Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Should I read OPAR first?

Rate this topic


Cogito

Recommended Posts

As a registered member of ARI, I just got an email about the availability of Dr. Peikoff's DIM lectures for free. Early on in the first lecture, he states that OPAR is presupposed in the lecture. While OPAR is on my list of books to read, I do feel I have a strong sense of the principles of Objectivism. Should I hold off on the lecture?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No reason to hold off, particularly since it isn't clear how long it will be available. When Dr. Peikoff says that OPAR etc. are pre-requisites, I think he means that without an understanding of an agreement with Objectivism, the course might raise questions.

Take this illustration: the thesis of the course is that there are three approaches that are typically used across a variety of subjects. Now, suppose the course says, for instance, "ABC is an example of a Disintegrated approach, XYZ is an example of an Misintegrated approach, and OBJ is an example of an integrated approach." If one is still not convinced that ABC or XYZ are incorrect, not being fully versed with the more detailed Objectivist position on the topic, you might wonder why the treatment in this (DIM) course is sketchy.

However, if you have a basic understanding and agreement with Objectivism, I think you'll get your worth from the course, and it will actually make OPAR easier to grasp when you get to that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Peikoff starts up by saying that several works are "assumed reading" including OPAR, so if you feel you don't understand Objectivism approrpriately, then I would suggest holding off.

Suggest that you record the DIM course for future listening. That is what I did. THere is a nice little utility called WM Recorder 11, that will record streaming media directly to native format. Can do multiple streams simultaneously without playing them. I recorded the whole course in one night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Suggest that you record the DIM course for future listening. That is what I did. THere is a nice little utility called WM Recorder 11, that will record streaming media directly to native format. Can do multiple streams simultaneously without playing them. I recorded the whole course in one night."

Recorded from WHERE? I thought aynrand.org specifically prohibits this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh, yeah, that would kind of be a violation of the terms of use and US copyright law.

hmmm. I thought copyright was specifically addressing commercial sale of products and that copies for personal use were acceptable. I'll have to check into that. That will be a bummer as I doubt I'll be able to listen to the course while it's available.

Kendall -

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll have to check into that. That will be a bummer as I doubt I'll be able to listen to the course while it's available.
In this particular case, it is not copyright that comes into place, but the terms that the recording comes under. I think it is stated right under the video link that recording is prohibited.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In this particular case, it is not copyright that comes into place, but the terms that the recording comes under. I think it is stated right under the video link that recording is prohibited.

ARI doesn't even let you record internet courses you purchase from their bookstore. :ninja:

In your defense, the usual copyright line is NOT present directly underneath this particular course (but is still at the way bottom of the page), and I sincerely doubt you intended to violate terms of use. (for whatever its worth)

Personally, I just assume terms of use / copyright is in effect unless I find out otherwise.

Regarding the lecture's availability, they usually leave it up for about a month. Hopefully that will be sufficient time for you to listen to the course. If not, you can always wait for the book.

Edited by Nate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

hmmm. I thought copyright was specifically addressing commercial sale of products and that copies for personal use were acceptable.
That's a widespread misunderstanding partially encouraged by the decrepit state of the law. The law simply says that the copyright owner (and not somebody else) has the right to permit copying. (See 17 USC 106) The main loophole is "fair use" (17 USC 107), but this would not be "fair use". Profit becomes relevant in the doctrine that that the "effect of the use upon the potential market" is a valid consideration. But notice that there are no "rules" in this section, so there are these "considerations" but no hard guidelines. For instance, wholesale copying of a 22 hour course would be quite "substantial", but the law does not say "if any of these conditions is true then you are guilty". The effect on the potential market is probably small, namely it decreases sales by $315 (assuming that you don't then go distributing your copy which I am positive you wouldn't).

BTW what you were probably thinking (like I know, eh?) is entirely reasonable, especially given the utter myth out there that copyright laws only refer to for-profit copying. In my opinion, the only way to know better is to actively study copyright law (which I've had to do), and at best it is a slippery morass. So my only purpose here is to simply spread the word.

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...