Found The Revolution: A Manifesto in audiobook format on BitTorrent

[Kludge]

//

I like to instigate madness.

 

[MsDoodahs]

From a quick read of an AGregory piece at LRC, it appears to me that Dr. Paul is in favor of copyright law, which leads me to believe that he would therefore object to the torrent of his recent work.

"There are a few particular issues where I don’t agree with Dr. Paul. I take issue with his positions on intellectual property and immigration. But even here we cannot expect the imperial and police-state practices we would get in practically any other administration. There is no reason to expect Paul to use the empire to enforce US copyright laws in the Third World."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory153.html

Anyone got anything from Ron himself showing that he would have no problem with the torrent?

 

[RonPaulVolunteer]

Matt,

You're playing word games.

No, YOU are.

He abides by the DICTIONARY definition of the word, you accept your OWN definition as created through the mass media and educational systems.

 

[RonPaulVolunteer]

which leads me to believe that he would therefore object to the torrent of his recent work.

Why don't you ask him.

 

[MsDoodahs]

I will, if I can't find something eventually where he states his view. I'm still looking around...

I'm not sure about the issue, quite honestly.

"Intellectual" property isn't real property because it is not scarce; using Ron's ideas does not deprive Ron of using those ideas.

Still, it seems like theft to me. That's what I have to use to guide how I would behave in this scenario.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Why don't you ask him.

She's not the one wanting to steal copies of his work. You are.

 

[LibertyEagle]

No, YOU are.

He abides by the DICTIONARY definition of the word, you accept your OWN definition as created through the mass media and educational systems.

Actually, I'm sticking to principle.

1. a moral rule guiding personal conduct. Example: he'd stoop to anything – he has no principles.

Gotta love that example.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/principle

 

[RonPaulVolunteer]

She's not the one wanting to steal copies of his work. You are.

'Scuse me. I bought 33 copies of the The Revolution. I bought one copy of the audio CDs. And if you bothered to read the thread instead of just mouth of, you'd know that.

I have stolen, NOTHING.

 

[LibertyEagle]

'Scuse me. I bought 33 copies of the The Revolution. I bought one copy of the audio CDs. And if you bothered to read the thread instead of just mouth of, you'd know that.

I have stolen, NOTHING.

Ok, I stand corrected. You have not yet taken what does not belong to you, you are merely advocating that others do.

Is that better?

 

[MsDoodahs]

Okay...I'm bowing out of this discussion - because I've now had this discussion with the love of my life and...

My reaction (it feels like stealing to me) is based on programming to see it that way.

Ideas aren't scarce in the economic sense. Matter of fact, they're the opposite. Of the two of us, only one can use a wheelbarrow at the same time. If both of us has the idea of a wheelbarrow, we're both better off.

If we take the notion that potential income a person may or may not earn from selling a package of ideas is their "property," then we have to ask ourselves - are those ideas original? Do they owe royalties to the descendents of whomever had the idea first? Do they need permission to rephrase, repackage, or even discuss in public, ideas that are not original to them?

Rights, including the right to property, are absolutes. A good way of distinguishing whether something is a right or a legal fiction is to carry it out to its logical conclusion, or to ask "at whose expense?"

If the logical conclusion is ridiculous, or the "right" granted at someone else's expense, then it ain't a right and it's a legal fiction.

(Thank you, Bill. You are my hero. )

 

[Ninja Homer]

Morally, copyright infringement is like stealing. By legal definition, copyright infringement is not stealing. Matt is trying to explain the legal definition, while others are going by their own moral definition.

If you think that copyright infringement equals theft, then you've already lost the legal argument, and you should limit yourself to the moral argument.

Copyright and copyright infringement can not be simplified down to ownership and theft.

If you were to take copyright law out of the equation, and just argue based on ownership, that would mean that Ron Paul no longer owns The Revolution: A Manifesto, because I bought it and it's sitting here in front of me, so now I own it.

 

[constituent]

Okay...I'm bowing out of this discussion - because I've now had this discussion with the love of my life and...

hahahah.... good.

this is a blurry issue for many, i think it's pretty clear. what's funny is how many people it puts into a twist. that's why this issue is one of the best issues to discuss w/ folks if you're looking to challenge their views on issues like politics, property, piracy, etc.

"what is profit?" is another side of this debate that often gets overlooked.

If we take the notion that potential income a person may or may not earn from selling a package of ideas is their "property," then we have to ask ourselves - are those ideas original? Do they owe royalties to the descendents of whomever had the idea first?

Exactly

Do they need permission to rephrase, repackage, or even discuss in public, ideas that are not original to them?

exceptionally important question w/ far reaching implications for humanity and our future.

 

[Matt Collins]

If we take the notion that potential income a person may or may not earn from selling a package of ideas is their "property," then we have to ask ourselves - are those ideas original? Do they owe royalties to the descendents of whomever had the idea first? Do they need permission to rephrase, repackage, or even discuss in public, ideas that are not original to them?

Ideas cannot be copyrighted, only the expression of those ideas.

Rights, including the right to property, are absolutes.

Except that copyright is an exception to this. It is completely granted by the government and can be taken away by the government.

 

[Matt Collins]

You're playing word games.

No, I am describing the law.

 

[Matt Collins]

Still, it seems like theft to me. That's what I have to use to guide how I would behave in this scenario.

That's because there has been a massive campaign by the RIAA/MPAA etc about the issue of copyright. They are trying to make the argument a personal / moral issue when really it isn't. It's strictly legal devoid of any emotion.

 

[Matt Collins]

She's not the one wanting to steal copies of his work. You are.

No one is wanting to steal anything.

 

[MsDoodahs]

exceptionally important question w/ far reaching implications for humanity and our future.

Agreed.

 

[RonPaulVolunteer]

Ok, I stand corrected. You have not yet taken what does not belong to you, you are merely advocating that others do.

Is that better?

Again, IF you bothered to read the thread, you'd understand WHY I posted it. I use an iPod. The file on this Torrent is no ordinary audiofile. It is an iTunes/iPod-ONLY file in Apple's special audiobook format. This file, when stopped, will play from where you stopped, unlike a rip of the audio CDs which will restart from the beginning. It is also one single file, instead of 5 CDs or 5 ripped files. It also syncs between the iPod and iTunes, so that if I stop listening to it at 2:04:34 on my iPod, and then want to keep listening to it at home through my computer, iTunes will start playing at 2:04:34, the same place I stopped on the iPod. it also has nice cover art that displays on my iPod and I can use as a talking point to introduce people to the book.

It is this incredible convenience that made me want to tell people here, as listening to the ripped CD files, or the CDs themselves can be a major pain in the ass.

I never advocated anyone downloading this file that did not already own the audio CDs. I believe everyone should buy it.

As for the legality of posting a link to a webpage here. Sorry, but there's nothing even remotely illegal about that. You would do well to notice that bookshops keep the book sitting in the open on their shelves ready for any person to pick it up and walk out with it, without paying. Are THEY advocating theft by making it so easy to steal one? No, it is up to the person's conscience whether to walk out without paying or not, just as it is up to a person's conscience or not whether they download it from Torrent without paying for it. Putting a link here on display and saying it facilitates theft is as stupid as saying Borders facilitates theft.

What is TRULY ironic, is that you continue to argue, bumping this thread for all to see, thereby ensuring it is even easier for people to download it.

Perhaps YOU'RE the one facilitating theft?

 

[Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice]

Well if you want to get completely legal here, if you purchased Manifesto with FRNs then the Federal Reserve owns it. If you used another means that requires a SS#(bank account, credit card, etc) then the Government owns it.
Morally, I agree that distributing the content is akin to someone borrowing a book. I doubt Johann Sebastian Bach cares that my mom photocopied his Tocatta and Fugues to give to me.
I likewise seriously doubt Ron Paul gives a shit... maybe that Steve guy in Maine can give him a call (is he still around)?

 

[RonPaulVolunteer]

Well if you want to get completely legal here, if you purchased Manifesto with FRNs then the Federal Reserve owns it. If you used another means that requires a SS#(bank account, credit card, etc) then the Government owns it.
Morally, I agree that distributing the content is akin to someone borrowing a book. I doubt Johann Sebastian Bach cares that my mom photocopied his Tocatta and Fugues to give to me.
I likewise seriously doubt Ron Paul gives a shit... maybe that Steve guy in Maine can give him a call (is he still around)?

Hmm...