4 ms·

Piracy is a concept that relies on the concept Intellectual Property. From: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/patentsandcopyrights.html http://aynrandlexicon.c

by 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.
        chops 18y ago
        It doesn't matter if they were going to pay or not. One needs to have a right to copy something before one can do it, and only the copyright holder has the right to grant that to another. There are no exceptions. If anyone can copy another's work without permission, why have copyright at all? Do you oppose copyright? Does copyright only hold if you were planning on paying in the first place? What would that even mean? In the spirit of Atlas Shrugged, I invite you to "check your premises" :)
        xenophanes 18y ago
        The primary purpose of copyright is so authors/etc can get paid for their work. If something doesn't harm their ability to get paid in any way, then why should they mind it? It's true that some piracy harms their ability to get paid. And some doesn't. Why are you unwilling to differentiate? Of course I'm in favor of copyright. And I would never ask an author to sacrifice himself altruistically for the good of humanity. But why should not an author be happy to see people exposed to his ideas, to their benefit, in the cases where it does him no material harm? Your position seems to be the author is harmed b/c his rights were violated. But the whole point of rights is to protect him from harm, not to provide a platform for him to tell others what to do. I think it's very un-Randian to get intolerant when someone does no demonstrable material harm. Do you think Roark would rather sue people for copyright infringement or make buildings? The best way of life, in the Randian way of thinking, is if you don't like people or their actions, you ignore them as far as possible, and get on with your own life.
- AlisdairO 18y ago
  The concept of a victimless crime is difficult: let's say we have a kid with no money. Currently, pretty much the default route for that kid to get music is to simply pirate it. In the past, a music-loving kid might have done extra chores, got a paper route, or whatever to earn some extra cash and buy the item. The fact that someone has no money now is no indication that they wouldn't buy something if they had no other route to accessing it. Now of course, some crimes really are victimless. People pirate stuff that they really wouldn't buy. I certainly don't quarrel with you that in this case no significant harm is done to the property owner. The key problem here is the issue of enforceability. Maybe you and I can be trusted to pay for the things we really think are worth it, but if you think everyone can, you're probably mistaken. How do you enforce copyrights if all an illegitimate copyer has to do is lie and say that they wouldn't have bought the item? The law needs to be enforceable, and it can't possibly effectively cover every corner case. It is of necessity coarsely grained, and some activities that are victimless are nonetheless criminalised for the greater overall good: so that victimising actions can be punished. Now, you may not agree that intellectual property rights are the greater good, but that's another discussion altogether ;).
  - xenophanes 18y ago
    I don't see how "the law needs to be enforceable" can be an anti-torrent position. Shutting down torrent sites isn't working out so well. They just provide information, like Google. The actual people doing file transfers are the ones who ought to be in trouble, but that's even less enforceable.
    - AlisdairO 18y ago
      It is enforceable. I agree that it's hard or impossible for rights holders to effectively defend their IP in the current environment, but it wouldn't be all that hard for governments to make torrenting too much like hard work for the average individual. Of course, this rightly entails questions about whether defending the IP is worth it, but that's a different issue.

by chops 18y ago

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.
      - chops 18y ago
        It doesn't matter if they were going to pay or not. One needs to have a right to copy something before one can do it, and only the copyright holder has the right to grant that to another. There are no exceptions. If anyone can copy another's work without permission, why have copyright at all? Do you oppose copyright? Does copyright only hold if you were planning on paying in the first place? What would that even mean? In the spirit of Atlas Shrugged, I invite you to "check your premises" :)
        xenophanes 18y ago
        The primary purpose of copyright is so authors/etc can get paid for their work. If something doesn't harm their ability to get paid in any way, then why should they mind it? It's true that some piracy harms their ability to get paid. And some doesn't. Why are you unwilling to differentiate? Of course I'm in favor of copyright. And I would never ask an author to sacrifice himself altruistically for the good of humanity. But why should not an author be happy to see people exposed to his ideas, to their benefit, in the cases where it does him no material harm? Your position seems to be the author is harmed b/c his rights were violated. But the whole point of rights is to protect him from harm, not to provide a platform for him to tell others what to do. I think it's very un-Randian to get intolerant when someone does no demonstrable material harm. Do you think Roark would rather sue people for copyright infringement or make buildings? The best way of life, in the Randian way of thinking, is if you don't like people or their actions, you ignore them as far as possible, and get on with your own life.
AlisdairO 18y ago
The concept of a victimless crime is difficult: let's say we have a kid with no money. Currently, pretty much the default route for that kid to get music is to simply pirate it. In the past, a music-loving kid might have done extra chores, got a paper route, or whatever to earn some extra cash and buy the item. The fact that someone has no money now is no indication that they wouldn't buy something if they had no other route to accessing it. Now of course, some crimes really are victimless. People pirate stuff that they really wouldn't buy. I certainly don't quarrel with you that in this case no significant harm is done to the property owner. The key problem here is the issue of enforceability. Maybe you and I can be trusted to pay for the things we really think are worth it, but if you think everyone can, you're probably mistaken. How do you enforce copyrights if all an illegitimate copyer has to do is lie and say that they wouldn't have bought the item? The law needs to be enforceable, and it can't possibly effectively cover every corner case. It is of necessity coarsely grained, and some activities that are victimless are nonetheless criminalised for the greater overall good: so that victimising actions can be punished. Now, you may not agree that intellectual property rights are the greater good, but that's another discussion altogether ;).
- xenophanes 18y ago
  I don't see how "the law needs to be enforceable" can be an anti-torrent position. Shutting down torrent sites isn't working out so well. They just provide information, like Google. The actual people doing file transfers are the ones who ought to be in trouble, but that's even less enforceable.
  - AlisdairO 18y ago
    It is enforceable. I agree that it's hard or impossible for rights holders to effectively defend their IP in the current environment, but it wouldn't be all that hard for governments to make torrenting too much like hard work for the average individual. Of course, this rightly entails questions about whether defending the IP is worth it, but that's a different issue.