"right" is an odd word to apply to the ever-expanding American notion of copyright. A legal right it may be, but your use of the word seems to be aimed higher. When I see a statement like this, I read, "when has freedom ever meant disregard for the temporary government-granted monopoly over the distribution rights to creative works created by others". A much more accurate phrasing which doesn't beg the question.
I'm not sure what you're asking. Perhaps you meant to ask, "legal rights aren't human rights?" Or maybe, "legal rights aren't inalienable?"
Don't let me put words in your mouth, but your vague use of the word "right" in a discussion of a widely acknowledged inalienable right -- freedom of expression -- begs the question.
The entirety of your previous post was putting words in my mouth, and now you're doing it again by suggesting interpretations of what I wrote instead of what I actually wrote. No, thank you.
No, I'm opining that your use of the word "right" in this discussion is inappropriate. You can throw the word around however you like, but it would be helpful to the discussion if you were a bit more specific.
If you feel my interpretations are wrong, please tell me why.
