Yes. Julian bears the responsibility of posting the documents.
However, given that there was a 100% probability that he was going to post them, do you feel that the government bears no responsibility to ensure they protect their own people?
Personally, I feel that the government owed it to those people to redact the documents in a professional manner and they failed in that duty.
The only reason to not do so falls squarely in the "morals and ethics" camp. From that standpoint there is absolutely no difference between Julian and them - each seems to feel that their point of view is Supreme, and worth the sacrifice of other people's lives. So be it.
They appear to be equally culpable, but I tend to agree with Julian's ethics quite a bit more than what appears to be the governments.
From my pov:
The government appears to be trying desperately to de-legitimize Wikileaks and cynically believe that they can "use" any people that are killed through botched redaction to remove the threat (and believe me, Wikileaks type sites are a threat).
Helping redact the docs would not be in their best interest because it would legitimize Wikileaks. The bonus is that any deaths can be blamed on Julian, even if they could have prevented them.
If you disagree with me, please let me know what you believe is the reason why the government did not help to redact the documents, because all I can see are "standing on my principles" type arguments. These don't really cut it when when those other people have their own "standing on my principles" ideals and you scream about other people's responsibilities.
At that point, when we are talking about deaths on the ground you either have to get pragmatic - "Ok, how could have this been prevented?" OR agree that you bear some responsibility because you stood on your principles. Of course, the government chose neither, neither helping to prevent the deaths nor owning up to the fact that they are also culpable.
So, why do you feel the government bears no responsibility for any deaths that may occur due to these leaks?
have to wonder, did the Marketing Department have the right to "give away" copyrighted material for use on a non-Discovery Channel site? I bet they didn't.
That doesn't matter. The fact is that they are the same company, and the Company Iteslf does indeed have this right. And they exercised it. Now, it would be an entirely different matter if the company in question did not hold the copyright, but they do!
In hindsight, the fan site owner should have verified the legality of the clips/info he was sent - it sounds dumb, but ultimately he is responsible for the information on his site
I am sick and tired of people promoting corporate irresponsibility while at the same time screaming about personal responsibility and your post certainly smacks of that. The only reason to jerrymander a company like that is to avoid responsibility and I think they do a plenty good job of that already. In fact, the premise of your post basically signifies how complete the brainwashing has been.
The fact is that the corporation is responsible for disseminating this to that site. NO, not, oh the "Marketing" department or any other sub group. The corporation itself. If they hold the copyrights then it is certainly legal to give out clips, knowing that they will be futher distributed, and they did.
However, there was quite a period of time where AMD could have been selling chips to Dell, and Dell was willing to buy but could not. You can read what the gp wrote again if that will help.
The market would certainly have looked a lot different if AMD had more cash for R&D instead of almost tanking.
Sorry that you have no concept of history but not everything can be viewed from a simple current state perspective.
Since the mechanism by which a creator has chosen to be compensated is immoral and should be illegal,
and
Since that creator by their actions is causing the continuation of this immoral (and illegal) system by their participation,
and
Since the system they are funding has stolen decades of works from society and therefore from myself,
I see that the imbalance is clearly in my favour.
I don't see how I could ever copy enough works to outweigh the damages they have cause me through the inability to create derivative or inspired works from pieces that should be in the public domain DECADES AGO.
It is simply an imbalance that continues to grow in my favour, day after day.
Or if you prefer an economic comparison, would you like me to actually calculate the damages, the way the RIAA and MPAA do it and see who's more wrong?
Let's say they are 'violating copyright' after a 14 or 20 year copyright limit. Every copy distributed in any form beyond that is in violation. Hmm. Every radio station, actually every listener of every radio station has been provided a distributed copy. Now, how much is that, day by day?
If so, based on your comments, I have to wonder what your real convictions are.
To paraphrase your own argument:
YOU are responsible for the war, as a group, you tax payers. If most of you refused to pay taxes, specifically stating the cause, the war wouldn't have happened, regardless of what the "leaders" said.
So, put your actions where your words are.
I was one of the thousands that specifically asked you all not to go.
Well, whoo hoo. Good for you. Now, did you stop funding it? No? Why not? Maybe being put in jail was a deterrent? Hmm. Well, I didn't see you caring about any consequences of a soldier disobeying the Government. Perhaps it's just easier to recommend disastrous outcomes for other people than be responsible for your actions?
So, stop paying taxes and deal with your convicions the way you are requiring others to do/
Unless you can come up with a coherent set of convictions that you attempt to live up to, instead of requiring other people to do so, why should I truly consider anything you said?
Pay the tax. Come on, if you have a pool, you can pay the $300 fee for it. You don't get to whine about how horrible it is that the government is doing their job efficiently.
Don't want to pay the tax? Change the law. Don't like your local government enforcing the law? CHANGE IT!
The now destitute are of course not in the lower upper class.
The 'basically poor' are still N checks away from being on the street.
I'm sorry you took my response to be some kind of absolute. You know, if that wealth person died they are also no longer lower upper class? I know quite a few wealth people that have died, so my definition must have no value.
Look, the major distinction between "upper class" and "middle class" is the necessity of work. Of working. Of labour in exchange for monies.
Ok, thanks. Let me refine my questions then, since it seems unclear.
I agree that laws != morals. So I am left trying to see why you feel breaking copyright law is immoral.
The though process is - if copyright LAW were only 14 years, would you feel it morally right to copy works older than that?
Now, how do you gibe you response to the above question with the morality you propose now (immoral to copy works under copyright), where the only difference is the length of the term in the LAW?
In your personal moral code what is the action, irrespective of LAW, that makes one of the other moral or immoral? Since the only difference is in the term lengths of the LAW, it cannot (according to the framework we set up) have any impact upon the morality of the act.
So, you are either left with:
1) Reducing copyright to 14 years it itself immoral 2) If copyright were reduced to 14 years it would be still immoral to copy works outside this frame of time 3) If copyright were reduced to 14 years it would be moral to copy works outside this frame
Depending on the response to this, it presupposes an answer to the morality of copying such works (>14 years old) with the current law (given the premise morality != law).
Basically, we cannot cope with the idea of more than 150 people - at least, not AS people. We blur the others out. The supermarket checkouts may as well be staffed by robots for all we care.
However, I'm afraid that I actually look at and interact with people I come into contact with, whether it is only once or multiple times.
Why not be present, even if it is to say, 'take it easy' or 'thanks a lot'?
This is much different than the concept of a 150 person set of networks that one has to keep track of.
I have to disagree with the premise of your statements, that is:
It is still morally wrong. Sorry. I may not agree with the copyright law, but I know if I download a film, I performed something morally wrong however small it may be
I do not see how engaging in acts declared illegal by unjust laws is "morally wrong". Perhaps you can explain it to me.
The way I currently see it, it is morally indefensible to follow copyright as it currently exists. I can explain that to you if you like, but the gist is that we as a people have had our heritage and culture stolen from us in the name of corporate profits.
This moral issue is of much greater magnitude than illegaly copying information. So much so that it may be actually be morally wrong to pay for any media generated by RIAA/MPAA/etc. at all.
Yes we invested in the United States because we were under the impression that you are an honourable people who wouldn't go out of your way to screw us over! Are we mistaken? Is that really the message you want sent out to the rest of the World for when these bad economic times are over?
You appear to be mistaken about the current nature of business. No, not "business in the US", but Capitalism, as a system, over the entire globe.
If I can make more net profit by going out of my way to screw you over, then I should do so. This is the golden rule. The rule of action. What generates more profit gets done (on a probabilistic evaulation - risk (including risk of integrity violations) and reward).
Trying to dress it up as whinging about honourable people is simply a laugh.
If you don't believe that your precious businesses have this attitude, which appears to be the case, you are simply deluded.
If BP were honourable they would probably have followed all those safety protocols, instead of letting them slide. But that is not as profitable and as a result we get a giant oil spill.
I suppose the term "stewards of the Earth" comes from the UFO-origins crowd.
Well, talk to me when they really mean "stewardship" rather than "I can do whatever I want with the planet."
You are aware that there has been a large body of religious arguments stemming back to pre-industrial revolution specifically touting that philosophy against ecology?
Oh, I suppose those people fall under the "no real scotsman" defence, right?
Islam seeks submission to God. That's what the word Islam means. People seek power and money.
Well, it's entirely unfortunate that the majority of Muslims hold that submission to God means submission to those who would interpret the Divine for you. You know, those "People" as you say, seeking Power and money.
Of course, the same could be said of any Religion that has obtained followers instead of seekers.
The airlines would load up their planes with nothing but junk mail and fly back and forth repeatedly, passengers optional, so as to maximize their subsidy money.
There is a lesson here for people who don't understand why Medicare is the most wasteful thing the American government has ever done.
Perfectly blind.
I suppose you are all for "personal responsibility", as well?
Please, now, apply that to your beloved corporations.
It's theft of time and lower ethically than the so-called "crank". A forum is going to get sued for that one day.
Bullshit.
I am under no obligation to post anything you write on my site. none whatsoever.
The only theft of time is YOU stealing it from YOURSELF it trying to cause grief.
Once I see bad behaviour, I can do anything I want with MY SITE.
I hope you can get that through your head.
As far as "lower ethically" please posit the ethical hierarchy you are working in such that someone out to cause trouble has a higher ethical ranking than someone trying to provide a service to the community.
The fact that many people jump through these gates is merely proof that there is a large subsegment of the population that supports the use of this plant.
I'm sorry that you feel that they are denigrating themselves, but one could say the same (to stay OT) about those who download music illegally. Morally bankrupt, embarrasing and societal outcasts. Except they aren't (or, only to the RIAA).
The truth of the matter is they don't care what you think, and in many cases simply understand that the procedure as a way around the stupidity of the current system in addition to being quite necessary for a smaller portion of the population.
Without this step, will the rest of society ever notice that it's not "Drugs are bad, mmmkay?". Things proceed in increments, and this is surely a positive step over total prohibition?
I get from your post that you would prefer total prohibition to these laws. Is that true? I believe I have a feel for how you justify prohibition over these laws for those who primarily want to change their consciousness, but how can you justify removing these laws for those in real need?
Again, I don't see the problem with people getting around a morally bankrupt System to do something they should be able to do rather freely (mainly, alter their consciousness in ways of their own choosing).
Just the existence of an outlet where people can voice their concerns "spreads political unrest."
If people don't know how badly the government is treating them or their neighbor there is certainly less unrest.
If people don't realize that there are others that want to make changes as well, they are more likely to keep still. Less unrest that way, too.
It unfortunately seems that part of the entire idea is to get people to talk to one another! Surely that can't be good for a restful totalitarian state, can it?
Now, if they would all just play Farmville instead...
Slashdot Mirror
sometimes obeying laws can be considered evil
regards
Not really.
Yes. Julian bears the responsibility of posting the documents.
However, given that there was a 100% probability that he was going to post them, do you feel that the government bears no responsibility to ensure they protect their own people?
Personally, I feel that the government owed it to those people to redact the documents in a professional manner and they failed in that duty.
The only reason to not do so falls squarely in the "morals and ethics" camp. From that standpoint there is absolutely no difference between Julian and them - each seems to feel that their point of view is Supreme, and worth the sacrifice of other people's lives. So be it.
They appear to be equally culpable, but I tend to agree with Julian's ethics quite a bit more than what appears to be the governments.
From my pov:
The government appears to be trying desperately to de-legitimize Wikileaks and cynically believe that they can "use" any people that are killed through botched redaction to remove the threat (and believe me, Wikileaks type sites are a threat).
Helping redact the docs would not be in their best interest because it would legitimize Wikileaks. The bonus is that any deaths can be blamed on Julian, even if they could have prevented them.
If you disagree with me, please let me know what you believe is the reason why the government did not help to redact the documents, because all I can see are "standing on my principles" type arguments. These don't really cut it when when those other people have their own "standing on my principles" ideals and you scream about other people's responsibilities.
At that point, when we are talking about deaths on the ground you either have to get pragmatic - "Ok, how could have this been prevented?" OR agree that you bear some responsibility because you stood on your principles. Of course, the government chose neither, neither helping to prevent the deaths nor owning up to the fact that they are also culpable.
So, why do you feel the government bears no responsibility for any deaths that may occur due to these leaks?
Regards.
But the channel itself does not convey that information, it merely points to the location.
The information contained in that link is simply the location of the text.
I do not believe the information content contained in a set of characters includes any use of such a referent.
Regards.
have to wonder, did the Marketing Department have the right to "give away" copyrighted material for use on a non-Discovery Channel site? I bet they didn't.
That doesn't matter. The fact is that they are the same company, and the Company Iteslf does indeed have this right. And they exercised it. Now, it would be an entirely different matter if the company in question did not hold the copyright, but they do!
In hindsight, the fan site owner should have verified the legality of the clips/info he was sent - it sounds dumb, but ultimately he is responsible for the information on his site
I am sick and tired of people promoting corporate irresponsibility while at the same time screaming about personal responsibility and your post certainly smacks of that. The only reason to jerrymander a company like that is to avoid responsibility and I think they do a plenty good job of that already. In fact, the premise of your post basically signifies how complete the brainwashing has been.
The fact is that the corporation is responsible for disseminating this to that site. NO, not, oh the "Marketing" department or any other sub group. The corporation itself. If they hold the copyrights then it is certainly legal to give out clips, knowing that they will be futher distributed, and they did.
Regards.
Yes, forced.
Eventually Dell started to sell AMD chips.
However, there was quite a period of time where AMD could have been selling chips to Dell, and Dell was willing to buy but could not. You can read what the gp wrote again if that will help.
The market would certainly have looked a lot different if AMD had more cash for R&D instead of almost tanking.
Sorry that you have no concept of history but not everything can be viewed from a simple current state perspective.
Regards.
Nonesense.
I prefer to call it damages.
Since the mechanism by which a creator has chosen to be compensated is immoral and should be illegal,
and
Since that creator by their actions is causing the continuation of this immoral (and illegal) system by their participation,
and
Since the system they are funding has stolen decades of works from society and therefore from myself,
I see that the imbalance is clearly in my favour.
I don't see how I could ever copy enough works to outweigh the damages they have cause me through the inability to create derivative or inspired works from pieces that should be in the public domain DECADES AGO.
It is simply an imbalance that continues to grow in my favour, day after day.
Or if you prefer an economic comparison, would you like me to actually calculate the damages, the way the RIAA and MPAA do it and see who's more wrong?
Let's say they are 'violating copyright' after a 14 or 20 year copyright limit. Every copy distributed in any form beyond that is in violation. Hmm. Every radio station, actually every listener of every radio station has been provided a distributed copy. Now, how much is that, day by day?
Regards.
Are you in the US (or other supporting country)?
Do you pay taxes?
If so, based on your comments, I have to wonder what your real convictions are.
To paraphrase your own argument:
YOU are responsible for the war, as a group, you tax payers. If most of you refused to pay taxes, specifically stating the cause, the war wouldn't have happened, regardless of what the "leaders" said.
So, put your actions where your words are.
I was one of the thousands that specifically asked you all not to go.
Well, whoo hoo. Good for you. Now, did you stop funding it? No? Why not? Maybe being put in jail was a deterrent? Hmm. Well, I didn't see you caring about any consequences of a soldier disobeying the Government. Perhaps it's just easier to recommend disastrous outcomes for other people than be responsible for your actions?
So, stop paying taxes and deal with your convicions the way you are requiring others to do/
Unless you can come up with a coherent set of convictions that you attempt to live up to, instead of requiring other people to do so, why should I truly consider anything you said?
Regards.
Pay the tax. Come on, if you have a pool, you can pay the $300 fee for it. You don't get to whine about how horrible it is that the government is doing their job efficiently.
Don't want to pay the tax? Change the law. Don't like your local government enforcing the law? CHANGE IT!
Regards
The now destitute are of course not in the lower upper class.
The 'basically poor' are still N checks away from being on the street.
I'm sorry you took my response to be some kind of absolute. You know, if that wealth person died they are also no longer lower upper class? I know quite a few wealth people that have died, so my definition must have no value.
Look, the major distinction between "upper class" and "middle class" is the necessity of work. Of working. Of labour in exchange for monies.
Regards.
Ok, thanks. Let me refine my questions then, since it seems unclear.
I agree that laws != morals. So I am left trying to see why you feel breaking copyright law is immoral.
The though process is - if copyright LAW were only 14 years, would you feel it morally right to copy works older than that?
Now, how do you gibe you response to the above question with the morality you propose now (immoral to copy works under copyright), where the only difference is the length of the term in the LAW?
In your personal moral code what is the action, irrespective of LAW, that makes one of the other moral or immoral? Since the only difference is in the term lengths of the LAW, it cannot (according to the framework we set up) have any impact upon the morality of the act.
So, you are either left with:
1) Reducing copyright to 14 years it itself immoral
2) If copyright were reduced to 14 years it would be still immoral to copy works outside this frame of time
3) If copyright were reduced to 14 years it would be moral to copy works outside this frame
Depending on the response to this, it presupposes an answer to the morality of copying such works (>14 years old) with the current law (given the premise morality != law).
That is what I was really trying to get at.
Regards.
Your anecdote is interesting:
Basically, we cannot cope with the idea of more than 150 people - at least, not AS people. We blur the others out. The supermarket
checkouts may as well be staffed by robots for all we care.
However, I'm afraid that I actually look at and interact with people I come into contact with, whether it is only once or multiple times.
Why not be present, even if it is to say, 'take it easy' or 'thanks a lot'?
This is much different than the concept of a 150 person set of networks that one has to keep track of.
Much different.
Regards.
I have to disagree with the premise of your statements, that is:
It is still morally wrong. Sorry. I may not agree with the copyright law, but I know if I download a film, I performed something morally wrong however small it may be
I do not see how engaging in acts declared illegal by unjust laws is "morally wrong". Perhaps you can explain it to me.
The way I currently see it, it is morally indefensible to follow copyright as it currently exists. I can explain that to you if you like, but the gist is that we as a people have had our heritage and culture stolen from us in the name of corporate profits.
This moral issue is of much greater magnitude than illegaly copying information. So much so that it may be actually be morally wrong to pay for any media generated by RIAA/MPAA/etc. at all.
Regards.
well, there. i think you've found at least one line of distinction yourself.
"lower upper class" is NOT N missed paychecks away from financial ruin
"upper middle class" IS N missed paychecks away from financial ruin.
Good start?
Regards
Well, at least they fall outside of that particular definition of free cultural works.
Others may well include non-commercial licenses.
Regards.
this kind of talk is nonsense and whatever else you said sounded like the other end of a phone call in a Charlie Brown cartoon.
Right, way to go.
Ignore any actual content of the post because you don't like the words he used.
In the PP at the worst those "bad words" simply makes his bias clear. Otherwise it was quite good post.
I have to wonder how much information you miss out on because of your wacked out filters.
Regards.
Yes we invested in the United States because we were under the impression that you are an honourable people who wouldn't go out of your way to screw us over! Are we mistaken? Is that really the message you want sent out to the rest of the World for when these bad economic times are over?
You appear to be mistaken about the current nature of business. No, not "business in the US", but Capitalism, as a system, over the entire globe.
If I can make more net profit by going out of my way to screw you over, then I should do so. This is the golden rule. The rule of action. What generates more profit gets done (on a probabilistic evaulation - risk (including risk of integrity violations) and reward).
Trying to dress it up as whinging about honourable people is simply a laugh.
If you don't believe that your precious businesses have this attitude, which appears to be the case, you are simply deluded.
If BP were honourable they would probably have followed all those safety protocols, instead of letting them slide. But that is not as profitable and as a result we get a giant oil spill.
Regards.
I suppose the term "stewards of the Earth" comes from the UFO-origins crowd.
Well, talk to me when they really mean "stewardship" rather than "I can do whatever I want with the planet."
You are aware that there has been a large body of religious arguments stemming back to pre-industrial revolution specifically touting that philosophy against ecology?
Oh, I suppose those people fall under the "no real scotsman" defence, right?
Islam seeks submission to God. That's what the word Islam means. People seek power and money.
Well, it's entirely unfortunate that the majority of Muslims hold that submission to God means submission to those who would interpret the Divine for you. You know, those "People" as you say, seeking Power and money.
Of course, the same could be said of any Religion that has obtained followers instead of seekers.
Regards.
The airlines would load up their planes with nothing but junk mail and fly back and forth repeatedly, passengers optional, so as to maximize their subsidy money.
There is a lesson here for people who don't understand why Medicare is the most wasteful thing the American government has ever done.
Perfectly blind.
I suppose you are all for "personal responsibility", as well?
Please, now, apply that to your beloved corporations.
Who again, is "wasting" all this money???
Regards.
Leaving aside the fact that equality is not an operator, if we treat it strictly symbologically, commutativity says
A OP B "equals" B OP A
In the case of the OP being "=" then
A = B "equals" B = A
This is in general know of as the "symmetric property" of equality.
However, we just generated this from the commutative definition.
Hmmm.
Perhaps we simply use two different words, since we don't treat = as an operator but as a balance?
Regards
It's theft of time and lower ethically than the so-called "crank". A forum is going to get sued for that one day.
Bullshit.
I am under no obligation to post anything you write on my site. none whatsoever.
The only theft of time is YOU stealing it from YOURSELF it trying to cause grief.
Once I see bad behaviour, I can do anything I want with MY SITE.
I hope you can get that through your head.
As far as "lower ethically" please posit the ethical hierarchy you are working in such that someone out to cause trouble has a higher ethical ranking than someone trying to provide a service to the community.
Regards.
I disagree.
The fact that many people jump through these gates is merely proof that there is a large subsegment of the population that supports the use of this plant.
I'm sorry that you feel that they are denigrating themselves, but one could say the same (to stay OT) about those who download music illegally. Morally bankrupt, embarrasing and societal outcasts. Except they aren't (or, only to the RIAA).
The truth of the matter is they don't care what you think, and in many cases simply understand that the procedure as a way around the stupidity of the current system in addition to being quite necessary for a smaller portion of the population.
Without this step, will the rest of society ever notice that it's not "Drugs are bad, mmmkay?". Things proceed in increments, and this is surely a positive step over total prohibition?
I get from your post that you would prefer total prohibition to these laws. Is that true? I believe I have a feel for how you justify prohibition over these laws for those who primarily want to change their consciousness, but how can you justify removing these laws for those in real need?
Again, I don't see the problem with people getting around a morally bankrupt System to do something they should be able to do rather freely (mainly, alter their consciousness in ways of their own choosing).
Regards.
So what's the difference between a straw man and a prediction of the future?
Because from what I've read, RMS has had quite a few "straw man" arguments that turned out to be precisely the type of shit that has happened.
What you seem to call a stram man argument more than once has turned out to be rather prescient.
No, find your own links if you are so inclined - I've already done my reading.
Regards.
Just the existence of an outlet where people can voice their concerns "spreads political unrest."
If people don't know how badly the government is treating them or their neighbor there is certainly less unrest.
If people don't realize that there are others that want to make changes as well, they are more likely to keep still. Less unrest that way, too.
It unfortunately seems that part of the entire idea is to get people to talk to one another! Surely that can't be good for a restful totalitarian state, can it?
Now, if they would all just play Farmville instead...
Regards.
We rarely sign on to treaties and accords and fail to honor them; more often, we fail to sign on yet still follow the rules as if we had.
You forgot to add "as long as it suits us".
So, do you feel that is better or worse than countries that sign on to the treaties and then do absolutely nothing?