Copyright, Fair Use and Piracy

[Aphex_Twin]

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 ? )

[DavidOdden]

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 ? )

The proper verb is "hold"; Leonard Peikoff inherited the estate of Ayn Rand. See CUI ch. 11 "Patens and Copyrights" for an explanation of why intellectual property rights should be recognised.

[Unconquered]

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 ? )

Rights are never "granted" by anyone. A particular government may or may not *recognize* them but that does nothing to alter what rights may exist. Intellectual property is a critically important part of any modern society. It becomes property because of the fact that it had to be created by somebody - it did not jump out of the bushes fully formed. A creator has a *right* to do what they wish with their property, including selling it, willing it to heirs, or even giving it away if they so desire.

[Aphex_Twin]

Rights are never "granted" by anyone. A particular government may or may not *recognize* them but that does nothing to alter what rights may exist. Intellectual property is a critically important part of any modern society. It becomes property because of the fact that it had to be created by somebody - it did not jump out of the bushes fully formed. A creator has a *right* to do what they wish with their property, including selling it, willing it to heirs, or even giving it away if they so desire.

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?

The proper verb is "hold"; Leonard Peikoff inherited the estate of Ayn Rand. See CUI ch. 11 "Patens and Copyrights" for an explanation of why intellectual property rights should be recognised.

You will have to direct me to the proper links. What is CUI?

[DavidOdden]

You will have to direct me to the proper links. What is CUI?

CUI is Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal. It's a book (which is why there is no link). It answers the questions you raise about rights (not "copyright" in the specific sense as protected by law, but why copyright law is necessary to protect a creater's rights). I strongly recommend that article: it's short and sweet.

[Aphex_Twin]

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)

Edited October 1, 2005 by Aphex_Twin

[JMeganSnow]

*dons Moderator hat* That's not a reason, it's an excuse. If you cannot obtain the books legally, then simply ask for a more in-depth answer, do not announce your intention to pirate the books. Piracy of anyone's work is severely frowned-upon on this site and will result in mod action. *doffs Moderator hat*

The main reason that intellectual property rights are properly recognized and protected by the government is that this is recognition of the fact that it is man's mind that is the fundamental source of wealth.

In what sense do ANY rights exist outside of government enforcement? This is, in fact, the purpose of government, to protect people's rights. The right to intellectual property doesn't mean that you can prevent people from learning and thinking about your work. What they mean is that no one can derive financial benefit from your work without your permission. I.e. that they must credit the source. You do not own the ideas within another's mind: you own the products of those ideas that are created in reality.

[Felix]

Is 'Anthem' in the public domain? (I think not, according to what was said before in this thread, but I wanted to be sure)

Look here.

[DavidOdden]

Is 'Anthem' in the public domain? (I think not, according to what was said before in this thread, but I wanted to be sure)

The copyright expired in the US, but other countries have (had) different copyright laws. England had a life plus 50 law, and I assume the same was true for Germany (since that was what was stated in the Berne Convention). This raises an interesting question, then. I can legally read and copy that material being here in the US where the copyright is expired (and the host page is in the US too, at least I assume). But can you? You can't view something in a browser without copying it somewhere to your computer, and if your computer is in Germany, I bet it's against German law for you to click that link, except of course they could have made an explicit exception for computer memory buffers. Hire a lawyer before you go clicking any links.

[Felix]

This raises an interesting question, then. I can legally read and copy that material being here in the US where the copyright is expired (and the host page is in the US too, at least I assume). But can you? You can't view something in a browser without copying it somewhere to your computer, and if your computer is in Germany, I bet it's against German law for you to click that link, except of course they could have made an explicit exception for computer memory buffers. Hire a lawyer before you go clicking any links.

Great, so now I'm a criminal for searching the web. Just because states have different copyright laws. How can justice be as arbitrary as this? This is sick.

[DavidOdden]

Great, so now I'm a criminal for searching the web. Just because states have different copyright laws. How can justice be as arbitrary as this? This is sick.

Well, I presume you didn't actually read the text, so you're probably safe. Even if you did read it, how could they prove it? Better incinerate your hard drive, just to be sure. Anyhow, the problem doesn't strictly arise from countries having different laws, but from the wierdity of computers and internet access in terms of "copying". As I understand it, the act of copying is what's prohibited, and not "possessing an illegal copy". Hence you can buy and read an infringing copy of a protected work, but you can't make such a copy. Under an analysis where reading a book online is like reading in a library, you would be innocent -- except for the technical fact that all online reading involves copying. Yippee! Something for the lawyers to do.

[Felix]

Well, I presume you didn't actually read the text, so you're probably safe. Even if you did read it, how could they prove it? Better incinerate your hard drive, just to be sure. Anyhow, the problem doesn't strictly arise from countries having different laws, but from the wierdity of computers and internet access in terms of "copying". As I understand it, the act of copying is what's prohibited, and not "possessing an illegal copy". Hence you can buy and read an infringing copy of a protected work, but you can't make such a copy. Under an analysis where reading a book online is like reading in a library, you would be innocent -- except for the technical fact that all online reading involves copying. Yippee! Something for the lawyers to do.

So, technically, what I need is a little American in my desk. I take him out of the cupboard and let him click my links. Then he did the copying and I can read it.

Besides, what happens if an American sent this to me via email. He did the copying and I received the file.(just like sending me the copy of a book)

And wouldn't this principle expand to the website-link?

I mean, he provided it. I just watch it. He just automated the sending process.

The world of the law is strange indeed.

[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?".

Edited October 5, 2005 by Aphex_Twin

[JMeganSnow]

Please don't start a new thread to discuss a topic already being discussed in an existing thread.

This issue has already been discussed rather stringently here.