Pete Freedman Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 And basically, I am with Locke on this one. So was Jefferson, who penned the Declaration; and while he used the phrase "Pursuit of Happiness" instead of "Property" he also included the phrase "Among These" which indicated that there actually are other Natural Rights not mentioned in that document (example is Property). And most of the Founding Fathers belief structures were grounded on this belief structure during the construction and ratification of the Construction (see links in above posting). While there were hypocrisies concerning Natural Rights these people lived with which needed to be corrected over time (see the 13th amendment as an example), and the Founders did place provisions on limiting the scope these Natural Rights (see due process to take away property, or in the case of arts and sciences a time limitation on exclusive ownership) Property, whether tangible or Incorporeal, was and is considered to be a Natural Right within the belief structure of the Founding Fathers. I do not make my call on this based on my own interpretations, or via judicial case law of interpretation done over the years which have recently been influenced by Nihilistic Existentialism. But my views are based on the actual words of the Founding Fathers concerning their own views of the construction of the founding documents with a direct line of cohesive philosophical connection from the Declaration, through the Constitution, and through the various Amendments. P.S one can state that the Locke/Founding Fathers philosophical views were/are wrong. But one cannot say with honesty that they themselves considered Property to be anything other than a Natural Right. Straw man. Nobody has argued against property rights in general, or that it is not a natural right. Now, if Locke said that non-profit music educators should have to pay arranging fees for works made in the previous hundred years or so, well that would at least be a start. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Freedman Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 And every dollar spent by a non-profit becomes profit for the recipient, including teachers, staff, contractors, consultants and vendors. But the organization itself remains a non-profit under the law, and it's music education activities are still covered by the non-profit clauses in the law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 Straw man. Nobody has argued against property rights in general, or that it is not a natural right. Now, if Locke said that non-profit music educators should have to pay arranging fees for works made in the previous hundred years or so, well that would at least be a start. Not a Straw Man, Please read the posting #143 by N. E. Brigand in which he claimed that Intellectual Property Rights were not Natural Rights; that is what caused the reply of rebuttal from me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 And every dollar spent by a non-profit becomes profit for the recipient, including teachers, staff, contractors, consultants and vendors. But the organization itself remains a non-profit under the law, and it's music education activities are still covered by the non-profit clauses in the law. The term Non-Profit is somewhat convoluted; the organizations do have to profit or they cannot remain viable. The subtle differences between Non-Profit and For-Profit businesses include how each can collect revenue, where the net 'business' profits go, purpose of organization, and tax status. Plenty of people, from Directors to Workers, within Non-Profits devote more than 40 hours each week to the organization and they certainly do make individual profits from their services; and rightly so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Freedman Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 Not a Straw Man, Please read the posting #143 by N. E. Brigand in which he claimed that Intellectual Property Rights were not Natural Rights; that is what caused the reply of rebuttal from me. Still a straw man. If his claim was that intellectual property rights are not natural rights, then it's a straw man to demonstrate that some property rights are natural rights. Some could mean property other than intellectual. You have to demonstrate specifically that intellectual property rights are natural rights, which you did not do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Freedman Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 Someone (Perc?) posted this article and called it relatively authoritative on the subject because it comes from the ABA. But of course it is not even about education, let alone non-profit education. So the non-profit education rules don't apply. It is however a great article, so thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 (edited) Still a straw man. If his claim was that intellectual property rights are not natural rights, then it's a straw man to demonstrate that some property rights are natural rights. Some could mean property other than intellectual. You have to demonstrate specifically that intellectual property rights are natural rights, which you did not do. I do not have to show 'proof' that intellectual rights are natural rights, all I have to do is demonstrate that the Founding Fathers who crafted the Constitution (believed) that they were natural rights. And within that framework I presented information that from Locke, to most of the architects of the Constitution who were influenced by Locke, they all (believed) that all property rights, whether tangible or intangible, were Natural Rights. And while Article 8 Section 8 of the constitution does not use the exact term Intellectual Property it certainly deals with the subject of exclusive rights concerning artistic and scientific 'writings'. And just like limitations that are placed on other natural rights (ie even with freedom of speech being considered a natural right you will be punished for yelling fire in a crowded movie house if in fact there is no fire) Article 8 Section 8 places limitations on the 'exclusivity' of a property created by an artist or scientist. Edited April 22, 2016 by Stu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kamarag Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 Guess what, children....copyright and intellectual property rights ARE rights in the US. What kind of rights they are matters not at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flammaster Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 Socialism, even in the music industry, works until you run out of other people's money to give away. Cliff's Notes of Atlas Shrugged should be passed out at every Bernie rally. It is a sign of the times that those who have lived in their parent's basement, or sheltered their own kids in their basement, "rise up" to take from others that which they've failed to earn for themselves. /rant. It's just band. This speaks volumes about you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 Guess what, children....copyright and intellectual property rights ARE rights in the US. What kind of rights they are matters not at all. Not to N. E. Brigand; to him artistic endeavors are not property owned by someone but a form of open source belonging to the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.