🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991May4.235033.15917@agate.berkeley.edu>, Adam J. Richter (ajr) writes:

ajr> Copyrights and patents are economic incentives, and not moral
ajr> rights. [argument about the US constitution deleted]

Many (including me) would disagree. Your argument does not adress the
point you seem to want to make, what you support is more like
`copyrights and patents are economic incentives not constitutionally
recognised rights' which is very different.

Many people would argue that the ability to control what happens to
the things which one produces _is_ a basic right and also a
responsibility. For instance it is one of the few things that
liberatarians and marxists seem to agree on.

Obviously that only aplies to copyright, I don't think anyone would
argue that patents are a right. Niether the original nor the current
meaning of the word, let alone the legal implimentation, would support
the idea that it was a right. It is, as you say, an incentive.

--
rjc@cstr.ed.ac.uk		_O_
				 |<