What is a "right"?

It seems like a simple question.  "Where do your rights come from?"  But hidden in those six words are a multitude of predicate questions.

What is a "right"?  Is a right something you are expressly allowed to do?  Is it anything which you have not been expressly prohibited from doing? Is a right anything you can do for which you will not be punished regardless of if the act has been prohibited or not?

Let's assume briefly that a right is something that you are expressly allowed to do.  This implies that someone or thing has "given" you the right.  If you are a child you might be given the right to watch TV by your parent.  Now you have grown-up and are living on your own?  Who has given you the right to watch TV?  Do your parent's still have some power to restrict your access to the television?  What if your parent has died.  Where do you get your right from then?   It is quickly deduced that your right to watch television, like all rights, is not granted to you by anyone.

Future questions, What is a privilege? What is a duty? and What is an obligation?

Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

For those of you critical of the Citizen's United case, I highly recommend you read this, and please don't stop after a couple of paragraphs, many of the very important arguments do not come until later in the article.

A little bit about copyright.

in reference to: Bono calls for control over Internet downloads - Yahoo! News (view on Google Sidewiki)

Let's just consider the last two words of the first paragraph. "Cultural products". Now I ask you, can anyone own a cultural product? Should anyone own a cultural product? Because it's an important predicate question, what is a cultural product?

I propose that there was a reason copyright began as a limited 12 year right with the possibility of a one time 12 year extension. That reason was, the people back in the 18th century recognized that after 24 years a writing that had persisted in publication, and having passed from one generation to the next, has become part of the cultural identity and therefore would be detrimental to culture if the rights to that writing was controlled by a single individual. Furthermore, items that have not persisted in publication have likely expended their profitability for the author.

If you need more evidence of this I invite you to read Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the US Constitution. Which say "[Congress shall have the Power] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries". The operative parts being "To promote the Progress" and for "limited Times".

I fail to see how granting an author exclusive rights for their lifetime and then to their estate for 70 years, is a limited time or promotes progress. More likely the duration stifles progress as the exclusivity inhibits the iteration and variation on an idea.

Returning the concept of "cultural products." Assuming an author creates something when they have 50 years left to live and that a typical "generation" covers a range of 30 years, then modern copyright restricts distribution, variation and development for four generations. Surely, it became cultural long before that, if it's even survived, and therefore begs the question, should anyone really own it?