Human Rights

[Dotini]

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/...-warmongers/gef04rpPxgEdCEdx4DQ87J/story.html

The blog that asks "are humans rights activists today's warmongers?"

 

[Danoff]

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/...-warmongers/gef04rpPxgEdCEdx4DQ87J/story.html

The blog that asks "are humans rights activists today's warmongers?"

Fair question.

Human rights only establish a framework for action, they don't establish whether or not it is a good idea to act. If some country has rampant human rights violations, other countries can act to defend those people. However, it might be a very, very bad idea for those countries to act.

In US politics it currently seems that the mere presence of rights violations is a call to action (as though we don't violate rights here in the US). It is not, it is a logical basis for actions that may or may not be prudent.

 

[Keef]

If some country has rampant human rights violations, other countries can act to defend those people.

Governments can can but without consent of their citizenry it would be immoral. Governments are obligated to protect their own citizens, not those of other governments, and should not enter into foreign affairs without the support of their citizens.

 

[Danoff]

Governments can can but without consent of their citizenry it would be immoral. Governments are obligated to protect their own citizens, not those of other governments, and should not enter into foreign affairs without the support of their citizens.

Agreed.

 

[LeMansAid]

You don't have a right to break into and enter someone else's property. If you're walking along the sidewalk and see an open door, all you have to do to violate property rights is walk right in. Does this mean that you should have your right to walk removed? Because you could use your right to walk to enter someone else's house?

I don't think someone should ever have their right to walk removed. But simultaneously, I don't think that someone has the right to use any of their freedoms to infringe someone else's property rights. Suicide is a personal freedom that we all have, but we don't have the right to use that freedom to violate someone else's rights. That includes child abandonment or theft or any of the many other rights violations that I'm sure you could accomplish through the act of suicide.

My reckoning: If suicide happens - and child abuse will result - stop the suicide.

Real life now. Do you have a way of somehow averting the child abuse without removing the component that 100% ensures that it will happen?

 

[Danoff]

My reckoning: If suicide happens - and child abuse will result - stop the suicide.

You mean like stopping a robbery? Yea that's fine.

Real life now. Do you have a way of somehow averting the child abuse without removing the component that 100% ensures that it will happen?

Are you asking how to avoid child abuse while allowing suicide? Suicide will not necessarily result in abandoned or abused children just because the parents off themselves. In fact, it just might be an aversion of child abuse. As long as the parents set up the necessary framework so that the child is cared for, they're free to off themselves. They need to appoint a willing guardian who will take responsibility for the care of the child, and that's about it. If there is no willing guardian, there need to be funds in the estate that are sufficient for a charity organization to care for the child, or to enable someone to be willing. For example, uncle bob and aunt alice might not be willing to care for a child due to financial concerns, but if the child comes with all of the funds needed to do the job and all they have to do is put in the time, they might be willing.

Suicide does not 100% ensure anything will happen.

 

[LeMansAid]

You mean like stopping a robbery? Yea that's fine.

Ah, good.

Then there's the question of how that is legally managed. I pity the fool that is sued for stopping a suicide. We would often not know enough to make a 100% accurate determination. So, do we stop suicide in general and risk having living people who had the right to die, or allow all suicide and risk having dead people that didn't? That, within the framework that sees a possibility of rights violations resulting from death.

Side note: Pretty damn sad that we are having a conversation like this when in so many places: old, terminally ill, of sound mind people are kept alive against their will. Cutting closer to the bone exposes that cruel injustice ever more.

 

[Exorcet]

Looks like our thinking is the same. I know.... it scares me too.

So how do we sort out the have right to have not, and the have not right to have not? Life, that is.

Not that scary, I don't take joy in being contrary [sometimes]. I think the above goes with the below.

Ah, good.

Then there's the question of how that is legally managed. I pity the fool that is sued for stopping a suicide. We would often not know enough to make a 100% accurate determination. So, do we stop suicide in general and risk having living people who had the right to die, or allow all suicide and risk having dead people that didn't? That, within the framework that sees a possibility of rights violations resulting from death.

Side note: Pretty damn sad that we are having a conversation like this when in so many places: old, terminally ill, of sound mind people are kept alive against their will. Cutting closer to the bone exposes that cruel injustice ever more.

If suicide is allowed it doesn't mean you have free reign to do what you want with it. If you're making a suicide attempt that prompts someone to take action, you're at fault. Example, jump off a bridge. What if it looks like you fell and someone comes to rescue you? They're not at fault for anything, you made a stupid choice. You could have stayed homed and died. Or better yet, had help from a doctor.

If we're going to have doctor assisted death, you might have suicide background checks as well. Maybe have something like an insurance company that keeps tabs on your suicide eligibility and perhaps help you plan for the event or even decide if you want to go through with it. It's something that probably hasn't been given enough though since the whole idea that suicide is bad has been drilled into people's minds forever.

 

[LeMansAid]

Kind of seems like "Yeah, I'm a libertarian. Look, I've got all the valid licenses to prove it, and allow it".

I'm all for it, but I could see some people being disgusted at having to put in a "freedom application".

 

[Exorcet]

Not really an application, more like providing options to make sure it's done right. The only thing I'd rule out immediately is dragging other people in. Now, I am going under the assumption that people don't wake up one day and decide to shoot themselves in the head, but I'm sure that would be the case at least some of the time.

 

[Danoff]

Then there's the question of how that is legally managed. I pity the fool that is sued for stopping a suicide. We would often not know enough to make a 100% accurate determination. So, do we stop suicide in general and risk having living people who had the right to die, or allow all suicide and risk having dead people that didn't?

Or worse, your suicide casts suspicion of murder. You off yourself but your family doesn't think it's possible, they suspect your spouse and now you've got a murder investigation.

All roads point to suicide beings something that needs to be entered into carefully, somewhat publicly, and with the necessary checks in place. Of course that's almost impossible given our culture of "suicide is bad mmmkay?". The thing about suicide is that it's an unpunishable crime (if you do it right). It's not like you're going to get arrested after you're dead... and throwing the book at someone who has just attempted suicide and failed seems like a poor way to speed along recovery.

But I think it might still be possible in the case of the elderly or terminally ill. If you honestly want to end your suffering, I think your family will go along with it - which would be the fastest way to establish that you don't have any outstanding debts or obligations. It wouldn't take much in the way of paperwork to establish that you're clear of obligations - to give your doctor the go-ahead to help out. Doing it at home, with a family member helping, is a fantastic way to cause a family fight and possibly murder accusations. Especially if the person helping is in the Will which... of course they are because they're close enough to assist with a suicide.

So I will not contest that it is a difficult thing to do right. You need signatures, agreement, doctors, possibly a financial check, etc. to do it right, to do it in a way that ensures that it's moral... to do it in a way that should be legal. But none of that precludes the right of an individual to end it all.

I haven't lost sight of the fact that the hypothetical that brought us down this road is a mother taking a chance with her life during delivery rather than deciding to commit suicide. It's a little different.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I haven't lost sight of the fact that the hypothetical that brought us down this road is a mother taking a chance with her life during delivery rather than deciding to commit suicide. It's a little different.

It was real, I think, and I saw it more that an adult chose to take a chance with their own life knowing it would very likely kill another viable (and currently umbilical) person. So far you seem more interested in the sentient adult choice than the non-adult's sapient well-being.

 

[FoolKiller]

It was real, I think, and I saw it more that an adult chose to take a chance with their own life knowing it would very likely kill another viable (and currently umbilical) person. So far you seem more interested in the sentient adult choice than the non-adult's sapient well-being.

I am still awaiting further evidence that the doctor wasn't one of the many obstetricians in this country who still prescribe to the very old myths. According to the woman he was telling her she needed a c-section the moment he saw her. If that is true, every other decision he made after that point is to be questioned.

I am also awaiting to know what "several hours" means. My wife and I can say, "more than a day later," so several hours leaves me with a ton of questions.

But none of this matters as this doctor violated the Patient's Bill of Rights. He will lose many patients, possibly his practice, over that alone. He now has a mark that will, and should, ruin his career.

 

[Danoff]

It was real, I think, and I saw it more that an adult chose to take a chance with their own life knowing it would very likely kill another viable (and currently umbilical) person. So far you seem more interested in the sentient adult choice than the non-adult's sapient well-being.

That would be because the "umbilical person" doesn't have rights.

 

[LeMansAid]

I haven't lost sight of the fact that the hypothetical that brought us down this road is a mother taking a chance with her life during delivery rather than deciding to commit suicide. It's a little different.

The idea was to investigate absolute death and work it back from there. If it's fair to say that we've established that under certain circumstances a suicide should be stopped, the next step would be the same set of hypothetical detail but with the suicide being replaced by a situation where death is 99% assured. If the person dies there will be rights violations. This may be where we diverge, as I'm comfortable with having likelihood as a determining factor, where I'm thinking you are not.

Another test topic that comes to mind is fire. In Australia at certain times we have total fire bans. I can imagine that places like California might do the same. Thing is, a camp fire can always be done safely, so is it against your ethos to restrict it? Obviously it's based on risk rather than an absolute.

It would be interesting to see "your" world in action, and over a few generations. I know that the guys from piratebay were trying form their own country at one point......

They might have a problem with your view on copyright ethics though. For the opposite reason that I do, that is.

 

[Danoff]

The idea was to investigate absolute death and work it back from there. If it's fair to say that we've established that under certain circumstances a suicide should be stopped, the next step would be the same set of hypothetical detail but with the suicide being replaced by a situation where death is 99% assured. If the person dies there will be rights violations. This may be where we diverge, as I'm comfortable with having likelihood as a determining factor, where I'm thinking you are not.

If she's not intending to kill herself that's a whole different ball game. Everything you do is a risk, every single action or inaction. It is absolutely impossible to draw a line at certain activities and call them "too risky".

Another test topic that comes to mind is fire. In Australia at certain times we have total fire bans. I can imagine that places like California might do the same. Thing is, a camp fire can always be done safely, so is it against your ethos to restrict it? Obviously it's based on risk rather than an absolute.

Depends on where it is restricted.

They might have a problem with your view on copyright ethics though. For the opposite reason that I do, that is.

What are my copyright ethics? That copyright properly exists? That definitely is the case, but copyright law is beyond out of control at this point.

 

[LeMansAid]

Depends on where it is restricted.

Where, as in private or public property? The risk to others can easily be the same.

What are my copyright ethics? That copyright properly exists? That definitely is the case, but copyright law is beyond out of control at this point.

That copyright should exist for 20 years, yes? The ex-Swedish pirates would find that too restrictive, while I'd find it unethical.

There is a video game to be released later this year on Steam that will feature several of my works in the score. I have works that were originally released over 20 years ago. I find the idea highly offensive that if those two specifics were mated that the game developer could right now use my intellectual property and fruits of physical work for gain. My lack of gain be damned.

 

[Danoff]

Where, as in private or public property? The risk to others can easily be the same.

Ethically it makes a difference.

That copyright should exist for 20 years, yes? The ex-Swedish pirates would find that too restrictive, while I'd find it unethical.

There is a video game to be released later this year on Steam that will feature several of my works in the score. I have works that were originally released over 20 years ago. I find the idea highly offensive that if those two specifics were mated that the game developer could right now use my intellectual property and fruits of physical work for gain. My lack of gain be damned.

Talk to some inventors sometime.

 

[LeMansAid]

As I've stated to you before: more than happy for there to be greater patent protection.

Ethically it makes a difference.

You're not going to be running Pirate Bay Island like that are you? This is real now. You have to decide if people are ever not allowed to have bonfires in their backyards PresiDant.

 

[Danoff]

As I've stated to you before: more than happy for there to be greater patent protection.

I could go on about why 20 years makes sense - because it becomes too difficult to distinguish original works that are derivative from copies, but it's for another thread.

You're not going to be running Pirate Bay Island like that are you? This is real now. You have to decide if people are ever not allowed to have bonfires in their backyards PresiDant.

With you it's all about yes or no. The decision seems to be between allowing people to build a 20 story bonfire in a suburb or banning candles from the entire nation. The problem is not that constrained. First of all, everyone who buys a house in the US buys into some easements. Usually mineral rights are the first to go, but there are also airspace easements, view easements, utility easements etc. etc. etc. You don't buy total ownership of the land, you buy a contract that gives you partial ownership of the land. This is true for 99.9999% of the people in the US.... and that means this is a non-issue.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I could go on about why 20 years makes sense - because it becomes too difficult to distinguish original works that are derivative from copies, but it's for another thread.

Absolutely? A cynic would say 'often', I personally think that it should be 'quite often'. I really don't think you could fairly apply a 20-year rule as an absolute.

 

[Danoff]

Absolutely? A cynic would say 'often', I personally think that it should be 'quite often'. I really don't think you could fairly apply a 20-year rule as an absolute.

It's for another thread. The principle, of course, does not have a time period built into it. The principle is independent invention is needed. The details of the implementation, like the 20 year timespan, and all sorts of other key details of our IP law are all about pragmatism, trying to come up with an enforceable system that mimics the principle.

It's about like getting a driver's license at age 16. Some 12 year olds are ready to drive. Some 20 year olds are not. The principle is based on cognitive abilities that go beyond a simple driving test. The 16 year rule is all about pragmatism, trying to come up with an enforceable system that mimics the principle.

 

[Danoff]

There is a video game to be released later this year on Steam that will feature several of my works in the score. I have works that were originally released over 20 years ago. I find the idea highly offensive that if those two specifics were mated that the game developer could right now use my intellectual property and fruits of physical work for gain. My lack of gain be damned.

I'm listening to a cover of Radiohead's creep right now and thinking you're already living in that reality. Honestly, the "remixes" are out of control with copyright. That you can "sample" basically the whole song is ridiculous. I'd like to see copyright protection be more like patent protection. You can't just take someone's song, make a few tweaks, call it a remix, and release it as your own. That's crap and everyone knows it. It doesn't stand in movies, I have no idea why it stands in music.

 

[Keef]

I'm listening to a cover of Radiohead's creep right now and thinking you're already living in that reality. Honestly, the "remixes" are out of control with copyright. That you can "sample" basically the whole song is ridiculous. I'd like to see copyright protection be more like patent protection. You can't just take someone's song, make a few tweaks, call it a remix, and release it as your own. That's crap and everyone knows it. It doesn't stand in movies, I have no idea why it stands in music.

As far as I know, commercial songs using samples require permission and are credited. The hip hop world uses samples constantly, even classical samples, and the use of some is also denied occasionally. Some rappers have gotten in trouble because they used them anyway - I think Prince has defended his work against somebody who used it without permission.

I don't know about people making videos on youtube or mixes that leak onto the net but Kanye spent a few dollars for that sample on he and Jay Z's song "Otis". You can imagine who they sampled.

 

[FoolKiller]

I'd like to see copyright protection be more like patent protection.

And now the idea of copyright trolls is invading my brain.

I hold the copyright to a song produced using multiple instruments and vocals in a melodic fashion. And no, I never wrote the song, but I deserve compensation for my idea that you stole.

I'm suing everyone.

 

[Danoff]

As far as I know, commercial songs using samples require permission and are credited. The hip hop world uses samples constantly, even classical samples, and the use of some is also denied occasionally. Some rappers have gotten in trouble because they used them anyway - I think Prince has defended his work against somebody who used it without permission.

I don't know about people making videos on youtube or mixes that leak onto the net but Kanye spent a few dollars for that sample on he and Jay Z's song "Otis". You can imagine who they sampled.

That's good, I'm glad that sampling at least has to be paid for. But as far as I know you can "arrange" your own version of someone else's song, perform it, and sell it without paying royalties.

And now the idea of copyright trolls is invading my brain.

I hold the copyright to a song produced using multiple instruments and vocals in a melodic fashion. And no, I never wrote the song, but I deserve compensation for my idea that you stole.

I'm suing everyone.

You took me a little too literally with that. I'm not saying that copyright should be included in patents - or that the idea for making an artistic work should be patentable. I'm saying that the protection should look similar. The scope of copyright protection is very limited when it comes to deviations from the original work - to the point that much of the real intellectual property is not protected. Patents do a much better job of this - though each patent has its own scope.

Of course even patent trolls can't do as you describe - take an existing concept that is well known in the art and patent it. Patents have to be novel. Also, much of the reason patent trolls exist is the same reason that any other legal trolls exist (Suing McDonald's for making hot coffee? Suing because you tripped on a sidewalk?) these exist because we lack a loser pays system. Legal trolls of all kinds take advantage of litigation costs that they know they won't have to compensate for.

 

[FoolKiller]

Of course even patent trolls can't do as you describe - take an existing concept that is well known in the art and patent it.

If only someone told Personal Audio that.

 

[Danoff]

If only someone told Personal Audio that.

Apparently the PTO didn't find prior art (no surprise there, they often botch prior art searches). You can bet the lawyers will. Depending on what prior art exists and how concrete it is, the suit may get tossed on summary judgement.

 

[BobK]

Of course even patent trolls can't do as you describe - take an existing concept that is well known in the art and patent it. Patents have to be novel.

When the USPTO first started allowing software to be patented, there were an awful lot of "common practice" things that got patented. This was primarily because the examiners had no idea what was state of the art in that field, and secondarily because examiners' job performance evaluations (and pay raises) were based on how many patents they granted.

 

[Danoff]

When the USPTO first started allowing software to be patented, there were an awful lot of "common practice" things that got patented. This was primarily because the examiners had no idea what was state of the art in that field, and secondarily because examiners' job performance evaluations (and pay raises) were based on how many patents they granted.

I highly doubt the second one. I'm going to need a citation for that. Most of what examiners do (and I think are encouraged to do) is deny.