Yes it's probably unenforceable outside Italy in a sense but jurisdiction is complex. If you put it on a website (or worse if u sell via marketplace operating in Italy) they could make a plausible claim that you availed yourself of Italiaj jurisdiction and then ask courts in your home country to enforce the judgement. I believe the US has a specific law (drafted to protect against UK libel tourism) that directs us courts not to enforce judgements that would unduly burden US person's free speech rights.
However, I'm not seeing the ethnic or even cultural superiority angle. I mean it just sounds like they are trying to make a buck off their history (usually the superiority ppl try to foist their culture on others). But maybe I'm missing something.
You might game the dating system and date someone out of your league but that complex strategy calculation has been occurring so long the moves and countermoves are no longer strategies but are natural feelings about jealousy, clinginess, playing hard to get etc..
All online dating tries to do is reduce the time needed to play this game in the modern world and eliminate some of the transactional overhead of dates that are extremely unlikely to work out by trying to offer enough info to screen out the obvious bad matches.
Gaming the system is actually a form of improving the system!
Online dating has the peculiar feature that except for a few facts like job, serious criminal record, frequent drug use.... and THE PICTURE exhaust the things that most people refuse to give any slack about. If I shoot heroin every day and tell you I never do drugs you won't give it a try the way you would if I said I was vegan and kept coming up with excuses to eat meet.
Particularly with sites like okcupid which caters to a certain social group the best strategy for both genders will often be to truthfully report those few facts misdirection is unacceptable (and paint them in a good light) and then mimic the posts of successful daters similar to you.
This isn't so cynical. We all do it. A good gimmick, after all, is one that attracts alot of interest without drawing attention to the particulars that might push others away. So even if you are as likely to drop everything and try something new right now the way your friend is his successful description will make him sound fun but not undependable and you will see yourself in that. Besides, we really only have the vaguest grasp of how our descriptions are taken by strangers and we only find out from people they did well with.
Excepting a few outliers most of the text can be fully ignored (and match questions often take so long your prospect has found someone else). That leaves the few sharp facts but anyone with a pedophilia conviction or serious addiction issues will look for dates elsewhere leaving the picture and job for evaluation.
Yes, women look more at the job and pay some more attention to these incidentals...but the extent to which this is a desire not to be sleazy like those guys or a real preference is unclear.
---
Besides this lady's fake profile said her favorite activity was convincing people she was pregnant. Most people probably found it funny.
One could implement both of the following. The identity of who conducted any given search is hidden but only those with a manager level key can approve a search.
This would, indeed, be a good way to control so called LOVINT and other low level abuses that are in the news now. However, while creepy these abuses aren't the real danger. They merely demonstrate the danger posed by someone with manager level access engaged in something more diabolical than stalking potential or former lovers. While I suspect a knowingly evil/anti-US motive is unlikely it seems totally plausible that a manager could be convinced that some candidate would be a disaster for the US and use their position to spy on the least reputable associates of a political candidate.
However, the system could be designed so that the supervisors have the appropriate cryptographic keys to supervise their underlings.
Actually being an ebook makes a HUGE difference to how and when a library can lend out a book.
1) Ebooks don't need to be shipped so interlibrary loans can be instantaneous.
2) With appropriate secondary software nothing prevents returning the ebook whenever one isn't actually reading the book (bookmarks and current location can be restored to any copy of the ebook).
3) Electronic lending is much more convenient than physical lending so many people who would buy their own physical copy may end up being content with borrowing an electronic copy. Especially since pooling books across a large library system (all libraries in the US??) will ensure that books are almost never all checked out.
---
If these two conditions obtain a well organized library system that now might need to buy many books that spend most of their time either sitting on the library shelf or sitting in people's bags and on their desks in between reads. That means the library system needs to buy DRASTICALLY less ebooks than it would need to buy physical books.
Of course right now lending isn't that efficient but presumably this future efficiency needs to be taken into account when selling books now. Indeed, a single library copy sold now could, if lending develops in an appropriate direction, offset MANY individual sales in the future.
First, the NSA would only want to intercept a keyboard to do data interception. But there is no reason for them to intercept the data of a tor developer, THE SOURCE CODE IS PUBLIC ALREADY. Unless they think the developer is themselves a terrorist they could care less what they type.
A keyboard would be useless for planting bugs in software. Even if they had the whole computer it would be extremely difficult to leverage that control to force the insertion of backdoors into the code (it would be much easier to hack into github or wherever the `canonical' version of the tor source is held and insert bugs there...even if there is no defacto canonical repository it would be extremely difficult to hide the introduced bugs from the developer while not disrupting the normal diff/compile/run development process).
If the NSA was sophisticated enough to implement this kind of extensive system compromise (all the tools used by the developer must appear to work normally EXCEPT the hash of any commit needs to include the modified source AND any commit needs to include the modifications BUT somehow when the developer turns the commit into a patch and examines it in ANY text editor it must not appear) they surely wouldn't screw up at the step where they divert the package.
Umm, EVERYONE (even Syrian allies like Russia and the UN and every country in the world) agress chemical weapons were used.
You only have two choices left now. Either Syria used them or the rebels used them. Do you really think it's more likely the rebels used them? Distributing chemical weapons is a tricky business and it appears a not-insubstantial amount was used and effectively distributed.
I mean compare the effectiveness of this attack to the Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway and ask yourself (ignoring anything the admin has said) whether you really believe it is more likely some scavenged/brew at home chemical weapons or the product of a (relatively) well equipped professional military?
Besides, on top of the question of ability there is the question of target. It is perfectly plausible that Syria (not believing there would be consequences) used poison gas against protestors. Hell, the historical precedent in Syria is that when you have protestors you destroy the cities they live in civilians be damned. But, while perhaps a non-absurd strategy in the abstract, the idea that the rebels used the gas on their own people just to cause international response seems much more unlikely.
If you read the motion filled by the ACLU in the section on the 4th ammendment it is pretty clear they are trying to create new precedent. In particular, the fact that they go back to the original reasonableness analysis and don't cite any cases to justify their conclusion (just vague claims that it is bad and associated with totalitarian states) is a giveaway.
I think new law SHOULD be made here but one has to recognize that it is an uphill battle. The statutory arguments seems stronger and doesn't have anything to do with the 'just metadata' issue.
And this article shows a deep lack of knowledge about how the law works.
Merely showing that metadata leads to lots of info about a person simply isn't relevant.
Following a person around in an unmarked police car reveals lots of info about a person too, even more if you watch them with binoculors at every opportunity. However, such behavior CLEARY doesn't implicate the 4th ammendment under existing precedent no matter how long or systematically you do it (GPS is treated differently for unclear reasons). Theoretically, the government could use half the population to follow the other half around, note everything that half did and feed it all into a big data mining solution and not implicate the 4th at all even though that would reveal tons of info about sensitive matters.
The reason the government's argument isn't absurd is that existing precedent does distinguish between metadata and data to some extent, in particular it distinguishes the content of your conversation from the numbers used to dial a phone call. THE ISSUE HERE ISN'T HOW MUCH INFO IS REVEALED BUT WHOSE INFO. Since the phone company keeps numbers dialed in the normal course of business (billing) they would appear to be the phone companies business data and not anything you even have a 4th ammedment interest in.
YES, THE CURRENT PRECEDENT DOESN'T GIVE A RATS ASS WHAT IS IN THE INFO IF IT DOESN'T BELONG TO THE PERSON WHOSE 4TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS ARE AT ISSUE!!!
Don't get me wrong, I don't think the government's position is the one that should prevail but their motion is not absurd.
Also if you go back and look Peter Kind is just a crazy outlier. No legal scholar or even substantial fraction of any political branch suggested that Greenwald should be prosecuted for merely receiving a leak of classified info. Whether or not he technically violated the law is another matter (the law is much broader here than anything that is ever pursued or even constitutional).
Certainly no serious journalist and definitely not Starr thought Greenwald should be prosecuted.
So why have a story asking why some journalist did (what you suggest) is legally equivalent when that journalist and all but a tiny minority agree that what Greenwald (actually) did shouldn't be prosecuted and is in the general tradition of investigative reporting?
---
Besides that small percent of people who think Greenwald should be prosecuted can easily point to the obvious difference that Greenwald is publishing what amounts to a raw data dump (filtered by him) from a low level employee unaware of all the issues while Starr is reporting a fact that top admin officials have judged won't be harmful if known.
Hell, even Peter King only suggested that Greenwald should be prosecuted for revealing sources and methods and Starr clearly didn't do that (because she didn't really reveal much at all).
That is a totally reasonable rule since the president has the power to declassify anything he wants. (perhaps modulo some small areas about revealing identities of intelligence operatives and nuclear secrets protected by explicit statues but everything else is done by executive order).
So the role played by allowing leaks authorized by presedential policy is not that it allows the executive to release information it otherwise couldn't. Rather, it is simply allowing the administration to make claims without having to make those claims official government positions.
For instance, this allows the government to deal with situations like the U2 Gary Powers incident where everyone knows the cover story (meteorological observations) is a load of crap but for legal/diplomatic reasons it makes sense to officially stick with the cover story while still telling citizens what is really going on. Also, it allows the administration to make statements that might require long legal nitpicking if they were to be official statements and thus something that could be easily referenced in lawsuits etc.. Saying that we have electronic surveillance inside Syria could easily fall into the first category.
The problems with classification muzzling dissenting voices all stems from the fact the president can pick and choose what to reveal while everyone else can be prosecuted for revealing what they think is appropriate. But leaks just cut down on paperwork here since this asymmetry would remain even if there were no executive leaks (they would just have to bother officially declassifying the info they wanted to reveal and nothing else and then examine the official statements more closely).
It's not a useful practical heuristic but in a way totally true. Freedom is of no use whatsoever to a worldwide cemetery. The issue is just how much risk of death should be traded for how much violation of other rights and this is a very bad way to frame that question.
For instance, in the modern world there are almost certainly private individuals owning land w/ uranium ore and possessing (via hiring) the rarified but no longer truly heroic expertize to detonate the device. However, there are good reasons we don't have respected political documents and snappy phrases reminding us to invade privacy and check up on neighbors. We tend to overdo that anyway and need the opposite warning.
In a capitalism, monopolies and oligopolies are the inevitable end result in every field.
That's utter hogwash. Study some econ. In fields with low barriers to entry and substantial risk of failure neither monopoly nor oligarchy is the natural result. Indeed, in certain industries the natural result is many small competitors.
For instance in food service (restaurants) the risk of failure is quite high while the cost of entry is relatively small. As a result you tend to have many small independently owned (tho perhaps franchised) companies since aggregating many restaurants into one conglomerate would undermine the limitation on losses provided by bankruptcy while offering little advantage.
In contrast providing high speed internet requires a gigantic capital outlay and has a fairly small chance of failure (you know people are willing to buy your service and once you've made the initial capital outlay it would be unprofitable for any competitor to duplicate your expenditure since they would expect to receive no return on investment provided they don't have substantially lower marginal costs...and in the high speed internet business marginal costs are a few trucks out repairing outages).
High speed internet is a natural monopoly as a result and thus it makes sense for it to be provided as a municipal service as are roads and electricity.
Based on past examples quite possibly the company receiving legislative protection.
All AT&T has to do to survive is match what the competition offers and let build-out costs choke out attempts to undermine their monopoly.
The serious danger that google poses to AT&T is the positive externality they gain merely from the presence of fast networks. AT&T doesn't capture any such profit so google can undercut their price at a sufficiently large scale (tho to deploy at such a scale google might have to substantially raise prices and risk losing customer affection as a result).
C'mon what do you really think caused these campaigns to pull these ads. These campaigns regularly make use of trademarks, copyrighted speeches and content and all sorts of other protected IP from their opponents. Do you think they would hesitate a second to assert their fair use rights to protect the inclusion of these clips and other IP material. These aren't unsophisticated common citizens who are intimidated by legal letters. If it was in their interest they would fire back the appropriate papers in the blink of an eye.
I suspect the decision is a simple political calculation. Even if you are correct getting into a public fight with the Olympics is just a bad political move. The IOC, especially by talking about other legal systems with moral rights can easily make the fight confusing enough that the average voter only takes away 'that candidate is wrangling with the Olympics.'
I doubt any of the ads are so powerful that it's worth that risk.
----
Also just because the IOC has no remedy in US courts doesn't mean they can't take any action. They could always penalize US athletes, try and bring treaty pressure to bear etc.. etc..
The US can't stand as the loan bastion against this ridiculous institution of moral rights. We need to work to convince the rest of the world that it's a harmful notion that restricts freedom.
The only case for copyright is to IP the creation of intellectual goods. Indeed, if you go back to Locke copyright is in clear tension with the idea of property rights. Our entire culture is based on reuse of ideas in ways their creators disapproved of but if they feel strongly enough they have a simple response, don't sell their works.
(Note, moral rights are different than provisions designed to ensure compensation for authors whose works were sold off before they had bargaining power...that is an economic matter and a different discussion).
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Peter Gerdes.
How so?
Yes it's probably unenforceable outside Italy in a sense but jurisdiction is complex. If you put it on a website (or worse if u sell via marketplace operating in Italy) they could make a plausible claim that you availed yourself of Italiaj jurisdiction and then ask courts in your home country to enforce the judgement. I believe the US has a specific law (drafted to protect against UK libel tourism) that directs us courts not to enforce judgements that would unduly burden US person's free speech rights. However, I'm not seeing the ethnic or even cultural superiority angle. I mean it just sounds like they are trying to make a buck off their history (usually the superiority ppl try to foist their culture on others). But maybe I'm missing something.
Can't Game The System
There is no online system to game.
You might game the dating system and date someone out of your league but that complex strategy calculation has been occurring so long the moves and countermoves are no longer strategies but are natural feelings about jealousy, clinginess, playing hard to get etc..
All online dating tries to do is reduce the time needed to play this game in the modern world and eliminate some of the transactional overhead of dates that are extremely unlikely to work out by trying to offer enough info to screen out the obvious bad matches.
Gaming the system is actually a form of improving the system!
Online Dating Forces Both Sexes to Overweight Pics
Online dating has the peculiar feature that except for a few facts like job, serious criminal record, frequent drug use.... and THE PICTURE exhaust the things that most people refuse to give any slack about. If I shoot heroin every day and tell you I never do drugs you won't give it a try the way you would if I said I was vegan and kept coming up with excuses to eat meet.
Particularly with sites like okcupid which caters to a certain social group the best strategy for both genders will often be to truthfully report those few facts misdirection is unacceptable (and paint them in a good light) and then mimic the posts of successful daters similar to you.
This isn't so cynical. We all do it. A good gimmick, after all, is one that attracts alot of interest without drawing attention to the particulars that might push others away. So even if you are as likely to drop everything and try something new right now the way your friend is his successful description will make him sound fun but not undependable and you will see yourself in that. Besides, we really only have the vaguest grasp of how our descriptions are taken by strangers and we only find out from people they did well with.
Excepting a few outliers most of the text can be fully ignored (and match questions often take so long your prospect has found someone else). That leaves the few sharp facts but anyone with a pedophilia conviction or serious addiction issues will look for dates elsewhere leaving the picture and job for evaluation.
Yes, women look more at the job and pay some more attention to these incidentals...but the extent to which this is a desire not to be sleazy like those guys or a real preference is unclear.
---
Besides this lady's fake profile said her favorite activity was convincing people she was pregnant. Most people probably found it funny.
Actually Totally Plausible
One could implement both of the following. The identity of who conducted any given search is hidden but only those with a manager level key can approve a search.
This would, indeed, be a good way to control so called LOVINT and other low level abuses that are in the news now. However, while creepy these abuses aren't the real danger. They merely demonstrate the danger posed by someone with manager level access engaged in something more diabolical than stalking potential or former lovers. While I suspect a knowingly evil/anti-US motive is unlikely it seems totally plausible that a manager could be convinced that some candidate would be a disaster for the US and use their position to spy on the least reputable associates of a political candidate.
However, the system could be designed so that the supervisors have the appropriate cryptographic keys to supervise their underlings.
Actually being an ebook makes a HUGE difference to how and when a library can lend out a book.
1) Ebooks don't need to be shipped so interlibrary loans can be instantaneous.
2) With appropriate secondary software nothing prevents returning the ebook whenever one isn't actually reading the book (bookmarks and current location can be restored to any copy of the ebook).
3) Electronic lending is much more convenient than physical lending so many people who would buy their own physical copy may end up being content with borrowing an electronic copy. Especially since pooling books across a large library system (all libraries in the US??) will ensure that books are almost never all checked out.
---
If these two conditions obtain a well organized library system that now might need to buy many books that spend most of their time either sitting on the library shelf or sitting in people's bags and on their desks in between reads. That means the library system needs to buy DRASTICALLY less ebooks than it would need to buy physical books.
Of course right now lending isn't that efficient but presumably this future efficiency needs to be taken into account when selling books now. Indeed, a single library copy sold now could, if lending develops in an appropriate direction, offset MANY individual sales in the future.
This is totally ridiculous.
First, the NSA would only want to intercept a keyboard to do data interception. But there is no reason for them to intercept the data of a tor developer, THE SOURCE CODE IS PUBLIC ALREADY. Unless they think the developer is themselves a terrorist they could care less what they type.
A keyboard would be useless for planting bugs in software. Even if they had the whole computer it would be extremely difficult to leverage that control to force the insertion of backdoors into the code (it would be much easier to hack into github or wherever the `canonical' version of the tor source is held and insert bugs there...even if there is no defacto canonical repository it would be extremely difficult to hide the introduced bugs from the developer while not disrupting the normal diff/compile/run development process).
If the NSA was sophisticated enough to implement this kind of extensive system compromise (all the tools used by the developer must appear to work normally EXCEPT the hash of any commit needs to include the modified source AND any commit needs to include the modifications BUT somehow when the developer turns the commit into a patch and examines it in ANY text editor it must not appear) they surely wouldn't screw up at the step where they divert the package.
Re:
Umm, EVERYONE (even Syrian allies like Russia and the UN and every country in the world) agress chemical weapons were used.
You only have two choices left now. Either Syria used them or the rebels used them. Do you really think it's more likely the rebels used them? Distributing chemical weapons is a tricky business and it appears a not-insubstantial amount was used and effectively distributed.
I mean compare the effectiveness of this attack to the Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway and ask yourself (ignoring anything the admin has said) whether you really believe it is more likely some scavenged/brew at home chemical weapons or the product of a (relatively) well equipped professional military?
Besides, on top of the question of ability there is the question of target. It is perfectly plausible that Syria (not believing there would be consequences) used poison gas against protestors. Hell, the historical precedent in Syria is that when you have protestors you destroy the cities they live in civilians be damned. But, while perhaps a non-absurd strategy in the abstract, the idea that the rebels used the gas on their own people just to cause international response seems much more unlikely.
ACLU Trying To Break New 4th Amendment Ground
If you read the motion filled by the ACLU in the section on the 4th ammendment it is pretty clear they are trying to create new precedent. In particular, the fact that they go back to the original reasonableness analysis and don't cite any cases to justify their conclusion (just vague claims that it is bad and associated with totalitarian states) is a giveaway.
I think new law SHOULD be made here but one has to recognize that it is an uphill battle. The statutory arguments seems stronger and doesn't have anything to do with the 'just metadata' issue.
How The Law Works
And this article shows a deep lack of knowledge about how the law works.
Merely showing that metadata leads to lots of info about a person simply isn't relevant.
Following a person around in an unmarked police car reveals lots of info about a person too, even more if you watch them with binoculors at every opportunity. However, such behavior CLEARY doesn't implicate the 4th ammendment under existing precedent no matter how long or systematically you do it (GPS is treated differently for unclear reasons). Theoretically, the government could use half the population to follow the other half around, note everything that half did and feed it all into a big data mining solution and not implicate the 4th at all even though that would reveal tons of info about sensitive matters.
The reason the government's argument isn't absurd is that existing precedent does distinguish between metadata and data to some extent, in particular it distinguishes the content of your conversation from the numbers used to dial a phone call. THE ISSUE HERE ISN'T HOW MUCH INFO IS REVEALED BUT WHOSE INFO. Since the phone company keeps numbers dialed in the normal course of business (billing) they would appear to be the phone companies business data and not anything you even have a 4th ammedment interest in.
YES, THE CURRENT PRECEDENT DOESN'T GIVE A RATS ASS WHAT IS IN THE INFO IF IT DOESN'T BELONG TO THE PERSON WHOSE 4TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS ARE AT ISSUE!!!
Don't get me wrong, I don't think the government's position is the one that should prevail but their motion is not absurd.
Absurd Story
Also if you go back and look Peter Kind is just a crazy outlier. No legal scholar or even substantial fraction of any political branch suggested that Greenwald should be prosecuted for merely receiving a leak of classified info. Whether or not he technically violated the law is another matter (the law is much broader here than anything that is ever pursued or even constitutional).
Certainly no serious journalist and definitely not Starr thought Greenwald should be prosecuted.
So why have a story asking why some journalist did (what you suggest) is legally equivalent when that journalist and all but a tiny minority agree that what Greenwald (actually) did shouldn't be prosecuted and is in the general tradition of investigative reporting?
---
Besides that small percent of people who think Greenwald should be prosecuted can easily point to the obvious difference that Greenwald is publishing what amounts to a raw data dump (filtered by him) from a low level employee unaware of all the issues while Starr is reporting a fact that top admin officials have judged won't be harmful if known.
Hell, even Peter King only suggested that Greenwald should be prosecuted for revealing sources and methods and Starr clearly didn't do that (because she didn't really reveal much at all).
If the President Leaks it It's Not Illegal
That is a totally reasonable rule since the president has the power to declassify anything he wants. (perhaps modulo some small areas about revealing identities of intelligence operatives and nuclear secrets protected by explicit statues but everything else is done by executive order).
So the role played by allowing leaks authorized by presedential policy is not that it allows the executive to release information it otherwise couldn't. Rather, it is simply allowing the administration to make claims without having to make those claims official government positions.
For instance, this allows the government to deal with situations like the U2 Gary Powers incident where everyone knows the cover story (meteorological observations) is a load of crap but for legal/diplomatic reasons it makes sense to officially stick with the cover story while still telling citizens what is really going on. Also, it allows the administration to make statements that might require long legal nitpicking if they were to be official statements and thus something that could be easily referenced in lawsuits etc.. Saying that we have electronic surveillance inside Syria could easily fall into the first category.
The problems with classification muzzling dissenting voices all stems from the fact the president can pick and choose what to reveal while everyone else can be prosecuted for revealing what they think is appropriate. But leaks just cut down on paperwork here since this asymmetry would remain even if there were no executive leaks (they would just have to bother officially declassifying the info they wanted to reveal and nothing else and then examine the official statements more closely).
He's Right
It's not a useful practical heuristic but in a way totally true. Freedom is of no use whatsoever to a worldwide cemetery. The issue is just how much risk of death should be traded for how much violation of other rights and this is a very bad way to frame that question.
For instance, in the modern world there are almost certainly private individuals owning land w/ uranium ore and possessing (via hiring) the rarified but no longer truly heroic expertize to detonate the device. However, there are good reasons we don't have respected political documents and snappy phrases reminding us to invade privacy and check up on neighbors. We tend to overdo that anyway and need the opposite warning.
S
Re: Capitalism.
Re:
Based on past examples quite possibly the company receiving legislative protection.
All AT&T has to do to survive is match what the competition offers and let build-out costs choke out attempts to undermine their monopoly.
The serious danger that google poses to AT&T is the positive externality they gain merely from the presence of fast networks. AT&T doesn't capture any such profit so google can undercut their price at a sufficiently large scale (tho to deploy at such a scale google might have to substantially raise prices and risk losing customer affection as a result).
Politics Not Copyright
C'mon what do you really think caused these campaigns to pull these ads. These campaigns regularly make use of trademarks, copyrighted speeches and content and all sorts of other protected IP from their opponents. Do you think they would hesitate a second to assert their fair use rights to protect the inclusion of these clips and other IP material. These aren't unsophisticated common citizens who are intimidated by legal letters. If it was in their interest they would fire back the appropriate papers in the blink of an eye.
I suspect the decision is a simple political calculation. Even if you are correct getting into a public fight with the Olympics is just a bad political move. The IOC, especially by talking about other legal systems with moral rights can easily make the fight confusing enough that the average voter only takes away 'that candidate is wrangling with the Olympics.'
I doubt any of the ads are so powerful that it's worth that risk.
----
Also just because the IOC has no remedy in US courts doesn't mean they can't take any action. They could always penalize US athletes, try and bring treaty pressure to bear etc.. etc..
The US can't stand as the loan bastion against this ridiculous institution of moral rights. We need to work to convince the rest of the world that it's a harmful notion that restricts freedom.
The only case for copyright is to IP the creation of intellectual goods. Indeed, if you go back to Locke copyright is in clear tension with the idea of property rights. Our entire culture is based on reuse of ideas in ways their creators disapproved of but if they feel strongly enough they have a simple response, don't sell their works.
(Note, moral rights are different than provisions designed to ensure compensation for authors whose works were sold off before they had bargaining power...that is an economic matter and a different discussion).