Cogito Posted January 28, 2007 Report Share Posted January 28, 2007 That wouldn't be enforceable. If you had such a contract with the buyer and could prove that he copied from that licensed copy in breach of contract, you would have grounds for a suit, but not otherwise. Why should the assumption be that allowing 'fair use' is the desired situation? Shouldn't it be the opposite? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted January 29, 2007 Report Share Posted January 29, 2007 Why should the assumption be that allowing 'fair use' is the desired situation? Shouldn't it be the opposite?I despise the terminology, but the main concept underlying the except is entirely valid. Without the limited-quote for discussion exception, this forum could not exist (or would be as silly as HPO); you could never teach Objectivism in a class. It would contradict the nature of publishing, and we know that contradictions are anathems. Remember that publishing is optional, so you retain the option of absolute control (I don't know if one could successfully argue that copying unpublished material is ipso facto outside the purpose clause of the law). Where the doctrine has run away is that people think it also means that you can make any number of copies for personal use or "sharing", or that if it's for educational purposes, it's okay to wholesale steal entire works on a repeated basis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cogito Posted January 29, 2007 Report Share Posted January 29, 2007 Remember that publishing is optional, so you retain the option of absolute control (I don't know if one could successfully argue that copying unpublished material is ipso facto outside the purpose clause of the law). If I write a book and wish to sell it under the condition that it can be read but that the idea of fair use does not apply, how would I go about doing that? By your definition, I would not want to publish my book, so what would I want to do with it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted January 29, 2007 Report Share Posted January 29, 2007 If I write a book and wish to sell it under the condition that it can be read but that the idea of fair use does not apply, how would I go about doing that? By your definition, I would not want to publish my book, so what would I want to do with it?What you need to do is be sure that it's physically impossible to see the content without being bound by a contract of non-disclosure. Then if a person were to copy any amount of the book, they would be in breach of the contract. Obviously, you'd need to get a good attorney to write it. However, that contract would only be between you ( A ) and the individual that you sold it to ( B ). That means you have no recourse against a third party ( C ), who has no contractual relationship with you. You cannot sue B if C violates your terms (which only bind B ). Copyright law bridges that gap, saying that you can even sue C for certain kinds of copying. If you could prove that B gave the copy to C, then you might have a remedy, but that could be incredibly hard to do. It could be doable if the object were necessarily digital by having an ID code that allows you to trace the original buyer, but not a book (of words), because a book might be copied by re-typing the contents. However, if you provably sold only 1 copy, you could argue that that one person was the contract-breaker. If you sell 2 copies, you can't prove that there's any better than a 50% chance that the respondent is the guilty party. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cogito Posted January 31, 2007 Report Share Posted January 31, 2007 Copyright law bridges that gap, saying that you can even sue C for certain kinds of copying. Why couldn't the default of copyright law be "no fair use" and then have those who want fair use applied say so in their copyright statement? Or why couldn't copyright law have a provision where you can apply for a "strict" copyright or something? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted January 31, 2007 Report Share Posted January 31, 2007 Why couldn't the default of copyright law be "no fair use" and then have those who want fair use applied say so in their copyright statement? Or why couldn't copyright law have a provision where you can apply for a "strict" copyright or something?Law can pretty much be written any way one wants, as long as they don't require the metaphysically impossible to be enforced or obeyed. There is no such thing as a "copyright statement" under the law, but there is a "patent declaration"; and therefore the law could be changed to require an official filing and statement of claim for copyright. That could include various levels of public license, which give permission to do things with the work protected. All the law needs to do is state the most severe restrictions that are universally imposed on all people, and the owner can chose whatever means he wishes to promulgate exceptions by permission. So that would be possible. The basic restriction then would have to be that one man's works cannot be copied, quoted or even read except by permission of the copyright owner. This would generally be deadly for a book-writer, since nobody would have automatic permission to read a book. But some system of public permissions could be worked out. I see one danger in such a "permission required" system. Many people have evil ideas which they promote, and one of the things that limits their ability to infect the world is that good men can argue against evil. The "no fair use" law means that an evil person could give permission to quote his works only if they are presented positively, and never if they are presented critically. That would make it very hard to argue against the evil ideas, because you would not have permission to say what the evil ideas are and why they are evil -- whereas, legions of evil-promoters would have license to praise these evil ideas. Now you might think that you could still argue against the evil person as long as you don't actually say any of what he said, and just restate your interpretation of the evil idea, but that probably would never be effective, since there is the simple retort "But that isn't what Marx said" can't be refuted. Throwing an evil man's words back in his face is a very effective way of combatting evil ideas, which would be illegal under a no fair use law. So I'd say that it would be possible, but ill-advised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Posted February 5, 2007 Report Share Posted February 5, 2007 A little off topic, but did anyone else notice the extreme, constant, eye shifting by Ayn Rand? She almost looked nervous. What was up with that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bold Standard Posted February 5, 2007 Report Share Posted February 5, 2007 A little off topic, but did anyone else notice the extreme, constant, eye shifting by Ayn Rand? She almost looked nervous. What was up with that? This alleged eye shifting was mentioned in posts #23, 24, and (my response in) 33. But I didn't notice anything unusual about her eye movements. Everyone's eyes move when they're thinking about something difficult on the spot like that--not only that, but it's not constant at all. There many extended periods where her eyes are locked right on Mike Wallaces eyes. I think maybe, since her eyes are large and dark, people notice it more when she moves them, than they would with a normal person? I do think it's possible that she was nervous though, since she so rarely gave interviews. But I didn't notice her as being unusually nervous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Posted February 7, 2007 Report Share Posted February 7, 2007 This alleged eye shifting was mentioned in posts #23, 24, and (my response in) 33. But I didn't notice anything unusual about her eye movements. Everyone's eyes move when they're thinking about something difficult on the spot like that--not only that, but it's not constant at all. There many extended periods where her eyes are locked right on Mike Wallaces eyes. I think maybe, since her eyes are large and dark, people notice it more when she moves them, than they would with a normal person? I do think it's possible that she was nervous though, since she so rarely gave interviews. But I didn't notice her as being unusually nervous. I think was without a doubt unusual, especially at certain times. It's true that there are certain eye movements people make during certain mental activities, but this case is beyond anything I've ever seen. Even taking into account the big eyes. And true, there are times when she locks eyes, but there are also some times where the opposite is true. I'll watch them again sometime soon, and provide the times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aequalsa Posted February 7, 2007 Report Share Posted February 7, 2007 I think was without a doubt unusual, especially at certain times. It's true that there are certain eye movements people make during certain mental activities, but this case is beyond anything I've ever seen. Even taking into account the big eyes. And true, there are times when she locks eyes, but there are also some times where the opposite is true. I'll watch them again sometime soon, and provide the times. For what it's worth, nuerolinguistic programming claims that looking down and to the left is evidence of someone accessing their feelings. If true, being well integrated might make it necessary to access broad abstractions in the form of an emotion causing a similiar effect. Just a guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 For what it's worth, nuerolinguistic programming claims that looking down and to the left is evidence of someone accessing their feelings. If true, being well integrated might make it necessary to access broad abstractions in the form of an emotion causing a similiar effect. Just a guess. Oh, interesting. Maybe that's it then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaseballGenius Posted March 27, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 27, 2007 How is watching this video or similar posted videos on the internet against my rational self-interest? What harm does it bring to me by watching it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted March 27, 2007 Report Share Posted March 27, 2007 How is watching this video or similar posted videos on the internet against my rational self-interest? What harm does it bring to me by watching it?Two questions to you: Do you think it is in your interest to that copyrights are protected? Secondly, if you saw $1 on someone else's desk, would you pick it up if you could not be detected? If not, why not? Would it change if it was a packet with $1 million. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaseballGenius Posted March 28, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 28, 2007 [*]Do you think it is in your interest to that copyrights are protected? Yes. Specifically on YouTube(since thats our topic), I think it should be illegal to post material without the proper permission, and that it should be punishable under law. But as you described earlier, it isnt necessarily punishable. All the copyrighted-owner of the material can do is tell them to take it down after its already there, and only if they dont respect their wishes can they press charges. And since that is the current system, how does it effect me negatively if I watch these impermissable videos? If I dont watch them, others are still free to put my material(if I had some) on the internet without my permission and I wouldnt necessarily be able to take them to court. So what do I have to lose when watching these videos under the current system of law? [*]Secondly, if you saw $1 on someone else's desk, would you pick it up if you could not be detected? If not, why not? Would it change if it was a packet with $1 million. No, because I could get possibly get punished for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KendallJ Posted March 28, 2007 Report Share Posted March 28, 2007 And since that is the current system, how does it effect me negatively if I watch these impermissable videos? Aren't you in effect creating the demand that causes people to fill that demand with supply? No, because I could get possibly get punished for that. Is that the only reason you wouldn't do it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaseballGenius Posted March 28, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 28, 2007 Aren't you in effect creating the demand that causes people to fill that demand with supply? There would still be plenty of demand even if I stopped watching them. So if I stopped, the exact same thing would continue happening. Is that the only reason you wouldn't do it? Also, I wouldnt want people stealing my money either. But thats what the law is for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaseballGenius Posted March 28, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 28, 2007 I still dont understand why it would have a negative effect on me if I watch these videos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.