Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Ayn Rand Interviews On Dvd

Rate this topic


KeithP
 Share

Recommended Posts

(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)

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not a chance in heck that those are even marginally legal copies. That is unless that somehow the interviews have fallen into the public domain by now which I doubt. Keith, this is the second auction by likes2buyit you've mentioned. So did you save him as one of your favorite sellers or what? :pirate:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not a chance in heck that those are even marginally legal copies. That is unless that somehow the interviews have fallen into the public domain by now which I doubt. Keith, this is the second auction by likes2buyit you've mentioned. So did you save him as one of your favorite sellers or what? :D

Being that Likes2buycopyandsellit recently purchased some of those VHS videos

from me on eBay, I think you're on to something. :pirate:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being that Likes2buycopyandsellit recently purchased some of those VHS videos

from me on eBay, I think you're on to something.  :pirate:

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

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Yeah, I've seen legal sources for some of these interviews, which are individually about the same price as his illegal compilation. I don't do ebay, but is there a way to turn this guy in? (I've got the email address of the founder's mom, but I'm not gonna do anything that extreme). He also seems to be selling another DVD of "The God Who wasn't there", which it isn't clear that he legally owns (it's possible he does, but he doesn't provide enough evidence that he is selling the copy legally).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Instead of using generalizations please tell my how my conclusion is wrong.
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An addendum: legal copies of the interviews are still being sold. Yes, yours is about 6 times cheaper -- if I were dishonest, I'd buy those DVDs from you rather than paying full price. I don't understand how you think that ownership comes from the manufacturing process. The interviews are readily available. What give you the right to steal? The fact that it's not presently on DVD?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I've seen legal sources for some of these interviews, which are individually about the same price as his illegal compilation. I don't do ebay, but is there a way to turn this guy in? (I've got the email address of the founder's mom, but I'm not gonna do anything that extreme). He also seems to be selling another DVD of "The God Who wasn't there", which it isn't clear that he legally owns (it's possible he does, but he doesn't provide enough evidence that he is selling the copy legally).

I had already reported this auction --and others-- through the proper channel on eBay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now this has become a simple academic excercize.
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

to be fair, here is what I was accused of taking out of context

"Seller is a fraud. Stated vehicle "runs great" but it needed a new transmission" "It had no problems that I was aware of. It ran just fine when I drove it last."

Having been a professional mechanic and used car salesman for years is one of the reasons I mentioned it in passing judgement. Sorry, but I have honestly never seen a transmission just go out without giving any indications. Either that or maybe you had no idea the sounds coming from the transmission and the way it was behaving before it died were indications it was having problems. But again, your car may have been unique in that it gave absolutely no indications of any problems whatsoever before you sold it on Ebay. I will give you that an withdraw my moral judgement.

Also, I may have been quick to pass moral judgement on you the way posted the links to your Ebay auctions. You did not post them with any indication that you yourself were the seller. Quite the contrary. You seemed to be trying to doing the opposite. It wasn't until you got called on it that you acknowledged "ownership" of the auctions.

edit for clarity

Edited by scottkursk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would you infer that I am not interested in her philosophy any further?
Because you said this has become a simple academic exercise. That's not the kind of wording a person would use if this very important philosophical issue, of mans rights and the nature of property, were something you valued.
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.
Well, it's very black and white, but I agree it's not "going anywhere" if you mean by that, going where you'd like it to go. I know that you cannot find any justification in the writings of Ayn Rand that excuses your actions. Your best bet would be to argue that Rand never believed that intellectual property can be property, that it can't be owned -- but you now know that that is not true. Once you grant that IP is property, then I just can't see how you have anywhere to go except to say "Well, hell. I wish I had thought of that".
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.

That is negotiable. My authors retain their rights and I license their works (for 10 to 20 years). But you have an obligation to determine whose property you are appropriating, and determine whether you have persmission to copy. Your guess as to who the copyright owner is does not replace the obligation to actually get the answer to the question. Most likely, Rand carefully negotiated the rights to these interviews in the first place.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will give you that an withdraw my moral judgement. 

To be honest, I hope I didn't violate forum rules about sarcasm, because it is pretty darn rife with it. But then I think Bryan's post has a whee bit of a tinge of sarcasm on the edges of the lace doyley under the tea cups or our posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

As expected, the item is back for bid on eBay.

Any eBay member can report item 6416833454 as an unauthorized copy.

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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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