In the thread on making personal backups of DVDs that I have been posting relatively heavily in, in GD I have come to a point where I want to verify that I am not talking out of my buttocks.
Specifically:
- It seems to be from what I can tell that the legal definition of the “right” to do something, doesn’t mean that you are required to be able to do it–just that if you do accomplish it, no one has any legal backing on which to punish you for that success.
- Actively working to prevent someone from accomplishing their rights is not a violation of that right–just a mean-spirited thing to do.
a) However, laws can be made which make such mean-spirited things illegal. I.e. congress could pass a law which made copy-protection schemes illegal, but such a law is not required to exist just because there is a right to make copies.
If anyone here is a lawyer (preferably dealing in the political realm) I would appreciate any official input on what is the accepted interpretation of such vaguenesses “the right to a thing.”
Thank you.