5 ms·

Maybe you could link a legitimate copy, rather than the pirated copy? Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Fountainhead-Gary-Cooper/dp/B000HWZ4A2/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3?ie=U

by chops 18y ago

Maybe you could link a legitimate copy, rather than the pirated copy? Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Fountainhead-Gary-Cooper/dp/B000HWZ4A2/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1238713949&sr=8-3 http://www.amazon.com/Fountainhead-Gary-Cooper/dp/B000HWZ4A2... Netflix: http://www.netflix.com/Movie/The_Fountainhead/70055755?trkid=222336&lnkctr=srchrd-sr&strkid=521871131_0_0 http://www.netflix.com/Movie/The_Fountainhead/70055755?trkid...

xenophanes 18y ago
Why? Then less people will watch it.
- endtime 18y ago
  Without moralizing...if you're linking to TPB rather than Amazon, I don't really think you absorbed Rand's message. (Yes, I know Danneskjold was a pirate, but he was (effectively) stealing tax money and returning it to those who were taxed.)
  - xenophanes 18y ago
    Can you link to an article by the Ayn Rand Institute, or similar, saying why piracy is wrong and a fan of Rand must oppose it? I didn't find anything either way in a few seconds on Google.
    - chops 18y ago
      Piracy is a concept that relies on the concept Intellectual Property. From: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/patentsandcopyrights.html http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/patentsandcopyrights.html Patents and copyrights are the legal implementation of the base of all property rights: a man’s right to the product of his mind. ... But what the patent or copyright protects is not the physical object as such, but the idea which it embodies. 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 does not _grant_ a patent or copyright, in the sense of a gift, privilege, or favor; the government merely _secures it_ i.e., the government certifies the origination of an idea and protects its owner’s exclusive right of use and disposal. Piracy constitutes "unauthorized reproduction" and such falls under the above passage. Thus, it is with great irony that one would advocate pirating the works of Ayn Rand.
      - xenophanes 18y ago
        Suppose a person agrees about property rights in general, but believes certain circumstances are extenuating. None of the quotes you provide argue that he is wrong. Rand could have agreed with him. It simply doesn't say, either way. One such extenuating circumstance might be this: no harm is done to the property owner. Then if there is a crime, it is a victimless crime. A libertarian like Rand or myself might think in that case it's really none of the property owner's business, since it has no negative effect on him. Not all downloads are harmless, but some are. Property rights advocates can disagree about how many. The passages you quote don't say where Rand stands on this.
        chops 18y ago
        Of course they don't discuss internet downloading, these essays were published in the 60s, and she died in 82. What she does mention is "unauthorized reproductions" of which piracy is explicitly. Once something is in the public domain, then it can be freely copied without anyone's permission, but until then, it remains an unauthorized copy. The movie in question is still protected under copyright. If you want to talk IP durations, then that's a different discussion altogether. What stands is that your original post advocates the unauthorized copying of a work still under protection of copyright, in this case, of a Warner Bros IP.
        xenophanes 18y ago
        You have not addressed the issue of a victimless crime.
        chops 18y ago
        The victim is the copyright holder. Just because someone doesn't wish to buy a movie (book, song, whatever), doesn't give them the authority to copy it.
        xenophanes 18y ago
        And in some cases the copyright holder is not harmed in any way. Do you dispute that? Are you saying in absolutely every case of downloading, the person would otherwise have paid? Even if you think that's true in every case, you have no evidence that Rand did. I know plenty of free-market libertarians who think its sometimes a victimless crime.
    - endtime 18y ago
      Well, I'm not sure, but I think too much emphasis got put on TPB in my message. I mean, based on my own understanding I don't think Rand would approve of people getting the full benefit of her work without people paying. But I also think she would have tremendous respect and appreciation for Amazon.

by chops 18y ago

xenophanes 18y ago

Why? Then less people will watch it.

endtime 18y ago
Without moralizing...if you're linking to TPB rather than Amazon, I don't really think you absorbed Rand's message. (Yes, I know Danneskjold was a pirate, but he was (effectively) stealing tax money and returning it to those who were taxed.)
- xenophanes 18y ago
  Can you link to an article by the Ayn Rand Institute, or similar, saying why piracy is wrong and a fan of Rand must oppose it? I didn't find anything either way in a few seconds on Google.
  - chops 18y ago
    Piracy is a concept that relies on the concept Intellectual Property. From: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/patentsandcopyrights.html http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/patentsandcopyrights.html Patents and copyrights are the legal implementation of the base of all property rights: a man’s right to the product of his mind. ... But what the patent or copyright protects is not the physical object as such, but the idea which it embodies. 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 does not _grant_ a patent or copyright, in the sense of a gift, privilege, or favor; the government merely _secures it_ i.e., the government certifies the origination of an idea and protects its owner’s exclusive right of use and disposal. Piracy constitutes "unauthorized reproduction" and such falls under the above passage. Thus, it is with great irony that one would advocate pirating the works of Ayn Rand.
    - xenophanes 18y ago
      Suppose a person agrees about property rights in general, but believes certain circumstances are extenuating. None of the quotes you provide argue that he is wrong. Rand could have agreed with him. It simply doesn't say, either way. One such extenuating circumstance might be this: no harm is done to the property owner. Then if there is a crime, it is a victimless crime. A libertarian like Rand or myself might think in that case it's really none of the property owner's business, since it has no negative effect on him. Not all downloads are harmless, but some are. Property rights advocates can disagree about how many. The passages you quote don't say where Rand stands on this.
      - chops 18y ago
        Of course they don't discuss internet downloading, these essays were published in the 60s, and she died in 82. What she does mention is "unauthorized reproductions" of which piracy is explicitly. Once something is in the public domain, then it can be freely copied without anyone's permission, but until then, it remains an unauthorized copy. The movie in question is still protected under copyright. If you want to talk IP durations, then that's a different discussion altogether. What stands is that your original post advocates the unauthorized copying of a work still under protection of copyright, in this case, of a Warner Bros IP.
        xenophanes 18y ago
        You have not addressed the issue of a victimless crime.
        chops 18y ago
        The victim is the copyright holder. Just because someone doesn't wish to buy a movie (book, song, whatever), doesn't give them the authority to copy it.
        xenophanes 18y ago
        And in some cases the copyright holder is not harmed in any way. Do you dispute that? Are you saying in absolutely every case of downloading, the person would otherwise have paid? Even if you think that's true in every case, you have no evidence that Rand did. I know plenty of free-market libertarians who think its sometimes a victimless crime.
  - endtime 18y ago
    Well, I'm not sure, but I think too much emphasis got put on TPB in my message. I mean, based on my own understanding I don't think Rand would approve of people getting the full benefit of her work without people paying. But I also think she would have tremendous respect and appreciation for Amazon.