Why don't YOU look up what a right is? Are you seriously suggesting that you can only have a right if "no one can stop you"? I have the right to life, but someone can actually stop me from living, for very obvious reasons, and because someone "can stop" me in exercising that right, my right to life is actually not a right at all?
The difference is that if I kill you, stopping your right to live, I'd be violating your right, and I would be in the wrong(that is why I'd go to jail). If I stop you from planting a tree on my property I would not be violating your right, and I wouldn't be in the wrong(that is why I wouldn't go to jail). See the difference?
If stopping the action is wrong, the action is a right.
If stopping the action isn't wrong, the action isn't a right.
It isn't really that hard of a concept to understand.
Having a right doesn't necessarily mean you can always exercise it, as I have already stated in my earlier posts. Your prevention of the exercise of that right is merely through your own exercise of your own rights, and not because you "removed" the right to plant a tree, or the right does not exist.
Actually, yes, by definition a right is something that can always be exercised. Again, I urge you to look it up. However, rights can be violated as I explained above, they can also be forfeited(for example, criminals that have been found guilty forfeit certain rights).
So I have effectively stopped some person from living, therefore living isn't a right.
No, therefor you have violated the persons right. I'm not violating your rights by preventing you from planting a tree on my property, because planting a tree on my property isn't a right.
And technically speaking, you can say that you have "deprived" someone of his specific right, but you cannot say he never had that specific right to do so in the first place, or that it isn't a right to begin with.
Although "depriving" someone of his right is also typically through illegal or unlawful practices (as killing someone is typically that; unless during a war, and both are combatants, for example)... That's why instead of using that term, in your case, you just enforced your own right, which leads to the inability of the other person's enforcement of his right.
Actually, yes you can say that something isn't a right to begin with. To begin with, nothing is a right that violates the rights of someone else. That is a basic concept of rights. That is why generally shooting someone in the face is wrong, because you are violating someone else's right. If planting a tree on my property was a right, me stopping you would be illegal.
Which is YOUR case. Considering that Universal can delete videos even though there is no infringing content makes Youtube actually different to the situation you presented. And we should really stop with this very bad analogy that TMM made up. Real Property Laws are quite well-defined, and to be honest can be considered in existence ever since civilization began. Unlike Intellectual Property which are just recent developments, and quite obviously unable to match technological progress.
Sort of. A better example would be print or broadcast media. Generally, freedom of speech is a right. However, newspapers and TV channels don't have to let every whackjob that wants to say something do so in their mediums. Someone can't walk into the Time's building and demand the Time's print their crazy false story. However, nothing stops that person from making their own newspaper and printing their story in their own paper.