Atlas Shrugged pdf - read it for free!!??

[jts]

I don't know whether to believe this. Atlas shrugged, the whole book, all 1053 pages, in pdf for free. I thought there was a copyright restriction.

http://www.monomania.ca/car/PDFs/Atlas Shrugged - Ayn Rand.pdf

 

[BaalChatzaf]

9 hours ago, jts said:

I don't know whether to believe this. Atlas shrugged, the whole book, all 1053 pages, in pdf for free. I thought there was a copyright restriction.

http://www.monomania.ca/car/PDFs/Atlas Shrugged - Ayn Rand.pdf

 

Has the copyright expired?

[turkeyfoot]

According to one source the copyright expires in 35 yrs. 

All works published in the United States before 1923 are in the public domain. Works published after 1922, but before 1978 are protected for 95 years from the date of publication. If the work was created, but not published, before 1978, the copyright lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years.

It can be scanned, uploaded, and distributed via the internet or any other means with the permission of the publisher.

Laws are enforced only when harm is found and prosecuted only when charges are brought. The price of protecting yourself does not come free.

If someone violates the rights of a copyright owner, the owner is entitled to file a lawsuit in federal court asking the court to:

1. issue orders to prevent further violations (restraining orders and injunctions)
2. award money damages if appropriate, and.
3. in some circumstances, award attorney fees.

 

[jts]

Plus more books. Including Fountainhead.

http://www.monomania.ca/car/PDFs/

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, jts said:

Plus more books. Including Fountainhead.

http://www.monomania.ca/car/PDFs/

 

Needlepoint design?

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Nothing is "free." Everything costs something.

As for Atlas Shrugged, Peikoff disfigured it with his Introduction or Preface. Ayn would have taken a blowtorch to him for that.

--Brant

not his biggest "crime"

[BaalChatzaf]

Apparently libraries are permitted under the law to lend out items of  copyrighted material that they (the libraries) have purchased.  I assume if you as a private citizen buy a book that is copyrighted you are permitted under the law to -lend- the book to someone else,  but you are not permitted to make copies or reproductions of the book  without permission of the copyright holder  or  quote extensively from the book in derivative publications.  Short quotes ("fair use") is permitted under the law. The owner of the copyright cannot compel everyone who purchased a copyrighted item to collect a fee and remit it to the copyright holder. 

A similar rule holds for patents.  The automobile you own has many patented components but you can lend,  rent or even sell the auto since it, as a whole, is your property. 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

Digital copies are in a special category. When you take a paper copy from an owner, you remove a physical copy. The owner has one copy less. When you make a digital copy of a digital copy, the owner keeps his own copy intact.

So, after a long debate a while ago, Congress acted and digital copies are now governed by the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act).

If anyone is really out of joint by the link above, they should send the link to ARI or Peikoff so they can issue a DMCA takedown notice to the needlepoint design Wordpress blog that has the PDF on its server.

But this one is so miniscule, I'm not even sure ARI or Peikoff will bother. They would be within their rights, but this one is more trouble than it's worth. Rather than spending the precious unrepeatable hours of their lives on important stuff (like major copyright violators), they will be bickering with the owner of a needlepoint design blog that has little to no traffic. I suppose it could be satisfying if someone over there gets in a real control freak mood.  

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

57 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Bob,

Digital copies are in a special category. When you take a paper copy from an owner, you remove a physical copy. The owner has one copy less. When you make a digital copy of a digital copy, the owner keeps his own copy intact.

So, after a long debate a while ago, Congress acted and digital copies are now governed by the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act).

If anyone is really out of joint by the link above, they should send the link to ARI or Peikoff so they can issue a DMCA takedown notice to the needlepoint design Wordpress blog that has the PDF on its server.

But this one is so miniscule, I'm not even sure ARI or Peikoff will bother. They would be within their rights, but this one is more trouble than it's worth. Rather than spending the precious unrepeatable hours of their lives on important stuff (like major copyright violators), they will be bickering with the owner of a needlepoint design blog that has little to no traffic. I suppose it could be satisfying if someone over there gets in a real control freak mood.  

Michael

I was thinking that reproducing a copy  denies the original author an opportunity from selling one of his books.  Why buy what one can get for free.  Example: Suppose I borrow Atlas Shrugged from the library and made a copy of it on my copy machine (highly unlikely at 3 cents a page,  but it is just an example). I now am the proud owner of a paper and ink copy of AS  but the copyright holder has been deprived of the opportunity to sell a copy to me. 

[Brant Gaede]

7 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I was thinking that reproducing a copy  denies the original author an opportunity from selling one of his books.  Why buy what one can get for free.  Example: Suppose I borrow Atlas Shrugged from the library and made a copy of it on my copy machine (highly unlikely at 3 cents a page,  but it is just an example). I now am the proud owner of a paper and ink copy of AS  but the copyright holder has been deprived of the opportunity to sell a copy to me. 

What principle are you trying to illustrate? The practical limits to thief?

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

3 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

What principle are you trying to illustrate? The practical limits to thief?

--Brant

No principle.  I was just trying to figure out what the copyright rules were.   By the way I am currently reading that copy of AS  that I download.  I am not printing it out because at 3 cents a page it would cost me over $30.00 and I can get the book cheaper at a used book store.  But it is convenient for me to read the downloaded pdf on my computer screen.  The copyright holder is not deprived of an opportunity to sell  a new copy to me  because I have no intention of buying a new copy. The copyright hold is not out anything. He is in the same position that he would be in if I borrowed a copy of AS  from the local library. 

Nothing was taken unethically as far as I can make out.

[Brant Gaede]

1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said:

No principle.  I was just trying to figure out what the copyright rules were.   By the way I am currently reading that copy of AS  that I download.  I am not printing it out because at 3 cents a page it would cost me over $30.00 and I can get the book cheaper at a used book store.  But it is convenient for me to read the downloaded pdf on my computer screen.  The copyright holder is not deprived of an opportunity to sell  a new copy to me  because I have no intention of buying a new copy. The copyright hold is not out anything. He is in the same position that he would be in if I borrowed a copy of AS  from the local library. 

Nothing was taken unethically as far as I can make out.

Let the copyright holder make a claim and work it on out from there.

One thing I think you are not entitled to do is sell what you have to another party.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

9 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I was thinking that reproducing a copy  denies the original author an opportunity from selling one of his books.  Why buy what one can get for free.  Example: Suppose I borrow Atlas Shrugged from the library and made a copy of it on my copy machine (highly unlikely at 3 cents a page,  but it is just an example). I now am the proud owner of a paper and ink copy of AS  but the copyright holder has been deprived of the opportunity to sell a copy to me. 

Bob,

I was going to say something, but you just proved my point:

9 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

By the way I am currently reading that copy of AS  that I download.  I am not printing it out because at 3 cents a page it would cost me over $30.00 and I can get the book cheaper at a used book store.  But it is convenient for me to read the downloaded pdf on my computer screen.  The copyright holder is not deprived of an opportunity to sell  a new copy to me  because I have no intention of buying a new copy. The copyright hold is not out anything.

The fact is, in the online world, many people who download things for free would never buy them. So no sale opportunity is denied in reality. If no sale would have been made, how can it be denied?

In fact, most downloaders don't even read what they download. I became aware of this studying Internet marketing. I started hanging out at black hat forums to see what the dark side looked like. 

But wait! There's more!

 

What I learned is that a huge percentage of digital product owners and sellers in the IM world hang out on black hat forums and some even encourage black hatters to download their stuff illicitly for free. They consider the possibility that among the black hatters are people too poor to buy the products, but who will become wealthy later, thus owe them one so to speak, and that many black hatters sell products as affiliates.

At any rate, unless a downloader does something to interfere with actual buyers, the product owner is not out any money. In fact, for unknown authors, they can even make money if the downloader actually reads the work and comments to others about it--it's word of mouth advertising that would not have existed otherwise and stimulates sales. Free buzz, so to speak.

I'm not mentioning any of this to make a moral justification. I'm just giving some of the practical reasons this practice sticks around so much and is not punished as harshly or as rigorously as theft of physical objects is.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Bob,

I was going to say something, but you just proved my point:

The fact is, in the online world, many people who download things for free would never buy them. So no sale opportunity is denied in reality. If no sale would have been made, how can it be denied?

In fact, most downloaders don't even read what they download. I became aware of this studying Internet marketing. I started hanging out at black hat forums to see what the dark side looked like. 

But wait! There's more!

 

What I learned is that a huge percentage of digital product owners and sellers in the IM world hang out on black hat forums and some even encourage black hatters to download their stuff illicitly for free. They consider the possibility that among the black hatters are people too poor to buy the products, but who will become wealthy later, thus owe them one so to speak, and that many black hatters sell products as affiliates.

At any rate, unless a downloader does something to interfere with actual buyers, the product owner is not out any money. In fact, for unknown authors, they can even make money if the downloader actually reads the work and comments to others about it--it's word of mouth advertising that would not have existed otherwise and stimulates sales. Free buzz, so to speak.

I'm not mentioning any of this to make a moral justification. I'm just giving some of the practical reasons this practice sticks around so much and is not punished as harshly or as rigorously as theft of physical objects is.

Michael

This is an excellent clarification.  Since you own and run a 'blog  you de man on copyright questions. 

[BaalChatzaf]

11 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Let the copyright holder make a claim and work it on out from there.

One thing I think you are not entitled to do is sell what you have to another party.

--Brant

I would not do such a thing.  The contents of what I download is NOT my property so I am in no position to sell or lend it.  A physical copy that  I download is my possession (not property) for personal  use only. 

[Brant Gaede]

Modern copyright issues are still being worked out. As for not being your property, all should take your word on that. (No sarcasm.)

--Brant