Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Judge makes Youtube(Google) show Viacom viewing habits of users

Rate this topic


progressiveman1

Recommended Posts

... to a non-creator.

They are creators; they are creating a review, a website for fans on the book, or something else that is a creation of the mind of one or more human.

Let me ask you this: why is it moral for you to quote the words of me and David in your posts but not for a reviewer to do the same with a book? After all, our posts are the works of our minds and hands just like is the case with author and his book.

Edit: fixed a grammar error.

Edited by DragonMaci
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 114
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This is pretty much off topic for the thread, but a valid question; if you want to pursue that separately, I wouldn't object. Since you talk (mistakenly) about things belonging to the public, I assume you are not familiar with CUI ch. 11 on patents and copyrights. It would be helpful if you read that first, and then the arguments should make more sense, at which point you might set forth your position on what you think IP law should be (if indeed you think there should be any law).

Very well, I should have said "public domain" or, as Ayn Rand phrases it, ceasing to exist "qua property."

My thoughts are not sufficiently developed to present a full position on what IP law should be. But as I have said previously, I do not see how a natural rights argument for the existence and defense of copyrights can be reconciled with "fair use."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My thoughts are not sufficiently developed to present a full position on what IP law should be. But as I have said previously, I do not see how a natural rights argument for the existence and defense of copyrights can be reconciled with "fair use."
Well, no pressure, but you should try to do it. I am decidedly not a legal positivist, but I've come to realize that a pure natural-rights approach is also untenable. Taking anarcho-capitalist libertarians as exemplars of the extreme idealist natural-rights view, their "philosophical" foundation is, simply "we must have liberty". That is, of course, wrong; and once you say what is right and why, then the reasons for the nature of IP law do in my opinion become clearer.

No law requires you to permit others to copy your words and distribute them for criticism. You may keep your creation private, if you wish. If, however, you knowingly, willfully and voluntarily make your words public, by the nature of making them public, you are putting them out there for free discussion -- you cannot make them public while demanding that they be kept private. The proper approach, if you want absolute secrecy, is to not make the words public, and carefully distribute them under binding contractual terms with an absolute non-disclosure requirement. Copyright law states the rational baseline for works that are published, and you have additional recourses such as contract law (or criminal trespass) for works that are not published (where "fair use" would hold no sway).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DragonMaci wrote:

They are creators; they are creating a review, a website for fans on the book, or something else that is a creation of the mind of one or more human.

By that logic I could spend time and dollars creating the website “whatilikeaboutaynrand.com” and then post the entire text of The Virtue of Selfishness on it. I could justify my action by claiming that compared to the entire body of Rand’s work, the quoted text is “small.” And of course I would mean “small” in the “omitting all measurements” sense!

Let me ask you this: why is it moral for you to quote the words of m,e and David in your posts but not for a reviewer to do the same with a book? After all, our posts are the works of our minds and hands just like is the case with author and his book.

I have complied with the forum rules: “Each participant agrees not to post any copyrighted material.” Are your words copyrighted?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then precisely what is the objective and unambiguous principle in “fair use”?
No, you misunderstand. You complained that I didn't object -- in this one thread -- to the subjective aspects of fair use. That objection is irrelevant since it isn't necessary for me to object to the subjectivity of the law every single time any topic of law comes up. The question you should be asking is, how should 17 USC 107 be written to eliminate the subjectivities. That's a matter for more extended discussion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By that logic I could spend time and dollars creating the website “whatilikeaboutaynrand.com” and then post the entire text of The Virtue of Selfishness on it. I could justify my action by claiming that compared to the entire body of Rand’s work, the quoted text is “small.” And of course I would mean “small” in the “omitting all measurements” sense!

See, this kind of misconstruing is why I refuse to argue with you any more. Since you refuse to stop doing so i am not even going to explain how you misconstrued it.

I have complied with the forum rules: “Each participant agrees not to post any copyrighted material.” Are your words copyrighted?

I am not talking about forum rules. I am talking about the principle of quoting someone else's words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have complied with the forum rules: “Each participant agrees not to post any copyrighted material.” Are your words copyrighted?
Yes they are. Copyright is automatic: you write stuff, it's copyrighted and you hold that right (until transfered). Ignoring the government works thing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

DavidOdden Posted Today, 05:09 PM

No, you misunderstand. You complained that I didn't object -- in this one thread -- to the subjective aspects of fair use. That objection is irrelevant since it isn't necessary for me to object to the subjectivity of the law every single time any topic of law comes up. The question you should be asking is, how should 17 USC 107 be written to eliminate the subjectivities. That's a matter for more extended discussion.

Fine. Whenever someone is ready to take a crack at it, I'll be listening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, this kind of misconstruing is why I refuse to argue with you any more. Since you refuse to stop doing so i am not even going to explain how you misconstrued it.

If you think I have misconstrued you, simply demonstrate how your concept of "small excerpts" which omits measurements would rule out posting the entire volume of VOS. All you have to do is explain the way "fair use" without parameters would clearly and unambiguously exclude this form of quoting. But instead you choose to stick with the mantra that "small" excepts are not a violation of owner's right of reproduction, while at the same time insisting that no one is required to provide specifics on the concept of "small."

And so whatever absurdities you get, you are fully entitled to.

I am not talking about forum rules. I am talking about the principle of quoting someone else's words.

I quoted them on the same forum you are appearing on. They do not appear outside the website that you placed them in.

Edited by Unknown Idealist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you think I have misconstrued you, simply demonstrate how your concept of "small excerpts" which omits measurements would rule out posting the entire volume of VOS.

No. I meant it when I said I am not debating until you stop willfully evading things I say. Until you can prove that you are willing to stop doing so I am not debating with you. You also need to prove an understanding of what I say rather than misconstruing what I say. Until you prove you can do those two things it is a waste of my time to debate with you.

All you have to do is explain the way "fair use" without parameters would clearly and unambiguously exclude this form of quoting. But instead you choose to stick with the mantra that "small" excepts are not a violation of owner's right of reproduction, while at the same time insisting that no one is required to provide specifics on the concept of "small."

I see you have not yet decided to change anything and are continuing to misconstrue me rather than making an effort to understand me. Until that changes I will not debate with you. So either stop trying to debate with me or make an effort. It is one or the other, not both. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.

I quoted them on the same forum you are appearing on. They do not appear outside the website that you placed them in.

That is still reproduction of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I quoted them on the same forum you are appearing on. They do not appear outside the website that you placed them in.
Does that mean you don't think permission is required to quote, for purposes of comment and discussion, as characterised by the fair use exception?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

. . .

I'm sorry to hear that you are retiring from the debate. I will miss our stimulating exchanges.

[alleged misconstruing]

I have already invited you to demonstrate precisely how my example of a book-length quote on a website would not qualify as an instance of your fabled short excerpt that eludes measurement. However, since you are now out of the debate, I can hardly expect an answer from you.

[Cliché of cake and eating it too]

An example that comes immediately to mind is saying that an author rightfully controls all reproduction of her work and at the same time insisting that reviewers may rightfully reproduce some portions of that work without the author’s consent.

Edited by Unknown Idealist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Out of respect for the property rights of others, my posts will no longer include the exact words of those I am responding to.
Well, that is your choice, but let me point out that "exact words" are not what's protected by copyright. Thus it would not matter a whit if I paraphrased you as saying "Out of my deep respect for the rights of others to their property, my posts will henceforth not include the exact words of those to whom I am responding." Copying and transforming is copying, and IP law prohibits unauthorized copying, except of course that such quoting is allowed given 107. I am very interested to see where this goes -- I think you are on the verge of personally grasping the objective necessity for 107.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

. . .

I am well aware that one could write a rip-off of Atlas Shrugged, using essentially the same characters and plot -- but not the same words -- and violate copyright law. (How much latitude one should have in following the plot of a previously published work is worth a discussion in itself. Consider the parallels between Love Letters and Cyrano de Bergerac, a French play which may or may not have enjoyed U.S. copyright protection in 1945.) My discussion of prohibiting reproduction of an author's words was not meant to imply that copyright protection begins and ends with control over direct quotation.

In any case, by simply listing the author and date of what I'm responding to on this forum, I can avoid the taint of plagiarism or unauthorized reproduction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In any case, by simply listing the author and date of what I'm responding to on this forum, I can avoid the taint of plagiarism or unauthorized reproduction.
Plagiarism is irrelevant to this discussion, which is about rights and not points off in class. Copyright violation, in a system without fair use, exists even if you list an author and date along with your copying. Your listing an author and date does not imply that the reproduction is thereby authorized by the rightsholder. You cannot avoid the taint: your only recourse is to simply not mention anyone else's words. We'll see how well that works for you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

DavidOdden Posted Today, 09:11 AM

If you haven't noticed it already, the reproduction of others' words in my posts has ceased. This post and my earlier one today should provide instructive examples.

Meanwhile, I'll be searching this forum's archives and the web in general for an adequate explanation of how the need to criticize represents a valid claim on the property of another, namely the right to reproduce a portion of an author’s work without his permission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you haven't noticed it already, the reproduction of others' words in my posts has ceased. This post and my earlier one today should provide instructive examples.
Quite. I'm just not sure whether you're confused about plagiarism vs. copyright infringement, given your statements about "exact words" and "author and date". The interesting case will be seeing what you do in a more involved discussion, where you're not replying just to the immediately preceding very short post.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have already invited you to demonstrate precisely how my example of a book-length quote on a website would not qualify as an instance of your fabled short excerpt that eludes measurement. However, since you are now out of the debate, I can hardly expect an answer from you.

I refuse to explain how you are misconstruing me because I have already tried many times and each time you either ignored me or misconstrued that as well.

I think you are on the verge of personally grasping the objective necessity for 107.

What makes you think that that? Don't get me wrong, it'd be nice if UI did, but I am unsure what makes you think that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DragonMaciPosted Yesterday, 04:44 PM

Welcome back to the debate! We've missed you! Now that you've rejoined us, why not explain how an author can retain all of the reproduction rights to her intellectual property while at the same time other writers have a right to reproduce some of that same IP. So far in this thread you’ve never addressed this contradiction: two people independently controlling the same thing at the same time.

Until next time . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome back to the debate! We've missed you! Now that you've rejoined us, why not explain how an author can retain all of the reproduction rights to her intellectual property while at the same time other writers have a right to reproduce some of that same IP. So far in this thread you’ve never addressed this contradiction: two people independently controlling the same thing at the same time.

Until next time . . .

It's not a contradiction...the owner own the IP but let's others use or quote it under certain specific conditions, usually determined by common copyright law. Example--the NFL allowing highlights of games to various news agencies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EC Posted Today, 07:25 AM

The dubious word in your reply is “let’s.” In this thread I have already addressed the notion that publication of a work automatically implies consent to quote from it. Years ago I published a small book on my family's genealogy. To this day I have never granted anyone permission to reproduce any portion of it, including quotations, however brief. Thus there is no such thing as an implied or automatic grant for short excerpts. Now either a creator is entitled to all of her creation, some of it, or none at all. Those saying that she owns only a portion of it, must explain why part of her creation could be used freely by someone who was not a party to the creation. So far I have read no logical justification of such an arrangement. If the creator rightfully owns all of her art, then it follows that an author’s work, her words, must remain entirely under her control. If her right over those words is legitimate, then the unauthorized reproduction of just a dozen words (even in a review that gets her good advertising) is a violation of intellectual property in the same way and for the same reason that pirating the entire book is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...