Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

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

Rate this topic


progressiveman1

Recommended Posts

Because intellectual property is fundamentally different from, say, land property. It is an established fact, for instance, that it constitutes a violation of rights for copyrights and patents to last forever, but you can sure as hell own title to land or other physical property *forever*.

Simply stating that intellectual property and physical property are different does not constitute a logical case for assigning different kinds of rights to each. To do so you will have to show, for example, why a man who acquires Manhattan Island by wresting it from the wilderness and making it productive is entitled to that property in perpetuity, but Ayn Rand (or heirs) should not enjoy a claim of equal length on the rights to her books. Exactly why would it be “a violation of rights” for Rand’s copyright to last forever, but not a violation of rights for one family to keep ownership of Manhattan for hundreds of years?

I'm not claiming that reviewers "need" this or that, it was simply an example of one of the ways in which intellectual property differs from physical property.

Again, the fact that quotations give a review more punch is simply beside the point when we examine the legitimacy of fair use. If it was the creator’s brain and body alone that was responsible for a book, he is not morally obliged to share it with anyone else, including in the form of having 10, 20 or 50 of his words reproduced without his permission. I do not see any basis for thinking it is less morally reprehensible to trespass on intellectual property than tangible property. If I have no business walking up and sitting on your front porch while you’re away, I have no right to borrow your words without your permission either.

Financial harm is, in my understanding, the basic way of determining whether someone's intellectual property right has been infringed. It's easier with physical property because if someone wanders onto your property, you can SEE them standing there in your backyard.

As I’ve noted, not all trespass on physical property causes financial harm. Yet all land owners (at least in most “free” countries) retain the right to exclude others from entering their property – for any reason whatsoever. Now it is up to the defenders of “fair use” to explain why this should not also be the case with intellectual property. It is not enough to state, “Well, land and books are not the same.” What is the significance of this distinction in not assigning the same level of protection to IP and physical property?

It makes practical sense to me to have a cultural norm resembling a Fair Use law, but it probably shouldn't have to be a law. Much better for the easy-going producers to make it known that they don't mind you, say, parodying their movies or making music video clips or whatever. Then social pressure will do the job of getting the jackasses to do something similar, because every blogger and his mother will ridicule them for their idiot stand.

You could just as well say social pressure alone should be used to keep people from picnicking on my lawn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 114
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

By "product" I meant intellectual product. Now if Bennet Cerf at Random House helped Ayn Rand think up Atlas Shrugged, then part of the book's royalties should go to him. Otherwise, he merely gets a portion of the book's sales. Oh, and speaking of Random House, their excellent dictionary has "Intellectual ability; mind" as a definition for "brain."

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.

Then it is clear that you do not believe that creation confers upon the creator 1) complete ownership/control of the product, but rather 2) partial ownership/control, or 3) no ownership/control at all. If it’s partial ownership, you can debate until doomsday why quoting 100 words is fair use but 101 is infringement.

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. .

Then we should conclude that there is no such thing as “fair use,” i.e. no medium has the right to reproduce in written or electronic form any part of any author’s work without his permission. We cannot assume permission would be granted any more than we could assume Safeway won’t mind if we eat a few grapes and cookies without paying for them.

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.

Barbers don’t share haircuts, Ford doesn’t share automobiles, and most authors don’t share books. They sell them.

The exact quantity is not the point. The point is the concept.

If quantity is not the point I could publish a book entitled Why I Like Ayn Rand and put the entire text of Atlas Shrugged between its covers – and pay no royalty.

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.

Simply stating that intellectual property and physical property are different does not constitute a logical case for assigning different kinds of rights to each.

Nor was it an "Argument from Advertising. It was a statement that a form of free advertising is the result of such usage.

If the consent of the owner of the words used is not obtained, then the amount of advertising provided to the author has no bearing on the case. Similarly, you have the right to throw me off your property, even if I have come there to present you with a birthday gift.

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.

I do not believe Ayn Rand was immoral. At the same time, I do not believe that the fair use doctrine can easily be reconciled with a natural rights defense of IP.

And I have no plans to stop reading the words of people I do not entirely agree with. I can read you, DragonMaci, without condoning every word you write.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, and speaking of Random House, their excellent dictionary has "Intellectual ability; mind" as a definition for "brain."

They are wrong. The brain is not the mind, it is the part of the body that makes the mind possible.

Then it is clear that you do not believe that creation confers upon the creator 1) complete ownership/control of the product, but rather 2) partial ownership/control, or 3) no ownership/control at all.

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.

If it’s partial ownership, you can debate until doomsday why quoting 100 words is fair use but 101 is infringement.

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.

Then we should conclude that there is no such thing as “fair use,” i.e. no medium has the right to reproduce in written or electronic form any part of any author’s work without his permission. We cannot assume permission would be granted any more than we could assume Safeway won’t mind if we eat a few grapes and cookies without paying for them.

You are comparing apples and oranges again.

Barbers don’t share haircuts, Ford doesn’t share automobiles, and most authors don’t share books. They sell them.

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?

If quantity is not the point I could publish a book entitled Why I Like Ayn Rand and put the entire text of Atlas Shrugged between its covers – and pay no royalty.

Not and be consistent with my concept you can't.

Simply stating that intellectual property and physical property are different does not constitute a logical case for assigning different kinds of rights to each.

You cannot logically treat two different things as they if they are the same, which is exactly what you are proposing doing.

If the consent of the owner of the words used is not obtained, then the amount of advertising provided to the author has no bearing on the case. Similarly, you have the right to throw me off your property, even if I have come there to present you with a birthday gift.

Oranges and apples.

I do not believe Ayn Rand was immoral.

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.

And I have no plans to stop reading the words of people I do not entirely agree with. I can read you, DragonMaci, without condoning every word you write.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DragonMaci wrote:

They are wrong. The brain is not the mind, it is the part of the body that makes the mind possible.

If a significant portion of the English speaking world means “Intellectual ability; mind” when employing the word “brain,” then the Random House dictionary is not wrong to include that variant of the definition. Nor am I wrong to use “brain” in that sense.

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'm not a mind reader. If you believe in 1 ) complete ownership/control of intellectual property by its creator, 2 ) partial ownership/control, 3 ) no ownership/control at all, or something altogether different, then here is your opportunity to state it.

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.

Let’s take Francisco’s money speech from Atlas Shrugged. Suppose I quote 50 words of that speech in a review without the author's or her estate’s permission. There is no question that I am reproducing Rand’s words. No other writer has ever used that particular combination of vowels, consonants, spaces and punctuation. If my reproduction is morally legitimate, then we cannot say that an author is entitled to 100% control of her intellectual property, for clearly I have taken over a portion of her property and am doing with it as I please. Thus, fair use means either conditions 2 ) or 3 ), but certainly not 1 ).

You are comparing apples and oranges again.

It is incumbent on those who insist of different levels of protection for physical property and intellectual property to justify the distinction. I am waiting.

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?

The fundamental issue is whether publication of a book automatically implies permission by the author to reproduce portions of it without her permission. I can prove that it does not simply by submitting one example of implied permission not being present at time of publication: I once self-published a book on my family’s genealogy, and I certainly did not regard putting my words into printed form as a license for others to reproduce my sentences without my consent.

Not and be consistent with my concept you can't.

Good. Now that we know that reproducing 100% of Atlas Shrugged without the copyright owner’s permission is not morally permissible, the only question remaining is what portion less than 100% is legitimate. I.e., what portion of an author’s work does she not have the right to control?

You cannot logically treat two different things as they if they are the same, which is exactly what you are proposing doing.

We are not debating whether intellectual property and tangible property are different in form. I readily concede that. The question is why must there be a different, less stringent level of protection for IP?

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?

I know better than to post anti-Ayn Rand statements on this forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to hear more about that. Did you ask them to take it down? Also, why not join the class action? Is there a class action already in progress? If so, you might already be part of it - some class actions are mandatory.
Huh. It's hard to tell what happened, but they apparently just recently took the Kimatuumbi book down (or, they're just having a server glitch), so that probably counts as not having standing ;). I had only recently discovered their piracy and hadn't gotten around to bitching. I hadn't decided about the balance between my time versus The Principle (economic damage really could not be established, regrettably), and since my goal for that book was to have it published and distributed, I was undecided as to what the moral course of action would be for me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good. Now that we know that reproducing 100% of Atlas Shrugged without the copyright owner’s permission is not morally permissible, the only question remaining is what portion less than 100% is legitimate. I.e., what portion of an author’s work does she not have the right to control?

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.

We are not debating whether intellectual property and tangible property are different in form. I readily concede that. The question is why must there be a different, less stringent level of protection for IP?

I said a part of way when I said:

You cannot logically treat two different things as they if they are the same, which is exactly what you are proposing doing.

Using the same thoughts of rights protection is treating two different things as if they are the same.

I know better than to post anti-Ayn Rand statements on this forum.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(economic damage really could not be established, regrettably)

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.

Edited by DragonMaci
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand what your point is. Did I say I wasn't charging for it?

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.

Edited by DragonMaci
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I invite you to try.

I already did.

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

DragonMaci wrote:

1. I am not arguing that there is any of it she doesn't have the right to control.

Which means either that you have no opinion at all on the question or that you do not agree with the argument that an author does not rightfully control every instance of reproducing his work. Now if your position is neutral, you would have no basis at all to take a stance on the fair use doctrine. However, you have already made your position known. On Jul 8 2008, you wrote, “Whether it be advertising, helping spread the author's messages, etc, as long it is only a small extract it is not a breach of copyright - and I mean that in the moral sense not the legal sense. And this in no way detracts from the artist's rights.” Now all you have to do is explain how the principle that there are no reproductions of an author’s work that he “doesn't have the right to control” can coexist with reproductions of “small” extracts outside of his control.

2. I am not going to debate the amount that it is okay to use in reviews, etc.

You have already said “small” extracts are acceptable. But you have never stated why this is the case other than to say it is good advertising for the author. Yet why should unsought advertising justify trespass on an author's creation? And who gets to decide on the smallness, the author being quoted or the one doing the quoting? How can the law be objective if there is no clearly defined standard?

As I said the exact amount is beside my point.

To be consistent with the idea that a product belongs to its creator, any amount above zero would constitute a portion of an author’s work outside of his control and thus a violation of his rights.

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 certainly understand that the general concept of fair use (“small extracts”) contradicts the principle that a creator is entitled to 100% of his creation, which in the case of authors means 100% of all reproduction rights.

I said a part of way when I said:

QUOTE (DragonMaci @ Jul 9 2008, 06:17 PM) *

You cannot logically treat two different things as they if they are the same, which is exactly what you are proposing doing.

Using the same thoughts of rights protection is treating two different things as if they are the same.

There may be a valid reason to accord physical property a higher level of protection than intellectual property. However, so far you have provided no hint of what that reason may be.

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.

For reasons that should be obvious, I simply will not engage in any negative moral judgments about Ayn Rand on this forum.

I can say this: the points I’ve made in this thread would be valid whether or not Ayn Rand existed, whether or not I had ever formed an opinion about her. .

Edited by Unknown Idealist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Furthermore, I do not see how the *needs* of book and movie reviewers constitute a claim on the property of others.
Suppose Fred Phelps were to start advocating the execution of gays, Jews, Blacks and cripples. What method do you have to combat such dangerous ideas? With "Fair Use", it is allowed to criticise ideas by quoting them -- using their words against them. This is the fundamental reason why there is a "fair use" exception, so that people can talk about what others have said, and weigh those ideas to see if they are true or false.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have already said “small” extracts are acceptable.

"Small" is not a specific amount. It merely implies a general concept of the amount. It omits measurement like all concepts do.

But you have never stated why this is the case other than to say it is good advertising for the author.

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.

Yet why should unsought advertising justify trespass on an author's creation?

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.

And who gets to decide on the smallness, the author being quoted or the one doing the quoting? How can the law be objective if there is no clearly defined standard?

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.

There may be a valid reason to accord physical property a higher level of protection than intellectual property. However, so far you have provided no hint of what that reason may be.

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.

For reasons that should be obvious, I simply will not engage in any negative moral judgments about Ayn Rand on this forum.

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.

Suppose Fred Phelps were to start advocating the execution of gays, Jews, Blacks and cripples. What method do you have to combat such dangerous ideas? With "Fair Use", it is allowed to criticise ideas by quoting them -- using their words against them. This is the fundamental reason why there is a "fair use" exception, so that people can talk about what others have said, and weigh those ideas to see if they are true or false.

Good point and well said. You cannot criticize - or support - something unless you say what it is your are criticizing or supporting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Small" is not a specific amount. It merely implies a general concept of the amount. It omits measurement like all concepts do.

It is useless in objective law for it lends itself to wildly divergent interpretations. Prove, for example, that the entire text of John Galt’s speech in Atlas Shrugged is not a small part of the whole. If your concept “small” intentionally “omits measurement,” there is no logical way to determine whether anyone has committed a violation of the law.

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.

Now we know fair use cannot be defended on the grounds that it provides advertising for the quoted author. Now it appears fair use has no defense at all.

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.

You have already acknowledged that quoting Atlas Shrugged in its entirety without permission of the copyright owner would be a violation of intellectual property. Now if you wish to argue that a shorter quotation would not be trespass, then the burden falls on you to explain why the former is morally illegitimate but the latter is not. Otherwise you are simply making assertions, not arguments.

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.

Clearly you are not dealing with the concept because you have refused to confront the flaw I’ve shown in it. To state that “short” quotations are acceptable but “long” quotations are not is to have a standard that is for all practical purposes meaningless. It is the equivalent of legislating that people must be “nice” to one another.

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.

Good. Then please start debating why IP is afforded only a limited type of protection compared to tangible property’s permanent protection. And please start debating why quoting 20 words of Atlas is not a breach, but quoting entire chapters is.

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.

The answer to that may run afoul of the rules for posting on this forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then please start debating why IP is afforded only a limited type of protection compared to tangible property’s permanent protection.
This point was already discussed by Rand in CUI, also in numerous IP threads here. IP is in principle indestructable, in contrast to tangible property. Tangible property requires you to act to maintain the object, unlike IP.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Suppose Fred Phelps were to start advocating the execution of gays, Jews, Blacks and cripples. What method do you have to combat such dangerous ideas? With "Fair Use", it is allowed to criticise ideas by quoting them -- using their words against them. This is the fundamental reason why there is a "fair use" exception, so that people can talk about what others have said, and weigh those ideas to see if they are true or false.

First of all, the issue has nothing to do with the kind of ideas being expressed in copyright-protected writing. So it does not really matter whether Phelps is advocating the execution of gays or the repeal of the income tax. If fair use is legitimate, it would apply to quoters of bigots and rational men alike.

Secondly, the Argument from Need to Criticize is very much like the Argument from Need to Write Good Reviews, which has already been discussed in this thread. While it may be true that political criticism (like movie reviewing) is much improved by being about to break up long summaries with direct quotations, we must keep in mind that the needs of critics and readers do not constitute a demand on the property of others. Thus the right of a author to retain full control of all reproduction of his words must stand or fall on its own ethical merits. If a man’s mind, and his alone, has brought about the creation of a novel, why shouldn’t every reproduction of that book be his alone to control? His rights should not be limited by the needs of his critics, any more than the price of milk should be limited by the number of starving children in the country.

Finally, your comment does not address the most serious flaw in fair use, which even the U.S. Copyright Office publicly acknowledges: that the line between fair use and infringement is extremely murky. Fair use is yet another example of vague and arbitrary law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is useless in objective law for it lends itself to wildly divergent interpretations.

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.

If your concept “small” intentionally “omits measurement,” there is no logical way to determine whether anyone has committed a violation of the law.

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.

Edited by DragonMaci
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The answer to that may run afoul of the rules for posting on this forum.

Nonsense. That is either an attempt at evasion or is rather silly. Discussing why you think Rand was NOT being immoral does not breach forum rules, nor does saying why you think people that quote from books, articles, etc are immoral.

Addition 1: I see you are still trying to rope me into addressing particular measurements despite me constantly saying I refuse to do so. What part of me refusing to do so do you not understand? I mean it. I won't debate measurements. Concepts omit measurement and I want to discuss the concept so measurements are beside my point. As i said earlier I refuse to get sidetracked from my point.

Addition 2: Not to mention that you have misconstrued David as well now.

Edited by DragonMaci
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, the issue has nothing to do with the kind of ideas being expressed in copyright-protected writing. So it does not really matter whether Phelps is advocating the execution of gays or the repeal of the income tax. If fair use is legitimate, it would apply to quoters of bigots and rational men alike.
That is correct: it doesn't matter what the intrinsic content of the ideas is. The need to criticise ideas is why the law (rightly) has a "fair use" exception.
Secondly, the Argument from Need to Criticize is very much like the Argument from Need to Write Good Reviews, which has already been discussed in this thread.
Not really. That was not my argument.
Thus the right of a author to retain full control of all reproduction of his words must stand or fall on its own ethical merits.
And it falls: full control fails the ethical merit tests.
Finally, your comment does not address the most serious flaw in fair use, which even the U.S. Copyright Office publicly acknowledges: that the line between fair use and infringement is extremely murky. Fair use is yet another example of vague and arbitrary law.
True, but I feel that I've spilled enough ink on that topic here that I don't need to add yet another rant on the problems of subjective law. The problem of "fair use" is one of implementation, not principle. It's the same problem as exists in distinguishing various species of assault, or even the concept of "copyright infringement", for example (I refer you to the arcane subjective art of divining "substantial similarity").
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

First of all, it is valid and often necessary to use measurements in concepts. For example, “cup,” “pound,” “mile” and “hour” are all concepts that depend on amounts of something. It is perfect nonsense to say that the conceptualization of an hour must omit the number of minutes in it.

Secondly, whether or not my knowledge of concepts is consistent with yours or ITOE’s, it does not change the fact that it is tyrannical to enact a law that forbids certain behavior without precisely defining that behavior: it makes citizens helpless against the whims of government officials. Unless "fair use" specifies amounts or degrees, objective interpretation and thus rational copyright law are impossible. One man could quote dozens of pages of Atlas Shrugged and go unimpeded; another man could quote a single sentence and be made to pay a huge penalty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This point was already discussed by Rand in CUI, also in numerous IP threads here. IP is in principle indestructable, in contrast to tangible property. Tangible property requires you to act to maintain the object, unlike IP.

To begin with, the supposed indestructibility of IP lies somewhat in doubt. In addition to many great ancient works, such 19th century writings as the Memoirs of Lord Byron and The Scented Garden by Sir Richard Francis Burton were burnt by the authors’ executors.

And some intellectual property is lost in the sense of falling out of exclusive control of the original owners. For example “aspirin” and “heroin” were both trademarks of Bayer until an international tribunal forced the divestiture of those names.

To avoid a similar fate, Xerox® regularly responds to publications that use the verb form of “xerox” and has run large print advertisements reminding the public that you cannot 'xerox' a document, but you can copy it on a Xerox® machine.

Thus we see that owners of IP are indeed required “to act to maintain the object.” At one point the law firm representing the Margaret Mitchell estate had a full time staff devoted to tracking down unauthorized use of the author’s place and character names from Gone with the Wind.

Similarly, one of the clearing houses for song rights, ASCAP, employs monitors in dozens of field offices to scan newspapers and other media to see what songs or musicals are being performed in the U.S. and to determine whether these performances are authorized. Could there be a more dramatic example of acting “to maintain the object”?

In any event, it has not been demonstrated why something that is indestructible should belong to the public at some point, while things that are destructible shouldn’t. It needs to be explained, for example, why the heirs of Rodgers and Hammerstein must be cut off some time later in this century, while the House of Windsor gets to keep Balmoral Castle in Aberdeenshire long into the mists of the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In any event, it has not been demonstrated why something that is indestructible should belong to the public at some point, while things that are destructible shouldn’t.
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).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, it is valid and often necessary to use measurements in concepts.

Wrong. read ITOE for a good answer to why that is not so. I don't feel like covering a topic Rand has already covered better than I possibly could.

Secondly, whether or not my knowledge of concepts is consistent with yours or ITOE’s, it does not change the fact that it is tyrannical to enact a law that forbids certain behavior without precisely defining that behavior: it makes citizens helpless against the whims of government officials. Unless "fair use" specifies amounts or degrees, objective interpretation and thus rational copyright law are impossible. One man could quote dozens of pages of Atlas Shrugged and go unimpeded; another man could quote a single sentence and be made to pay a huge penalty.

Again you blatantly ignore me saying I am trying to deal with the concept and not the law. The law is the implementation of the concept. Before the implementation of a concept can be dealt with one must first deal with the concept. That is what I have been trying to do and been trying to say. But you keep willfully evading those comments. Until you stop doing that I am not even going to debate the concept. I do not debate with those that willfully evade my comments.

Addition: ITOE will also point out the error in this comment:

For example, “cup,” “pound,” “mile” and “hour” are all concepts that depend on amounts of something. It is perfect nonsense to say that the conceptualization of an hour must omit the number of minutes in it.
Edited by DragonMaci
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is correct: it doesn't matter what the intrinsic content of the ideas is. The need to criticise ideas is why the law (rightly) has a "fair use" exception.

Non sequitur. No argument has been presented as to why this “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. If intellectual property is originally assigned on the basis of who creates it, we must have some rationale for diverting a portion of that creation (“fair use” reproduction) to a non-creator. Otherwise, “need” could legitimately be seen as the basis for all kinds of ownership. For example, hunger could represent a rightful claim on the “fair use” of a baker’s loaves.

And it falls: full control fails the ethical merit tests.

An admirably forthright statement but one without any supporting argument.

True, but I feel that I've spilled enough ink on that topic here that I don't need to add yet another rant on the problems of subjective law. The problem of "fair use" is one of implementation, not principle.

Fine. Then precisely what is the objective and unambiguous principle in “fair use”? What clear-cut rule should every writer keep in mind in order to avoid quoting too much from, say, Atlas Shrugged?

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...