Aphex_Twin

I was interested for a more in-depth discussion, from a rational perspective, on this topic. (Un)fortunately, my imorality has not expressed itself (I haven't been able to find Rand's essay on Patents and Copyrights in that CUI). So I am quite open to arguments... Here is how I see it: If copyright is an intellectual property right, but a property right nonetheless, it should not be bound to time: 40,50, 99 years, it should last forever until the holder gives it up. I don't accept the right of state to legislate rights. If they exist, they should exist independent of it. Whatever the state grants and cannot exist outside of the state is no right at all, but a "privilege". You can hold property over a CD, a piece of paper with paint slapped over it, but not the "painting" or "sound". You cannot hold "property" on an immaterial creation (such as an idea, or "music"), but you can limit the behaviour of others through contracts. For instance, usage and copyright notices on the cover of books and CDs can have the binding power of a contract. The responsibility should lie between the contractual parties and none else. It should be possible to make agreements that bind not only current owners, but future ones, that is -- if the current owner gives that copywrited piece to someone else, he could be bound to make another contract with that party. The limit to which that system can work I consider to be legitimate. I do think one should benefit from the product of one's mind, but the questions are "in what manner?" and "by what standards?".

The irony of it is that I'll have to grab a pirated copy from a P2P net to answer this post (I have no access to the book where I live - Romania, nor opportunity or avalible funds to purchase it online)

In what manner do "copyrights" exist independent of government enforcement? I don't deny the right of one to benefit from the use of their property, it's just not particularly clear how "intellectual property" is property in the same sense. Ayn Rand defines property as the product of man's mind, his alteration of matter to his own purpose (correct?). But a thought, an idea, a word, once spoken cannot be taken back and locked in a box -- it is imprinted into the minds of the receipients, forever. Ownership means absolute domain over what is owned; how can one have absolute domain over even part of another's mind? You will have to direct me to the proper links. What is CUI?

One would expect a rational being not to jump to conclusions about Atheists jumping to conclusions

The question refers in particular to Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. Who owns the official copyrights? (sideways question: how does objectivist ethics validate copyrights - that is essentially a government granted right ? )

Interesting question. If you think about it, most people don't give a damn about religion. Yes, there are some active elements, but the general feeling today is that it doesn't matter (except for Easter and Christmas - but neither then is it THAT big of a deal). Equally so, most aren't that interested in politics. I generally keep a low profile when dealing with zealous Socialists and Theists (if there's a diference between them ) mainly because I'm polite, don't want to destroy their arguments and seek to be entertained. Well, when provoked the mask falls off. But you generally don't seek the company of one who expounds his beliefs into the world every minute of every day.