Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

KeithP

Regulars
  • Posts

    34
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by KeithP

  1. Then I want to add just one thing to this "academic exercise" (should I take it that you're not interested in the philosophy itself and don't wish to learn about Objectivism any further?). Notice that Rand was speaking of ownership of IP in perpetuity. Copyrights expire: when they do, the object is not property anymore. She spoke approvingly of the life-plus-50 duration, we currently have life-plus-70. Above all, she recognised that the specific terms are established by law; for which reason it's slimly possible that the Wallace interview copyright has expired -- the crucial question is whether the copyright was renewed. The remainder are certainly still under valid copyright for another 50 years.

    Of course not. The philosophy of Ayn Rand is one of the most important things in my life. Why would you infer that I am not interested in her philosophy any further?

    This copyright arguement is just going nowhere. I believe I can find justification in her writings for what I did. But, it is certainly not a black and white issue.

    I also think that it is highly doubtful that Ayn Rand or her estate even own the actual interviews themselves anyway.

    Most likely whoever created the videos paid a license fee to NBC or whoever the broadcaster was to sell copies of them.

  2. Your conclusion is wrong, because you are denying that IP is property (either that, or you haven't integrated your understanding of property). A person has a right to the product of their mind -- they own it. Ownership is an exclusive entitlement to do as you see fit, and for IP that means you have the right to sell copies to whoever you want, for any price you chose; or to not sell it at all. By claiming a right of ownership of another person's property, you are stealing. The question of whether it is another person's property is a very simple factual matter, and from the evidence at hand it seems clear that you have violated the copyright on these works. If you had obtained permission from the owner to reproduce these works, then you are entitled to whatever profits you can extract, within the terms of the contract (which would certainly include a requirement for you to pay royalties).

    If you were to read CUI ch. 11, you'd see that such statements as "Patents and copyrights are the legal implementation of the base of all property rights: a man's right to the product of his mind"; "what the patent and copyright laws acknowledge is the paramount role of mental effort in the production of material values; these laws protect the mind's contribution in its purest form: the origination of an idea"; "By forbidding an unauthorized reproduction of the object, the law declares, in effect, that the physical labor of copying is not the source of the object's value, that that value is created by the originator of the idea and may not be used without his consent; thus the law establishes the property right of a mind to that which it has  brought into existence"; "the government certifies the origination of an idea and protects its owner's exclusive right of use and disposal". In short, it is not possible to conclude that Rand held that IP is nor property and that it can't be owned.

    Are you seriously claiming that the public has a right to IP which is not currently being commercially copied -- that once a book goes out of print, then ownership rights are negated? You seem to think that the only value created is that created by the physical manufacturer.

    Seriously, I'd advise you to consult an attorney, to see if there is a way for you to extricate yourself from this mess.

    Everything you quoted about property is correct. However as I stated before Miss Rand also said

    "It can be left to heirs, but it cannot remain in their effortless possession in perpetuity: the heirs can consume it or must earn its continued possession by their own productive work"

    I have already removed the item. Now this has become a simple academic excercize.

  3. Mike Wallace

    Tom Snyder

    U of Michigan

    Donahue

    Last public talk

    And LF books carries the James Day interview.

    Those are not being produced anymore. Those are just remaining inventory from when they were in the 90's.

    I am not going to be stubborn beyond reason about this. What I have done is attempt to provide a very nice compilation of Ayn Rand interviews which are not readily available.

    I believed by doing so I would be totally consistant with the teaching of Objectivism and I gave you the passages that led me to believe it. I have read every book Ayn Rand has written and hold her philosophy as dear to me as anything in my life.

    In the grand scheme of things, its not that important to me. I have no problem withdrawing the auction. What annoys me are people who call themselves Objectivists behaving so irrationally. Especially with the conspiracy theories.

    Keith

  4. I assume that you have contacted Rand's estate and obtained permission to put together this assemblage of her work (and, no doubt, Donahue's agents and anyone else who owns the material), and they gave you permission to put together this montage. You wouldn't just steal another person' property with the excuse that adding a bit of effort of your own gives you the right to their property. You wouldn't deprive her estate of the right of ownership, for them to make the exclusive copy of such a collection, would you?

    Read the entirety of her chapter on Patents and Copyrights. Don't just look for one little piece that you can twist into support for your appropriation of Rand's property.

    You think I havent read it? Do you feel there is another part of that chapter that contradicts the part I quoted? Be an Objectivist. Instead of using generalizations please tell my how my conclusion is wrong.

  5. Not that this is the real issue here, but these are still in print.

    And eBay will take this auction down soon even he doesnt.

    P.S. The location of this item changed from OK to USA last night. :pirate:

    Moderator: The link still shows in this thread under the original replies.

    These items are NOT still in print by anyone anywhere. Please provide me with some evidence if you believe they are.

    Keith

  6. I think his user ID shows location: Denmark and something is smelling a bit rotten.  :pirate:

    I love his negative feedback "well the transmission on the car seemed to work just fine the last time I used it." Uh, yeah, right.

    How dare you pass moral judgment about that? You have no facts, no evidence and no basis other than your own mystic thinking to make that claim.

    Because I sell a DVD of copied Ayn Rand interviews then I must fraudulently sell used cars?

    And when you use quotation marks to indicate what you are claiming my response to his feedback was, you should use an EXACT quote not your own generalized rendition of my response.

    Keith

  7. I think his user ID shows location: Denmark and something is smelling a bit rotten.  :pirate:

    I love his negative feedback "well the transmission on the car seemed to work just fine the last time I used it." Uh, yeah, right.

    All of these items are out of print and are no longer being produced. What I have done is try and give people a chance to see all of the Ayn Rand appearances on television.

    The principles I use to justify this come from Miss Rand herself. If it can be demonstrated that I am wrong in my premises, I will be happy to remove the listing.

    This is from Capitalism the Unknown Ideal:

    The right to intellectual property cannot be exercised in perpetuity. Intellectual property represents a claim, not on material objects, but on the idea they embody, which means: not merely on existing wealth, but on wealth yet to be produced—a claim to payment for the inventor's or author's work. No debt can be extended into infinity.

    Material property represents a static amount of wealth already produced. It can be left to heirs, but it cannot remain in their effortless possession in perpetuity: the heirs can consume it or must earn its continued possession by their own productive work. The greater the value of the property, the greater the effort demanded of the heir. In a free, competitive society, no one could long retain the ownership of a factory or of a tract of land without exercising a commensurate effort.

    But intellectual property cannot be consumed. If it were held in perpetuity, it would lead to the opposite of the very principle on which it is based: it would lead, not to the earned reward of achievement, but to the unearned support of parasitism. It would become a cumulative lien on the production of unborn generations, which would ultimately paralyze them.

    I hold that these out of print items which are not currently being produced by anyone fall under "effortless possession" she mentions. They are only available in used form, therefore no one is being deprived of any potential income by my making them available.

    As I said before, if someone can make the case that I am wrong, my mind can certainly change.

    Keith

  8. (Link to Ebay item removed)

    (While the seller attempts to argue -- below -- that selling this article is moral, doing so appears to be illegal. Therefore, unless some facts about the legality are presented, I am removing the link itself. - softwareNerd)

  9. Why would anyone want to buy this? Her books are a better testament to her life, than a picture of a slab of stone.

    I cant speak for anyone else. But, the reason I like it is because it reminds me of her and has a serene setting that befits her.

    I already have all of her books so something like this is not an "instead of".

    Its just a reminder of who she was, who she loved and that she is gone, but her message lives on.

  10. I think it is funny that the Shipping and Handling charges are $17!!

    Its not inflated. Its very difficult to package a large glass object like this. And since it is oversized I believe that it will cost extra to ship. There is no intention to try and fleece someone with the shipping.

  11. Keith,

    Sorry to dissapoint your wife, but K2 was summited by the American-- Heidi Howkins-- in the year 2000, without oxygen.

    Like that matters; as with any mountain, the best thing about climbing is that when it comes down to it, it's just you and mountain.

    Mountineering, just like anything "extreme", is a means of celebrating life and being alive. Another way of experiencing the more pleasurable sensations available to man.

    The happiness from mountineering is of course partially from achievment. The climb itself, the spectacular views, and the danger itself relate to these experiences, and thus, are pleasurable in themselves.

    Here's a quote I like from Heidi speaking of her climb on K2. "....I thus climbed serenely, secure in the fact that whatever I achieved on this enchanted mountain, just setting foot on her slopes would be enough to make her part of my life forever."

    We have checked with every major climbing assoication and can find no evidence that your claims are true. Howkins has made attempts on K2 but has never summited.

    http://www.everestnews.com/sumk2.htm

  12. It was objectively proven and upheld many, many times in a court of law based on sworn testimony of her husband and other relatives that if she was in such a state that she DID want to die.

    Objectively proven? Because her husband said so? That does not "prove" anything. Especially since he never came forward with those supposed statements until years after her condition began. Please be careful how you use the word "objectively"

    Keith

  13. Cheers!  The ghost is dead!  My only thanks to the fucker is that when he came to Toronto he made some wonderful shirts, that today, 20 years later, I still wear because of the comfortability, to sleep in.  But "Stitches" the Canadian garment store has come out with the same type of shirt, though, very expensive: $20.00 for a simple "G.I. Joe" shirt. 

    He did nothing ... have you never connected Catholicism to Communism?

    Good Riddance.

    I just hope that the next pope dies in a year ... and the next pope ... and the next pope ... and the next pope ... on and on ... and on ... until Islam overcomes Catholicism ... and then we nuke them.

    Oh ... fantasy ... I must stop ... because fantasy is just ridiculous ... But I love N.G.

    And so, Catholicism means "shit" ... and I speak in quotation marks so as to not offend anyone.

    Long live the Pope ... Objectivism will obliterate the "fucker" (it is true that Rand may not use my words ... but we will share the same sentiment .... maybe --maybe not.

    Americo.

    Your sense of life does not appear very bright. I really wonder if this is the way you wish to portray yourself. Remember what Ayn Rand has taught us, and try to discover the root of these emotions you are having. You appear to have a very personal response to Catholcism, and to the pope in general which goes well beyond the Objectivist's stance on mysticism.

    Keith

    P.S. Ayn Rand didn't "approve" of homosexuals either.

  14. My wife is interested in becoming the only living woman to climb the mountain K2. In the history of the mountain only 6 women have reached the peak. 4 of them died on the way down and the other 2 died climbing other mountains afterwards.

    As you can see this a very risky and in my opinion foolish thing to attempt. What should I say to her to help talk her out of it?

    Is this goal a rational goal? Isnt the risk and the peril she puts our family in a rational basis to abandon this goal?

    She loves Ayn Rand so I was hoping you all could give me an Objectivist viewpoint.

    Thanks

    Keith

  15. I recall that the automaker, Bentley, maker of some of the largest and most luxurious yet powerful cars, rather than specifying or boasting of engine horsepower, simply listed horsepower as "adequate."

    I think Ayn Rand's IQ could be similarly described. Adequate, for creating a revolutionary and true philosophy and the best novels written. She had all the intelligence she required to accomplish her goals.

    That is like saying that the sun is an adequare source of light and needs no further study. I contend that Ayn Rands ideas and philosophy was so unique and revolutionary that in order to accomplish what she did (and in a second launguage at that) is indicitave of genius. I was hoping her IQ had been quantified because I believe she is to philosophy what Einstein was to physics and what Leonardo was to art.

  16. Why?

    Those tests are very subjective and are very prone to failure.  They ask general questions and expect it to represent the whole.  Well they don't because you don't have to know any specific information to be smart.  I am sure there where smart people back in the 1300's but they would fail horrible on these tests.

    As a side note, why do you care?  Does her brilliance need validation?

    Her brilliance speaks for itself. But, if genius can be quantified I would like to know what hers was. Since I am not familair with the subjectivness of IQ tests then perhaps it is irrelevent.

    But, my understanding of IQ is ones CAPACITY for intelligence. And hers seemed pretty immense. A person of another time could have also had a large capacity and mis-used it for some vocation such as translating the bible. But, their intelligence remains.

    Keith

  17. 100 years ago in a cold city in Tsarist Russia a miracle of randomness happened. A woman was born who would not wear the yoke of collectvism although everyone around here gladly embraced it. To say her life story is unlikely would be an understatement.

    At the age of 21, Ayn Rand set off to live in a country half way around the world. A country whose people and language where far different than those in Russia. But, it was a nation whos sense of life matched her own.

    She determined what she wanted to do with her life and she accomplished it. She did it on her own terms and she did it her way. And she meant every word.

    To become a best selling novelist writing in a language she didnt learn until she was in her 20's is not only indicitave of her genius, it is also vindication of her beautiful message.

    Man as hero. Individualism. Reason.

    I never met Ayn Rand. But, I know her well. She gave me a way to define the feelings I have always had, but never understood.

    Thank God for Ayn Rand. (using her definition of God)

    Keith P

  18. I have a question and I am sure it has a simple answer. So far I have not come across the answer in reading about Objectivism.

    If I am walking past a lake and a small child has fallen into the water and is screaming to me for help. If it poses a great risk to my own person to attempt to save him. Is this altruism? And is it wrong to to risk my own safety to help the child?

    What if the risk is 10% that I might die saving him?

    What if its 1%? When is it a sacrifice and self immolation?

    Keith

  19. What is the Objectivist viewpoint about requiring suspects to submit to mandatory DNA tests? Even when there is nothing but circumstantial evidence in the case?

    What about requiring everyone to register their DNA. Do the innocent have any reason to refuse?

    Does the governments role to protect the public allow an invasion of privacy?

    Keith

  20. As far as we know (perhaps a moderator can verify), this is entirely optional. It is a fact that you can edit your own post without this note being added (it's an option that you simply turn on or off) so I assume it's the same for moderators editing posts.

    If that is the case then that should be changed immediately! The administrator of the forum should make an editing tag mandatory if it isn't already.

  21. He is incomparable.

    Let me be the first to admit that we need him more than he needs us.

    What happened is that there has been a breach of security if you will. Someone was given a power over the content of this site who should not have been given such rights. Their actions were unwarranted and Mr. Speicher had every reason to assume that every one of his 2,500+ posts were at risk as well. That means that the integrity of countless hours of hard work had been jeopardized. Work, I might add, that constitutes the majority of the valuable content of this site all of it done voluntarily not for pay. Why would anyone tolerate such treatment?

    He had no reason to think any of his posts other than the three that have been altered were altered, because when a post is altered a notation is placed there showing it has been changed and by who.

    I think Mr. Speicher felt as though the moderator was trying to change his posts to appear as though Mr. Speicher was making those statements when in reality the moderator was trying to list the rule that was the basis for which he was deleting the post. This entirely the fault of the moderator.

    If Mr. Speicher had cared to investigate and demand an explantion instead of passing final judgement and sentencing himself to permanent exile....He would have seen that no one here approves of the way this was handled and he would probably be writing something thought provoking right now about homosexuality or abortion. :confused:

×
×
  • Create New...