So your argument is that because one mainstream news network gave favorable coverage, you can dismiss the negative coverage from ABC, CBS, MSNBC, WSJ, NY Times, Time magazine, etc, etc, etc...
From that perspective, showing the video of people naked isnt bashing either. It's reporting a fact. Neither is showing video of drug use, or deficating in public. More importantly it's not bashing when you play video and sound files of speakers at OWS saying that they want to burn NYC to the ground, or drag bankers into the street to be beaten, or bringing back guillotines. Open calls for violence by speakers at these occupations are excused even when the OWS organizers refuse to condemn those statements, while all Tea Partiers are condemned equally for the idiots in the back row with stupid signs that the Tea Partiers themselves quickly and openly condemn.
The Tea Party didnt happen till we got a black president.... And neither did a housing market collapse, honest reporting on the national debt, interest paid to the US debtors, rising unemployment and subsequent home forcelosures, more focused attention on wasteful govt spending, a second and a third massive stimulus spending, a second and a third war, a near-trillion dollar health care plan, an economic EU crisis with bankcruptcy of Greece, teatering finances in Italy, France and more.....
I will readily concede that much of these factors had nothing to do with Barrack Obama (specifically the massive debt, waste, and spending before his Presidency). But the -impact- was felt after he found office, and with that impact many previously sleeping Americans finaly woke up. Myself being one of them. You can blame the Tea Partiers for being asleep and failing in their civic responsibilities of keeping Washington in check for decades. They should have been picketing at least the last two administrations and maybe if they had we'd be in more stable shape today. But you cant say that waking up was a one-to-one correlation with a black man being elected to office. Like most things in this country, people really dont give a shit until the sting of bad choices hurts them personally. A LOT of people are now feeling a sting they've never felt before, and they are going to do what they can to figure out why, and to speak up on what they think will fix it.
I agree with your sentiment, but as with OWS the conclusion is false.
We, as Americans should certainly stand and do something when we feel something is wrong. But we, as Americans, should also be forever mindful of the primary purpose of our Constitution; protect the civil rights and freedoms of the citizens from both government, and private individuals or groups.
My posting here on/. in no way interferes in the civil rights of a single person. I call for no violence to befall anyone, I feel no hate toward a single person, and I infringe on the protected freedoms of no person. I do not call for OWS to cease their message. (Frankly the more they speak the more they defeat themselves.) Conversely, OWS effectively removes my right as an equal citizen to access public parks across the nation meant for use as places of peace and enjoyment. OWS protestors harrass me as I walk down the street conducting my own business (business completely unknown to any of them). OWS increases public indecensy through substance abuse and indecent exposure. OWS degrades public health and sanitation in the areas of protest. OWS causes untold amounts of money (generated in part thanks to my tax contributions) to be spent on law enforcement to monitor a volatile situation OWS has created.
I can sit and watch multiple infractions and crimes being commited while officers witness and do nothing for fear of political backlash, knowing full well if I did any of the same things I would certainly be cited and fined, even if I were on my own property. OWS cries for equality while descrating the rule of law that extends far more tolerance to them than I might ever hope to enjoy. The hypocrisy is near perfect.
And this is precisely the problem with the OWS crowd. They don't want to put in any effort whatsoever to actually understand law, commerce and the political process. They want to throw a temper tantrum and hold their breath until they get what they want. They dont even particularly care how few people in America actually agree with them demands, or thought through what would actually happen if they succeeded.
Kind of like Tea Partiers, Town Hall organizers, religious groups, small government proponents, gun rights advocates,....
While we're on the topic of dishonest journalists with agendas: Most people probably cant tell you what the general idea of the Tea Party movement is. But they can tell you all about how a person showing up with a semi-auto rifle demonstrates how the Tea Party is full of racists who just hate Obama because he's black. They dont even know that the most famous of those images from Rachel Maddow's program were a very creative crop job of a video of a African American Tea Partier holding the rifle....
Awkward....
You see while there have been some sordid cases of idiots journalists on the right trying to mislead the public, at worst you could blame Fox News in the mainstream, and even then you'd be more wrong than right. Whereas on the left there are a myriad of mainstream cable news networks, major newspapers, and monthly publications that have made every effort to paint any criticism of Obama or his administration as nothing more than paranoid rich white people trying desperately to protect their empires. Which of course any rational person recongnizes as complete horseshit.
The real problem is the decided lack of rational people.
Again, this is precisely why I stated "(as a group)". Tea Party leaders and Town Hall founders have denounced such statements and such activity. OWS leaders have openly supported behavior that's equally repugnant.
Obama never proposed tax cuts for the middle class. He just stated that his proposal contained such a thing. The reality of the ideas put for by him didn't match the statements of what those ideas were.
They also went through all the required planning and permitting. They attended rallies and town hall meetings.... and then went home. They (as a group) didnt threaten anyone, nor did the openly call for the overthrow of any system or government.
Conversely, Ocuppy Wall Street has hosted speeches calling for violence and revolution. They have actually called for dragging people into the streets and bringing back the guillotine. When confronted, Occupy leaders have failed to denounce these items, implicitely condoning them.
Nor do we have the time to look up the legal and enforceable laws of New York, which include:
>> Section 240.10 Unlawful assembly
A person is guilty of unlawful assembly when he assembles with four or more other persons for the purpose of engaging or preparing to engage with them in tumultuous and violent conduct likely to cause public alarm, or when, being present at an assembly which either has or develops such purpose, he remains there with intent to advance that purpose.
>> Section 240.15 Criminal anarchy
A person is guilty of criminal anarchy when (a) he advocates the overthrow of the existing form of government of this state by violence, or (b) with knowledge of its contents, he publishes, sells or distributes any document which advocates such violent overthrow, or (c) with knowledge of its purpose, he becomes a member of any organization which advocates such violent overthrow.
>> Section 240.20 Disorderly conduct
A person is guilty of disorderly conduct when, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof:
1. He engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior; or
2. He makes unreasonable noise; or
3. In a public place, he uses abusive or obscene language, or makes an obscene gesture; or
4. Without lawful authority, he disturbs any lawful assembly or meeting of persons; or
5. He obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic; or
6. He congregates with other persons in a public place and refuses to comply with a lawful order of the police to disperse; or
7. He creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose.
Disorderly conduct is a violation.
>> Section 240.36 Loitering in the first degree
A person is guilty of loitering in the first degree when he loiters or remains in any place with one or more persons for the purpose of unlawfully using or possessing a controlled substance, as defined in section 220.00 of this chapter.
>> Section 240.40 Appearance in public under the influence of narcotics or a drug other than alcohol
A person is guilty of appearance in public under the influence of narcotics or a drug other than alcohol when he appears in a public place under the influence of narcotics or a drug other than alcohol to the degree that he may endanger himself or other persons or property, or annoy persons in his vicinity.
>> Section 240.45 Criminal nuisance in the second degree
A person is guilty of criminal nuisance in the second degree when:
1. By conduct either unlawful in itself or unreasonable under all the circumstances, he knowingly or recklessly creates or maintains a condition which endangers the safety or health of a considerable number of persons; or
2. He knowingly conducts or maintains any premises, place or resort where persons gather for purposes of engaging in unlawful conduct.
How is squating on private property legal?
How is failing to report rapes to police legal?
How is openly calling for violence against law enforcement legal?
Just asking...
The court order you're refering to was something the mayor didnt yet have all the information on, and was described as an order that kept the police from enforcing some laws within the park. They werent letting the protestors back in until they understood the order to ensure that they didn't violate that order.
So it would have been far better for the owners of the park to put a skyscraper on it that actually earns them income, rather than make an agreement with NYC to allow it to be used by the public?
That's precisely my point. Even if you fully trust this President, the last one, the next one, or the one to be elected in 2032, it doesn't mean that there wont be one that you dont trust at all. And the powers granted to whomever happens to be in the Oval Office today have ramifications for every future President.
The poster is modded troll, and these responses are labeled insightful? Really?
You cant think of a program based on a false premise that didn't work all that well, and governement decided the logical solution was more funding?
You cant think of a program that nibbled away at personal freedoms in the name of idiot-proofing society?
You cant imagine those two things ever being coupled?
In the case of this emergency broadcast system, I predict an eventual mechanism that will cut into any use of a television (whether cable/satellite/DVR or otherwise), cut into cell phone calls, etc. You might think it's important that every person can be reached at every moment of every day, I dont. I actually see that as a violation of my privacy and autonomy, and people who need to constantly be connected as having an unhealthy obsession with what everyone else is doing. And while you might have every confidence that this President and his administration would never use the system against the best interests of the people (I question that, but...) can you say with certainty that you will fully trust the next President? Or the one after that? What do you propose to do when you dont trust the administration?
Power gained by a nation state is rarely given back, and never done so freely.
I've heard the argument about the lost business for the ISPs a few times now. And yet not one person has talked about the lost business, lost jobs, and loss of talented full time artists producing goods you actually desire a pirated copy of if you actually get what you want and digital copies arent subject to laws like the one under discussion here.
In order for the thousands of people to continue to get paid for producing all this intelectual property, someone does actualy have to pay for it. Basically your position then is that you only need some number of honest people paying for them so that you can continue to get them for free. With movies, games and software costing into the millions to produce, that cost is passed on to people who are honest and pay for it. Fewer people paying, the price must necessarily be raised. So an argument could actually be made that you're stealing from me too...
For all the self-righteous bullshit being slung around here, the bottom line is these people want their copy for free, and are perfectly happy leeching off of honest people to get it.
No, I advocate using a bookcase or a dvd filer like most people would. But if it really is such a hardship to put a 1' x 4' x 6' bookcase someplace in an apartment the easy managable solution is a disk binder. And what is there about the case that's so important? A pretty picture? The folks arguing the logic here are the ones saying it's far easier to use a computer.... but you cant look up anything that would be on the case on your computer instead?
And you yourself actually provide yet another simple solution. Buy the dvd, burn it to your computer, and store the original disk (and it's case) in a box somewhere. In most cases making a single digital backup for your personal use is perfectly legal.
Apparently my reading comprehension is perfect, but your ability to articulate a thought sucks. Your ethics appear considerably tainted as well.
First downloading torrents is not stealing.
If someone produces a product, and you take that product without compensating the person who produced it, you are stealing. In the case of digital media, proving this in court might provide a prosecutor with some degree of challenge, but morally there's no ambiguity. You knowingly made the choice to take that which is not yours. The packaging of that product doesnt change this simple truth in any way, shape or form, and the fact that it's a torrent is irrelevant. If it's not a legally purchased license for your personal use, then it's theft. Period.
Second, what exactly lead you to conclude that I download illegally?
To start, my conclusion that you do pirate would be no more a leap than you suggesting that I've accused you of it. Did I say that you pirated? No. My arguments were quite pointedly a condemnation of a defense for piracy that involves lack of choices, lack of legal alternatives, lack of space to store disks, and a lack of desire to leave your home and go to a store to purchase a disk. These are all things you cited as reasons for piracy, and they are all crap arguments.
1) There's no ambiguity about the space concern you have on dvd's because it's a straw man argument. You stated that you cant have dvd's because they take up too much space which costs you too much. I pointed out that you're flat out wrong. There was no misscommunication.
2) There's no ambiguity about whether or not you should choose to go to a store to buy a legal copy or instead download a pirated version. I pointed that out and there's no misscommunication.
3) The industry is under no obligation to provide you a way to purchase their product. The product is not a human right, nor a necessity, so any argument suggesting that you had no alternative is wholly false. The alternative of course is; Do without it. You can be pissed at anyone you want and protest all you want about the impossibility of getting a product through some legal free trade agreement or whatever. I'd be right there with you supporting your cause (and I am...). But you cant dismiss your greed for something overshadowing your ethics. Either you do what's right, or you dont.
In response to your other post;
How is it that you cant afford dvd's but you can afford no less than 5 pieces of hardware? That aside, "convenience" doesnt enter into the equation on a topic of ethics. Being ethical and moral can certainly be inconvenient. It's the submission to convenience at the cost of ethics and morals that should be pointed out at every turn, as I have with you.
"I'm sorry officer. It was just far more convenient to take my neighbors new flatscreen rather than get a job, save some money, buy a tv and pay to have it delivered. What a bitch that would have been, eh?"
Are you actually going to suggest that something comparable (or likely that exact product) cant be purchased from one of a dozen local outlets or online stores in Paris?
So you want to start a movement encouraging people to knowingly break the law in order to protest a law that punishes people for taking that which is not their own and contributing nothing in return....
It is frighteningly sad that there are any people that actually see logic in this train-wreck of an idea, let alone enough to mod this up and post in support.
Slashdot Mirror
So your argument is that because one mainstream news network gave favorable coverage, you can dismiss the negative coverage from ABC, CBS, MSNBC, WSJ, NY Times, Time magazine, etc, etc, etc...
You pretty much cement my point.
From that perspective, showing the video of people naked isnt bashing either. It's reporting a fact. Neither is showing video of drug use, or deficating in public. More importantly it's not bashing when you play video and sound files of speakers at OWS saying that they want to burn NYC to the ground, or drag bankers into the street to be beaten, or bringing back guillotines. Open calls for violence by speakers at these occupations are excused even when the OWS organizers refuse to condemn those statements, while all Tea Partiers are condemned equally for the idiots in the back row with stupid signs that the Tea Partiers themselves quickly and openly condemn.
.....
The Tea Party didnt happen till we got a black president.... And neither did a housing market collapse, honest reporting on the national debt, interest paid to the US debtors, rising unemployment and subsequent home forcelosures, more focused attention on wasteful govt spending, a second and a third massive stimulus spending, a second and a third war, a near-trillion dollar health care plan, an economic EU crisis with bankcruptcy of Greece, teatering finances in Italy, France and more
I will readily concede that much of these factors had nothing to do with Barrack Obama (specifically the massive debt, waste, and spending before his Presidency). But the -impact- was felt after he found office, and with that impact many previously sleeping Americans finaly woke up. Myself being one of them. You can blame the Tea Partiers for being asleep and failing in their civic responsibilities of keeping Washington in check for decades. They should have been picketing at least the last two administrations and maybe if they had we'd be in more stable shape today. But you cant say that waking up was a one-to-one correlation with a black man being elected to office. Like most things in this country, people really dont give a shit until the sting of bad choices hurts them personally. A LOT of people are now feeling a sting they've never felt before, and they are going to do what they can to figure out why, and to speak up on what they think will fix it.
Except the on-going accusations of a bunch of racists, Koch-funding ex-Birchers, "wingnut" birthers, violent milita types, and paid Republican plants?
Apparently you didnt follow any of the coverage of the Tea Party.
I agree with your sentiment, but as with OWS the conclusion is false.
/. in no way interferes in the civil rights of a single person. I call for no violence to befall anyone, I feel no hate toward a single person, and I infringe on the protected freedoms of no person. I do not call for OWS to cease their message. (Frankly the more they speak the more they defeat themselves.) Conversely, OWS effectively removes my right as an equal citizen to access public parks across the nation meant for use as places of peace and enjoyment. OWS protestors harrass me as I walk down the street conducting my own business (business completely unknown to any of them). OWS increases public indecensy through substance abuse and indecent exposure. OWS degrades public health and sanitation in the areas of protest. OWS causes untold amounts of money (generated in part thanks to my tax contributions) to be spent on law enforcement to monitor a volatile situation OWS has created.
We, as Americans should certainly stand and do something when we feel something is wrong. But we, as Americans, should also be forever mindful of the primary purpose of our Constitution; protect the civil rights and freedoms of the citizens from both government, and private individuals or groups.
My posting here on
I can sit and watch multiple infractions and crimes being commited while officers witness and do nothing for fear of political backlash, knowing full well if I did any of the same things I would certainly be cited and fined, even if I were on my own property. OWS cries for equality while descrating the rule of law that extends far more tolerance to them than I might ever hope to enjoy. The hypocrisy is near perfect.
And this is precisely the problem with the OWS crowd. They don't want to put in any effort whatsoever to actually understand law, commerce and the political process. They want to throw a temper tantrum and hold their breath until they get what they want. They dont even particularly care how few people in America actually agree with them demands, or thought through what would actually happen if they succeeded.
Kind of like Tea Partiers, Town Hall organizers, religious groups, small government proponents, gun rights advocates,....
While we're on the topic of dishonest journalists with agendas: Most people probably cant tell you what the general idea of the Tea Party movement is. But they can tell you all about how a person showing up with a semi-auto rifle demonstrates how the Tea Party is full of racists who just hate Obama because he's black. They dont even know that the most famous of those images from Rachel Maddow's program were a very creative crop job of a video of a African American Tea Partier holding the rifle....
Awkward....
You see while there have been some sordid cases of idiots journalists on the right trying to mislead the public, at worst you could blame Fox News in the mainstream, and even then you'd be more wrong than right. Whereas on the left there are a myriad of mainstream cable news networks, major newspapers, and monthly publications that have made every effort to paint any criticism of Obama or his administration as nothing more than paranoid rich white people trying desperately to protect their empires. Which of course any rational person recongnizes as complete horseshit.
The real problem is the decided lack of rational people.
Zancotti park is not public property. It is privately held, and allows public use. This is an important distinction.
Again, this is precisely why I stated "(as a group)". Tea Party leaders and Town Hall founders have denounced such statements and such activity. OWS leaders have openly supported behavior that's equally repugnant.
Obama never proposed tax cuts for the middle class. He just stated that his proposal contained such a thing. The reality of the ideas put for by him didn't match the statements of what those ideas were.
They also went through all the required planning and permitting. They attended rallies and town hall meetings.... and then went home. They (as a group) didnt threaten anyone, nor did the openly call for the overthrow of any system or government.
Conversely, Ocuppy Wall Street has hosted speeches calling for violence and revolution. They have actually called for dragging people into the streets and bringing back the guillotine. When confronted, Occupy leaders have failed to denounce these items, implicitely condoning them.
Nor do we have the time to look up the legal and enforceable laws of New York, which include:
>> Section 240.10 Unlawful assembly A person is guilty of unlawful assembly when he assembles with four or more other persons for the purpose of engaging or preparing to engage with them in tumultuous and violent conduct likely to cause public alarm, or when, being present at an assembly which either has or develops such purpose, he remains there with intent to advance that purpose.
>> Section 240.15 Criminal anarchy A person is guilty of criminal anarchy when (a) he advocates the overthrow of the existing form of government of this state by violence, or (b) with knowledge of its contents, he publishes, sells or distributes any document which advocates such violent overthrow, or (c) with knowledge of its purpose, he becomes a member of any organization which advocates such violent overthrow.
>> Section 240.20 Disorderly conduct A person is guilty of disorderly conduct when, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof:
1. He engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior; or
2. He makes unreasonable noise; or
3. In a public place, he uses abusive or obscene language, or makes an obscene gesture; or
4. Without lawful authority, he disturbs any lawful assembly or meeting of persons; or
5. He obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic; or
6. He congregates with other persons in a public place and refuses to comply with a lawful order of the police to disperse; or
7. He creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose.
Disorderly conduct is a violation.
>> Section 240.36 Loitering in the first degree A person is guilty of loitering in the first degree when he loiters or remains in any place with one or more persons for the purpose of unlawfully using or possessing a controlled substance, as defined in section 220.00 of this chapter.
>> Section 240.40 Appearance in public under the influence of narcotics or a drug other than alcohol A person is guilty of appearance in public under the influence of narcotics or a drug other than alcohol when he appears in a public place under the influence of narcotics or a drug other than alcohol to the degree that he may endanger himself or other persons or property, or annoy persons in his vicinity.
>> Section 240.45 Criminal nuisance in the second degree A person is guilty of criminal nuisance in the second degree when: 1. By conduct either unlawful in itself or unreasonable under all the circumstances, he knowingly or recklessly creates or maintains a condition which endangers the safety or health of a considerable number of persons; or 2. He knowingly conducts or maintains any premises, place or resort where persons gather for purposes of engaging in unlawful conduct.
How is squating on private property legal?
How is failing to report rapes to police legal?
How is openly calling for violence against law enforcement legal?
Just asking...
The court order you're refering to was something the mayor didnt yet have all the information on, and was described as an order that kept the police from enforcing some laws within the park. They werent letting the protestors back in until they understood the order to ensure that they didn't violate that order.
So it would have been far better for the owners of the park to put a skyscraper on it that actually earns them income, rather than make an agreement with NYC to allow it to be used by the public?
Nope. That's why I dont believe politicians nor those who become filthy rich on environmentalism.
Either that or file suit because of it.... 50/50 odds.
That's precisely my point. Even if you fully trust this President, the last one, the next one, or the one to be elected in 2032, it doesn't mean that there wont be one that you dont trust at all. And the powers granted to whomever happens to be in the Oval Office today have ramifications for every future President.
Yeah, CNN is definately on the ball... As long as you agree with their political agenda.
And yes, it would be equally ridiculous to suggest we rely solely on Fox News for critical info.
The poster is modded troll, and these responses are labeled insightful? Really?
You cant think of a program based on a false premise that didn't work all that well, and governement decided the logical solution was more funding?
You cant think of a program that nibbled away at personal freedoms in the name of idiot-proofing society?
You cant imagine those two things ever being coupled?
In the case of this emergency broadcast system, I predict an eventual mechanism that will cut into any use of a television (whether cable/satellite/DVR or otherwise), cut into cell phone calls, etc. You might think it's important that every person can be reached at every moment of every day, I dont. I actually see that as a violation of my privacy and autonomy, and people who need to constantly be connected as having an unhealthy obsession with what everyone else is doing. And while you might have every confidence that this President and his administration would never use the system against the best interests of the people (I question that, but...) can you say with certainty that you will fully trust the next President? Or the one after that? What do you propose to do when you dont trust the administration?
Power gained by a nation state is rarely given back, and never done so freely.
Of course it's quite common for the common citizen to generate the multi-million dollar campaign portfolios required to actually get elected....
I've heard the argument about the lost business for the ISPs a few times now. And yet not one person has talked about the lost business, lost jobs, and loss of talented full time artists producing goods you actually desire a pirated copy of if you actually get what you want and digital copies arent subject to laws like the one under discussion here.
In order for the thousands of people to continue to get paid for producing all this intelectual property, someone does actualy have to pay for it. Basically your position then is that you only need some number of honest people paying for them so that you can continue to get them for free. With movies, games and software costing into the millions to produce, that cost is passed on to people who are honest and pay for it. Fewer people paying, the price must necessarily be raised. So an argument could actually be made that you're stealing from me too...
For all the self-righteous bullshit being slung around here, the bottom line is these people want their copy for free, and are perfectly happy leeching off of honest people to get it.
No, I advocate using a bookcase or a dvd filer like most people would. But if it really is such a hardship to put a 1' x 4' x 6' bookcase someplace in an apartment the easy managable solution is a disk binder. And what is there about the case that's so important? A pretty picture? The folks arguing the logic here are the ones saying it's far easier to use a computer.... but you cant look up anything that would be on the case on your computer instead?
And you yourself actually provide yet another simple solution. Buy the dvd, burn it to your computer, and store the original disk (and it's case) in a box somewhere. In most cases making a single digital backup for your personal use is perfectly legal.
First downloading torrents is not stealing.
If someone produces a product, and you take that product without compensating the person who produced it, you are stealing. In the case of digital media, proving this in court might provide a prosecutor with some degree of challenge, but morally there's no ambiguity. You knowingly made the choice to take that which is not yours. The packaging of that product doesnt change this simple truth in any way, shape or form, and the fact that it's a torrent is irrelevant. If it's not a legally purchased license for your personal use, then it's theft. Period.
Second, what exactly lead you to conclude that I download illegally?
To start, my conclusion that you do pirate would be no more a leap than you suggesting that I've accused you of it. Did I say that you pirated? No. My arguments were quite pointedly a condemnation of a defense for piracy that involves lack of choices, lack of legal alternatives, lack of space to store disks, and a lack of desire to leave your home and go to a store to purchase a disk. These are all things you cited as reasons for piracy, and they are all crap arguments.
1) There's no ambiguity about the space concern you have on dvd's because it's a straw man argument. You stated that you cant have dvd's because they take up too much space which costs you too much. I pointed out that you're flat out wrong. There was no misscommunication.
2) There's no ambiguity about whether or not you should choose to go to a store to buy a legal copy or instead download a pirated version. I pointed that out and there's no misscommunication.
3) The industry is under no obligation to provide you a way to purchase their product. The product is not a human right, nor a necessity, so any argument suggesting that you had no alternative is wholly false. The alternative of course is; Do without it. You can be pissed at anyone you want and protest all you want about the impossibility of getting a product through some legal free trade agreement or whatever. I'd be right there with you supporting your cause (and I am...). But you cant dismiss your greed for something overshadowing your ethics. Either you do what's right, or you dont.
In response to your other post;
How is it that you cant afford dvd's but you can afford no less than 5 pieces of hardware? That aside, "convenience" doesnt enter into the equation on a topic of ethics. Being ethical and moral can certainly be inconvenient. It's the submission to convenience at the cost of ethics and morals that should be pointed out at every turn, as I have with you.
"I'm sorry officer. It was just far more convenient to take my neighbors new flatscreen rather than get a job, save some money, buy a tv and pay to have it delivered. What a bitch that would have been, eh?"
Are you actually going to suggest that something comparable (or likely that exact product) cant be purchased from one of a dozen local outlets or online stores in Paris?
So you want to start a movement encouraging people to knowingly break the law in order to protest a law that punishes people for taking that which is not their own and contributing nothing in return....
It is frighteningly sad that there are any people that actually see logic in this train-wreck of an idea, let alone enough to mod this up and post in support.