[Crm-sig] Rights model

Simon Spero sesuncedu at gmail.com
Wed Mar 1 22:34:37 EET 2017


On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 9:07 PM, Robert Sanderson <RSanderson at getty.edu>
wrote:

>
> Can I then transfer ownership of an E30 Right? No, as you transfer
> ownership of Physical Things (E18), not of Propositional (E89), Conceptual
> (E28), Man-Made (E71), Things (E70).
>

Such a limitation would not really match the way the law thinks of
"Rights". "Rights" can be transferred separately from ownership of a
physical thing.
For example, if you rent an apartment, the lease is a transfer of the
"right" to occupy the premises from the landlord to you, without giving you
ownership of the property.

I do agree that treating rights as propositions is somewhat problematic, as
in order to be transferable, they would have in some sense to be
self-referential, which can be the first step on the road to paradox (No
offense intended to the Cretans on the list).

If we treat 'that' as a proposition forming operator, an alienable right r
to reproduce a work w might be expressed as:

r = that[∀x.possess(x,r) → ◇reproduce(x,w)]

[where ◇ is the deontic handwaving operator]. This formulation does not
express the ability to further transfer the right;  contexts can make
things easier to express.


Simon
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/pipermail/crm-sig/attachments/20170301/24c7ecee/attachment.html>


More information about the Crm-sig mailing list