Slashdot Mirror
Decriminalizing File Swapping
IAmTheDave writes "Wired reports that judicial activism is taking hold in France, much to the dismay of the recording industry, as judges are beginning to suspend the sentences of convicted file swappers. Further, they believe they are starting a revolution against the draconian laws at the base of the industry's legal agenda, and that sometimes laws need to be changed. Says Judge Dominique Barella of the laws against file swapping in today's society: 'It is similar to the sociological consequences of the Prohibition period in the U.S. (during the 1920s). Certain laws can have unexpected consequences on society.'"
from what i read, the French magistrates union has begun to openly advocate decriminalizing online trading in copyrighted works for personal use.
so what's personal use? less than 5 movies?
does that mean if i'm caught with more than 5 movies i'm a dealer?
can i get an exemption for medical use?
Here is a blurb from a article on the failure of prohibition by the Assistant Professor of Economics at Auburn University, Mark Thornton. If you read it, just substitue 'file swapping' for 'alcohol' and it seems to ring very true.
"National prohibition of alcohol (1920-33)--the "noble experiment" -- was undertaken to reduce crime and corruption, solve social problems, reduce the tax burden created by prisons and poorhouses, and improve health and hygiene in America. The results of that experiment clearly indicate that it was a miserable failure on all counts. The evidence affirms sound economic theory, which predicts that prohibition of mutually beneficial exchanges is doomed to failure
The lessons of Prohibition remain important today. They apply not only to the debate over the war on drugs but also to the mounting efforts to drastically reduce access to alcohol and tobacco and to such issues as censorship and bans on insider trading, abortion, and gambling.
Although consumption of alcohol fell at the beginning of Prohibition, it subsequently increased. Alcohol became more dangerous to consume; crime increased and became "organized"; the court and prison systems were stretched to the breaking point; and corruption of public officials was rampant. No measurable gains were made in productivity or reduced absenteeism. Prohibition removed a significant source of tax revenue and greatly increased government spending. It led many drinkers to switch to opium, marijuana, patent medicines, cocaine, and other dangerous substances that they would have been unlikely to encounter in the absence of Prohibition. Those results are documented from a variety of sources, most of which, ironically, are the work of supporters of Prohibition--most economists and social scientists supported it. Their findings make the case against Prohibition that
much stronger."
My favorite quote from prohibition was this on by Reverent Billy Sunday:
"The reign of tears is over. The slums will soon be a memory. We will turn our prisons into factories and our jails into storehouses and corncribs. Men will walk upright now, women will smile and children will laugh. Hell will be forever for rent."
Seems like the same kind of quote a RIAA is telling artist when they talk about their fight against file swapping.
Well, I know that I am drawing at least a couple unfounded correlations between the two, but its fun to do. Also, I should point out that I am not for or against either position. Both positions have their own problems.
--greg Vulcan quiescent... Q: What machine shutdown with this message?
When, how, and under what circumstances is it ok for copyright owners to protect their content?
Clearly, French judges want the ability to download the latest Eminem Album. And probably a copy of Return of the Sith to go with it.
/. ++
Prohibition.... they tried that in the movies and it didn't work!
Instead, criminal proceedings should be geared more toward prosecuting large-scale counterfeiting rings instead of going after "a young person who fills up his or her iPod."
See, but the music industry doesn't want to do any real investigative work. They want to make examples out of people that are just like everyone else. Everyday people who are swapping music for their portable media players are not going to feel scared of sympathetic towards large-scale operations. They are going to be scared of someone "just like them" that was prosecuted for doing exactly what they are.
"People still look at this as 'harmless, file sharing,' but the fact is that the effects are the same, or even actually worse, than a massive-scale organized crime piracy operation," Rechard said. "If you look at the number of files that are distributed and the number of music that is being offered without payment to the authors and injury inflicted to the copyright holders, at some point people need to start understanding what we are up against here."
That's because it is harmless and we have proven time and time again that your trumped up "loss" numbers are nothing more than spin and bullshit. At no point will be stop understanding that the music industry conglomorates are nothing but money grubbing, lying, pieces of shit that do nothing but steal from both sides of the equation for their own benefit.
'It is similar to the sociological consequences of the Prohibition period in the U.S. (during the 1920s).
The prohibition period in the US continues to this day. Marijuana, LSD, opiates, and a host of other substances less harmful than alcohol remain prohibited. It's just that the propaganda is better this time around.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
In a sense that matches up with the "fair use" notion in the US. Swapping a few songs with your friends hardly seems criminal, or at least trivial.
Pulling tens of thousands of files from other file-trading networks and then making them available for free to people anywhere in the world, that hardly sounds like "fair use". It's too bad the the technologies that enable the fair use case also enable the more clearly criminal case.
'It is similar to the sociological consequences of the Prohibition period in the U.S. (during the 1920s).'
This has some interesting implications; however, I don't think it'll be interpreted the same here in the states. See, Prohibition was viewed as the government taking away a liberty right, or the right to be left alone. Here is the Man telling me I can't buy alcohol.
Downloading MP3's is viewed as taking the "property" of somebody else. In other words, if I want to buy and drink alcohol, then who is the government to stop me? But if I want to take somebody's property (as defined by IP laws), then obviously, this changes things.
I do think that "jail time" people for downloading some music is ridiculous. Downloading music will never stop, this cycle will always continue. It's like the 55MPH speed limit. Nobody follows is, and yet the police still try to enforce it. Some of us will pay fines, and others will get away scott free.
IGB: More fun than eating oatmeal!
While I don't mind cutting out the middleman, I think this stinks for the artist. Let the artists set up their own websites and accept a payment equivalent to their royalty. Let's kick out the guys that say who will and will not release music. There's an explosion of new music out there, some of which we may not appreciate, that is just waiting for the opportunity to get listened to. Let's break up the whole cartel, the RIAA, the radio stations and anything else that stands in the way of the freedom of musical expression, which ought to be covered in the 1st amendment.
"Can there be a Klein bottle that is an efficient and effective beer pitcher?"
The laws concerning copyright of written text weren't changed when the Xerox ocopy machine became available. Should copyright laws on music recordings be changed just because it's so easy to store, copy and "share" such recordings? I don't see any argument other than "I want my free [commercial] music" and that's not a good enough reason.
Tag lost or not installed.
In a true capitalist society would patents & copyrights even exist ? I don't believe so, they're incompatible with that philosophy. The whole bitch & moan routine by mpaa/riaa/copyright holders/etc sounds like sourgrapes to me.
So now that Jusitces Kennedy and Stevens are advocating the use of international law and foreign judges opinons in Supreme Court descisions do you think they are going to take these rulings into consideration? It shall be interesting to see.
Madre de Dios! Es El Pollo Diablo! -- Captain Blondebeard
>So, France doesn't produce much music the world want s to listen to, or many movies they want to watch.
Really? Their music might not be to everyones taste but their movies can be absolutely superb.
RikF
In Soviet Russia you own your cat
seriously though, i think it's refreshing to hear people in authority looking at the situation from this perspective instead of blindly following.
change always has to start somewhere, at some level.
How could you?!? You missed out snails in your sterotype!
And france does produce some things I like to watch... *cough*
It's even more insane to criminalize file swapping than it is to criminalize drug use. Catching file swappers basically requires the violation of either the 4th ammendment or the first.
At one point in time the freedom to copy was so unimportant to the average person that the trading away that freedom in the hopes of some greater social benefit made sense. Now things have changed, and it's time to re-evaluate how the social benefit might be achieved without trading away an important and easily exercised freedom.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Looks like they're basically saying "Sorry, EU-MPAA, but we really do have more important issues to tend to than some high school kid that's downloading little bits of "1" and "0" that he can put on his iPod. Besides, he's paid the media tax that you turkeys claimed was necessary to cover the costs of piracy. Now go away."
I agree that sometimes the laws are a bit extreme in the US when if come to Copyrights. For instance the 3 years in jail felony for downloading a pre-release movie is a bit extreme. I think a fine would be more appropriate.
but on the other hand, some of these kids that are being fined only had like 433 songs. What happened to "The RIAA will only sue 'major' contributors to copyright infringement"? I thought they defined that as at least 900+ songs.
It isn't balanced in either direction. The punishment often doesn't fit the crime which I believe is some where in US criminal law.
No kidding. These judges aren't trying to change copyright law, they're trying to put it back to what it was originally designed to be!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
1. They didn't mention what the current punishment for "swapping files" was.
2. They never gave the reader any clue as to how many "convicted file swappers" there were.
How can I judge how big this event is if they don't give me any kind of ruler to measure it against. I know the RIAA in the US has sued some swappers for money, but it was all civil. Wired seems to act like this is a Bastille Day for file swappers, but I'm not even sure anyone was even in prison.
Top 10 Reasons To Procrastinate
10.
Well they're gonna have to accept that policing it will never get any more effective than simply scaring people into submission. The PC is just not a locked system so there's always going to be ways to break any copy-protection you throw at it and there will always be ways to communicate with people without being caught. I think mobile phones will take over as the music platform of choice - they're already merging with pda's and mp3 players (which are a passing fad) and they are easier to lock down than PC's (although obviously not 100%). People are more likely to impulse buy on a mobile because they have it on their person 24/7, you might be in a shop or at a party and you like the music so you'll take out your phone and buy it on the spot in 20 seconds, music recognition software and debit from your mobile account will mean this takes only a few button presses, instead of waiting until you're at home or in a music shop by which time you will have forgotten. The mobile platform will be attractive to the music industry because they will have more of a chance of locking it down, making sure only their software is used, but what makes it a good idea is that while people can hack it if they want, its far more convenient for most people just to pay, I'm pretty sure more people in the world now have mobile phones than PC's with net access.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
as judges release convicted fileswappers with suspended sentences associated with otherwise draconian penalties stipulated by copyright law. [emphasis added]
File swapping is not a crime! Copyright infringement is. We wouldn't call someone who downloaded child pornography a "convicted web-surfer"
I suppose I'm rehashing the tired hacker/cracker terminology argument, but terminology does matter. Public opinion shapes public policy, and ultimately creates laws. Even though their are legitimate uses for file sharing programs, we may find them made illegal simply because they were publicly associated with copyright infringement. Nevermind the fact that web browsers facilitate more copyright infringement than filesharing programs - it's the public perception that matters.
I'm a file swapper too. But that doesn't mean I'm guilty of copyright infringement.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Speaking of which:
t xt and the response: http://static.thepiratebay.org/whitestripes_respon se.txt
Latest email to the pirate bay: http://static.thepiratebay.org/whitestripes_mail.
The French use a different legal system that the English Common Law used in North America. It is based less on precedence (previous legal decisions). The ability of the impartial judiciary to "go with the times" is an important feature in their legal system. This system changes faster to suit the times than a precedence-based one. Of course, this is a two-edged sword, especially if the public mood has taken a dramatic draconian turn.
However, its much better than the US legal sytem which still hasn't got its head out of the Victorian era's butt.
If only we could fall into a woman's arms without falling into her hands
ever hear of 'no such thing as bad advertising'? artists of all levels, from just starting out, to top of the charts benefit from internet sharing.
:-}
everyone loves to argue that it hurts the music industry or hurts up and coming artists, but the only thing it can really do, is prevent shitty artists from making money - and how is that a bad thing? if you make crap, don't cry to the world that the problem was file sharers, the problem was your crappy music.
now I know there are 100 different ways (now, due to the pressue internet sharing put on the industry - you used to get stuck with a crappy cd) to test out music before you buy it, but is there a good way to listent to a full album for a while to decide if you really want to purchase it, or go to one of their concerts or support the artist in other ways?
i'm not normally one to cheer on France, but looks like they've done something right - I wonder if you were able to internet share paintings, sculptures and other artist work (beyond music, you get me) if France courts would be handing out the same ruling.
however, after IDRTFA (i did read the f'n article) this judge's statement is way out of place: "Judge Dominique Barella told Wired News. "It's like condemning people for driving too fast after selling them cars that go 250 kmh."" uh, ok so don't condemn me for using a gun that you sold me which I used to shoot you, or drinking too much of their Wine and drive around knocking out pedestrians - maybe i should retract my statement about France being right
don't hate me for this, they have file sharing, so it fits the comment
do you have shinyfeet?
i believe that the article is talking about the judges understanding what the people require.
It is also my understanding that higher court judges can overturn laws (notably marijuana laws in canada, various laws in the states) and dictate to the government that they need to shape up the laws to work with society.
The first stage is where the people complain,
then the judges will help,
then you have a problem and it must be legislated,
because criminals cannot be judged free 100% of the time for a crime...
for example (from the canadian marijuana laws overturnment) the city i am from orignially had a judge who THREW out every possesion arrest trial because the governemtn had not properly asserted the laws in a manner consistent with society!
Check journal for info on Anti-TextBook, an idea by me.
People understand it just fine. They just ignore it for their own convienience.
I'm really not seeing how you can see the analogy as anything other than ridiculous, unless you think that a ban on file swapping is leading today's teens to hard drugs.
In a way it does. The more you are told that something that seems obviously "OK" is illegal, the more you start to think that perhaps OTHER laws are silly as well.
The more laws you stack up that the majortiy of the populace simply do not follow (speeding, P2P, etc) the more people break other laws as well. "In for a penny, in for a pound" as the saying goes.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
So, France doesn't produce much music the world wants to listen to, or many movies they want to watch.
The best way to understand the relationship between Anglo and French cultures is to think of them as parallel universes. There is a lot of great stuff that happens in both that doesn't 'cross the bridge' between them.
French movies tend to be 'small' and not huge CGI blockbusters, but they tend to be the best of all the 'small' movies of the world. During the movie theater era before the VCR revolution of the mid-1980s, French films were widely shown in every major US cities. French directors like Truffaut and Rohmer were known throughout the world.
French music is not only the pop songs of the radio, but also most of Europe outside of the UK. Paris is also the ground zero for the world music movement. Much of the music of Africa is recorded there and many of the best African musicians are based there. Paris is also the center of the European orchestral music movement, both modern and classical. Classical music is rare and modern orchestral music unknown on US radio.
Back to the topic. I believe that the final effect of all the DRM and legal action against the consumers of corporate entertainment product will be the marked decrease in the demand for this product.
This might be beginning to happen with Hollywood movies. The box office revenue growth seen in the past eight years seems to have stopped. This has nothing to do with movie file sharing, because that activity is very small compared to the size of the industry itself. It's more due to high prices at the theaters and unexciting movies.
What we will see, hopefully, is a lot of smaller movies on DVD that rent for 1/2 or 1/3 of the cost of the latest blockbuster. It would seem to management that 20 $1 rentals is a lot worse than 4 $5 rentals, but that isn't so because the consumption of entertainment product creates its own demand for this product. It's a different type of product from, say, food. The more entertainment that you consume, the more that you want and the more money that you will pay for it.
The purpose of judges in English Law is to rule on the constitutionality of laws and to track and reconcile the hundreds of thousands of precedents. In France's code civile the judges can and do make up new law when it appears to them that a law is inadequate or overbearing.
In Europe we have legalized drugs, legalized prostitution, legalized gay marriages, and other things that in the US are seen as "taboo".
Is it really a mystery that now they're legalizing file swapping?
As a writer, programmer, and creative person, I've always been for strict copyright enforcement.
But I'm changing my mind. Why?
Art is about the medium, message, and reception. It used to be the medium was radio or a record, the message is the content, and the reception was just somebody absorbing the content.
That worldview is no longer valid. Therefore, laws and mores built upon it need to be re-examined.
The medium can be anything now -- disc, WiFi, BlueTooth, etc. The reception -- and here's the key point -- is not the human ear anymore. It's the hard drive. When I TiVo an old Star Trek episode, my computer's hard drive is the first to get it, not me. I use the computer as a extension to my brain and memory process. It's nothing at all like a book, or record.
This sucks for content producers, because the rules are going to change. Maybe not today, maybe not even this decade, but the world is changing. The people who made buggy whips were probably outraged that the horseless carriage came along.
I think the situation sucks. The reason it sucks is that people who have been playing by the rules are getting screwed by file-sharing. But there are no culprits here, save for the evolution of the human existance. Demonizing people and paying a lot of lawyers is just smoking so much rope. How many times was the new Star Wars movie downloaded in the last week? 100 thousand? More?
Use Occam's Razor -- has the world suddenly grew infected with souless criminals intent on stealing from the mouths of the creative industry? Or has time simply moved on?
What does this have to do with activism? This is what judges are supposed to do.
I don't think so. Judges are supposed to make rulings based upon the written law, not based upon their opinion of the written law. It's called judicial activism because rather than judging, they are legislating, and thus abusing their power by setting up their own law apart from that approved by those elected by the people specifically as representative lawmakers. (This is from a US perspective. The French system may be different.)
In case you want to disgree, think about this: copyright expires. It does so so that the art can be returned to society, it's rightful owner. If it were otherwise -- if the artist owned it -- wouldn't the expiration of copyright have to be considered stealing?
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
That's all it does.
If you infrigne on someone's copyright, you aren't stealing anything, what you are doing is taking away their legal right to profit from the work they own the rights to profit from.
The right to profit from an easily copyable work is something that should be protected and at the same time it shouldn't be continually extended as it has been during the past 20 or so years.
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
I'm a proponent of legalized file-swapping/P2P, but even I don't equate the impact of over-zealous IP law with that of Prohibition.
The Mafia had running gun-battles with tommy guns with the police through the streets of Chicago.
-to say nothing of the devestation that modern drug prohibition has wrought on our society.
File-swapping is a tempest in a teapot compared to the impact of drug/alcohol prohibition. My biggest concern is that file-swapping prohibition might lead to erosion of free speech and fair use rights, and amounts to government pandering to what should be an illegal cartel (RIAA/MPAA/BSA).
The two situations compared amount to a false analogy.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
This is actually a tricky subject. On the face of it, yes they shouldn't have an "opinion". However, within a system of checks-and-balances, it is the responsibility of the judiciary to interpret the laws and even decicide if they are unconstituational or unenforcable.
Where it can get tricky is do you believe the constitution is a "complete" document. Do you believe we are only due those rights speicifically spelled out in the constitution over 250 years ago or are there other rights we should be afforded even if they aren't really laid out in the constitution? The US government was basically laid out at a time when the assumption was the legislative branch couldn't get TOO far out of control because they have to answer to the people. Because of this they have the sole right to add constituational amendments with a 2/3 vote. Once this is done, in theory there is nothing the judiciary can do about it.
Today, in many ways you could argue the legislative branch doesn't really have to answer to the people. Its more they have to answer to the social eliete and those people can help them get elected. There is certinaly talk about media being liberal or conservitive and if the legislative makes those in charge of the media happy thats all they need to worry about as the media can then take care of convincing the "people" who to vote for. Personally, I don't think it has gotten too far out of hand and the system is still working, but this is the worry.
If the legislative DID get WAY out of control they could just pass tons of constituational ammendments and completely by-pass the "balance" the judiciary was meant to provide.
As an example, its pretty tough to read into the constitution that everyone is created equal and have the same rights, except in the case of gay marriage. Judges can easily see this and so are striking down such laws. So now there is talk of passing an amendment banning this to get by the judiciary. If this were to happen, what do you do? The constitution's core concepts clash with a new amendment so what do you do?
This is where it gets REALLY tricky. Some people subscribe to the idea of "natural law" (I personally agree with this). In a nut-shell means that reguardless of what laws are written down, there are a "natural" set of laws which also exist. For example, of this from wikipedia Natural law is intended to function as a non-theistic standard by which laws may themselves be judged. One classic example is that of the Nazi final solution: the laws which permitted the extermination of Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholics, Poles, Communists, etc. may have been formulated and ratified within the legal structures of Germany, but they violated natural law..
While I completely agree there is a natrual law, and cases like the above example is a time when it should have been envoked by someone THIS is the tricky part. Since this "natural" law is basically completely subjective, it could be used by idiot judges anywhere anytime for anything. There is no real way to say "OK, use this if Nazi are killing people but not if its something I want". It can be very dangerous in cases to use it and equally dangerous in other cases not to use it. Anyway, a use of "natural law" as the basis for a decision could easily be considered "judicial activisim". All the current talk currently about "judicial activisim" is really a bunch of crap. What they are doing now is thier JOB!!!! This balance is clearly spelled out! They ARE supposed to look at laws and decide if they are valid (unconstitional, unenforcable, etc), but those currently in power happen to want things which aren't strickly constitutional and are try to put pressure on the judiciary to have them stop doing thier jobs.
Anyone who really buys into this "judicial activisim" stuff REALLY should have paid more attention in civics class.
"reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
This is not what copyright laws were about, and to the true die-hard oldschool believer and many creators alike still isn't. Copyrights were not ment to be a way to control revenue. Copyrights were meant to promote creativity through the temporary granting of a monopoly over a particular work, kind of a "You have solo control over this work, do with it as you please until you have to give it up to public domain where others can build upon it." After that limited time, works would go into the public domain where they could be built upon, but as the extentions become more and more, this will be seen less and less often. As far as I am concerned though, creators don't have a right to profit, instead they have a right to try to profit (which I think the law works in that sense too), because quite frankly, you really don't know how well a work will do, popularity or profit wise, beforehand.
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
That's a political position, and one so noisily promoted in the US (by the Heiritage Foundation and its friends) that it's become mainstream. But it's not fundamental to society.
In Europe, property rights are not generally considered to be more important than other rights. Europe, unlike the US, had a feudal era. Until about 200 years ago, most real estate was owned by a few powerful barons, who leased it out. It took some bloody revolutions to end that.
That history matters, and is reflected in the legal system. Trespass and squatting are minor offenses, and in many circumstances legal, in England, for example.
And copyright is not unquestionably "property". Legally, it's a statutory monopoly. As a US judge said in the MGM vs. Grokster case:
The French and American legal and judicial systems are different.
t em)
The American system is based on English Common Law.
The French system is based on The Napoleonic Code.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_(legal_sys
"Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex, I could pinch them." --Marvin the Martian
The comparision to Prohibition is an appropriate one. When a large number of people oppose a particular law, it's the laws problem, not the peoples problem. You simply can't argue against perception, and the perception of most people from the "mp3 era" is that file swapping is not theft.
Whether it is or is not theft isn't the issue, the issue is the RIAA's refusal to take advantage of the situation by creating new products and services which mesh with the perceptions of consumers. Intstead they use their efforts to sue people who are only going to spend more time being careful before they go about pirating again. The lawsuits accomplish nothing but create an environment of anger and desire for retribution.
There is a time for focusing on the problem and then there is a time for focusing on the solution. The RIAA spends most of their time in the former.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
...what you are doing is taking away their legal right to profit from the work they own the rights to
Careful there. You do not have the right to profit. You do have the right to attempt to profit.
That may seem like a minor distinction, but it's actually a huge one. Confusing the two will only muddy the copyright water even further, which nobody needs.
I would call it a local maxima.
One possible outcome might be the end of big budget movies
As another poster wrote, how much is file sharing hurting George Lucas's pocketbook? Or the creators of Spider-Man or X-Men?
Who are the file swappers stealing from? The black stuntman in the ads?
Give me a break. Maybe movies like Gigli would never have been made. That's about where it ends IMO. The blockbusters would continue to get made regardless.
IMO an open distribution method would encourage theatre use.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
What he is talking about is just freedom. Freedom to work and live without domineering forces. I was hoping that some of you free market slashdotters would start to see the light because of the rather obvious case that sits right in front of us all--the monopoly power of cablecos and telcos. Obviously, they are inhibiting the advance of technology through their dominant power.
Monopoly power, which government enables, isn't freedom or the free market. Much as what you say in that socialism doesn't exist, neither does the free market. Instead what we have is a corporate aristocracy. It bares no resemblance to Adam Smyth's capitalism.
"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
FalconThomas Jefferson, 1814
Should there be a Law?
Ayn Rand was a total and absolute asshole who was longing for the caveman days where the one with the biggest stick could beat the shit out of anyone else for no reason whatsoever.
I don't know where you come up with Ayn Rand supporting violence as she opposed violence and the use of force against another.
Ayn Rand (1905-1982)
... She very properly realized that, since the free market is built upon voluntary exchanges, capitalism requires firm moral limits, ruling out violence, coercion, fraud, etc...
The Potowmack Institute
If a society provided no organized protection against force, it would compel every citizen to go about armed, to turn his home into a fortress, to shoot any strangers approaching his door-- or to join a protective gang of citizens who would fight other gangs, formed for the same purpose, and thus bring about the degeneration of that society into the chaos of gang-rule, i.e., rule by brute force, into perpetual tribal warfare of prehistoric savages.
The use of force-- even its retaliatory use-- cannot be left at the discretion of individual citizens. Peaceful co-existence is impossible if a man has to live under the constant threat of force to be unleashed against him by any of his neighbors at any moment. Whether his neighbor's intentions are good or bad, whether their judgement is rational or irrational, whether they are motivated by a sense of justice or by ignorance or by prejudice or by malice-- the use of force against one man cannot be left to the arbitrary decision of another.
FalconShould there be a Law?