Copying is not theft

  • warning: preg_match(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 27 in /home/solopsweb/ on line 343.
  • warning: preg_match(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 27 in /home/solopsweb/ on line 343.
  • warning: preg_match(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 27 in /home/solopsweb/ on line 343.
Richard Goode's picture
Submitted by Richard Goode on Wed, 2012-01-18 05:03

Wikipedia is blacked out globally for 24 hours to protest SOPA and PIPA. Wikipedia says

The originally proposed bill would allow the U.S. Department of Justice, as well as copyright holders, to seek court orders against websites accused of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement.

YouTube is such a website.

Lucky for us that the world's most famous Objectivist is on our side.

[Cross-posted from Eternal Vigilance.]

( categories: )

Megaupload vs. YouTube

Richard Goode's picture

We have to take it on faith that the videos on youtube that have been copied without approval are taken down again.

You're a man of faith now, Marcus?

Megaupload vs. YouTube


Richard Goode's picture

Do you ever read past the opening precis of a paper?

Not if I can avoid it. But I read Perkin's article in its entirety, just to make sure.

Are you happy to debate this issue? If so, here's a good starting point.

The valid point of Perkins is

Mark Hubbard's picture

The valid point of Perkins is the scarcity argument is unprincipled BS Richard. Do you ever read past the opening precis of a paper?


Richard Goode's picture

You can't steal this article.

Perkins says, "This brief sketch of the Objectivist view of rights indicates why, contrary to the view of libertarians opposed to intellectual property, the essential basis of property is not scarcity -- it is production."

Perkins is wrong. The essential basis of property is not production, it is scarcity.

Production vs. scarcity. I think that's our sticking point.

goode I will be more specific 4 u

seymourblogger's picture

My office mate took it as I was working on it and my advisor gave it to him as he was getting his PhD and I was getting my MA on the way to my PhD. My office mate would still be sitting there typing out dots on a typewriter if I hadn't done it differently, used Occam's razor on it and designed the stimulus differently to get the same result. It was an illusion problem. And I was damned if I was going to sit at a typewriter and type dots. If you made one mistake you had to start over because then it wouldn't be perfect. Drove me crazy so I decided there must be a better way to do it. And I did it. and he went wow "Baby we're on to something!" And I said, "What do you mean we?"

But my advisor gave it to him so he ran the study with my stimulus design, did the stats and finished his dissertation. Then I ran the study with the same subjects and disproved his results because of a flaw in his study design. Asshole. So then I was terminated.

There is no such thing as intellectual property

Richard Goode's picture

When I was naive I shouted with happiness, and had my research stolen.

No one stole your research. You were plagiarised.

Ah hubbard

seymourblogger's picture

but you always need a good lawyer - read expensive - to defend you unless you have studied guerilla law and then you can do some real damage.

OK but there are rules for extension I do think

seymourblogger's picture

Application rules. Certain books are now in the public domain that are classics. Barnes and Noble reissues them under their publication imprint, but anyone can do the same and then put them on Kindle. Gutenberg used to have people put them online a long while ago. Long being the 1990's.

maurone copyrights now go for an additional 50

seymourblogger's picture

If applied for at the expiration of the first 50. There are rules for this that I don't know.

Yes and No goode

seymourblogger's picture

We are mostly in Simulated Reality now where there is no right/wrong, good/evil, or any other opposites including truth/false or lega/non-legal. There is just credibility! It's Kerry's swift Boat problem. Once it's out there, it is credible because it is out there. You can disprove it with your facts, but they your answer is credible because it's out there. It hasn't changed anything, it's just added more information. Virilio: The Information Bomb!

Knowledge is not for knowing. Knowledge is made for cutting. - Michel Foucault - Archeology of Knowledge

The dialectics are over. This is the result. Now to understand what is going on you have to learn and be able to read "floating signs".

There is no longer any way to police, punish, threaten, eliminate copying, imitating, piracy, legal or otherwise. If you know you can't stop it then don't argue about whether it's right or wrong because you are pissing in the breeze. Just bull shitting around. It doesn't matter!

I have been a victim of this. If you are then you must either store away your idea in a closet where they won't do you or anyone else any good. I have done this too.

When I was naive I shouted with happiness, and had my research stolen. He got the PhD I got terminated as my presence in the psy profession became a threat. I disproved his hypothesis in my MA thesis rebuttal but then had no backing to publish. When I could have I was no longer interested in fighting that battle. He dropped that area of research and went on to make his career in the field of ethics. His books sell for 75 cents now at I moved on.

Intellectual copyright or ownership is only as good as the lawyer you can afford to defend you and try to collect damages. Remember the guy who invented the windshield wipers we use? Fought the big car companies forever, finally won, didn't get $ damages to speak of and died soon after.

Hedy Lamarr, yes that Hedy Lamarr, invented the technology of frequency jumping which our wireless phones now use, for masking and confabulating secret wartime messages. She never got a dime and the last 40 years of her life worried about paying the rent. She made a lot of money for herself in her time, but she made fortunes for the movie studios who were cheap bastards with their stars.

Robert Pattinson and Kristen Stewart took almost bankrupt Summit and made them billions while they hemmed and hawed about paying them 25 million each for Breaking Dawn which wasn't in their contract as Meyer hadn't written it yet. This is driving many young actors into financing, directing, acting and producing their own movies.

The big ones are digging their own graves but since they are down in the hole they can't see the terrain around them. They will. Just like the big investment companies that got bailed out should have been allowed to crash and take the US dollar and US credibility with them. Our govt papered it over, but it's only paper now and China knows we are a paper dragon.

Copying is copyright infringement

Richard Goode's picture

What's his position on this legislation? Who would know?

I would know. I'm against this legislation and voted accordingly on Marcus's poll. (Do you agree with the protest by Wikipedia, etc.?)

Yes. This bill is just an excuse for censorship.

I would have voted for

Yes and no. We need anti-piracy laws, but not censorship.

but referring to embedding a YouTube video of Fritz Wunderlich singing Schubert's An Die Musik as "piracy" ("Yo-ho-ho, and a bottle of Shiraz") is just silly.

First I was told that copying is theft. Now I'm told that copying is piracy. Whatever next? Copying is aggravated robbery? Copying is murder? Copying is high treason?

Copying is none of the above. Copying is copying. And, when done without the permission of the creator of the artistic work, copying is copyright infringement.

Public Domain No More?

Jmaurone's picture

Marcus: "Wouldn't the copyright have lapsed on that?
It's over 50 years old which is the limit on recorded music in the states, I believe.
I remember Rand writing that she thought that the 50 year limit was about right."

Supreme Court Says Congress May Re-Copyright Public Domain Works

From the article:

"Congress may take books, musical compositions and other works out of the public domain, where they can be freely used and adapted, and grant them copyright status again, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.

"In a 6-2 ruling, the court said that, just because material enters the public domain, it is not 'territory that works may never exit.'"

Marcus, re your question, the article says "It’s not the first time the Supreme Court has approved the extension of copyrights. The last time was in 2002, when it upheld Congress’ move to extend copyright from the life of an author plus 50 years after death to 70 years after death."

Una Furtiva Lagrima

Richard Goode's picture

(Great clip by the way.)

I thought it was great, too. Sorry to disappoint.

Dick Baade ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... is interested neither in the greatness of the clip (which would be lost on him in any event) nor whether copyright has run out. Only in being a clever-Dick. What's his position on this legislation? Who would know?

BTW...the clip that Goode posted...

Marcus's picture

...of Mario was made in 1949. (Great clip by the way.)

Wouldn't the copyright have lapsed on that?

It's over 50 years old which is the limit on recorded music in the states, I believe.

I remember Rand writing that she thought that the 50 year limit was about right.

My post to the NBR thread on copyright:

Mark Hubbard's picture

The thread is running here ...

It's a rebuttal of previous commenter, David Hilliary, statement that copying is not theft. (I've debated with David various times over SCF).

Goodness me, David, so you're some sort of Christian Anarchist. Copying is theft.

A very good Libertarian critique correctly justifying copyright as a legitimate property right, can be found here.

""Patents and copyrights are the legal implementation of the base of all property rights: a man's right to the product of his mind." Ayn Rand.

And this's is the only post I'll make on this, for arguing copyright with a thief is as pointless as arguing belief with a Christian. Both have had to forsake reason to get to their ends.

As I said Goode and you are correct to take it to the micro leve

seymourblogger's picture

It is just another form of Deterrence to make us feel that our property rights are protected when they are not nor can they ever be now that all is global. Change the way you think about it.

Evil be Goode...

Marcus's picture

When someone posts a video clip that violates copyright to youtube they are told to remove it.

Some makers of film/ music are quite happy to let their work be copied.

For example, Martin Durkin let his documentary the Great Global Warming Swindle circulate on various websites without making any effort to remove it. (Interestingly he still successfully released it on DVD).

We have to take it on faith that the videos on youtube that have been copied without approval are taken down again.

Some are old and the owner of the copyright doesn't intend to make any more money from them and gives them away free.

Some are considered of one time use (for example a political or topical debate) and therefore the copyright will not be enforced.

Many bands/ popsingers these days want to show that they are "down with the kids" and don't enforece their copyright on video clips, but probably actually see it as being good advertising for their music.

You hyprocrites!

Richard Goode's picture

Hannah Arendt said, "Evil is banal."

Something else that's banal is copyright infringement. A lot of it goes on around here. Half the time, when someone here embeds a YouTube video, or when someone clicks the 'Play' button and watches it, copyright is infringed.

I freely confess that I am a copyright infringer.

But what do I get whenever I point out that others are guilty? Blank out. These same people insist that copying is theft, or, worse, piracy. If Jesus came today, he would have cause to reprise his words, "You hypocrites!"

wiki's blackout is very effective eh?

seymourblogger's picture

It is just an excuse for censorship. Deterrence as Baudrillard would say. A "floating sign" disguising emptiness for a protection they can't give nor enforce, but what they will get is censorship. And that's what they want. You know they really aren't devious or evil, just really dumb. But as Hannah Arendt said, "Evil is banal."

And Rand said the same with her Toohey speech that Dominique correctly identified as evil.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.