It's sad, but people tend to forget our history and what we're actually supposed to stand for. Back in 1773, our forefathers weren't fighting for intellectual property rights as they threw cases of tea into the Boston harbor. It seems that every industry is finding more and more ways to be un-American in their business practices. They are limiting their customer's freedom in the name of piracy, but it's really all just based on fear - fear of lost profits and fear of losing control. They are trading your freedom for their security, because you cannot have both.
I think most would agree with you on this, but realize that there's an important distinction between representing a person being tried (for a crime or a suit) and an organization which is trying to influence American policy.
Representing a case that involves not one person, but an entire country, is a case lawyers where should either fully support it or find another client.
The point Spun was is trying to make isn't really pragmatic or legal - he's making a moral/value argument linked to the social contract, which is a very good one. You mention stealing wifi as bandwidth is a limited resource. Comparing this to copying software is a non sequitur fallacy: the compiled binary is an infinite resource. Additionally, even though the time used to create the product is limited, when you copy software that isn't yours and use it (a game) for personal enjoyment, you are not depriving the creator any resources that he would have otherwise maintained.
While it may be technically illegal to download software and games that aren't purchased, that does not address or influence the moral question in any way. It was once legal to own other people in this country....
This is already happening all around the world with corn. In Mexico, farmers are burning their agave fields to plant corn.. which sucks, because Patron costs enough already. But I guess we have Gore to thank for that.
Chuck Klosterman has a great article on this in his book "Drugs, Sex, and Cocoa Puffs" (last chapter)
Basically: yes, most people in the media are liberal democrat. No, this doesn't affect the news like you think it would.
They transform in to drones that try to seek "objectivity" above all else. It's actually from this that people think they're morons because they can sound so ridiculous.
I'm not an expert when it comes to email marketing, but I have had some experience with it before... To my knowledge, any credible mass-mail service will send the emails so that it's addressed to a single person (per email). If they are dumb enough to expose all of their clients in the TO and CC fields, it seems like they're asking for trouble.
Of course, this may not solve for the moral dilemma, but it's not like your boss is going out of his way and buying a list of email leads (which is ridiculous); they're all right there for the picking!
They only argument I can think of is telling him to research the target prospects and send mail based upon that.. then it's not really unsolicited - more like cold calling.
A lot of people don't take into consideration that some email *is* targeted, and it really is no different than picking up the phone and calling the customer directly, or sending them something by mail... While cold calling is becoming more and more obsolete in today's business environment, doing some research and choosing some leads isn't really all that bad - especially when your competitor is kind enough to do some of the leg work for you.
Slashdot Mirror
well it's not odd, really.. If company "owns" it, then they are taxed differently and are not personally liable.
It's sad, but people tend to forget our history and what we're actually supposed to stand for. Back in 1773, our forefathers weren't fighting for intellectual property rights as they threw cases of tea into the Boston harbor. It seems that every industry is finding more and more ways to be un-American in their business practices. They are limiting their customer's freedom in the name of piracy, but it's really all just based on fear - fear of lost profits and fear of losing control. They are trading your freedom for their security, because you cannot have both.
I think most would agree with you on this, but realize that there's an important distinction between representing a person being tried (for a crime or a suit) and an organization which is trying to influence American policy.
Representing a case that involves not one person, but an entire country, is a case lawyers where should either fully support it or find another client.
The point Spun was is trying to make isn't really pragmatic or legal - he's making a moral/value argument linked to the social contract, which is a very good one. You mention stealing wifi as bandwidth is a limited resource. Comparing this to copying software is a non sequitur fallacy: the compiled binary is an infinite resource. Additionally, even though the time used to create the product is limited, when you copy software that isn't yours and use it (a game) for personal enjoyment, you are not depriving the creator any resources that he would have otherwise maintained.
While it may be technically illegal to download software and games that aren't purchased, that does not address or influence the moral question in any way. It was once legal to own other people in this country....
This is already happening all around the world with corn. In Mexico, farmers are burning their agave fields to plant corn.. which sucks, because Patron costs enough already. But I guess we have Gore to thank for that.
Chuck Klosterman has a great article on this in his book "Drugs, Sex, and Cocoa Puffs" (last chapter) Basically: yes, most people in the media are liberal democrat. No, this doesn't affect the news like you think it would. They transform in to drones that try to seek "objectivity" above all else. It's actually from this that people think they're morons because they can sound so ridiculous.
I'm not an expert when it comes to email marketing, but I have had some experience with it before... To my knowledge, any credible mass-mail service will send the emails so that it's addressed to a single person (per email). If they are dumb enough to expose all of their clients in the TO and CC fields, it seems like they're asking for trouble. Of course, this may not solve for the moral dilemma, but it's not like your boss is going out of his way and buying a list of email leads (which is ridiculous); they're all right there for the picking! They only argument I can think of is telling him to research the target prospects and send mail based upon that.. then it's not really unsolicited - more like cold calling. A lot of people don't take into consideration that some email *is* targeted, and it really is no different than picking up the phone and calling the customer directly, or sending them something by mail... While cold calling is becoming more and more obsolete in today's business environment, doing some research and choosing some leads isn't really all that bad - especially when your competitor is kind enough to do some of the leg work for you.