact, the two aren't even analogous. It is my responsibility to keep up with my property, otherwise privacy, both business and individual, is meaningless. The government may exist to enforce property rights and protect wellbeing, but should not be their job to monitor all of it at all times: that what partial property rights require.
Now, how do you justify your statements in a minarchist state? I suppose this is something that libertarians can disagree on depending on their values judgments, because we HAVE disagreed on it. However, like land seizure rights, it is a point that most libertarians don't dig into unless they have gotten fairly deep into legal theory within the movement.
I don't in the slightest disagree with you about the immorality of such "vandalism" (if you prefer, let's use desecration), but I don't think copyright law is libertarian in this instance, nor do I think it was even violated by international standards. If it was, it should be the responsibility of the estate to ask for its rights to be enforced, not for the state to enforce it without request.
I haven't read Tucker's works, so that's something to go on my to-do list! I think my objection is that they are making money off the changes (to the tune of a 600% profit). That said, intellectual property rights is an issue that seems bound to be steeped in morality (usually it's objectivists arguing against natural law libertarians). I think when you get down to the very nitty gritty points of law, it's really hard not to let your emotions have some sway in determining what should and should not be illegal. Perhaps it's things like this that are leading me not to re-register with the Libertarian Party, for better or for worse. While in a theoretical minarchist state it could be perfectly legal to destroy historical artifacts with no legal repercussions, I don't particularly think that's practical. I think that is, at least in part, a judgment based on emotion/personal morality, but no more than the libertarians who rail against copyright in any capacity.
Edited to clarify, since it's late: What I mean is that just because you buy a piece of work (even for a steep price) you are merely buying the right to hang it in your house and that's it. In 99% of cases you are not buying the full copyright to do to it what you wish. Unless foreign copyright laws are vastly different, the only way they would have the "right" to do this if the original 13 owners had a transfer of copyright from Hitler while he was alive. I doubt that is the case. They are just hedging their bets that no one will objet to the vandalism because no one wants to stand up for Hitler.
Reply
Reply
I am for less laws and regulations, but only those laws and regulations which infringe on individual rights.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
How do you justify a statement like "require a more intrusive state than its worth"?
Easily. And there a long history of copyright reform within the Libertarian movement from Benjamin Tucker, onwards. Given that the individual is dead, his rights die with him, so appealing to that is some tenuous. But, unless you accuse of me of a redherring, I will explain:
if the owner of a piece of property changes it, regardless of what it is, that is within usage rights if the individual who created it is dead. Who is going to report it? The community? The estate? Many one can argue for the legitimacy of the estate, as most of recognize the inheritance of property, but not of the community. Plus there is the problem of tacit contracts involved with partial property rights, contracts that aren't expressed. Should you be limited in how you listen to something, alter it, extra, if you do not make money off of it? Should state monitor all such transactions in lieu of the deads' ability to enforce it? Is such a tacit contract moral? If a tacit contract is moral, then what about such tacit contracts as the social contract. I suppose one can argue that the state would have rights to look into this if anyone claimed to have a legitimate copyright problem, and I could back that even in a more libertarian state, but the onus of responsibility for enforcing the copyright would be on the owner of that copyright ideally, and it would generally take a PUBLIC act against the work (such as this one) to bring that out.
It requires a similar level of surveillance into private matters to make sure that someone doesn't embezzle or what have you.
Generally you report that you are being embezzled against AND then the audit begins to find who. I can't think of any places where embezzlement was found by the government BEFORE it caused a fiscal crash. Here's the rub, I may be an English teacher and an artist, but I have worked as Insurance auditor, so I know your field reference well. Note where the onus of responsibility is... and you must be alive to be embezzled from. Its a fundamentally different act.
In fact, the two aren't even analogous. It is my responsibility to keep up with my property, otherwise privacy, both business and individual, is meaningless. The government may exist to enforce property rights and protect wellbeing, but should not be their job to monitor all of it at all times: that what partial property rights require.
Now, how do you justify your statements in a minarchist state? I suppose this is something that libertarians can disagree on depending on their values judgments, because we HAVE disagreed on it. However, like land seizure rights, it is a point that most libertarians don't dig into unless they have gotten fairly deep into legal theory within the movement.
I don't in the slightest disagree with you about the immorality of such "vandalism" (if you prefer, let's use desecration), but I don't think copyright law is libertarian in this instance, nor do I think it was even violated by international standards. If it was, it should be the responsibility of the estate to ask for its rights to be enforced, not for the state to enforce it without request.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment