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.
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.
(Disclaimer: I am not a libertarian or an Objectivist.)
IMHO one of the characteristics of owning something is that you have the right to control how it's used without having to justify that decision to anyone else. If you camp out in my back yard while I'm on vacation, you are trespassing on my property even if you don't uproot a single blade of grass. I don't have to argue with the police about whether or not my yard was damaged by your presence because the law considers trespass to be damage in and of itself.
Now I think extenting the concept of "property" to intellectual works is fraught with problems, but I don't think Rand would agree with me.
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" :)
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.
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?
It's not my place to tell the IP owner what he should or shouldn't do with his property. The copyright holder has ultimate and absolute ownership of their IP, and while I think there would be great benefit in the works of Rand* going public domain, it's not my property to dispose of.
I respect the owners' terms by which their IP is distributed.
What meaning does copyright have if someone can copy something and say "I wasn't going to pay for it anyway"?
* Less so for The Fountainhead movie, as it's honestly not that good, imo. Gary Cooper had admitted (citation needed) that he didn't even understand the courtroom monologue at the end, which accounts for his delivery lacking the proper emotion. It's worth seeing if you're a fan of Rand, but if you want material to chew on, read the book.
You are not addressing the issue of victimless crimes. Do you think Rand supported victimless crimes? I am not advocating Rand's works be public domain, or be free to all. I'm advocating that harmless copying take place, only. To start with, can you see how there could ever be a case of harmless copying?
a: i was harmed.
c: how?
a: my rights were violated.
c: how?
a: a young child with no money downloaded and read my book without paying
c: and how did that harm you?
a: by violating my rights.
c: were you harmed in any way other than you rights being violated?
a: no
c: what do you think the purpose of rights is?
a: to protect from harm, and to help people live more morally
c: so basically the thing to protect you from harm was violated, but you weren't actually harmed in any way?
a: no, i was harmed. i told you. my rights were violated. that's harm.
c: how did it harm you? what bad thing happened to you?
a: the bad thing is my rights were violated.
c: doesn't it seem circular to say you were harmed b/c your rights were violated, and you object to your rights being violated b/c it harms you?
a: are you saying copyright shouldn't exist?
c: no. are you saying victimless crimes should exist?
a: it's not victimless. I"M A VICTIM.
c: some Randian you are, all eager to be a victim.
a: it's not my fault. i didn't want to be a victim. the young child victimized me. i have no choice but to sue him.
c: did you consider writing another book? that might be more productive than a lawsuit.
a: i already created. i already produced. i deserve money for it.
c: you got some money
a: i want more.
c: well, that child doesn't have any
a: i'll sue his parents!
c: aren't you glad he read your book?
a: oh, yes, that's wonderful. so, his parents are responsible, right? I wonder how much money they have.
c: why do you think of them? think of yourself. ignore them.
a: that's crazy.
c: it's how Roark lives.
a: that's crazy.
c: would you be happy if i loaned the kid my copy of the book?
a: well, sure, you have every right to loan it.
c: he lives pretty far away. mind if i send him a scan of it?
a: but then there'd be two books! you didn't buy two!
c: while he has the scan, i won't read my copy. only one will be in use at a time.
a: oh, then it's ok.
c: so, basically, you're OK with him reading the book without paying, as long as some effort is made to be sure that the number of people currently actively reading the book is less than the total number who bought it?
a: i guess.
c: you realize the total number reading the book is far less than the number that were bought?
a: erm. well, how many participated in a lending plan like this?
c: so if they do a lending ritual, which costs them nothing, then you're ok with them reading your book, but omit the ritual, which has nothing to do with you, and then it's a crime?
a: yes. no ritual, no reading.
c: so you think the world is a mess right now, with all this rampant piracy. but if only there was a website where everyone with a copy of your book registered. and then people currently reading the book made an "in use" tally while reading it, and then number of tallies was kept below the total registrations, you'd be happy?
a: that'd be great.
c: you wouldn't get a dime more. and in fact more people would read electronic copies of your book, without paying, then.
a: but my rights wouldn't be violated. i wouldn't be harmed.
c: how does the existence of that website help you?
a: by protecting my rights, so i'm not victimized
c: i mean, in what way does it materially benefit you, or improve the quality of your life?
a: it makes people pay for reading my book, at least they have to make the effort of visiting the website. they can't have stuff for free. that'd be an awful world to live in. people need to learn that life is hard and expensive.
c: but what if it isn't? or doesn't have to be?
a: what are you, a humanitarian?
c: yeah.
a: it hurts me to imagine a paradise like that where i'd have to change my ideas about rights.
c: don't worry, there will be some books available to advise you.
To the best of my knowledge, when a copyrighted work is made available for free over the Internet, it's available for free to everyone. Nobody has to prove that they are so destitute that they could not possibly afford to pay even one cent for the work before they are allowed to download it. So your hypothetical case of a child with no money downloading the book is a red herring.
