I agree with you then, but Dmitry should still stand trial since he, allegedly, broke the law.
You are definitely right about old laws being on the books, I live in the US, not far from a town called Aberdeen, where (technically) it is illegal to spit within city limits. Although I'm not so sure that's a strong argument in this case, since the DMCA is new, especially when compared to monopoly laws.
They aren't separate things. Someone breaks a law, whether the law is considered (by various groups) just or not, it is exactly the same thing. The difference that Dmitry is not yet (necessarily) guilty of breaking the law. You're holding different standards to the two situations because of your personal beliefs.
Should Microsoft be penalized for breaking the law, yes. Should Dmitry be penalized for breaking the law, yes. Should the law in Dmitry's case, no, but it did, he flaunted it, hopefully his case will aid in the removal of the law, but he did break it, which means he should be punished just like MS should.
I don't believe in the DMCA, I believe it's wrong, but what I won't stand for is the attitude that anyone can break a law because they feel it's a bad law... withot suffering the consequences that is. If you choose to break a law for moral reasons, then prepare to face the consequences of your actions. If you're right, then hopefully that law will be changed.
The instant we start deciding that people should be allowed to flaunt laws at random just because some people don't believe in them is the instant that this country completely degenerated into chaos.
Wrong. It is illegal (in this country) to sell a product intended to circumvent another company's encryption. So if you buy into the whole IP concept, Skylarov and his copany are doing exaclty what I said they were. It's not about freedom to them it's about money.
A hero is no braver than an ordinary man, but he is braver five minutes longer."
Yeah Emerson spent a little too much time with HDT smoking bowls in the woods. A hero by his logic IS braver than an ordinary man, he's five minutes braver. Unless of course he starts five minutes later, in which case its hardly fair to call him a hero. <grin>
Seriously, I don't see Skylarov as a hero in any sense of the world. He didn't give the talk knowing that he was going to be arrested, even worse he gave the talk as part of a company that's trying to make money off another company's intellectual property. Now I don't believe in IP, but Skylarov is just a scummy as Adobe, in that arena.
Yes he should be free, but don't lionize him for being at the wrong place at the wrong time.
Actually I was talking about after some extreme measure that would shut down the majority of sharing tools. Besides that, they would get very far with that claim if a boycott was well publicized.
I should know better than to respond to an AC but,...
Number one I'm not being egocentric, if I pay for a cd and share it with whomever I want, I'm not being selfish at all, which is definitley a necessary quality for being egocentric.
Secondly, yes I call it morally acceptable, it's called sharing. Once I have bought that cd I can do with it what I wish. It is morally un-acceptable to try and stop me. Yes it is illegal for me to do so, but that is an entirely different realm than morality. You're making the assumption that this "artist" has some sort of right to make money making music. No such right exists, or should exist. Furthermore, you apparently feel that the "artist" somehow owns the music. Again this is bogus. You no more own music than you own the Co2 you exhale. You can't even point to the music and shown me what it is the "artist" owns. To believe that he owns the music is egocentrical of the artist, not the other way around. The whole ownership concept is invalid when it comes to the ridiculous term "intellectual property".
If ethics were the only concern, file sharing would be fine, you aren't depriving anyone of anything. TYou are not stealing at all. The question is one of legality, current copyright law makes it (sometimes) illegal to file share. There are those of us who believe that this is the way things should be and those of us who don't. It's up to the pyublic to decide what should be legal, not businesses.
Ethics is a a system of moral action. I feel that it's immoral not to share what I have with others, especially when it doesn't hurt me in any way. Don't confuse legality with morality.
Basically the whole file sharing issue breaks down to this: Music Companies do not want us to trade because they think that they'll make more money if we don't.
There's a simple solution, if things don't go the way we want, we stop buying cd's. I'd like to think that we could get enough people together that a six month moratorium on cd buying could seriously affect sales (assumming that most people, like me, still buy cd's). I'd also like to think that we care enough about this issue to go without buying any cd's for a period of time.
Copyright is a bargain with the public, if we don't like the way things are handled, WE have the power to decide how they should be. Granted, nowadays in the US the government seems more out to protect businesses rather that the people, but we still have the ultimate say.
Many communications executives complain, however, that as the Internet has evolved into a ubiquitous public utility, its shortcomings in service quality and reliability have lost their charm, which is evident to anyone who has waited a seeming eternity for a Web page to load or suffered through a weeklong outage in an e-mail account.
By what right do they have to complain. Ealier in the article they say that the internet is a business sponsored entity not a government sponsored one. I say bullshit. The internet was brought to the point where it was usable and free by people who wanted to share information. Business muscled it's way in and took over. It was never meant for business and never will be. How can businesses poosibly complain when they are reaching their customers through channels that were not bought and paid for by themselves? They took an established network and leverages it's reach to hit customers around the world.
The solution is simple, if they don't like the internet, then create their own network.. businet or some shit. Get off the public internet and give back the bandwidth you've stolen business, we'll be happier when you're gone.
I'm not necessarily talking solely about the conclusion, it the bits along the way. Japanese style media tends to ask the viewer to contribute a little more of their attention, which is why I feel that anime (and even slightly american-ized versions such as Final Fantasy) don't go over well in the (current) American market. Whether it's a ingrained cutltural trait, or just the way we as a whole feel about movies, American audiences tend to want to have everything spelled out.
Take for instance the Sixth Sense. I enjoyed that moveie immensely, but it would have been much more powerful had it ended without explicitly showing the twist. Just enough of a hint to allow people to figure it out. Kinda like how Blase Runner ends. The unicorn is just enough of a hint to make the connection.
So what? Number one, I never, ever use reviews as the basis of my decision making, at least when it comes to movies. Number two, there is nothing wrong with people taking something slightly (or even entirely) different away from any form of media. There is no such thing as what the story is "really about". Meaning is the connection between subject and object, every person is different so they will ALWAYS have those slight (and sometimes not so slight) differences.
By the way as a Japanese major, you should (better than most people) that Japanese media tends toward that trend in general. Every last bit of the intended meaning of the author(s) is not spelled out (as it generally is in American films), requiring the viewer to draw their own conclusions. This isn't a trait that is held only by this partcular movie, it's inherent in Japanese culture.
For those of you who may be wondering what Akira is about, it's a movie where Neo-Tokyo has risen from the ashes of World War III to become a dark and dangerous megalopolis infested with gangs and terrorists. The government seethes with corruption and only maintains a token control over the powerful military that prevents total chaos and hides the secrets of the past
You may want to change that first line to "For those of you who are wondering what most anime is about". <grin>
That's not a valid argument. It has nothing to do with it being old. It has to do with the fact that it's abstract. There is no logic involved. Right and just are abstract terms, they do nothing to further your argument. You first have to establish not only the reasons that it would be right to free him (contrary to the laws of this country) but also what the definitions of right and just are.
we're both nitpicking at this point. It's academic why each of us believe he should be free. I would just prefer that the DMCA is challenged in the process.
Bullcrap.
Number one, the whole point of taking case to court is to show that it is in CONFLICT with hist rights. Going to court resolves this.
Number Two: He broke the law, he is a criminal, it is right and just that he be punished. You haven't given me a reason why he should go free. Spouting lines you read in a Plato dialogue is not a reason, it's a meanigless aphorism. WHY is it right and just that he be free, you've admitted yourself that he broke the law, but have given no reason why he should be set free.
There is no basis to set him free. He broke the law, he should stand trial. Yes the government serves us, and we make our changes by causing new laws to be passed, not by a small group saying we don't like this.
I don't understand who you think the we is who are delaying his release. He is charged with a crime, he will run should bail be posted, therefore it was not. All completely above board. There is no reason to release him.
If you can't give a reason he should be set free, we might as well end this thread.
There is no reason for the government to drop the case, he broke the law. He broke the law. His civil liberties have not been violated, he broke the law. Again he broke the law.
I never said that new civil liberties would be granted, only that the law may be overturned (should be) because it conflicts with previously granted civil liberties.
Justice in this case is not freeing Dmitry. Justice is what happens when he goes to trial for him crimes in the U.S.. He broke the law. He should stand trial, case closed.
Saying "how difficult is that to understand" was not an attack, it was a statement of my disbelief, cannot seem to understand that he broke the law and that is why he was arrested.
The DMCA is the CAUSE of this particular point. Had he not been doing something ILLEGAL, according to the provisions of the DMCA he wouldn't be in this position. We are not keeping him in jail to advance our agenda. He is in jail because he BROKE THE LAW. How difficult is that to understand. He broke the law, a bad law, and the government was netirely within their bounds to arrest him. Any attempt to free him must necessarily depend on the constitutionality of the DMCA. You're acting as if he's some innocent walking down the street that was grabbed at random.
Ask youself these two questions:
1. Is the DMCA part of current law?
2. Did Dmirty violate it?
The answer to both these questions is yes. There is no way you can justify freeing before going to court. A settlement would mean that the issue is submerged by the coprorations. A court case is the ONLY way to get justice.
It is a BAD law, but it is the law, and it was broken. While he is in this country he must follow the law or pay the consequences. His civil liberties WERE NOT VIOLATED according to current law. If they were found to be violated it would only be in hindsight as the DMCA is overturned or amended.
To me it makes a big difference, he wasn't doing the "right thing", again this is based on my values no one else's. But I won't exert myself to defend someone's right to make money.
Freeing Dmitry doesn't maintain the status quo. The status quo is where we're at right now, according to the DMCA Adobe is within their rights. That is the status quo.
You are advocating sacrifice for the masses. Whether you realize it or not, it is implicit in you belief that it's more important to free Dmitry. We don't know how many other people rights will be trampled before another chance like this comes along to challenge the DMCA. By allowing someone (who has allready put himself in his situation) now, we can protect the rights more people in the future (should it be succesfully challenged).
There's not much point in arguing about this. Like I said before, the whole situation depends on the individual's values.
One more note to make, his tool is illegal. There is no can about it, the DMCA makes it illegal to do such a thing. When you argue on the grounds that he should not have been arrested because his tool only had the potential to be illegal, you're arguing from false premises. It is ILLEGAL to create such a tool. Should it be, No. But hopefully when and if this goes to trial that may change.
That's cuz these outlook things are not really viruses. Coding and examining viruses in the eighties was a good way to learn to code. It took skill and knowledge to fool around with them. You learn alot about assembler writing a second virus to kill off the first.
I can see both sides because I'm not "demanding something from others" in order to save myself. He fucked up. He got arrested. His arrest may lead to the overturning of the DMCA, good. Had he not been trying to make money off of the software, I may have had enough sympathy for him to protest, but that's not what happened.
Everyone has a priority to their values. To me it's more important to be my brothers keeper for a large number of people than to sacrifice the possibility of saving them for one man, who should have known better. Apparently you would rather sacrifice the masses for the individual. Both ways are right, it's all in your personal value prioritization.
Adobe DOES NOT CARE that he was trying to make money off of them. They care that he was attempting to ditribute the software. Their reaction would have been the same whether or not he was selling it or giving it away.
He happened to be selling it, which in my eyes removes any sympathy he would have otherwised gotten. But a company cannot stop you from making money off of products that are compatible with theirs. We've allready been through that in this country over and over again. In this particular case he happened to be (maybe) breaking a bogus law and Adobe figured they had a way to get him through it.
Don't forget though, it's also not up to me to save him.
And to do the greatest good, I'd say let the case go on, the inconveniences of one man are meaningless compared to the civil liberties of all.
</devil's advocate>
I can see it both ways. I don't want the guy to suffer, but since he was SELLING the product, I don't feel as sorry that he may be the one to have to test the DMCA, as I would for someone who was doing it to give to the community.
Yeah right. Adobe doesn't care that he was trying to make money off of it. They care that he was distibuting it. This would have happened either way. Unfortunately, Skylarov has lost his right to claim that he did it because information should be free. I hadn't realized he was trying to sell a decryption tool (that decrypts bastardized rot13 for christ's sake) for $99.
That little nugget severly changed my view on the whole situation. While he shouldn't have been arrested, it's difficult to find sympathy for someone who is not much different from Adobe.
Slashdot Mirror
You are definitely right about old laws being on the books, I live in the US, not far from a town called Aberdeen, where (technically) it is illegal to spit within city limits. Although I'm not so sure that's a strong argument in this case, since the DMCA is new, especially when compared to monopoly laws.
Should Microsoft be penalized for breaking the law, yes. Should Dmitry be penalized for breaking the law, yes. Should the law in Dmitry's case, no, but it did, he flaunted it, hopefully his case will aid in the removal of the law, but he did break it, which means he should be punished just like MS should.
I don't believe in the DMCA, I believe it's wrong, but what I won't stand for is the attitude that anyone can break a law because they feel it's a bad law... withot suffering the consequences that is. If you choose to break a law for moral reasons, then prepare to face the consequences of your actions. If you're right, then hopefully that law will be changed.
The instant we start deciding that people should be allowed to flaunt laws at random just because some people don't believe in them is the instant that this country completely degenerated into chaos.
Wrong. It is illegal (in this country) to sell a product intended to circumvent another company's encryption. So if you buy into the whole IP concept, Skylarov and his copany are doing exaclty what I said they were. It's not about freedom to them it's about money.
Yeah Emerson spent a little too much time with HDT smoking bowls in the woods. A hero by his logic IS braver than an ordinary man, he's five minutes braver. Unless of course he starts five minutes later, in which case its hardly fair to call him a hero. <grin>
Seriously, I don't see Skylarov as a hero in any sense of the world. He didn't give the talk knowing that he was going to be arrested, even worse he gave the talk as part of a company that's trying to make money off another company's intellectual property. Now I don't believe in IP, but Skylarov is just a scummy as Adobe, in that arena.
Yes he should be free, but don't lionize him for being at the wrong place at the wrong time.
By your logic, no boycott would ever work.
Number one I'm not being egocentric, if I pay for a cd and share it with whomever I want, I'm not being selfish at all, which is definitley a necessary quality for being egocentric.
Secondly, yes I call it morally acceptable, it's called sharing. Once I have bought that cd I can do with it what I wish. It is morally un-acceptable to try and stop me. Yes it is illegal for me to do so, but that is an entirely different realm than morality. You're making the assumption that this "artist" has some sort of right to make money making music. No such right exists, or should exist. Furthermore, you apparently feel that the "artist" somehow owns the music. Again this is bogus. You no more own music than you own the Co2 you exhale. You can't even point to the music and shown me what it is the "artist" owns. To believe that he owns the music is egocentrical of the artist, not the other way around. The whole ownership concept is invalid when it comes to the ridiculous term "intellectual property".
Ethics is a a system of moral action. I feel that it's immoral not to share what I have with others, especially when it doesn't hurt me in any way. Don't confuse legality with morality.
There's a simple solution, if things don't go the way we want, we stop buying cd's. I'd like to think that we could get enough people together that a six month moratorium on cd buying could seriously affect sales (assumming that most people, like me, still buy cd's). I'd also like to think that we care enough about this issue to go without buying any cd's for a period of time.
Copyright is a bargain with the public, if we don't like the way things are handled, WE have the power to decide how they should be. Granted, nowadays in the US the government seems more out to protect businesses rather that the people, but we still have the ultimate say.
By what right do they have to complain. Ealier in the article they say that the internet is a business sponsored entity not a government sponsored one. I say bullshit. The internet was brought to the point where it was usable and free by people who wanted to share information. Business muscled it's way in and took over. It was never meant for business and never will be. How can businesses poosibly complain when they are reaching their customers through channels that were not bought and paid for by themselves? They took an established network and leverages it's reach to hit customers around the world.
The solution is simple, if they don't like the internet, then create their own network.. businet or some shit. Get off the public internet and give back the bandwidth you've stolen business, we'll be happier when you're gone.
Take for instance the Sixth Sense. I enjoyed that moveie immensely, but it would have been much more powerful had it ended without explicitly showing the twist. Just enough of a hint to allow people to figure it out. Kinda like how Blase Runner ends. The unicorn is just enough of a hint to make the connection.
By the way as a Japanese major, you should (better than most people) that Japanese media tends toward that trend in general. Every last bit of the intended meaning of the author(s) is not spelled out (as it generally is in American films), requiring the viewer to draw their own conclusions. This isn't a trait that is held only by this partcular movie, it's inherent in Japanese culture.
You may want to change that first line to "For those of you who are wondering what most anime is about". <grin>
we're both nitpicking at this point. It's academic why each of us believe he should be free. I would just prefer that the DMCA is challenged in the process.
Number Two: He broke the law, he is a criminal, it is right and just that he be punished. You haven't given me a reason why he should go free. Spouting lines you read in a Plato dialogue is not a reason, it's a meanigless aphorism. WHY is it right and just that he be free, you've admitted yourself that he broke the law, but have given no reason why he should be set free.
There is no basis to set him free. He broke the law, he should stand trial. Yes the government serves us, and we make our changes by causing new laws to be passed, not by a small group saying we don't like this.
I don't understand who you think the we is who are delaying his release. He is charged with a crime, he will run should bail be posted, therefore it was not. All completely above board. There is no reason to release him.
If you can't give a reason he should be set free, we might as well end this thread.
Or you could really quote the source: Ned's Atomic Dustbin, "You". <grin>
I never said that new civil liberties would be granted, only that the law may be overturned (should be) because it conflicts with previously granted civil liberties.
Justice in this case is not freeing Dmitry. Justice is what happens when he goes to trial for him crimes in the U.S.. He broke the law. He should stand trial, case closed.
Saying "how difficult is that to understand" was not an attack, it was a statement of my disbelief, cannot seem to understand that he broke the law and that is why he was arrested.
Let me ask you this: Why should he be freed?
Ask youself these two questions:
1. Is the DMCA part of current law?
2. Did Dmirty violate it?
The answer to both these questions is yes. There is no way you can justify freeing before going to court. A settlement would mean that the issue is submerged by the coprorations. A court case is the ONLY way to get justice.
It is a BAD law, but it is the law, and it was broken. While he is in this country he must follow the law or pay the consequences. His civil liberties WERE NOT VIOLATED according to current law. If they were found to be violated it would only be in hindsight as the DMCA is overturned or amended.
To me it makes a big difference, he wasn't doing the "right thing", again this is based on my values no one else's. But I won't exert myself to defend someone's right to make money.
Freeing Dmitry doesn't maintain the status quo. The status quo is where we're at right now, according to the DMCA Adobe is within their rights. That is the status quo.
You are advocating sacrifice for the masses. Whether you realize it or not, it is implicit in you belief that it's more important to free Dmitry. We don't know how many other people rights will be trampled before another chance like this comes along to challenge the DMCA. By allowing someone (who has allready put himself in his situation) now, we can protect the rights more people in the future (should it be succesfully challenged).
There's not much point in arguing about this. Like I said before, the whole situation depends on the individual's values.
One more note to make, his tool is illegal. There is no can about it, the DMCA makes it illegal to do such a thing. When you argue on the grounds that he should not have been arrested because his tool only had the potential to be illegal, you're arguing from false premises. It is ILLEGAL to create such a tool. Should it be, No. But hopefully when and if this goes to trial that may change.
That's cuz these outlook things are not really viruses. Coding and examining viruses in the eighties was a good way to learn to code. It took skill and knowledge to fool around with them. You learn alot about assembler writing a second virus to kill off the first.
Everyone has a priority to their values. To me it's more important to be my brothers keeper for a large number of people than to sacrifice the possibility of saving them for one man, who should have known better. Apparently you would rather sacrifice the masses for the individual. Both ways are right, it's all in your personal value prioritization.
Ouch that's pretty ironic (speeling)
But please, first correct the speeling mistakes, especially change there to their. You're a journalist for Christ's sake.
He happened to be selling it, which in my eyes removes any sympathy he would have otherwised gotten. But a company cannot stop you from making money off of products that are compatible with theirs. We've allready been through that in this country over and over again. In this particular case he happened to be (maybe) breaking a bogus law and Adobe figured they had a way to get him through it.
Don't forget though, it's also not up to me to save him.
And to do the greatest good, I'd say let the case go on, the inconveniences of one man are meaningless compared to the civil liberties of all.
</devil's advocate>
I can see it both ways. I don't want the guy to suffer, but since he was SELLING the product, I don't feel as sorry that he may be the one to have to test the DMCA, as I would for someone who was doing it to give to the community.
That little nugget severly changed my view on the whole situation. While he shouldn't have been arrested, it's difficult to find sympathy for someone who is not much different from Adobe.