Bootlegged Music in Russia

Guppy06 writes "MosNews.com has an interesting article on the thoughts and opinions of everyday Muscovites on the rampant music (et al) piracy in their country. It seems that some of them don't have much trouble justifying it to themselves, with quotes like 'Yes, I know that some of the sellers are here with burned CDs. But they have to earn a living too, I can understand them.' The article also mentions 'In a country where the average monthly salary is about $240, buying the latest album for $15 is a grotesque luxury, let alone spending $600 on Adobe Photoshop or a similar computer program.' Apparently, catchy slogans like 'Listen up, you pirate, I choose copyright!' just aren't working."

Comments

Re:Geneva Conventions

[julesh]

Even if the Taliban were a recognized government, they'd still fail because they didn't have uniforms. (A pedantic point? Sure. But that's law for you; law is nothing more than the rigorous application of pedantism.)

Pedantic? I don't think so. The idea behind this is that if non-uniformed soldiers are not guaranteed the right to be treated in a civilised fashion, this ought to encourage soldiers to wear uniforms. Soldiers wearing uniforms is a good thing, because it reduces the chance that civilians in a war zone will be confused with soldiers and shot by mistake. Call me old fashioned, but I think any step that may protect civilians during a war is a good one.

Re:Geneva Conventions

[rjh]

if cival war were to break out then anyone captured during that cival war who was not fighting on the side of the Government could be denied their rights under the Geneva convention.

The Geneva Conventions have never been construed as applying to internal conflict. Geneva only talks about international hostilities, not intranational hostilities.

You're incorrect in thinking rebels in a civil war could be denied their rights under the Geneva Conventions. They can't be, because they have no rights under the Geneva Conventions.

This is something that Bush seems to forget, or just ignore.

I would take this criticism much more seriously if it were made by people who have read the Geneva Conventions and understand what it says, as well as what it doesn't.

Re:Maybe they need a new slogan

[VendettaMF]

I don't think that Bush cares about what other people think

Two observations...

First : "Unless they're a bunch of religion based throwbacks from down south or corporate profiteers that he needs votes and cash(repectively) from."

Second : "I don't think that Bush understands what other people think."

Re:Geneva Conventions

[mOdQuArK!]

Something like a third of the prisoners released from Gitmo have been found to have involved themselves with terrorism/freedom fighting again. For them the conflict isn't over.

What do you mean "again"? Since they were apparently released from Gitmo because there wasn't enough evidence to hold them, if they are fighting against the U.S. now, it is _because_ of the way the U.S. treated them.

Oi! Leave that false dichotomy alone!

[aug24]

You are arguing that there are two choices: army==geneva==rights vs !army==!geneva==!rights. This is untrue.

Taking an example from your own text, you argue that they can't be considered soldiers, but at the same time arguing that they 'militarized' an area. Surely only an army can militarize an area? This is where the lie is revealed: you wish to treat them as an army in order to turn them into spies, but refuse to where it would turn them into PoWs.

There is a description for people who are not in a recognised military and still do bad things with guns. We call them criminals. This is where your and Bush's argument really starts to be offensive: they are arrested, but not given either their Geneva or Miranda rights.

Justin.