| |
Let me be more explicit:
There is nothing objectionable ideologically about the content of the site. It is largely orthodox, in so far as it consists almost entirely of Rand's own words. There are reasonable translations of excerpts of Rand's fiction and non-fiction, including the Money Speech, "Philosophy, Who Needs It?" and an abridged version of Galt's Speech.
I am not sure what Brazilian copyright law says about translations. But American law reserves the right of translation to the original copyright holder. I myself would be tempted to overlook the translations as fair use according to American law, except that (1) reference to the original copyright is not made (for instance, the "on two feet" article is lifted in toto from the ARI website, where it is copryrighted by the ARI, while (2) copyright is asserted for the Portuguese translation ("Copyright © 2009 objetivismo.com.br. Todos os direitos reservados") of the same article, yet no link to or mention of ARI is made and (3) The Instituto John Galt website solicits donations.
As is, this would be an open and shut infringement of copyright under U.S. law.
As far as I know, there is no original content, (i.e., it is all translated copyrighted material) except for the "What is not Objectivism?" page which is attributed as original to Geraldo Boz. Most would find what is written there unobjectionable. But some (including myself) hold that Objectivism is a monist philosophy. (No entry is given for dualism, which Rand rejected.) Rand also did consider her philosophy Humanist in the wider sense. And it is odd to criticize, for example, Epicureanism, without criticizing Stoicism. In cases like this Rand would definitely say that others shouldn't speak on her behalf, but only in their own names, even if what has been said is mostly accurate.
Readers who visit the main page can also listen to the interview of Ann Heller the value of which I will leave up to them to judge.
Anything that spreads knowledge of Objectivism, all other things being equal, is a good thing. The articles and excerpts chosen for translation are quite good ones. There is nothing to object to as far as content. But as I said above, the issues of copyright and solicitation and the lack of transparaent and established reputations for the principals call for caution. I hope this site is what it appears to be, a good faith attempt to spread Objectivism among speakers of Portuguese.
(Edited by Ted Keer on 12/17, 7:51pm)
|
|
