... So - if someone actually went through all my stuff, and discovered all the stuff I've pirated, then I might be liable for - ohhhh - $150.
If they could examine the records of everything I've ever downloaded, and charge me for stuff I've since deleted, then I might be liable for a ballpark figure of $2 - 3,000.
And, if the world were suddenly to act that rational, I might even find myself agreeing with the law....
The issue I see here is that if this law would be in effect, 95% of all people can be considered criminal. I think almost everyone has somewhere somehow a piece of movie, mp3 or software that he didn't pay for. If 95% of a population is criminal according to a law, then that law must be wrong, not the population.
So you think it would be allowed for me to spread information about your pedophiliac activities* including photographs, together with your address and a strong advertisement that child abusers should be killed.
It's only tangentially touching the topic here. Even if you believe some information must not be spread, you can still argue what kind of information and why. I am just wondering whether the slashcrowd really follows a quite extreme no-content-should-be-illegal stance and whether they realize all consequences.
*There is no need for information to be actually true. For the sake of argument, also assume that I am a mega-corporation with money, access to media and photoshop artists.
Why does everyone fall back on attacking Microsoft for press releases like this?
If I go to apple.com, I expect Apple to tell me safari is the greatest. If I go to microsoft.com, I expect microsoft to tell me IE explorer is the greatest. If I go to 'www.yourbrowsermatters.org/', I expect an objective site telling me whether my browser is or is not ok. Pretending to be objective when you're not is misleading and ought to be attacked.
Slashdot Mirror
... So - if someone actually went through all my stuff, and discovered all the stuff I've pirated, then I might be liable for - ohhhh - $150.
If they could examine the records of everything I've ever downloaded, and charge me for stuff I've since deleted, then I might be liable for a ballpark figure of $2 - 3,000.
And, if the world were suddenly to act that rational, I might even find myself agreeing with the law....
The issue I see here is that if this law would be in effect, 95% of all people can be considered criminal. I think almost everyone has somewhere somehow a piece of movie, mp3 or software that he didn't pay for. If 95% of a population is criminal according to a law, then that law must be wrong, not the population.
So you think it would be allowed for me to spread information about your pedophiliac activities* including photographs, together with your address and a strong advertisement that child abusers should be killed.
It's only tangentially touching the topic here. Even if you believe some information must not be spread, you can still argue what kind of information and why. I am just wondering whether the slashcrowd really follows a quite extreme no-content-should-be-illegal stance and whether they realize all consequences.
*There is no need for information to be actually true. For the sake of argument, also assume that I am a mega-corporation with money, access to media and photoshop artists.
Why does everyone fall back on attacking Microsoft for press releases like this?
If I go to apple.com, I expect Apple to tell me safari is the greatest. If I go to microsoft.com, I expect microsoft to tell me IE explorer is the greatest. If I go to 'www.yourbrowsermatters.org/', I expect an objective site telling me whether my browser is or is not ok. Pretending to be objective when you're not is misleading and ought to be attacked.