Who's right?

[dave_gerecke]

I would say that we all have the responsibility to protect our rights, and to understand that our rights are limited when they infringe upon the rights of others.

Peace,

Dave

[TheSeekerr]

On "responsibility" preserving "rights":

Take the example of DRM on content - when I purchase a piece of content, I contend that implies two rights:

1) To experience that content for an indefinite duration, regardless of the physical form that content exists in

2) To transfer the above right to another person, ie. to sell the content

That implies responsibilities on my part, being:

1) That I will not make that content publicly available, whether by intention or carelessness

2) That I will destroy any and all additional copies of the content in my possession upon transferring my right to experience it.

The music and film industries disagree with me - they would argue that I have neither rights 1 nor 2 (which, in turn, rules out the necessity for responsibility 2), but that the most important facet is Responsibility 1.

And so we see the introduction of DRM - technology which eliminates right 2 in order to enforce Responsibility 1. In the process, it also severely impedes Right 1: because the content is tied permanently to one medium, it can't be effectively preserved in the event of disaster, accident or technological change. (I would also argue that if, ultimately, we are purchasing "licenses" to experience content, I shouldn't have to repurchase said content when technological change makes a superior version available - ie. I really shouldn't have had to repurchase my Pink Floyd albums. But that's another argument - for now, I'd just like to have a right, for my digital content, equivalent to being able to record an LP to a PC for transfer to a CD)

My point is that rights and responsibilities come in a balanced package, and BOTH need to be observed.

[prickears]

That's a puchased right, and is to be expected, as such.

I'm pointing out that, responsibility, should be taught to our children, and well understood, before rights. That way, they take there (IMHO) natural order.

BOTH need to be observed, is agreed, I'm not so sure about exactly equal measure.

[jackinnj]

Who's right?

Interesting observation by one Marcello Pera and a fellow named Ratzinger - right is observed by determining where the emigres go. This was in a correspondence between the two of them put into "Without Roots". Required reading.

Phillip Morris, the detested tobacco company put an ad in the WSJ a few years ago which stated a simple moral observation -- even Aquinas would marvel at the logic:
"What would happen if everybody did it?"

[CBS240]

People don't want to have to deal with the consequences of their decisions any more. This mentality is fine, but just don't call yourself 'free' because you are not. The 'entitlement society' that the western cultures are falling into cannot be free because it is in contradiction to the definition. To lawyers everyone is the victim just like to cops everyone is the suspect. It comes with the trade. But the way to break free is to implement reasonable common sense in all aspects of life. Unfortunately too many people's minds have been corrupted and blinded to sensible common thought. Thus we have to have so many frivolous laws against such stupid behavior. To me, the problem arises when for example, someone decides to take drugs or eat junk food their whole life is overweight or unhealthy because of it, yet I will now have to pay for it within the 'system'. Take away the responsibility of someone for their own body and what you get is a lot of unhealthy people. The future I see of America.......
If they had to pay for the medical bills themselves for that behavior, perhaps it would change their minds.........perhaps.

[Cal Weldon]

Too close to political. There are other sites for this type of discussion.

Closed.