Slashdot Mirror
Anti-P2P Law Looms over the Horizon
Adrian Lopez writes "MIT's Technology Review has a piece by Eric Hellweg about pending legislation known as the Intellectual Property Protection Act. According to Hellweg, IPPA could make it illegal to skip past commercials and could 'criminalize the currently legal act of using the sharing capacity of iTunes, Apple's popular music software program.' More information on IPPA is available at the Public Knowledge website."
The internet is international, how will this be enforcable?
Senator John McCain stated his opposition to this bill, and specifically cited the anti-commercial skipping feature: "Americans have been recording TV shows and fast-forwarding through commercials for 30 years," he said. "Do we really expect to throw people in jail in 2004 for behavior they've been engaged in for more than a quarter century?"
Your jails are full of fellow citizens that dared to smoke pot. That "crime" has been on the books far, far longer Senator.
Trolling is a art,
We have been fast forwarding through commercials for years. This legislation is a joke. Consumers are not required to read the ads in magazines or newspapers. I really see no difference.
It's articles like this that make me want to say ...
;) ... The Dude
Let's ignore our legislators
Orwell is crying right about now.
Not since Marie-Antoinette played milkmaid has looking simple and honest been so fake and complicated.
How do they hope to enforce this law?
We are creating the old USSR, right here in America.
We have lost parts of the 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendment. Bush's 2000 win gutted any of 10th that was left.
The police can now search your home and "finincal" records with court oversite with informing you that it even happened and barring all from talking about it.
So why does anyone think that removing Fast Forward button would not be another freedom lost?
ITunes is only shared over a network, and isn't downloaded but viewed - doesn't this mean that the feature could be construed as a viewing to a private audience? This is legal with movies etc, why made illegal for music? Just because music is more commonly transfered makes congressmen antsy over the streaming issue.
...if Edison invents the lightbulb today; there would be atleast huge protests on 7 PM News by candle and gaslight makers union; atleast 3 lawmakers would speak against lightbulb and how it is dangerous due to its explosive nature; 10 states would pass laws banning usage of lightbulbs...
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
Further along the horizon is legislation that will require all citizens to actually buy the products that the see advertised. Being exposed to an advertisement and not purchasing it is a breach of contract, punishable by large fines or death.
0110100100100000011000010110110100100000011000100
We need some kind of bill-watch section. That way when this gets voted on, we can have an article saying which way it went. Most of the bills that are brought up on slashdot are totally forgotten about afterwards and never posted about again.
The gameplan is: Lump some eight laws together in a package. Make one of them outrageous stupid. The stupid one gets all the flak, is pulled from the package and the rest sails straight trough congres.
TCAP-Abort
This is the third article on /. in a week that totally misreads the proposed addition to 17 USC 110.
It does NOT make it illegal to skip commercials.
It just says that this new exemption doesn't apply to skipping commercials. If there is an EXISTING exemption (or if the manner by which the commercials are skipped isn't even prima face infringement) then those still remain in effect just as they do now.
This is little more than a clarification.
That said, it is a bad bill overall, since there are a lot of other provisions attached with this one which suck, such as criminalizing copyright infringement even more than it is now, permitting the government to file civil suits for infringement, further gutting registration formalities, etc.
But this is one of the only halfway decent parts of it -- as it would tend to remove any doubt as to the legality of what Clean Flicks has been doing, and would permit other creative uses of EDLs, such as to edit Jar Jar out of Star Wars movies -- and so it annoys me quite a lot to see people's outrage arising out of a misreading of the bill. Be outraged at the rest of the bill, dammit.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
While I understand Seantor McCain's remarks, I guess I wonder as how legislation would affect my right to disable images in websites and thus ignoring banners, or even using other software that does not render the ads at all? Does this mean I have to load and all website ads, lest I be judged a criminal, and if I scroll past an embedded add in an article does this mean I'm "fast forewarding" that add. This seems incredibly restrictive and amazingly unenforceable. Diq - spelling is no object
Wouldn't this also ban Adblock from Firefox? From the sound of it, it would, and if ads are forcibly viewed, it sounds like they'll forcibly allow adware and spyware soon too.
And include th standard 100 dollar check for reelection campaign, plus 50 dollar checks for key staff members (chief of staff, legislative director, the Legislative Assistant for tech issues). Anything over 50 for a staff member is illegal. Or maybe you could do the unthinkable and contract a spammer to flood congress with emails against the act (and then make sure to sign up the spammer for as many snail-mail advertisements as possible).
Viral software licensing is not freedom, it is in fact GNU/Socialism.
Jonathan Lamy, spokesperson for the RIAA: "(...) Intellectual property theft is a national security crime."
Soon we'll see P2P users referred to as terrorists ;))
Fascist corporate governments require consumers to consume their prescribed advertising. Every citizen is required to consume propaganda that innoculates against antisocial tendencies, like dissent, conservation, and critical thinking - or any thinking at all.
--
make install -not war
Just wait until this law passes, and gets interpreted by courts (especially the part about not being able to skip commercials). Pretty soon, when you are driving on the freeway, you are thus legally required to completely read every billboard you pass by....
... of this type of "law" that I have seen proposed so far are driven by the need to protect commerical intellectual property, they all appear to dismiss the benefitis of sharing intellectual property that is designed to be shared - educational content for example - making it impossible to do either.
One I understand, but the bi-product is too costly on society...
Simple. the RIAA (just because they like to do these kinds of things) will dispatch a legal representative (and secretary [at your expense of course]) to each and every home with a VCR or DVD recorder, then whenever you fast-forward they will have the power to hand you a press-play-and-desist order. Failure to respond to this will result in the immediate seizure of your remote control, whereby the lawyer will tow your VCR to the impound and force you to make an over-inflated out-of-impound settlement.
You don't think they haven't already thought this through?
"So why does anyone think that removing Fast Forward button would not be another freedom lost?"
Freedom to be entertained I suppose. So why not send the clearest message that even the courts haven't taken away? You know the right to vote with your money. Does the "can't skip" law affect those who don't own any kind of entertainment? Does the DMCA affect those who refuse to own any entertainment say what they create with their own minds?
The only reason all these laws affect you is because of the American public's addiction to entertainment. Get rid of that addiction and the drug dealer has no sway over you. Continue to use, and pretend it's some kind of right, and you'll be forever playing by the entertainment dealers rules. Dance, consumer, dance.
Click here or here.
... here in the US we will be paying high prices to cover the creation of the intellectual property (R&D in drug company parlance) while the rest of the world gets to use the product for next to nothing.
In fact, I predict that some countries will eventually start to complain about the cost of the bandwidth needed to enjoy all the free stuff that is out there.
This kind of legislation will only result in further crippling of the failing US economy. A once great economic empire will collapse under the weight of its own fear and paranoia. I say let it happen. It is just a form of Darwinism and it will allow burgeoning empires such as the EU to thrive.
Whoa thar. Time out. Game penalty. Chill.
The sharing of the Anarchist's Cookbook would be a national security issue. IP theft of weapons technology, air defense systems, domestic utility and transportation infrastructuce are national security issues.
But P2P of ENTERTAINMENT is a "national security crime"?!?
That's the most flawed stretch of reasoning I've ever seen. And I don't even engage in P2P.
And if this bill becomes law and my fast forward button is outlawed,
It's a sad day when laws are passed to perpetuate outdated business models.
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
Well hard dirty capitalist cash, and the fact they TV is a good baby sitter for the masses to stop them plotting to overthrow a corrupt government.
You can still all own a gun right? Think about where you could point that gun and make a real difference.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
In a couple of years we'll get sued for singing a song in the shower or re-enacting a movie scene without paying royalties.
where's all that Karma?
interactive. The biggest losers in the whole TiVo thing have to be scripted pre-recorded shows. News shows quickly lose a lot of their value after they are aired. Aside from a few select games, almost all sports shows lose their value after the game is over, the only shows that don't are shows such as sitcoms etc.
Hopefully, people will see the insanity of this law and not pass it, which will mean that the distribution methods for scripted shows will either have to evolve or die. I personally hope they evolve into distributing the shows directly to the public via an iTunes like service. That way I no longer have to pay for cable just to see the few shows that I enjoy; I can purchase them directly. The producers of these shows no longer have to be encumbered by the increasingly draconian regulations of the FCC. Just imagine what South Park could do if they weren't worried about being fined.
Monstar L
OK, I'm going to record an MP3 reading of the Intellectual Property Protection Act (all 200,000 pages) and intersperse commercials in support of the bill throughout the MP3. I will share it on my network (there's no place like http://127.0.0.1) and present you with a dilemma. You can stream the reading off my network and break one part of the legislation. Or, you can choose not to listen and thus disregard my commercials and break another part of the legistlation. Don't worry, it's not supposed to make sense, unless your IQ is less than the average Hollywood filmmaker.
This sig donated to Pater. Long live
http://www.crimethinc.com/
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
Apple must have negotiated that permission from the labels when they created the feature, along with the burning and iPod sync limitations. It may be true, however, that such a feature might become illegal in other products.
Does it make it illigal to leave the room or mute the sound during commercials? what about if you record a program (on your old VCR) and pause recording during breaks? There has to be some sort of legal limit here, does anyone know what it is? Same goes for P2P, what if you build up a social network through email or instant messaging - I message my friend saying "have you got xyz.mp3?" and if not he will message someone else and ask for me. Where do you draw the line with that? Writing laws is almost the same as writing software, but even Microsoft can write better software than most law-makers can write laws. Law is like a giant software product, some of it is 100 years old and has no use but bloats the rest, market research has been mostly ignored, allot of it is so crap you wouldnt be able to pay peope to use it and the rest is so full of holes that an _entire_ profession has grown up around exploiting it.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
...so I can't expect anybody actually went and read the fucking article. Here's the Gooogle cache for the article at Public Knowledge. Take a minute and read it.
Once again, the intellectual property cartels are lobbying thru legislation that seeks to further limit and erode the rights of consumers. We all seem to be laboring under the idiotic assumption that the current system is "just how things are". Copyright and patent protection comes from the People, and is a social contract. This contract is supposed to benefit both parties-- the creators of intellectual property and the People.
Write your Senator. Vote. Make intellectual property a campaign issue for future elections. Tell other people about how their rights are being taken away and encourage them to do the same.
The Attitude Adjuster, I hate me, you can too.
I remember the former Soviet Union outlawed all sorts of things. Did it stop people? No, it just pissed them off until...well we all know what happened.
I have to chuckle everytime I see a law or technology attempt to suppress the desires of the people. First we had Napster, then Kazaa, now Bittorrent. The geeks will always win.
Now what worries me is the effects of all this in the interim. The message of freedom being spread throughout the world is spoken by those who consistently attempt to pass laws controlling what we can and can't do.
If you're Exxon, you'll get an exemption for pollution. If you're Joe Blow, you'll get put in jail for fast forwarding through a commercial. What's wrong with this picture?
The global multi nationals and domestic corperate giants sure do have our politicians by the balls dont they.
How insulting. It rememds me of clockwork orrange where you're forced to sit and watch.
AC comments get piped to
The first anonymized P2P applications are here - great ones are http://freenet.sourceforge.net and http://entropy.stop1984.com/en/home.html - and hopefully some talented developers will create more. Let the age of anonymized filesharing begin!
I'm a little concerned that the EFF and other groups like downhillbattle.org are not helping organize opposition to this bill.
It's common knowledge that the government is slow and us internet folk are fast. Yet here we are seeing the opposite, the government is being fast, and freedom organizations of the internet are slow to pick up the fight.
Perhaps this suggests groups like EFF, et al need to re-examine how they react to legistlative bills. Not to sound over-dramatic, but I think they need an "army" of concerned citizens ready to start calling/writing their legistlators within 24 hours notice. Sort of like the minute-men of the American revolutionary war. Perhaps we even need a figuritive watch-tower to monitor congress and catch these bills in the very earliest stages.
In the bigger picture I'm an optimist and I hope to see over the next few years that the internet will help people get organized and bring strong pressure to bear on governments. We see how powerful the open-source model is, I'm waiting to see a similar phenomenom with politics. We see beginings of this with the Dean campaign and things like Groklaw but again I'm hoping this is just the begining.
I just wish there were more I could do personally.
--
I wonder if they will make it illegal to turn off your TV during a commecial.
No, propaganda is more than just "information" - it is information designed to create specific actions, through perpetuation of a specific image of reality, in which the included information is true, and associated with the selected action. The actual accuracy of the information, the appropriateness of the associated reaction, and the consistency of any of the propaganda with the real world, or the rest of the consumer's worldview, is immaterial, except as a design problem to be solved. That is one reason the Spanish word for "advertisements" is "propagandas" - its information delivered as a tool for modifying behavior. The technique is most successful when referencing an encompassing worldview, implicitly or explicitly - whether fascism, communism, consumerism, environmentalism, or any other belief system.
Fascism is corporate government. Usually politically controlling the people through fear, backed by application of force. It also usually includes arbitrary bigotry, to harness mass consciousness in the service of the new worldview behavior mechanisms: "Jews must be destroyed, so Germans must join the army", or "Gays must be cured of their sins, so Americans must elect Bush". Fascism is not just manipulation of information, strong words arguing points of action through connotations. Fascists aren't the only assholes. Fascism is very specific, though fascists are usually skilled as cryptofascists, hiding when it suits them. Fascists are masters of media, and much more insightful in the workings of the mass mind, which is innoculated and brainwashed every day in the mass media, without needing to strap individuals into chairs for psychohypnotic trance therapies and subliminal programming. That's what late-night TV is for.
--
make install -not war
A little outside their jurisdiction.
Juris-my-diction. Watch the US do everything it can get away with under TRIPS and other WTO treaties if it thinks other countries are letting their citizens get away with violating American authors' copyrights.
First let's examine where the Feds think they derive the authority to even debate these issues. It probably comes from Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8,"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
Note that the language includes "promote the progress". It does not include provisions for deterring competition. Note also that the language includes "authors and inventors" and makes no provision for the corporate empires which manage to back authors and inventors into a financial corner to induce them to sign away all ownership.
As always, without anything in the Constitution to specifically address P2P, fast-forwarding of commercials, or regulation of content and viewing, we must defer to the 10th Amendment,"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
To preempt those communists in the crowd who would like to interpolate their favorite part of the Constitution to include their pet issue of the week I would like to remind everyone of Amendment 9,"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
So, there you have it. As always our federal politicians are wasting our taxpayer money debating issues which they have no authority, responsibility, or legal jurisdiction over. As always they will come up with mandates which will tax us further, hamper manufacturers, and prevent the consumers from getting what we pay for.
Don't blame me. I didn't vote for any of the current politicians. I also do more than my fair share attempting to educate those who don't have any clue what real freedom or liberty is.
Bring on the trolls.
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
There's a local 25 year old teacher who will no longer teach because someone high on drugs crossed the centerline and hit her head on.
Driving impaired is wrong, whether it's due to drugs, fatigue, or talking on a cellphone. You're not suggesting we ban cell phones entirely just becuase they cause some accidents. Why should pot be any different? Keep in mind that a little benadryl impairs driving more than Cannabis.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I don't get it. Isn't South Park already on cable? Thus, it isn't regulated by the same laws that regulate free over-the-air content?
Why does Comedy Central need to censor at all if they are a cable channel?
Someone enlighten me.
-Z
Fascists are masters of media,
Indeed. They are the pigs in Animal Farm.
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
Members of my family have been killed by drunk drivers, yet I do not blame the drink I blame the person who drank too much then got behind the wheel.
This blaming the tool/object for the actions of humans is completely and totally stupid.
Copyright and patent protection comes from the People, and is a social contract.
That I signed when?
Write your Senator.
I have done so, and I get form letters back explaining the alleged importance of expansion of the scope of restriction under copyright.
Vote.
Badnarik lost. Beside the fact that many affected people are ineligible to vote, both major American political parties support expansion of the scope of restriction under copyright (otherwise, why would support for the Bono Act and DMCA have been so nearly unanimous?), and Duverger's Law prevents any third-party candidate from winning in a stable state of politics.
Is there a Citizens Lobby Group? Or is the EFF all we have?
"terrorism" and "pedophilia" are the root passwords to the Constitution
A law against murder. Sounds great
A law against burglary. Good idea
A law against smoking pot. Now we are pushing it. If you are going after the DWI aspect of it, sure, otherwise... (Though on a personal morality basis I think it's wrong. I really don't believe I should impose my views in a personal arena like this. Because of course what is to prevent someone else doing the same to me when they are in the majority.)
A law against fast forwarding through commercials. Ok senator, the good people of your state think you need to look for a new line of work
My Weblog
from wipo.int: Intellectual property refers to creations of the mind: inventions, literary and artistic works, and symbols, names, images, and designs used in commerce.
"Intellectual property theft is a national security crime. It's appropriate that the fed dedicate resources to deter and prosecute IP theft."
Since when were you able to steal "creations of the mind"? I don't like this word game which intends to make copying stuff morally relative to stealing. If you are against corporations tightening the copyright law, don't use the term "intellectual property". The word "property" distorts and oversimplifies the whole idea.
Now, I certainly do not think fastfowarding past commercials should be illegal, but I do wonder how non-cable television will survive if no one watches the ads that pay for the free tv. I have read many comments on /. about product placement. Is that what the future holds? Will network tv fundamentally change how it funds itself? Will the same hold for radio that is not publicly funded? What are everyone's thoughts?>br>
My other computer is a Jacquard loom.
People ought to be asking themselves, seriously, a much broader question: Should Congress to be passing laws that the majority of people don't want? A case can be made for such laws in the case of individual rights of minorities. But I don't see that a corporation merits any consideration whatsoever with respect to any law that restricts our freedom.
There's also a bit more practical reason to illegalize pot usage in public places - just consider it to be the equivalent of a public smoking ban. People can still do it in their own homes, but it will work better than just considering it a criminally restricted substance.
You're telling me. I took benadryl before work one day for allergies, and I had to stop in a supermarket parking lot during the drive and sleep for fifteen minutes because I almost fell asleep while driving.
My other computer is a Jacquard loom.
As a Tivo owner I have a special perspective on commercials.
When Im forced to use a "hostile television" I notice a few things:
1. THe SAME commercial gets played over and over. I was watching the Simpsons and Malcolm in the Middle live and saw the same truck commercial five or six times. Same with the rest. So skipping something you've seen is hardly costing anyone money.
2. Commercials have zero information quantity. That is to say they are all emotion and no logic. Whats the MPG of that truck? What is its safety ratings? I dunno, all I know is a busty woman is leaning on it on a backdrop of some colorado mountain scene with a flag somewhere on the screen. Or as Dr. Rappielle says "It appeals to the reptilian brain." I'm not a reptile and I like making informed consumer decisions (usually).
I guess the term "victim" here is what is being debated. A market shift to different modes of operation isn't victimizing its the future! Its why we have free markets. So companies can adapt. The old advertisers will be replaced with the new.
It's quite simple - vote with your wallet; get rid of the TV.
The Internet is far more interesting than television anyway.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
They'll also have to outlaw FTP, Windows File Sharing, and the act of putting stuff on floppies, CDs, or DVDs... I guess scp will have to go, too, as will CD/DVD rippers and other Fair Use tools that we use today...
Did you get it free?
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
From a 1993 DOT report, my emphasis. Besides, many many many people take benadryl without knowing it affects driving as much or more than alcohol. Please note that this is not an endorsement of driving stoned.
In addition, the drugs don't exactly have any real purpose aside from personal recreation
So? In a free country we should be free to persue what ever recreation we want.
There's also a bit more practical reason to illegalize pot usage in public places - just consider it to be the equivalent of a public smoking ban. People can still do it in their own homes, but it will work better than just considering it a criminally restricted substance.
I can see the paralell, but I'd be opposed to a public cigarrette ban too. I can understand banning smoking inside public (government) buildings. But in the open air, and in private (including places of business) buildings I see no possible justification. What could be less harmful to society than me lying by the river on a sunny day puffing a joint and reading a book?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
making t so when people see an advert and dont immediately go and buy it, you can go to jail?
The state of mind of your politician is untenable, and the stench of corporate corruption is overwhelming.
i just hope other countries dont go down this path of insanity, that america seems inevitably will. how long before the mass exodus of americans who actually have a clue happens? like for instance to canada after bush cheated\b\b\b\b\b\b\bwon the election.
its only a matter of time before america needs to be quarantined for the sake of sanity in the rest of the world, and a sad set of affairs it is too
Yeah, I don't know why we engage in useless behaviour like Prohibition. But I'm quite sure it's not OK.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
P2P is actually a "national security crime," if you're willing to follow a bizarre argumentation, which goes like this:
1. Most spam nowadays is being sent from infected Windows machines; so it uses a P2P network to spread.
2. Terrorists can communicate anonymously, by hiding their messages in the flood of spam messages, thus effectively hindering traffic analysis.
Therefore: P2P networks are being used by terrorists and must be banned!
Oh, of course, spam itself is legit, being useful advertisement of great companies that provide kick-backs to congresscritters; therefore you CAN SPAM. Great logic, isn't it?
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
This has been an issue for a long time around the world and every single time it is done the powers that be insure us that it will not go out of control.
lucky for the dutch we are several years behind the rest of the world so if we want to see the future we take a ticket to the US of A.
Far from the cafeteria being run by McD or books on economy being printed by Wall Street the docu saw a far far worse case.
Students were made to watch simple commercials on tv. Don't watch the commercials and you can't attend classes.
So for those worried about ordinary tv forcing you to watch commercials, you are a bit slow. Far worse has already been tried.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I have done so, and I get form letters back explaining the alleged importance of expansion of the scope of restriction under copyright.
Make intellectual property a campaign issue in the next campaign. Tell other people. Endorse a Senatorial candidate that has views more like your own. Get other people fired up about it. Talk to everybody about it. Make an issue of it.
Badnarik lost.
If the only election you care about is the presidential election, then you can expect to be disappointed. Change starts locally and builds momentum.
I have no love of our Republicrat system, but meaningful election of third parties will only happen when third parties are taken seriously by a larger part of the electorate, and that will only happen when third party candidates are elected and allowed to serve. If we want third parties to be taken seriously, we need to electing third party mayors, council members, trustees, state representatives-- and someday U.S. representatives, governors, and *then* we can talk about a presidency.
The Attitude Adjuster, I hate me, you can too.
Fascism at the Gates and 60M people voted for it, cheered their guts out for it, celebrated it!
How much more can the american people take before they say it's too much? Well let the wheel of history roll and stick around.
It is unpatriotic to skip commercials, unpatriotic and criminal to think out of the box, unpatriotic and criminal to criticize the government.
The day is coming that I'll buy a one way ticket out of here!
Sheeesh, why all young democracies have to slide through fascism before they reach maturity?
Yam, yam, uga booga, yam, yam, yade, yade, uga booga, yam, yam, yade, yade
As currently written the law will make it a felony to willfully avoid a commercial by either "fast-forwarding" or "using other means to avoid recognizing intellectual content". Hence, a bathroom break during a commercial can be taken as evidence that you have violated the law.
Don't worry, as punishment is no more than 5 years in prison and a fine of not more than $500,000.
To insure compliance there are a number of new regulations providing tax breaks in the most recent budget bill for companies which choose to install television cameras into their video products. This will allow companies to monitor whether or not customers are watching the commercials or not. New internal regulations require any company observing non-compliant behavior must by law report the transgression to law enforcement authorities.
Again, don't worry. Sources following the story suggest that insiders close to the legislation are saying there will be an opportunity to avoid prosecution, so long as an appropriate political contribution is made.
Teddy Roosevelt once said: "A vote is like a rifle: its usefulness depends upon the character of the user." So, make your letters well-written, well-reasoned arguments combined with impassioned pleas for your senator or representative to listen to logic, instead of a hate-filled diatribe as to why these bills are the root of all evil and they are just part of the machine dragging us further and further downward. Otherwise, we'll all be bystanders as this entire class of legislation is forced upon us.
There's also a bit more practical reason to illegalize pot usage in public places - just consider it to be the equivalent of a public smoking ban. People can still do it in their own homes, but it will work better than just considering it a criminally restricted substance.
That's pretty much the situation in Canada right now. People smoke up in their homes and it's ignored. The cops still go after the big grow operations but I think a big reason behind that is a lot of that pot is destined for the US.
P2P is a tool, like a saw, a hammer or yes, even a gun. Don't blame the tool when some human uses it in a wrong way. Over the years many tools have been used to commit crimes - even the lowly rock can be used to murder.
It seems to me that history would teach us that when a popular activity is outlawed, that activity doesn't go away it moves underground. Look at the roaring 20's and the temperance movement that caused prohibition. Outlawing alcohol didn't make it go away, it just drove it underground and made common criminals wealthy and willing to protect their enterprise with guns and a little enterprise called "Murder Inc."
A similar corelation can be made with illicit drugs today; Crack, crank, heroin, and pot are all available on street corners in every major city! Those gangsters also protect thier illicit interests with guns and murder.
One has to wonder if the drug situation were dealt with a little differently, if things wouldn't be better? Please note I am not being pro-drug here. But I have to wonder if cocaine and other drugs were available to adults in controlled stores if we wouldn't have less crime and about the same number of adicts? If that was the case, wouldn't it be a success? Our prisons would be less crowded and we would probably have less crime.
By now some of you are thinking I'm a lunatic, that P2P software is different from drugs. Please believe me when I say I understand that. But regulation brings with it unanticipated and often disasterous consiquences. It makes criminals out of otherwise law abiding citizens and, it puts the country that regulates it at a competitive disadvantage to the countries that don't. All in all, I see this kind of conservitive over regulation as a "bad thing."
Also, FTP can and frequently is used "peer to peer," so are IM programs: Are all of these going to be legislated away because of some short-sighted law? Is this really appropriate legislation - aren't there already plenty of laws that address copyright violations? I can't see how true American's can't agree!
How much does it actually cost to see one 21 min sit-com? As in, how much does the channel get from commercials and other sources. If that is somewhere between $1 and $5 I would rather pay that amount and get quality TV without the commercials and whatnot.
I know which shows I want to watch, I very rarely just "watch TV". I have the internet to burn time on instead...
[Escape From LA]
Announcer: "For everyone's enjoyment, we'd like to remind you of the following rules. No talking. No smoking. No littering. No red meat. No freedom of religion. And remember, all marriages must be approved by the Department of Health. Failure to obey these rules will result in immediate loss of citizenship and deportation to the island of Los Angeles. Enjoy the show."
Snake Plissken: "Your rules are really beginning to annoy me..."
And:
Malloy: "The United States is a non-smoking nation! No smoking, no drugs, no alcohol, no women - unless you're married - no foul language, no red meat!"
Snake Plissken: "Land of the free."
Kind of scary that one of John Carpenter's weakest films is becoming the most prescient...
You must think in Russian.
I know how much everyone hates them, but I made one anyway. To sign it in opposition to this bill the url is: http://www.petitiononline.com/StopIPPA/petition.ht ml/
This is just one more stupid thing that may or may not be added to the unbelievable Rube Goldbergian catastrophe-waiting-to-happen that is the American legal code. Something's going to give soon. Frankly, there are probably SOOOO many mutually contradictory laws on the books by now that it's virtually impossible to not be a criminal somehow.
The inefficiency, corruption, and general incompetence of the American government is at the moment staggering. And it is happening because we the people have let it happen. Say what you will, this government is still absolutely bound to the will of the people because we can vote it out of office come every two years.
The problem is that the American people are becoming apathetic and uncaring. Nixon irretrievably broke the faith of millions in their government. Even if they hear about these bullshit bills, they have no idea what to do and form their opinion soley around what the magic picture box says.
And do you know what the problem is? We're allowed to escape basic education without even being able to recite our nation's founding documents. Twelve, thirteen years of schooling before high school graduation. We were never required to so much as read the Constutition or the Declaration of Independence.
Personally, I think it's an outrage that the founding documents of our nation aren't required reading in every single high school in the nation. Being able to recite the first two articles of the Declaration, the meaning of the first ten amendments, and being able to enumerate in no unspecific terms the powers of all three branches of Government set forth in the Constitution should be a requirement for high school graduation.
And you can make that possible. Obviously, there are certain politicians don't want you to read material that tells you that it's your duty to rebel against an unjust government and that all rights not specifically granted to the Federal government are reserved by the states or the people, but if the people create enough of an outcry and vote out representatives who oppose it, it will happen if only because the remaining representatives will act out of self-preservation. And note that I didn't say ALL politicians. Heck, I've got a copy of the Constitution in front of me that was sent by my representative in the House.
Now stop staring at the screen. Go out there and make a ruckus.
Besides, how much further can those two go? Short of depicting, say, graphic sex between Stan Marsh & Wendy Testaburger (which would get them busted by the FBI, not the FCC), the only real limit they seem to have is bleeping the word "fuck", which I understand they do deliberately anyway.
When South Park was first broadcast in Canada, it was shown on a local OTA station at 9:30pm on a Thursday night. I believe that lasted for 2 or 3 weeks at which point it was moved to midnight on Friday nights. As far as I can tell, nothing was changed from that version compared to the Comedy Central version. There is a warning that comes on whenever the show comes back from commercials.
Check out the full text of H.R. 4077, the one that says: "To enhance criminal enforcement of the copyright laws, to educate the public about the application of copyright law to the Internet, and for other purposes." ...in the abstract.
Okay, now: skip all the text, and jump right to the bottom- "TITLE II--MISCELLANEOUS." Section 201, the designation of national tree.
"The tree genus Quercus, commonly known as the oak tree, is the national tree."
Can someone more informed in the ways of law tell me what this is all about?
They're going to criminalise P2P, are they? Interesting...Software piracy has been a crime for probably as long as I've been alive, yet I don't see IRC carrying warez movement going anywhere any time soon. The problem for WIPO and the rest of the associated idiots is that such laws are largely unenforceable...possibly 5%-20% of the people involved in such activities are prosecuted, tops.
These laws are utterly futile...and they are futile for several reasons. For one thing, they are completely dehumanising...they are counter to human nature and human desire. For another, because they are largely unenforceable, they rely on the laughable expectation that they will be willingly obeyed.
As I've said earlier, we keep getting more and more evidence that we are now genuinely in the Aquarian era, and it ain't going to be how the song from that stupid musical Hair described it. Initially anyway, we are in for a period of truly mammoth conflict. Uranus and Saturn, or to use imagery which people are more familiar with...the elderly vs the young and the new...Science, intellectualism, altruism, and the desire for genuine freedom colliding with tyranny, willful ignorance and stupidity, commercialism and fear...Smith vs Neo.
Unfortunately for Ashcroft, Hatch, Vilenti and the other Smith wannabes of the world however, although they may do some damage in the short term, long term they don't have a prayer of getting anywhere with their ambitions. They're too stupid, too greedy, too fearful, and therefore largely self-defeating. At times I pity them, because if they could learn to change their own mindset and behaviour they also could benefit from the future that the rest of us are busy creating.
If you step in chewing gum, it will cause your shoes to stick to the ground to a minor degree, but not ultimately enough to cause you anything more than inconvenience. Also, despite how tenacious said chewing gum may be in remaining on the soles of your shoes, it can and will be eventually scraped off...and then you continue walking. Humanity is still going to ultimately get where it wants to go...Bush and his friends might try and set up roadblocks, as have other such individuals throughout history...but ultimately all they amount to are potholes.
No it makes illegal copying morally relative to stealing. There's a difference.
According to your logic, then, if live in Canada (which I do) where P2P downloading of copyrighted material is completely legal, then I am more morally pure than the American who is doing the same thing, simply because I am not violating a federal, provincial, or local law (according to where I live)?
"I can see the paralell, but I'd be opposed to a public cigarrette ban too. I can understand banning smoking inside public (government) buildings. But in the open air, and in private (including places of business) buildings I see no possible justification. What could be less harmful to society than me lying by the river on a sunny day puffing a joint and reading a book?"
I don't think the grandparent meant it as such. Let's take an example: I get some severe reactions from cigarette smoke. It is VERY unpleasant. Now I'm waiting in line for the bus, and the person in front of me, and behind me are both blowing their smoke in my face, with no respect whatsoever for my well-being (airway seizure, turning blue, for example). That could be considered justification.
Now on the other hand, some people are considerate enough to blow their smoke UPWARDS, so it doesn't have to be that bad. But in general, smokers seem to believe that since they smoke, EVERYONE should. After all, why should they be the only ones dying from lung cancer? </RANT>
Ok, I can comment on this... Sitting here waiting on a half of some good herb.
I never drink and drive. I promised myself that when I got my drivers license in 1977 and have kept that promise. Driving while stoned is totally different, you don't take chances, you are very careful when you drive and you tend to drive slower, not slow, but slower than when you are not stoned. I have no problems driving a car stoned, but I would never dream of driving one after drinking.
The problem with understanding this, is that you need to have been stoned and drunk in order to do so. That is when you realize the diffference in state of mind between beeing drunk and beeing stoned. I can do my job stoned, no problems, but after a couple of beers, there is no way in hell I could do it.
If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
First of all, I wonder if it would in a sense be illegal to get up and go to the bathroom during commercials.
:26 and :56 minute mark, that'd solve some problems, but not all.
Cartoon Network's Adult Swim format is nice. 26 minutes for the program, which has like one break in the middle for a few minutes of commercials. At the end of the show, a four minute period of non-stop commercials. They seem to care more about the viewers than the sponsors in my opinion.
If all networks could agree to show four minutes of commercials at the
In my opinion, the next big thing to hit t.v. will be Internet television. Something as simple as plugging in a website with specific port number, and being able to watch t.v. on one's computer, then relaying it to the t.v. set.
About the article, fast-forwarding through commercials is not the point. The point is they are losing revenue. If they want to make up the loss revenue, perhaps we should be charged more for cable access, which in turn, may spark the Internet t.v. revolution. And how much money do they need? How much greed is involved? And can something be done like with the music business? If you can buy music online for 50 cents instead of paying $20 for the whole album, something like this needs to be done concerning television.
How is this going to be enforced? They can always require manufacturers to build in some sort of commercial skipping protection in appliances sold in the US but the rest of the world does not have to have the same rules as US has (I know, it sucks, but that is the reality ;-)
Now, this will create the same situation as with DVD zone locks... with a few clicks with the remote and you have disabled this 'consumer requested feature' that we all need to have!
Why create laws that are not enforcable and that the citicens laugh at?
--
This space 4 rent!
It's good that some politicians are against it. Plus, if something like that happened, it could backfire. It's called, "Oh, you make commercial skipping illegal? Well, I may not need to get up everytime during commercials, so the times I do see them, I'll make note, boycott the product, and encourage everyone else to do the same."
Generaly except the argument missatributes the cause of the death. It wasn't the drugs that killed the other person, it was the rash actions of the intoxicated driver, already a seperate crime.
By that reasoning buying a car is why the teacher got hurt therefore lets outlaw buying cars.
It's a well known form of faulty reasoning used to by people when they don't have a real argument. and pretty much discredited.
Mycroft.
https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
I see your point, and it is quite valid. However, I would contend that people who tend to abuse substances remain to blame because they chose the behavior. I drink, yet have never gotten behind the wheel of a car while intoxicated, which is a reasonable behavior. From a legal perspective, the person who drinks and drives failes a reasonable person standard and is therefore negligent. There are also statutes that underscore that negligence.
However, courts also have a strict liability standard for when the risk is serious enough to hold one liable regardless of their reasonable behavior. If you accidently shoot somebody deer hunting, you may not be negligent, but you could still be strictly liable because of the potential lethality. (Conversely, driving a car carries an obviously high risk, but because of the social utility it does not carry strict liability.)
I suppose criminality of "victimless crimes" is a social cost issue. What if everybody smoked pot? What is the effect on society as a whole? I opine it would carry a significant social burden to include medical costs (e.g. tobacco use), but also in lost productivity.
Some drugs are illegal because of their overwhelming addictivity and negative impact on the user (e.g. crack). Decriminalizing drugs may reduce the cost per use, but I opine the total cost to society would still be significantly higher.
Which brings me to a point I raised near the top of this tread: there are no victimless crimes. There is an aggregate social cost that exceeds the benefit conferred by the practice. This may be true for several other currently accepted practices. However, just because one item is not criminalized does not mean a like thing should not be. Our society has spoken by illegalizing it--albeit in the legislature.
There are some laws that protect a class of people. Statutory rape involves sex between a minor and an adult, even consentual. Legally, one cannot consent when you belong to a protected class. Why is sex with a minor illegal? Likely because of the lack of maturity of the protected class. Perhaps "victimless" crimes protect a larger class of victims?
The problem comes when we imprison users. The social cost there is quite high due to incarceration and the impact on the user and family. But, because it is illegal, we cannot determine the total social cost in the US. I opine that any study is de facto speculative. But, I'm more inclined to a significantly more aggressive campaign to erradicate the producer and supply line with extreme prejudice.
But, more importantly, I like that my first post that led to this discussion was cited as flamebait--on a political discussion. I responded to what I would personally characterize as flamebait, yet it holds a high insightful rating now. I figure that is because I don't hold the view that illegal substances should be legalized.
What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
Well, OK, it shouldn't, but I'm hoping that it does, with all of the most absurd and excessive provisions retained.
A deplorably large portion of the public is oblivious to what's been happening in the IP wars.
It's about time that something happens to wake them up, to get them to take these issues personally.
I think that passage of this law would have the beneficial effect of causing wide-spread public disregard and contempt of such laws (and their promoters), as happened with the 1920s Prohibition-era attempt to ban alcoholic beverages.
For a quite a while, I've harbored a fantasy of organizing a mass demonstration in Washington, during which the participants stand in front of the Capitol and Justice buildings (and IP lobbyists' offices), collectively engaging in open violation of IP laws which are enforceable only by massive and embarassing government over-reaction --
e.g., playing hand-held PVRs and skipping the commercials, using encrypted WiFi to exchange files bearing names of copyrighted works, etc. --
i.e., massive civil disobedience.
I'm hopeful that this law would also have the effect of opening the eyes of the masses to corporatist corruption of the legislators who support such bills.
It won't be too difficult. The standard thing that the US does in this situation is to say "implement our laws or we won't trade with you, we'll tell everyone else not to trade with you, and we'll make it even more difficult for your citizens to travel via or into the US".
It's surprisingly effective, because they only need to actually have it enforced in western countries, and such countries typically rely on trade with the US either directly or indirectly.
It's really not so surprising that corporates (most obviously Microsoft) get away with what they do in the US, because the Federal Government leads by example. The essential foreign policy of the United States is to use its power/monopoly in one region to lock everyone else out of another region.
Having said this, I come from a smaller nation (New Zealand) that has decided to not support the US on several occasions, including various nuclear issues and the Iraq invasion. The result is that our government is now pursuing a Free Trade Agreement with China, because the US won't speak to us. I'm not sure which is worse.
We are comparitively lucky in many ways out here, though. I won't forget that.
"That's why humanity hasn't evolved socially for centuries."
We haven't evolved socially for centuries?! I think we have had a "few" social changes during the past 300 years that would indicate social evolution.
How long until they strap us to electric chairs and pry our eyes open and zap us if we blink during a commercial? Or levy taxes if we use the restroom during a commercial to recover "lost revenues"?
This is rediculous. Nonetheless, I've done my part, I don't watch public telivision, I don't subscribe to any entertainment at all. At the most, I'll choose what movie to watch when it is in the theatre, whether I'll rent it, and that's about it.
Thanks,
Leabre
"What could be less harmful to society than me lying by the river on a sunny day puffing a joint and reading a book?"
Are you serious? What could be MORE harmful?
By lying by a river you are engaging in sloth, which is not just a deadly sin, but more importantly means you are not contibuting to the economy. You live to work, dammit!
By smoking a joint you are altering your perception of reality, you are opening yourself to alternate ways of thinking which could be at odds with the status quo. Free thought leads to dissent, dissent leads to revolution, revolution leads to communism. You aren't a communist, are you?
By reading a book you risk being exposed to "radical" thinking - the kind of thinking that suggests lying by a river puffing a joint and reading a book might be more enjoyable than working, for example. What if everyone did that? The economy would collapse.
Thank you for your time and attention,
Labour Unit KK61040G
No no no no no... They should call this the INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY FREEDOM ACT. It will make it ILLEGAL to create, possess, use, traffic in, or otherwise have anything to do with intellectual property in any form. It will be the LAW that every intellectual property in existance must be DESTROYED. Books will be burned in huge bonfires. Same thing with paintings, music and movie recordings, film, software, documentation, and even people, because their brains contain intellectual property. When there is NO intellectual property in existance, there will no longer be any piracy, and then the problem will be SOLVED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111
"Maybe we need to ask ourselves why we engage in such useless behaviours"
I grew up watching squirrels and robins get stinkin' drunk off the crabapple tree droppings out back... drunken or stoned deer have nearly suicided on my truck numerous times (mushroom season)... all kinds of examples of drunk and disorderly animal behaviour, from all parts of the globe.
Get over your puritanical impulses. Getting blotto is part of being animal, like most of our behaviour. More, it's part of the fundamental nature of mysticism, and thus at the root of all religions. Revelations was written under the influence of fasting visions, for instance; wherever we inquire into the great mysteries, we employ techniques to help us get closer. Sometimes those techniques involve chemicals.
Then there's Carnival, as an impulse, not an actual festival. We need to party, and if we really want to party well, we need to forget who we are. Being blotto is fun, and like any medicine, when dosage is respected, it's good clean fun with a probable adaptive benefit.
Turning fun and religious stuff into vice means there's despair, opression, and profit involved. Focus on the substance just results in displacement; you're attacking symptoms. Try dealing with the despair and profit end of things, and the rest will settle down.
My country has so many problems, so many terrible problems that really deserve attention from legislators. Is the fact that some people skip commercials while watching TV one of those problems?
Request your free CD of my piano music.
going to get it over with and simply repeal the Bill of Rights?!
Answer: After Ashcroft gets on the US Supreme Court.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Request your free CD of my piano music.
So, do they plan to force people to watch all 500 channels that they subscribed to, all at the same time 24 hours a day?
...and will the FDA bust down your door to see what you are watching and not flipping channels?
Stupid idiots...
Oh well, what the hell...
Well I made a couple suggestions awhile back. One markup the bills XML style. Two use RSS to let people know that a new bill is coming up.
And last since this is a copyright story. Here's a book to read.
Patent, Copyright, & Trademark: An Intellectual Property* Desk Reference by Attorneys Stephen Elias and Richard Stim. 7th edition.
*Note to audiance, two attorneys using the term "property". Read and find out why.
I create content, I then shoot it out. I then have no right to define how the hell those people to which I shoot this content to absorb this info.
Sorry, this is how it should be, not as it is....
In any case, legislating how people absorb this information is Orwellian at best and any attempts to pass laws which would impede my rights so that a third party to which I have no direct affiliation can control/limit in what way I receive information will be frowned upon myself, the majority and anyone who doesn't like trust our large corporate friends to do whats best.(obvious exception if the transmission of that information impedes the rights of someone else to do the same, ie regulation of RF wavelengths, etc...)
And if you think belittling someone else makes you look smart, get a fcucking clue.
I meant illegal copying.
Itunes music sharing is not set up to stream music with computers outside the subnet. There are hacks that allow the saving of music files but the software itself dosen't break any of these silly rules.
411 Y0UR 8453 4R3 8310NG 70 U5!! -NSA
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Perhaps the internet was the beginning of the end.
They don't like people having all this access to information.
Now legislation created BECAUSE of the internet is leaking over into real life (can't ff commercials).
Please.
This country is fucked, and so are the people in it.
They expect me to respect copyright laws when they turn around and create this bullshit? Hahaha no. Sorry, doesn't work like that. Stuff like this makes me download even MORE.
We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Try replacing "smoked pot" with "drank beer" or "had sex all the time" or "ate pizza and hamburgers" and you see the problem. Does smoking pot have its costs on society? Sure. But so does almost any behavior. Stoners may harm their lungs and not get a lot of work done. But it's arguably better than alcohol. I'm not saying better, I don't know, just that the point is definitely arguable.
I mean, you hear about fathers coming home, getting drunk, and beating on the wife and kids. Ever hear of a pothead doing that after a joint? Ever hear of a child killed because someone was "drinking and toking"? I'm not saying these things have never happened, but clearly pot doesn't contribute as much as alcohol, and if you were going to legislate on the basis of social cost, you'd probably outlaw alcohol. Of course, we tried that.
Likewise, you could argue that pizza and the Big Mac are "victimless crimes". Think of all the lost productivity and health costs due to Americans being flabby and out of shape. Think of the grief it causes families when a family member dies of a heart attack.
I'm not sure what the answer is. But the anti-drug movement is clearly too simplistic to deal with the issue in the terms it needs to be dealt with.
In the beginning, the industry sold music and movies to the people and it was good. Then they wanted to make more money and tried to sell hypes, people didn't want them and began sharing the good old stuff instead. Industry was not happy and abused their money to make this illegal. Now we develop and use secure anonymizing P2P systems to avoid getting sued, even if this means that these systems can be abused to distribute child pornography and terrorist information. These repressive governments won't win the war on neither terrorism nor copyright, we are just all going to loose.
3 letters: WTO.... Its all about 'free trade'.. They will try to enforce it, via sanctions against countries that wont play ball properly.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
IP = Copyrights + Patents.
Violating copyright laws = copyright infringement.
Violating patent laws = patent infringement.
Infringement != Theft.
You steal my car, I'm mad because I can't use it anymore.
You cannot "steal" my music. You can only copy it without my permission.
You obviously haven't seen the DVD's I have. Some already do this at the start, and keep you from skiping past them. I've seen it on some kids disks.
No, that's not a difference. People who drive when they're impaired (or distracted) for any reason do so precisely for the reasons you state.
Besides, I don't think anyone wants to say it should be okay to drive when you're high. It's drug use at home that's harmless.
I hope you reconsider the idea that you have no problems driving stoned. It's true that it tends to make people drive more carefully, but it also slows your reaction time considerably. If someone runs a red light, or if a child runs out in front of your car, you could suddenly find yourself with a very big problem.
People like you, weak-kneed apologists for base behaviour, are the cause of most of society's ills.
Do nothing. Complain.
I want to do something; I'm just not sure what. In fact, I am doing something by referring people to losingnemo.com, which now links to your essay. I just wonder what else I could do between now and when I have more resources to work with.
Compare me to somebody reprehensible, like Jack Chick.
Heck no, I didn't mean that that. I only asked any Slashdot user reading grandparent (including people other than you) if there exist any tracts to explain recent anti-public changes to copyright law, just as fundamentalist Christians have Chick tracts to explain their views conveniently.
Here's what I want to know: Does this mean that dealing in used prerecorded media would be illegal? I mean, it's kinda hard for me to escape that implication. Am I misunderstanding something here?
Who cares about the productivity of society though? Mega-rich financiers? Megalomaniacs in general?
What if we could take everyone's brains out of their human bodies and put them into cyborg bodies? WE could then couple them with a control computer which tells them what to do. The control computer is in charge and just makes use of the memory and cognitive abilities of the human brain. These cyborgs could be hugely productive! They could all be programmed to work together with no strife and to work almost constantly! If laws are designed to maxmize the productivity of society, than if we came to a time where something like this was possible, shouldn't it be law to force its implementation?
What about Lawrence Lessig's comments? He's not the type of person to misinterpret a law, and yet he says that "I reported a hold [McCain] had placed on H.R. 4077 because of valid concerns about whether the freedoms it granted (to enable parents to filter "smut" from films) would be read to deny fair use in other cases."
In other words, the bill does not prohibit commercial skipping but could, conceivably, be interpreted as such in light of other laws that interact with it.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
Congress shall make no law exceeding in length the United States Constitution (exclusive of amendments).
Try getting the pork into a bill that short. Try defending a voting record when there can be no omnibus bills.
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
Patent, Copyright, & Trademark: An Intellectual Property Desk Reference by Attorneys Stephen Elias and Richard Stim. 7th edition.
ISBN: 1-4133-0055-3. Repeated here so that everybody else can look it up too.
I think you need some perspective on the issue.
I responded to the comment you linked. But how can I help teach people to demand recorded entertainment less, especially moms who have small children and have found the TV a convenient anti-crying device when mom's cooking, studying, etc.?
And last, be humble and understand that we all played a role in the present situation.
How did I? The 105th Congress passed the DMCA and the Bono Act, and when the 105th Congress was elected, I was too young to vote.
At this rate, in another two years it will be illegal to get up to take a leak during a commercial break....
:q!
Ah, you know all about what it is to be human! We've been looking for you, myself and all the other inquirers into the human spirit!
Tell me, how did you come to understand what is base and what is transcendent? Did you read it in a book? Did you take it on authority? Did you pray until you heard the all-knowing Voice? Did you fast under a Pipal tree for months? Did you spin and chant endlessly, until the walls of illusion crumbled?
Perhaps you've been reading Whitman. No, you haven't been reading Whitman. Paul? you've been reading Paul? Or Dr. Phil?
It is weaker to simply and comfortably believe, to filter the world through the fine mesh of your indoctrination and pass judgement like some demigod, than to try to see through the haze of pain to its causes.
I make no apologies for the behaviour of the avaricious, the brutal, and the domineering. Do you?
It's nice to bask in the right to express oneself freely, but those who want to enjoy free works of art should either contribute high quality art for free or buy the copyrights.
Clearly technology will make copying easier. Technology will hamper the ability of people to profit from their own creativity. The time will come when computers produce better compilations of knowledge and art than people. At this point information may as well be free because I can click on the button labelled "Create" and receive a dump of information that I can enjoy.
I suggest that we stop using P2P for mere sharing of files that "someone has copied/ripped from somewhere" - especially data that was originally sold rather than freely distributed. P2P is somewhat corrupting, leading to laziness. Instead, consider the success of the free software movement where cooperation produces quality material available at no charge. The time has come for technology to assist us in the production of free art. Look at the incredible special effects done in movies by computers. Well, we can apply worldwide grid computing to rendering free movies, as well as other noble applications such as scientific calculations.
You can bet that prices for data will drop in the years to come. P2P is a bizarre phenomenon meant for surreptitious file copying - if information was to be made available with no qualms, it would be on a website. Valuable information with heavy traffic is mirrored legitimately. If you have the right to freedom of speech, put your money where your mouth is, and output some free stuff for us.
Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
There's no mystery here, and indoctrination is unnecessary.
If human = animal + x, then being human as opposed to being animal is about being x.
If the animal is base (and that *does* fall in line with the commonly accepted definition of "base" since Shakespeare's time) then base are those who only appease their animal nature, and transcendent are those who transcend their animal nature.
It's called thinking. Try it some time.
The only indoctrination involved is the indoctrination fed us by the pleasure-seekers, who now dominate our society, and who denigrate anything - like duty, honor, responsibility, self-respect - which stands in the way of our short-term self gratification.
>What could be less harmful to society than me lying >by the river on a sunny day puffing a joint and >reading a book?
It won't harm society at all, but it might harm you less if you read said book *without* said joint.
Don't get me wrong...I've smoked weed myself and thus am not going to be one of the idiots who tries to prevent anyone from smoking it...if you want to cause your brain to decompose inside your head, that's your business. I gave it up because despite enjoying smoking it, I also value my neurological health.
I'm for the right to choose whether or not to smoke as much as anyone...but what I *do* wish stoners would stop doing is trying to claim that marijuana isn't neurologically harmful purely because they want to smoke it themselves. If you want to smoke, smoke...but don't mislead other people by trying to claim that weed is harmless, or worse yet, actually beneficial...because it is neither.
Sure, I'll be careful, it's not like I am not careful. I've had my drivers license since 1977 and have been driving stoned sporadically all these years. That is probably since before you were born.
If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
making p2p illegal is like making the internet illegal? i mean the internet now does transfer files to one another whether be it html, gif, jpg, mp3, wmv, etc. my question would be what is the differentiating factor for this case?
Live your life each day as if it was your last.
I want to do something; I'm just not sure what. In fact, I am doing something by referring people to losingnemo.com, which now links to your essay.
I would agree-- I think you are doing something. I found your site to be very well composed and insightful. I've included a link to you in my essay, as well.
Apparently the American Library Association is planning to do something. It's going to be interesting to see what comes of it.
Heck no, I didn't mean that that.
Fair enough-- no offense taken.
You know-- that's actually a pretty interesting idea. It would be really interesting to pick a scenario describing how some "everyday life" type activity is going to be changed by new "protections" afforded to "intellectual property owners", storyboard it out, and get a comic out of it. Perhaps something "broadcast flag"-related. I've always felt like, once analogue VCR's start becoming uncommon, and people start realizing that their DVD-recorder-based recordings of telvision shows aren't going to be "lendable" or, potentially, even playable after a set period of time, that some people might begin waking up-- albeit much too late.
The Attitude Adjuster, I hate me, you can too.
I got my license five years before you did.
And when I talk about driving stoned, I know whereof I speak. I did quite a bit of it when I was young and stupid.
Now, give it a bit of thought. You know why being high makes people more careful when they drive? Because they know they're impaired.
I don't have a tragic story to tell about someone getting killed. All it took to drive the point home for me was a minor, no-injury fender bender, and realizing I could have avoided it if I hadn't been high.
You'd think that evolution would have given us the "pot" (or any other drug for that matter) gene if it was really as useful as people think.
And evolution would have given us fur if it was useful to stay warm.
Except all drug use is us abusing receptors from their original intentions.
Evolution has no intentions. The product of evolution is an ad hoc mix of genes that happen to be good enough to get by. And there are lots of compromises too. It may not be evolutionarily advantageous to have endorphins running through your system all the time, but damn when you need sugery it's nice to have something to stimulate your opiate receptors.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Don't get me wrong...I've smoked weed myself and thus am not going to be one of the idiots who tries to prevent anyone from smoking it...if you want to cause your brain to decompose inside your head, that's your business. I gave it up because despite enjoying smoking it, I also value my neurological health.
Where's the evidence? I mean gee, if THC was so bad for you, would a federal judge appointed by Nixon of all people have called it "One of the safest thereputically active substances known to man"? If you look at the literature, there's more evidence to support neuroprotective activity of THC than neurotoxicity.
Now, I'm not going to claim that staying high all the time is good for you. But when luminaries like Steven Jay Gould, Carl Sagan, and Richard Feynman were all pot smokers, claims of neurological harm ring hollow. Personally, I find it easier to just sit and think when I have a little extra THC in my system. It helps me deal better with stress, and I'm generally just a happier and saner person when I've had some pot in the past couple days. By no stretch of the imagination does it make me stupid, only marginally more forgetful. These are my observations after 2 months of abstinence last semester. Of course, YMMV.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Oh, for a digital universe! Great god Binary, take me!
Is praying a transcendent activity? What if it gets you high, and you like it? Is that a non-human, base response? Yes, in everyday idiom, it's trivial to distinguish between these; but upon closer inspection, when we're trying to address mass social issues, or questions of the spirit, casual idiom is just lazy.
animal + x = human, maybe;
x - animal = human, not likely.
Your posts read like you derive a base pleasure in extending your moral framework into the realm of universal ethics, perhaps because it gives you self-esteem. Re-read what you wrote; is that an intelligent, organised response? Did you attempt to acknowledge the whole range of human response, or did you generalize and stereotype? Did you actually understand my use of the word indoctrination?
Life is pretty much analog, like it or not; you can't say "this is base, this is transcendent" with absolute surety, unless you rely on indoctrination. And ideology is like halitosis: it's always someone else's problem.
[Your insults only detract from your argument, BTW.]
You attack a straw man. I did not claim that x encompasses all humanity. I defined x as being what is human as opposed to being animal. That is, x stands for those traits we carry that differentiate us from all other animals. This was obvious, and your clumsy attempt to distract attention from the point I was really making, only exposes your inability to answer it.
The rest of your reply is only a mixture of ad hominem irrelevance and ad hoc, sophist handwaving attempting to justify the worship of self gratification. Now I'm as weak as the next man when it comes to pleasures of the flesh, but at least I don't attempt to make up some comfortable, phoney justification for it. Strength and discipline are to be admired; weakness and depravity are to be deplored. Any culture that doesn't recognize this is doomed.
Binary? You are looking for a false dichotomy, the "excluded middle". But there is no false dichotomy. The argument I made is framed in terms of an abstraction which deliberately divides human nature into two components for the express purpose of comparing one aspect with its opposite. It's hardly a new idea, is it? Every major system of thought in human history that I can think of is based on the same idea. Yin/yang. Thesis/antithesis. Body/soul. Id/ego. Good/evil. etc. etc. It comes up again and again in every culture in history because it contains such a basic and fundamental truth. So your knee-jerk rejection on the basis of false dichotomy is bogus. There is nothing false about this particular dichotomy - it underpins everything that we ever learned about ourselves.
And ideology is like halitosis: it's always someone else's problem.
Look to the mote in thine own eye. The dominant ideology of late 20th/early 21st Century Western civilization is about enjoyment. And it *is* an ideology, because anybody who proposes other modes of living routinely gets shouted down by the proletariat. Debate has been shut down; nobody wants to know about alternatives. Human nature (taken as a whole), as it is expressed today in the West (and in all the decadent empires which have passed away), zeroes in on the comfort zone. How fucking noble.
If the human race were to become extinct, what would you prefer the rest of the universe to remember us for? For our music, our literature, our poetry, our scientific achievements? (In all of which struggles, by the way, many of the greatest achievements have been made in conditions of privation and adversity, while few have been made in conditions of luxury and debauchery).
Or would you prefer that we were remembered for the behaviour you were defending earlier? To wit: our fondness of easy living, promiscuous sex, disabling our brains with chemicals and other escapisms?
If it's the latter that you would choose, then I am utterly opposed to your style of thinking. And if everybody chose that, then such a memorial would need to be written sooner rather than later.
In any case though, I really don't have time to argue about it. I'm no educator, and greater men than I have had more profound things to say on the subject. Read some classical philosophy instead.
I am not a fan of overdomestication or easy living, you assume too much. It sickens me to watch. However, this binarism between noble humanity and the rest of the animal kingdom that you suggest is a universal truth has always been controversial, and the objections aren't about justifying foolish behaviour, or defending privilege. It's about confusing the symbol for the thing itself.
The context of the comment you poured contempt on was concern over prohibition. Binarisms, when it's forgotten that they are only a rarefied tool for reducing reality to manageable bits, lead to absolutes and extreme reductionism. Such as, "no intoxicants." Period. I maintain that this is foolish, for, aside from arguments about the effectiveness of prohibition, it also fails to recognise that intoxicants, like medicine, have their place. With any toxin, use is a question of prescription and dosage.
Only a fool or suicide would drink a bottle of aspirin. Yet some do. Ban aspirin? Or deal with the cause of despair or ignorance?
I say that self induced derangement (through chemistry or other techniques) is at the heart of all mysticism, and thus crucial to inquiry into humanity. Prohibition fails to recognize this. I say that celebration involves intoxication for adaptive reasons, that such behaviour is both animal and noble without clear distinction--and you imply I want a crack house on every corner.
Maybe some Mevlana will illustrate: -----------
"They prattle of 'balance', of 'moderation', of 'decorum'.
I wrote on one of their doors in secret:
"You think you know,
You died long ago:
"You think you see?
reason ate your eyes."
I have shrunk beyond the smallest atom,
Expanded further than the last star.
All that is left of Rumi is only
This garden, laughing with fruit."
"This miracle, daily as dawn and sundown
Normal as bread, as sleep after love,
If I look at Him, I see my own image,
If I look at my own, I see His, flame."
"Grind yourself, strip yourself down.
To blind loving silence.
Stay there, until you see
You are gazing at the Light,
With its own ageless eyes."
"I was once like you, enlightened and "rational",
I too scoffed at lovers,
Now I am drunk, crazed, thin with misery.
No one is safe! Watch out."
You only need smell the wine.
For vision to flame from each void.
Such flames from wine's aroma!
Imagine if you were the wine."
They say they love, and make such dainty distinctions,
If they'd seen the Fire, could they name it, flame by flame?
One moment of madness, their soul would be a ruin.
I pray for them all: Ruin them before they die.
I have thrown duality away like an old dishrag.
I see and know all times and worlds,
As One, One, always One.
So what do I have to do to get you to admit who is speaking?
Admit it and change everything!
This is your own voice echoing off the walls of God.
For days I am not in the world
Nor am I out of it
Not "here" not "there"
Only silence, light , space.
Whaterver is said or thought
I am in you and I am you.
No one can understand this
Until he has lost his mind.
In the dryest, whitest, stretch,
Of pain's infinite desert,
I lost my sanity,
And found this rose.
Unfortunately, experience suggests that allowing the former inexorably leads to a preponderance of the latter. You forget that the proles care nothing for mysticism - only for how long they must wait until they can get off their faces again, so they can lie drooling in the gutter.
On the other hand I do not believe anyway that chemical intoxication is an absolute pre-requisite for religious experience. If it were then religious experience could have no more real objective value than the rantings of any madman. Further, for those who *must* seek derangement while in search of enlightenment, fasting was the usual method in many cultures.
Nice poetry, though; quite compelling. Interesting person, this Mevlani. I shall add him to my children's curriculum.
Who wrote that? You have a reading comprehension problem, as you consistently cite me inaccurately. Or, perhaps it's a spillover from a preponderance towards dualities.
Unfortunately, experience suggests that allowing the former inexorably leads to a preponderance of the latter. You forget that the proles care nothing for mysticism - only for how long they must wait until they can get off their faces again, so they can lie drooling in the gutter.
Such noble condescension! is this your transcendent behaviour in action? So, you're to be one of the people who allows or disallows, hm. Not one of the proles, hm. If there's a drinking problem, perhaps you should deal with the problem, not the drink. Improve your education system and your distribution of power, and you might see results.
I have seen the worst of human intoxication, have cared for street kids, and have crack and alcohol addicts in the family--an educated, privileged and religious family. I know toxic tragedy. I still believe the desire to self-derange is a useful trait gone treacherous, like the urge to consume fat and sugar. However, I make no apologies for the avaricious, the brutal, the domineering. An authoritarian society, where someone tells me what I can and cannot put in my body, or what I can or cannot view or learn or share, is ignoble and damned. Feel free to make suggestions, or provide opportunities; but stay the hell away from my decisions, when they concern me alone.
The difference between one who destroys themselves and one who destroys others is that between a fool and an asshole. I say: suffer fools, patiently, but disempower assholes, forthwith! Then you will move into a transcendent humanity, not before.
if you want to cause your brain to decompose inside your head, that's your business
and what actual medical texts can you reference that mention this. You are fronting my friend. you never smoked.
You have my vote!
and have crack and alcohol addicts in the family--an educated, privileged and religious family.
Yes. Proletarian vices are equally available to the weak in all walks of life. It's not about wealth, or even education. It's about spirit. Some are strong, and some are weak. If you had to choose one thing to say "*this* is what life is about, this is the true meaning of life" it could most meaningfully be said about this one choice - the choice between mastery of the self or taking the line of least resistance and giving in to one's animal instincts. The capacity to choose the former is the larger part of the mysterious x I mentioned earlier; that which elevates us above the animals.
As for the avaricious, the brutal and the domineering...I sympathize with your distate more than you know. But the harsh reality is that humanity's ability to self organize would have got off the ground if it were not for those loathsome historic individuals prodding and poking us along in their own self interest.
By the way I am no authoritarian; just the opposite. My dream is a society made up of sovereign individuals. I suppose I should call myself an anarchist for that reason. But that dream will never come to pass until a serious majority are ready to make that choice that I mentioned. Two reasons:
1. Revolutionaries do not languish stoned in front of the TV - no, how Gil Scott Heron put it more succinctly: "The revolution will not be televised".
2. Only those who have made the big choice are capable of sovereignty over themselves. Those who wallow will, ungoverned, either starve or else revert to barbarism. That's the problem with wallowing, generally. If the masses are essentially proletarian in outlook then universal liberty, equality and fraternity cannot exist because they exclude themselves.
Every previous revolution so far has lived up to its name exactly, by traversing 360 degrees. This is because the Low are only ever peripherally involved in the Middle's struggle to exchange places with the High (this is George Orwell's nomenclature, speaking as Emmanual Goldstein). Hence there can never be a revolution deemed successful by the masses as long as the masses are comprised of the Low. The Low don't have the stomach - or the heart, the brains - to defend their rights every moment of their lives. Easier just to turn on the TV, open a bottle or "skin up".
Note that in most contemporary visions of Utopia, the Low are nowhere to be seen. Because, as long as there is a proletariat, this is not Utopia.
The proletariat first needs to make the big choice, to wake up, to be responsible and take charge of their own lives. I think we are very far from that. "The poor are always with us" is because there will always be some who will give up and sink to the bottom no matter what they are given.
Going back to drug legislation, since this appears to be what vexes you: You yourself decried the casting of a situation as polar opposites. But this is just what you are doing here: in your terms, either we all have the right to do whatever we want to ourselves, or else it's fascism.
Some people believe, myself among them, that there are some things it is best to resist for the good of society at large. If the distribution of drugs can be hampered by government intervention, that is a good thing in my opinion. Drugs are dangerous. Not because they will kill you, but because many people are weak enough that drugs are enough by themselves to seduce them and crush what remains of their spirit. There is a huge cost to society in that.
To take the most egregious type of example: individual liberty notwithstanding I don't see that the rest of us owe it to you, to let you drink yourself to a painful squalid, undignified and utterly pointless death like my father suffered. If I can stop you doing that I will be glad to do so, no matter how much it may prick your sense of injustice.
Stop debating about it here. DO SOMETHING. Write your congressman. NOW.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Well, I've had some fender benders while driving sober and none when driving stoned. By using your logic, I should always drive stoned....
If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
Nah. My logic says you should be more careful when driving sober.
What is it with you and absolutes / dualities? The people your judgement rests upon in the above quote have overcome more than most: one of them was an olympic-qualifying athlete who mastered extremely complex heavy equipment and rose to the top of her field despite being the only female in it within 300 miles, suffered extreme working conditions, raised intelligent independent children and a large garden while doing all that... and fell into addiction despite it. More strength and perseverance of spirit through most of her life than a gaggle of Nietzschean strutting bozos.
The Low don't have the stomach - or the heart, the brains - to defend their rights every moment of their lives.
This is where it gets scary, because someone who has great moral fortitude in the realm of the senses takes it upon themselves to decide who is deserving or isn't, based on the limitations built into their particularly specialized (and generally grossly reductionist) way of thinking. Oh yes, there are a great many fools who could do with some decent education (I don't mean a 'public' school). Yet I've met many ordinary unschooled folks who lead simple lives, have a little fun, work hard, keep their own mind about things and treat others fairly. I've met internationally lauded heros and leaders, prophets and great artists; they are all weak, they all have mastery over some part of their spirit, they are all fools and geniuses. (Orwell's a good example of that: very insightful, but overconfident, and at once compassionate and a real prick.) You crave a simple humanity, in your writing. Perhaps you misrepresent yourself.
By the way I am no authoritarian; just the opposite.
Yet you claim "Drugs are dangerous" and advocate that the government extends its dominion into our personal chemistry, despite the evidence that prohibition doesn't work.
individual liberty notwithstanding I don't see that the rest of us owe it to you, to let you drink yourself to a painful squalid, undignified and utterly pointless death like my father suffered. If I can stop you doing that I will be glad to do so, no matter how much it may prick your sense of injustice.
No, never let someone ruin their lives needlessly. Please stop people doing that when you see them... just don't try to put them in jail, because that's worse, or tell them they're low animals, because that's just stupid, or hand the responsibility over to a legislative body, because their motives are perverted by the process. Perhaps your utopian studies can include things like peer intervention, popular education, a sense of purpose and self-esteem, and other tools for strengthening atrophied spirits. Regulate substances by demanding purity standards and good strong labelling, fine. Control consensual behaviour by fiat? Time to grow out of that.
in your terms, either we all have the right to do whatever we want to ourselves, or else it's fascism.
Now, you see? You're doing it again, without quoting me, and durn near invoking Godwin's Law while you're at it. Well, you started it:
Anyway, you have to believe me when I say I think the world's analog. Consensuality is context-dependent (and don't go making puddles about sophistry and shit; it's a real-world notion, not an abstraction). Don't get intoxicated in the park, or I and some friends will encourage your departure, because you'll ruin it for us. But a can of beer with lunch on a park bench? Whate
The world is complex. For those running things, reductionism is a necessary evil. Only a complete fool would argue otherwise.
The capacity does not exist, to be able to allow anybody freedom of choice in recreational drugs without endangering the weak willed, and thus society. So society has chosen to proscribe their use completely. Alcohol is *only* an exception because the people insisted that it be so. If prohibition could be enforced for longer than a generation, I expect the public's love affair with alcohol would disappear and the ban would thereafter be popular. As long as democracy extends to the proles, however, I don't see any such election platform appearing again.
In your arguments you gabble libertarian ideology and miss the point of your own examples. eg: Your athlete's other accomplishments are beside the point. She failed the strength of character test when she became an alcoholic. Alcoholism *means* that the person is unable to control theirself. If she regained that control and went on the wagon and stayed there without relapsing, that would be a different matter.
I've noticed a recurrent problem - you have the disturbing mental disability of being unable to perceive the use of duality as a concept, coupled with the obsession of identifying any dualistic themes no matter how faint or trivial. It's kind of difficult to talk to you if it's going to be like that.
Regarding Godwin: point of order - it's a cheap trick (and not in the least legitimate) to invoke Godwin on me, because I did not call you a fascist. I said that you were implying that I was a fascist. Now you've retaliated to this perceived breach of Godwin by calling me a fascist again!
May I point out that elitism isn't the signature of fascism. Fascism is the merger of state and corporate power. I am unashamedly elitist in some respects, as the proles give me cause to be, but I am no fascist - I abhor corporatism and lean much more toward individual freedom *and* reponsibility. There is no contradiction in my desire to restrict drug use though, and it's only your immaturity that is preventing you from seeing that. You'll feel different about drugs when you have children of your own.
Provisional reductions, yes. I use "reductionism" in the restricted (non-math or scientific) context of applying mechanical principles to social contexts, resulting in grossly inadequate approximations. It means most of the results of these decisions will be unjust.
The capacity does not exist, to be able to allow anybody freedom of choice in recreational drugs without endangering the weak willed, and thus society.
Fundamentialist religions, especially charismatic sects, endanger the weak-willed. Put them on your list, for they produce dangerous agressors. From there it's a short hop to judging and prohibiting weakness wherever convenient. [Note that you use the word "allow."]
you have the disturbing mental disability of being unable to perceive the use of duality as a concept, coupled with the obsession of identifying any dualistic themes no matter how faint or trivial.
Now that's an ungrounded personal attack, I know this is /., but don't be a jerk. Note that the yinyang symbol contains emergent opposites, which signifies the limitations of a static symbol in a dynamic system. I've pointed out to you that dualities are generally useful as a starting point, but misleading as a guide to specific situations. I identify your overuse of them in this thread. Reread Mevlana.
you gabble libertarian ideology
"Now what is that, for Christian word?
I hope she feeds on dried goose turd."
--R. Creeley
Your athlete's other accomplishments are beside the point. She failed the strength of character test when she became an alcoholic.
That's another fine example of reducing human behaviour to one factor. One is always weak in some areas, especially blind spots, and strong in others. Simultaneously. Addiction is merely one weakness among many. Arrogance, contempt, and superiority complexes can be just as damaging, but usually directly to others. And yes, my stepsister's no longer on crack thanks, and the other family member's sober for 45 years now. But the arrogant elitist family member is still wreaking havoc in others' lives, as she's in denial about it.
you were implying that I was a fascist.
I wasn't in the previous posts, I was stating that particular attitudes were authoritarian. And even thought the Eco quote was a goad in response to your overreaction, it doesn't call you a fascist, nor do I. It states that fascists rely on elitism as a basic and very public part of their ideology.
You'll feel different about drugs when you have children of your own.
Whippersnapper, my own children are well schooled in the nature of toxicity and mental balance. They know restraint and thresholds, and understand the concept of moderating even restraint. I've been a houseparent to streetkids, 10-year old car thieves, 12 year-old prostitutes, 14 y.o. junkies. They've almost all been sexually abused, and are emotionally stalled at that moment. 'Their fault, they were weak 6 year olds! They are beneath contempt for having learned to abuse their bodies!' Bodies that were taken from them by an authoritarian act. Abuse perpetuated by a system that purports to be philanthropic, but falls into the category of domination you propose.
You've seen children ensnared and lives destroyed by intoxicant drugs - and yet still support their free availability in the name of some abstract politcal ideology. That is just perverse. You don't even have ignorance or innocence for an excuse.
You blamed me for dividing the choices open to us into polar opposites, but it is *you* who are doing just this. It is *you* who are sticking fast to a principle in the face of suffering and destruction. *I* say Liberty should be achievable in the round, while yet honouring certain sensible exceptions for the good of society (not to mention the good of addiction-vulnerable individuals themselves, who are otherwise destined to self destruct).
We don't really differ on the goals, but the means. If you read with any care, you'd notice that I support regulation, not "free availability" -- since they'll be available in any case, despite the best intentions of prohibitionists. Ever thus.
My responses are based on professional experience as a front line worker, as a cultural policy researcher, and as an ongoing student of society and inner life. They're simply practical, and I never named any abstract ideology, other than my objection to the eagerness of power-hungry politicians to control a person's body chemistry and mental state; in fact I feel the whole debate has been about the difference between the abstract and the everyday. You say prohibit; I say regulate, educate, and change context. I'm talking about what will work, and what will backfire.
Indeed. Shrek 2 is this way, so are a lot of them. It's fucking annoying. This is one more reason to vote OUT all incombants every 2 terms. They get these wacky ideas, or are paid to support them, either way it's bad juju. Pretty soon we will be forced to have our TVs on all the time...shades of Max Headroom, anyone?...
> I can do my job stoned, no problems
As long as your job isn't using a meat slicer. The only time in my life I was ever high at work. Didn't hurt myself, but I was scared as s#!t that I would. Even now, when I work with computers and not dangerous equipment, I would never do that again. Every night when I get home, however...
> but it might harm you less if you read said book *without* said joint.
The possible harm is so close to nil...
What if he came up with a brilliant new idea to save humanity because he was high while reading that particular book? It's not likely, but about as likely as that joint causing any real problem.
> You'd think that evolution would have given us the "pot" [...] gene
What, like Seratonin-creating cells?
Marijuana has been used a LOOOONG time. If there was something bad about it, you would think evolution would have given us an anti-pot gene to compensate. No? It's just as likely as a pro-pot gene.
> Except all drug use is us abusing receptors from their original intentions.
Like Aspirin? Most pharmaceutical chemicals (AKA Drugs) cause more "harm" than Marijuana.
Do you seriously claim to know exactly what all "receptors" in the body are "intended" for? That's assuming there is any intention involved to begin with. What if we have those receptors specifically FOR using psychoactive chemicals?
As soon as someone claims to have special knowledge of the body's "intention" in its complex design, they lose a whole lot of credibility. Sure, some things are obvious... The mouth is intended for eating & breathing, but we can also inflate balloons with it, cut small pieces of plastic, kiss another, kiss another's ass, y'know, whatever.
> If I can stop you doing that I will be glad to do so, no matter how much it may prick your sense of injustice.
IOW, "What I think is right, I will force on you, even if you don't think it's right."
I believe religion is holding us back and harming many people, so I will take it upon myself to remove all religious institutions, for your good, "no matter how much it may prick your sense of injustice."
See how bad it sounds when it's me forcing you instead of the other way 'round. Both scenarios are fascist, regardless whether or not you agree with the thing being wrongly banned.
> reductionism is a necessary evil. Only a complete fool would argue otherwise.
Obviously, you are not a Buddhist, nor have you met one...
> the good of addiction-vulnerable individuals themselves, who are otherwise destined to self destruct
the good of religion: vulnerable individuals themselves, who are otherwise going to lead happy, less guilt-driven lives.
Just saying something does not make it so.
What makes you think I give a damn about religion?
I doubt very much that I am conformant to any of the stereotypical meme clusters you are familiar with.
Sometimes people suffer at their own hands, not because they want to but because they can't help it, or don't know how to stop. That is how my father died.
"Cruel to be kind" is not an oxymoron, as anybody who has survived substance abuse addiction, via the help of others, will testify. How much liberty can you enjoy when you are writhing in pain, comatose, or dead from total organ failure?
You are arguing for an absolute principle. But human lives are not made up of absolute principles. And $deity save me from those who would let me die in agony for the sake of their wonderful ideology.
I have too, and there is much to admire and wonder at in Buddhist philosophy. In my opinion they have got so much right.
However, if there is a Buddhism political theory I don't know of it. Unfortunately Buddhism doesn't seem to offer much help when it comes to government.
It's a desperate measure, I grant you (and perhaps even a futile one in many cases) to try to create simplified models of society in order to manipulate the future. The intelligence to do it well just doesn't exist. Not yet, at least. But we have chosen to put somebody in charge for the time being, as there is no workable current alternative - at least not one that is easy to get to. And they need conceptual models of how society works in order to do their jobs. You do the best you can with what you've got.
I don't want to be put in the position of having to defend authoritarian government because I don't believe in authoritarian government. I believe in sovereignty of the individual. However, we can't exists purely as a world of individuals; we all have responsibilities toward one another in some shape or form. That's what society is.
Just saying something does not make it so.
I agree with that statement 100%. But I don't see how you got there from the quotation, or from your substituted version. Looks like a non sequitur.
> Looks like a non sequitur.
> > > addiction-vulnerable individuals themselves, who are otherwise destined to self destruct
Looks like you aren't good at reading comprehension. Let me rephrase that explicitly so you can understand:
Just saying that someone who becomes addicted would be "otherwise destined to self destruct" does not make it so.
> What makes you think I give a damn about religion?
I'm using it as an example because most people, even atheists (if they are not atheists just to be different/rebel/whatever) see religion as a generally-accepted thing and even though there bad individuals who cause bad things to happen in the name of religion (Catholics), it does not make all religions bad. Just like the "fact" (it's HIGHLY debatable) that PCP makes people jump out of windows should not affect the decision to keep marijuana illegal.
There are bad people who take marijuana sale profits and do bad things with it. More often than not, though, it just increases money flowing through KY & WV (both of which need it badly). This does not make Marijuana good or bad. To say it is good or bad is putting the actions of people related to a plant onto the plant itself.
The bottom line: there is a plant that grows naturally, has since before humanity existed, probably, has been used in numerous ways (including smoking) since before recorded history, yet these arrogant bastards who are "in charge" now suddenly make up BS reasons why it should be illegal. Then all of those reasons were proven to be flat-out lies. So they make up more lies for the sole reason of keeping a safe plant illegal, so that the prison wardens can afford to continue giving "contributions" to their campaigns.
> I doubt very much that I am conformant to any of the stereotypical meme clusters you are familiar with.
I doubt anyone is totally conformant to stereotypes, unless they are trying.
> How much liberty can you enjoy when you are writhing in pain, comatose, or dead from total organ failure?
Well, since none of the drugs I enjoy have ever caused any of those things, I'd say it doesn't matter. How much liberty can you enjoy when the "system" is designed to keep you from gaining any power unless you know/are related to someone who already has it? How much liberty can you pretend to have when all your important choices are made for you? How can you claim ANY KIND OF FREEDOM AT ALL, when you advocate ANY choices being made for you? That is not freedom at all.
What happened to personal responsibility? What if I am just a fuckup and ruined my life by some other method. I gambled too much and got fired, so you made that illegal. I started playing darts, but that got in the way of the new job, so I had to quit. I decided that eating's now my bag, but I got so fat my wife left with the kids. THE DAMNED GOVERNMENT SHOULD HAVE MADE BEING FAT ILLEGAL. Maybe then I wouldn't have done it. Do you think legislation TRULY solves anything?
No, action is what solves problems. Making something illegal just makes criminals out of people who previously weren't. Of course, in some cases that might be a good thing -- when the actions of one adversely & permanently affect another. But the biggest criminals of all are the ones writing the laws, so they'll make sure they can stay where they are.
I'd prefer being high & dull the pain of life for an hour over being sober & still having to deal with it anyway -- just without the hour of respite. Life sucks, but you're trying to illegalize anything that can make us forget that! (j/k, sorta)
My words are a description of what does happen, not a prescription for what should happen.
Its an empirical observation. As opposed to wishful thinking and selective blindness, which is what you are guilty of.
This would be too obvious to mention, if you were capable of thinking straight. I won't waste any more time on you, so you can flame away on your own.
The problem isn't people who use it sensibly. The problem is those who go overboard, because of the way their brains are designed. Since whether or not you can get to enjoy getting high isn't all that important*, it's better to restrict supply for the benefit of those who are likely to suffer severe damaged from exposure to it.
*this is the bit you're missing. You are ranting on an on as if prohibition is a major imposition. Look: this isn't air water or food that we are talking about here. If getting *high* is so important to you personally that you are, for the sake of your own temporal self gratification, prepared to risk having people's lived destroyed by addiction - because that is what will and does happen to some people- then I think you need to grow a sense of perspective.
> Its an empirical observation. As opposed to wishful thinking and selective blindness, which is what you are guilty of.
Empirical observation? What if you are observing the wrong thing? What if you are attributing to pot what should be attributed to the person's way of thinking? There is extremely strong evidence in favor of that position. If that is your argument, you must logically conclude that excess of anything should be illegal, since it is the same problem manifested in a slightly different way.
What am I blind to? The truth? No, I see the truth & am mad about it: that's why I want change, not because I think some magical utopia will spring up. Am I blind to the fact that people abuse MJ? No, I know plenty of pot smokers, many of whom I would say have a "problem." But smoking it is only a symptom. Their larger problem is being generally unhappy with the world. So they do something to take their mind off it. They are very unhappy with the worl, so they smoke what I would consider to be too much. IT'S THEIR CHOICE.
I use wishful thinking as a tool to guide me, not a fountain of knowledge. Even so, do yo think we should stop trying to create Utopia just because it is impossible? Utopia SHOULD be our goal, or at least to get as close as possible, even though we can't get to it.
To go back to the religion line of thinking, it's supposedly impossible to be sinless, yet that does not mean we say "screw it" & start randomly killing people. If that was all it took, I'd have started already: I don't believe in sin.
You can't connect two sentences yet say that I can't think straight? Do you always accuse people of flaming when they bring up a contrary position? And aren't you already "wasting time" by posting on slashdot? I know I am. Sure, I claim it's "research" when at work, but it's really just a way to pass time & gain a little entertainment & insight.
> it's better to restrict supply for the benefit of those who are likely to suffer severe damaged from exposure to it.
And those who would normally benefit from it just have to go wanting because a few have addictive personalities? That's the whole argument of "medical marijuana." Of course, I won't falsely claim that's why I want it, but it does have its very positive uses. I want to get high. Legally. I want to get drunk. Legally. The only difference between them, other that pot being safer, is summed up pretty well in a stupid stoner quote: "God made grass, man made booze. Who do you trust?" Marijuana is a naturally-growing product. That by itself should be a good enough reason for it to be legal to grow at the very minimum.
Marijuana is not generally addictive.
A PERSON may become addicted to it, but that is unrelated to the drug itself. A person can become addicted to any behavior if they are given the right stimulus. Some are addicted to gambling, alcohol, makeup, puzzles, washing their hands (or any other common OCD trait), shopping, eating... Therefore, taking away an expression of that problem doesn't take away the problem, it just moves it to another, perhaps less obvious, harder to treat, or more dangerous area.
> prepared to risk having people's lived destroyed by addiction
Pot does not make people destroy their lives. Pot not existing does not keep these people from destroying their lives. The government does not and should not exist to save these people from destroying their own selves, it exists to protect them from OTHERS, so that they may have the freedom to enjoy personal responsibility and the ability to do what pleases you, so long as it is not at the cost of another. And no, "society" is not a person, even if one COULD positively argue that pot, by itself, is detrimental to society at large.
> I think you need to grow a sense of perspective.
If perspective means me telling other people what is right and wrong and forcing those opinions on them, no thanks: I'll stay 27 forever.
If perspective means me telling other people what is right and wrong and forcing those opinions on them, no thanks: I'll stay 27 forever.
You nailed it right there, I think. Fortunately our societies are governed by wiser heads, and always will be.
I think you need to calm down a bit. Maybe go smoke a joint.
Forcing people to your will is not wise, it's oppressive, regardless what BS one-liner you give to justify it.
You're entitled to your opinion however naive and simplistic it may be. However I find your determination to accept no other interpretation but your own, very very reminiscent of the same authoritarians you despise so much. How ironic.
> I find your determination to accept no other interpretation but your own, very very reminiscent of the same authoritarians you despise so much.
You seem determined to accept no other interpretation either. There certainly is a difference, however: my interpretation is in accordance with freedom, which is what most Americans claim is the basis of our political system. The authoritarians that I despise try to take away freedoms, keep you from doing things that directly affect no one.
> You're entitled to your opinion however naive and simplistic it may be
Is it naive to hope for world peace? Chances of it EVER happening are nil, but it doesn't mean we should not try.
Ever heard the saying that sometimes the simplest solution is best? And it's not naivete, it's wishful thinking (true, there's only a slight difference at times). I don't belive that pot will be legalized during my lifetime, regardless of valid research that may occur (which is currently impossible to do in the US because of unfair and overly-restrictive government legislation -- they are afraid to be proven wrong). That is not because of public opinion, but because the government (barring major change) will refuse to allow decriminalization.
The only rebuttal you have made to any of my points is that it should be illegal because some people react badly to it. That will happen when Some people react badly to roses, nuts, etc. Does that mean they should be torn out of the ground and the owners thrown in jail? People react much worse to alcohol. Prohibition didn't work for that, and marijuana is just modern prohibition.
Just under half of all Americans have tried pot, and about 40% of the population currently supports decriminalization of small quantities. If you believe in the fundamentals of democracy, you have to admit that the population at large does not see it as much of a health risk. Of course, I never underestimate the collective stupidity of large groups of people, so this is just for information, not judgement.
I guess we are equally stubborn in our views and cannot see why the other is so blind.