krayzie bone
join:2006-09-03
Marietta, GA
| reply to mocycler
Re: Right direction
No I don't think it's offensive to anyone. The poster mentioned nothing about civil rights. He was probably referring to the concept of natural law, which Dr. King promoted. If a law is immoral or takes away "natural rights" then it is ok to not follow it. |
|
james
join:2001-02-26
antarctica
| reply to mocycler
The monopoly and control that the record labels have while contributing nothing to the product offends me. The fact that you're claiming that Dr King's words dont apply to all unjust laws is more offensive than anything. The fact that you're the one who brought up the race issue also offends me.
All he did was quote Dr. King, word for word. And since you disagree with him on whether or not the law is unjust (you have the right to believe that) you chose to exploit racial tension to make him unable to express himself (how dare you).
For far too long have publishers exploited artists and authors while contributing nothing to the finished product. The internet has finally put an end to that and there isnt a damn thing you can do about it (and I have yet to hear a REASONABLE argument in favour of doing so) |
|
mocycler
Premium
join:2001-01-22
Naperville, IL
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·AT&T Midwest
| reply to jester121
said by jester121  :I'm reasonably sure that Dr. King wasn't talking about uploading music...or any of a dozen other laws that one might find mildly objectionable...it's pretty insulting that you chose to invoke those words in this topic...it's the greed bone doing that kind of talking. The topic of filesharing/stealing/downloading, or whatever, has been kicked around for a loooong time. The general editorial slant of this website's operators (and a huge majority of the members) is that it's ok because the record companies are crooks anyway. Call it the "Robin Hood" defense, if you will.
Framing the issue as some great crusade against social injustice is not new, and we all know it's no more than a thinly-veiled scam to justify what can only be defined as wanting something for nothing.
But making allusions to Dr. King is an astonishing a new low. It never occured to me that there are people in this world ignorant enough to twist the tenets of the civil rights movement into a valid reason for illegal music piracy.
And yes, it's really, really offensive to those who, were it not for ML King, would still be sitting at the back of the bus .
mocycler
|
|
jester121
Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
 ·surpasshosting
 ·ViaTalk
| reply to bi0tech
I'm reasonably sure that Dr. King wasn't talking about uploading music, or speeding, or any of a dozen other laws that one might find mildly objectionable.  In fact it's pretty insulting that you chose to invoke those words in this topic.
Besides, no one's conscience is telling them that copyright law is "unjust", it's the greed bone doing that kind of talking. The same "Screw it, everyone says and does what they want to" kind of attitude that's pretty much taking over society. |
|
bi0tech
join:2003-06-19
| reply to mocycler
"One who breaks an unjust law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law. "
It's kind of amusing to hear that 'disagreeing' argument when you know damn well the RIAA is guilty as hell of collusion, price fixing, and at least a half dozen other practices against free market competition. The simple fact remains that if a corporation disagrees they pay lobbyist and pay off legislators to make it legal, when an individual does it they just take a chance that they won't get caught. The industry just wants to shift the responsibility of persecution to a publicly funded organization and reap the benefits to lousy business practices.
If you want to reduce the entire argument to an individual moral judgment, I find the greater wrong on the other side of the equation. |
|
