Reviews:
 ·Charter
| reply to Noah Vail
Re: Usenet + Encryption / Private BitTorrent said by Noah Vail:said by Metatron2008:Except like I said above, pretty much every long standing government has had laws against things like theft, or murder, or anything where you take from somebody who owns something that you don't. Is your position that no law can be ethically broken? said by Metatron2008:You talk about societal illness, well a real societal illness is one where people perceive laws as easily broken so they can get what they want at the expense of others. That statement would be worthy of a healthy society if the laws were consistently written with integrity. It is societal illness when laws are enforced and justice executed based primarily upon financial/power structures. NV If the argument is based around laws like child porn, thats different. People married people younger then 18 for years, and consentual sex is not rape.
But something as basic as theft is something that really shouldn't be argued. Of all the laws that have changed, the very basic ones have always lived on.
And there is a reason why those basic laws exist. When people start to think that they can do what they want with other people's stuff and get away with it, it becomes a societal illness. |
|
 Noah VailSon made my AvatarPremium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
kudos:2
·Bright House
| said by Metatron2008:But something as basic as theft is something that really shouldn't be argued. Of all the laws that have changed, the very basic ones have always lived on. And there is a reason why those basic laws exist. When people start to think that they can do what they want with other people's stuff and get away with it, it becomes a societal illness. What is your feeling about laws
that are composed by corporate lawyers
and passed by legislators
who receive lobbying dollars
from the corporations who are served by those laws?
Is the ethics of an issue decided for you when the law originates from a corporate law group?
NV
--
In my perfect religion, a giant hole appears and sucks up all the lousy people.
I call it the Crapture. |
|
DesdinovaPremium
join:2003-01-26
Gaithersburg, MD | reply to Metatron2008
"But something as basic as theft is something that really shouldn't be argued. Of all the laws that have changed, the very basic ones have always lived on."
Except that almost nothing about copyright law in either intent or execution has been maintained. The original intent of copyright law was pretty basic and obvious: create only enough financial incentive to inspire those who can create the means to do so in order to benefit the culture. Once they'd been modestly rewarded, the ability to derive compensation ended and they would then have to create something else and provide the culture with more neat things to play and grow with.
Unfortunately, somewhere along the way a number of middlemen who had nothing to do with a thing's creation decided they'd earned a greater right-of-access and took advantage of the system to create an environment that favored their revenue streams over the culture's needs for growth. These revisions were enacted without the direct involvement of those who would most be affected (the society).
So yeah, many folks who understand what the laws were supposed to protect versus what they actually do protect don't feel overly compelled to honor their current form.
Folks can stand atop a soap box and scream all day about Anarchy This and Social Disorder That but they always have to compare IP infringement to rape or murder for their analogies to have any meaning. I'm sorry but such comparisons are spurious, ignorant and completely irrelevant. If you need to compare IP law to anything outside the confines of the original discussion then your analogy is probably flawed.
IP law is IP law and a meaningful discussion of how it's been abused by industry doesn't require any outside comparators. The bottom line is pretty simple: the laws were created to benefit the culture in the long run and NOT the creators (or guardians in the case of a creation that has outlasted the creator; i.e. Mickey Mouse). That such laws have been so perversely warped out of recognition for the benefit of a tiny majority against the good of a much larger majority strikes me as the REAL point of discussion. |
|
 rogunitUhhh, Sir?Premium
join:1999-09-18
Phoenix, AZ | reply to Metatron2008
"Btw, it's 'prove', not proof... Because a person with your ability to type... blah blah blah"
Btw, it's 'consensual', not consentual.  |
|
|
|
