Re: Asimov Site

["Frank Townsend" <ftownsen@iamdigex.net>]

Sure.  An "exclusive right" to publish and sell is by definition a negative
right.  Couldn't agree with you more.  Negative or positive, it is still a
right and John's question is *why* should there be such a right at all.  If
he accepts your "Copyright exists to prevent others from making use of a
work to the detriment of the copyright holder. In other words, no one else
can make money from it or use it in any way other than 'fair use'" (which in
essence restates the Copyright Act), I would be surprised.

By the way, note that the Constitutional copyright clause is a grant of
power to the Congress, not of a right to the people.  The Congress in turn
through the Copyright Act[s] grants the right (as defined by the
constitutional clause).


"Kelli Halliburton" <kelli217@crosswinds.not> wrote in message
news:8p29tj$5gom$1@newssvr05-en0.news.prodigy.com...
>
> Copyright is not a positive right, those being generally frowned upon by
the
> principles and philosophies upon which this nation was founded. It is a
> negative right. In other words, a copyright doesn't give you the right to
> make money, it prevents *others* from attempting to do so.

/snip

> You don't have a right to live, you have the right not to have that life
> taken away from you. You don't have the right to liberty, you have the
right
> not to be deprived of that liberty.
>
> Is this sufficiently clear?
>
> Copyright exists to prevent others from making use of a work to the
> detriment of the copyright holder. In other words, no one else can make
> money from it or use it in any way other than "fair use". Even if the
> copyright holder isn't making money from it.