DragonMaci

Since you are continually ignoring me saying I am trying to deal with a concept the debate is over. I don't debate with people that ignore things I say. Addition 1: let me add that the below quote shows you do not understand concepts and you should read ITOE. It is not just my concepts but all concepts that omit measurement. Addition 2: The rest of your post also misconstrues many of my points, something you have been constantly doing and I have been constantly trying to make clear to you. But I have had enough of trying to do that.

"Small" is not a specific amount. It merely implies a general concept of the amount. It omits measurement like all concepts do. 1. I have said why. If you choose to ignore it that is your problem. 2. I never said the advertsing thing is why, just that it is a result, as I have already pointed out. Please try to actually take that to mind this time. Read above to see that it was not meant to justify such. But more importantly, the debate isn't about what justifies trespass but rather whether or not it is trespass. I am not addressing that. This is at least the third time I have said that. I am trying to deal with the concept not the implementation of the concept. COncepts involve measurement emission therefore the measurements must be left out of a discussion of a concept. That is because I am not trying to debate the level of protection but rather the type of protection and whether or not the author's rights are breached by quotes. You totally missed my point again. I was not asking you to do so. I was asking you to explain why you different standards apply to the two cases, why you think she is not being immoral (which is the exact opposite of a negative moral judgment) yet the reviewer is (that is the one the negative judgment is on, NOT Rand. Why the two sets of standards? Why the double standards? Why the contradiction? I want an answer to that, not for you to get involved in a negative judgment of Rand. Good point and well said. You cannot criticize - or support - something unless you say what it is your are criticizing or supporting.

I just checked. CodeBlocks is not available through the package manager, so unless someone knows a package repository with it that I can add to my package manager I won't be able to try it.

It is largely possible because Gates won the first round. He helped largely to make computers so affordable. My current PC is magnitudes more powerful than the one my grandfather had when he was alive yet it was equally less in price. Also, a lot software runs on WIndows, even only Windows in some cases, making them reliant on the propriety software known as Windows to stay such; Windows wouldn't do so well if it was not profit creating.

I already did.

I already said I want to compile just one at a time, not a few. My friend told me how to do that. I am using a GUI; I don't like using terminals unless I have to. My version of Linux comes with Qt for that. However, I am trying top learn C and am starting from the basics, so I am making console apps, not apps with an GUI. Addition: Also, unless it is available through I package manager the installation of CodeBlocks won't work; installation through other means won't work for some reason.

I highly doubt many employers would do that since they don't have your principles. However, either are doing or will do something similar, but most for monetary reasons rather than on principle. They already have in an indirect sense. In the last three years the minimum wage went from $10.20 to $12 April 1 this year. They have not done it in the sense you mean though.

My point was that I don't see how you cannot prove it unless you weren't charging for thew book because it is easy to prove if you were and people were reading it on Google. Addition: My point was also to point out how it is easy to prove.

I love this statement: And this one:

Some tried it. Not many, but a few. But the government says they broke the law. Sadly, that is true - the government foresaw such happening and made it illegal under KiwiSaver law.

I don't see how that could be unless you weren't charging for it. If you are charging for it then economic damage was caused: loss of revenue resulting from people reading it for free on Google. If you were charging for it you can prove that very easily. And that people were reading it on Google is easy to prove. The tracking records Google keeps would do that. And since all people reading your book on Google are guilty then all such records handed over would be the records of the guilty, meaning my arguments the Viacom case does not apply. Edit: improved wording.

1. I am not arguing that there is any of it she doesn't have the right to control. 2. I am not going to debate the amount that it is okay to use in reviews, etc. As I said the exact amount is beside my point. I refuse to get sidetracked from my point. 3. You have to understand the general concept before you cannot discuss the measurement of that concept in any given case. I said a part of way when I said: Using the same thoughts of rights protection is treating two different things as if they are the same. That is beside the point and as such does not answer the question. The question is why was it not immoral for Rand to quote the content in opposition of the author but it is for a reviewer to quote it an attempt to get more people to read it or a website to quote to help spread the message of the artist? My point was also to point out that you are holding each to different standards despite the situation being fundamentally the same and different in only details and that to do so in contradictory. You should apply the same standards, not two sets. That is called having double standards.

I have not for two reasons. 1. I will not use a voluntary scheme where my employer is forced to contribute like that. 2. You aren't allowed to access until you are 65 or 5 years after you sign up, whichever comes last. Since I am going to move overseas sometime in the next few years that means I will never get access to the money. On the ethics of it Rand once said that it is moral to accept things like grants, but only if you oppose the system. She said it is getting back some of the money they stole off you - a small fraction of it. However, in this case there is also the theft from your employers to consider. Okay, they get the contribution as a tax deduction, but it is still theft. So, I'd say it is immoral to use KiwiSaver. They are also turning your employer, banks, and the financial institutions (the latter two are the ones that provide the KiwiSaver services) into fascists saving schemes and fascist welfare re-distributors - unless the employer has no employees with KiwiSaver and the bank/financial institution has no KiwiSaver services.

I thought you might do so. I am not sure what social security is like in the USA, but here it is set to about 65% of the average wage, rising to 66% soon. I am not sure of the exact figures, but they are close to that. And now we have KiwiSaver to add to that.

This is not an alternative to social security. We have social security as well, so that problem also exists here. But now we also have KiwiSaver, which will make the enforced inter-generational slavery worse than it already was, possibly worse than in the USA. Given what I just said are you so sure about that?

They are wrong. The brain is not the mind, it is the part of the body that makes the mind possible. Wrong. Do you seriously think I believe in neither of those? Because the only alternative to those 3 is for me to believe in nothing in regards to such ownership. Do you seriously think I believe in nothing in regards to such ownership? Because your wording implies you think that. I don't believe he gets only partial ownership and I have made it clear I do not care to debate the amount because it is about the concept not the amount. You are comparing apples and oranges again. Selling is a form of sharing. Not sharing would be keeping it to oneself. And there are free books published online and via other means. What is that if not sharing? Not and be consistent with my concept you can't. You cannot logically treat two different things as they if they are the same, which is exactly what you are proposing doing. Oranges and apples. Why was Rand not being immoral but a reviewer is? Why was Rand not being immoral but a website that quotes the Wizard's Rules without explicit permission is? To say one is not immoral but the others are is contradictory, it is applying two different sets of standards to the same sort of situation. I am not talking about you disagreeing with people words, but you reading something that you think breaches the rights of others - and thus supporting the breach - and gaining from the breach - thus being pragmatic.

That is a compliment for KiwiSaver, but accurate nonetheless.

For those that want to know here is a page explaining KiwiSaver: http://www.kiwisaver.govt.nz/benefits/benefits/

Wrong. It is also the publisher's/record company's mind (I emphasis that because the brain is a part of the body and the word you are looking for is mind not brain) and body as well, therefore he is obliged to share the profits of the creation with them. However, I was not discussing profits, so that is beside the point. I am not saying certain sentences are exceptions. I am saying that using small extracts (any extract) in no way violates his intellectual property rights. Well, if she done that then yes. But almost no author/musician/etc does that. They know allowing reviewers, websites, etc to include small extracts helps them. So, there is no breach of rights in most cases of small extracts being used. Usually, but not always - sometimes a story, picture, song, etc is placed online or elsewhere for free - but that is beside the point. The point is they do share and that doing so is a part of the point. You don't need to write a story down or record a song if you don't intend to share it. You certainly don't go to the point of publishing them or recording them unless you want to share it. The exact quantity is not the point. The point is the concept. Nonsense. As has already been stated, intellectual property and physical property and fundamentally different and thus so are the rights involved. You cannot compare the two. You are trying to compare apples and oranges. Nor was it an "Argument from Advertising. It was a statement that a form of free advertising is the result of such usage. Finally, let me ask you a question. In her non-fiction books Ayn Rand used quotes from articles, essays, books, etc a lot. Sometimes she was arguing the same point as the person she quoted from, but usually she was arguing against them. Do you think she was being immoral and breaching their copyrights? If so you should stop reading her non-fiction books because to do so would be to condone her doing so and would be pragmatic.

This is truly horrific: http://www.cis.org.au/executive_highlights...08/eh60508.html. Not only is the government forcing employers to contribute to the savings of their employees and redistributing stolen money*, but they will soon be spending more on KiwiSaver than the Defence Force! * This quote explains how they do so: It is a shame the author of the article fails to realise the evil of this scheme., as illustrated by this comment: There are a lot of people like myself that won't sign up on principle. I refuse to have savings at the expense of my fellow taxpayers and my employer. I don't want unearned money. I would rather save my money without any force involved. I would rather use a truly private scheme, not this fascist scheme. I am not the only one. Furthermore, he focuses on the pragmatic side of it instead of the moral side. But my main complaint is not with his article, but rather with the fact the government will soon spend more money on this fascist pile of excrement than our Defence Force. Does any one know of anything like this happening elsewhere? Or is NZ the only nation with the government spending more on subsidising savings than on its Defence Force?

What is the point of saying that? To annoy me? To get me emotional? Since I assume those your not your point I can see no point in saying that comment. The comments that is a reply to were my own opinion not an attempt to interpret yours. I don't care what they claim. That has nothing to do with my point. You may be right there. I don't know. You probably know more about Fair Use law than I do. More evidence of the corrupt nature of the laws as it stands today.

The sites contains no such encouragement - quite the reverse - so that much of their claim is rubbish. The other part is most likely equally as much rubbish. Earlier posts in this thread, including the original, implied otherwise. I doubt they knew any such thing partially because I doubt there is more illegal use than legal. I strongly suspect most YouTube videos are homemade. I am not sure. I have to ask the question, what about the innocent users don't want Viacom knowing about their actions? But my main complaint is that I think a huge injustice has been to Google.

If they do that then, yes, but I was clearly talking about this case hence "in this case".

My arguments is that the court should require Google to do what Viacom argues they could of done and then hand over just the records of the guilty rather requiring Google hand over all records. Actually, the court shouldn't require Google to hand over anything in this case since Google are not to blame for the actions of their users.

Please don't make stupid comments like that. It isn't like I was trying to misinterpret you. If I did so it was obviously an accident. Now, I assume you didn't really mean I done it on purpose, in which case your wording was asanine. I will not take back anything I said though since defending you was an aside and the main point was to point out the errors in his posts. My main points, ie, the ones about his errors, stand.