actually increases in crop yields for the human food supply -- from any source -- lead to increases in human population, not increases in the numbers of "lives saved".
people are made of food after all... without MORE food to make more people, they would simply not exist. a biologist will tell you this with certainty: if, when there were 6 billion people on earth, we had kept on growing just enough food for those 6B people, we would not now have 7B. we had to start growing more food (enough for 7B) to make more people before they could come into existence. population follows food production, not the other way 'round.
the food distribution system being what it is, the percentage of people starving seems to stay relatively constant in our world.
viewed through the lens of logic, then, rather than emotion, intentionally increasing production of food for human consumption, by whatever means, is actually more like a sadistic attempt to cause a larger number of people to die of starvation, not an attempt to "save lives".
the fact that the IP system (in the US, at least) means that using GMO's to accomplish an increase in food production turns ownership of the means to feed ourselves over to a few already-very-rich corporations just seals the deal that we shouldn't do it.
Sure. Abolish copyrights, and there'll be no NEED for the GPL.
"... but culture can't survive in the long term if its creators don't get rewarded for their work... "
1) Bullshit. "Culture" did, can, and will survive if there were NO payments for artistic creation. Artists create because they're DRIVEN to it; they'll do it regardless of payment. Jerry Bruckheimer "creates" because he gets PAID. 2) Your fevered histrionics aside, allowing copying doesn't mean creators will NEVER EVER EVER EVER make another cent. There are other business models. There may never be another Madonna, Garth Brooks, or Beiber, but who cares?
"Would you like it if your boss withheld your paycheck and told you your code "wanted to be free" and that you were a casualty of technology changing the world?"
Sure, because they don't pay me for my code, they pay me for my working on THEIR code. They stop paying, I stop keeping their shit working, and find somebody else who wants their code improved, rewritten, or otherwise changed and still working afterwards, to pay me.
A better analogy for the copyright industries would be if I wrote code for my boss, got paid for it, agreed to let them own it, then went and bribed Congress to change the law so that my boss had to continue to pay me my full salary for as long as they wanted to keep using the code I AGREED TO LET THEM OWN in the first place.
its how humanity is 'wired' and its always, always been this way.
it most certainly is NOT how "humanity" is wired. endemic to this *culture*, yes, but not "humanity".
Aside: by "culture", i mean: the totality of "civilized" cultures, Eastern and Western, that share a common parent in the totalitarian agriculturists that got their start somewhere inside what anthropologists call "The Fertile Crescent".
99.9% of the time "humanity" has existed on this planet, it's been in the form of hierarchy-less, law-less, ruling-class-less ethnic tribal units...
it may be that there is no way to have what we call a "civilized" culture WITHOUT it adhering the the golden rule you refer to... no way to know, since your golden rule is so intrinsically written into the workings of OUR particular kind of "civilized" culture. but to insist such behavior is inherent to human existence is to *willfully* don the blinders those 1% would request you to wear...
are you aware that, compared to this relative pittance of $0.5B, the US government subsidizes the fossil fuel industries to the tune of upwards of $700B... per YEAR?
how profitable would those companies be without taking THAT money from taxpayers and giving it to them?
what about if we stopped spending ($3.5Trillion+ / 10 years) for the war machine to provide us first-in-line status at the MidEast Gas Pump?
does your invisible-hand-of-the-almighty-free-market ideology apply equally to all comers, or just those new corps that pollute less and aren't owned by already-rich guys with CongressCritters in their pockets?
"However, at best we can only say that it is not necessarily intrinsic to the human condition."
Also fair enough -- my point here would be that "not necessarily intrinsic to the human condition" means the same thing as "definitely NOT part of human nature" -- and if its not part of human *nature*, and there've been successful human societies WITHOUT it, then there its not INEVITABLE that a human society become hyper-consumers to be successful. My message is one of HOPE, you see, not despair, for that way lies madness.
For if we are fated to perpetual growth in both our number and in the amount we consume (after all, to be a hyper-consumer, we must consume MORE as compared to whatever measure we use to gauge our own consumption, which typically will mean the consumption of other humans, who, if they share our delusion about the hyper-consuming nature of humans, will then compare to US, which will spur THEM to consume more, and so on and so on) AND we live in a finite universe, what possible ultimate outcome can we hope for our race except ruin?
*steps down from pulpit*
All that said, another (minor) correction:
"Think about it: 50,000 years ago the tribes that survived were the ones who horded resources for themselves"
This is not strictly INCORRECT -- especially in light of your later comments about hoarding in one's on body -- but it represents a pretty inaccurate mental model for the situation 50,000 years ago. Namely, the tribes that ACTUALLY thrived 50,000 years ago, near as anthropologists can tell, are the ones who waged war most successfully on their neighbors. Yes, those we think of "noble savages" were, in most cases (and most especially in areas where many tribes competed for "resources"), quite warlike, cruel, and brutal, at least as regards members of other tribes (My, how things have changed, huh?....;^)
And the "resource" most fought over was, of course, *LAND*. And that's why its so misleading to say hunter-gatherers "hoarded" resources -- to people that DO NOT collect all their food up in warehouses and grocery stores and then lock it away from each other, the world is MADE OF food -- everything a human hunter gatherer sees -- with a typical human's ability to eat both so high and so low on the food chain, in such variety, and gain sustenance from said eating -- in his world is his food, or at the least it's the food of SOME of his food. To a human living in a world made of food, to speak of "hoarding" of food is a bit of a non-sequitur. How can one "store" or "hoard" the world in which one lives? (Within one's own body does make some sense as an answer to this, as you've pointed out... ) And even if you could, why would you?
However, to be more strictly accurate, I'd encourage you to think rather in terms of the competition between tribes to (mostly) monopolize the (human) use of a region -- that is a more accurate model. "Hoarding" has a connotation of "storage", which really just doesn't much apply to the way most hunter-gatherers lived.
To bring this around to the original point, I'd agree that "competition between humans for desired things (land, food, whatever)" may well be intrinsic to human nature (or, more probably, just "any nature", as opposed to "human nature") -- but the evidence suggests hyper-CONSUMPTION is NOT.
And, if you'll allow me to wax even MORE long-winded, this is the crux of the point -- the KEY difference between "us" and "them" is NOT in the way we "hoard", or even "how we consume", it is ACTUALLY in "how we compete". What happened 8,000 years ago, with the STYLE of agriculture that started being practiced (what anthropologists recognize as "agriculture" actually started much earlier), was that we decided to become not just "those who compete" but rather think of ourselves as "those who make the rules for competition".
If we define "agriculture" as "the encouragement of desired plants to grow in a certain area", then what started being pra
What you probably think of as "hyper-consumption" is not intrinsic to the human condition.
That started only about 8,000 years ago, with the rise of "modern" agriculture and what we think of as "civilization", as best as anthropologists can tell, somewhere in the Fertile Crescent.
It is all these varieties of "civilized man" that that are toxic to their surroundings (to varying degress), not "man" himself.
Placed in a truly historical perspective, the hyper-consumption you appear to feel is intrinsic to homo sapiens sapiens, in fact, only appears in the most recent tenth of a percent or so if the species' history.
Since when is committing a crime without openly announcing it considered 'civil disobedience'?
Since the definition of the term doesn't generally include "openly announcing" what you are doing, only the doing of it. From WikiPedia:
"Civil disobedience encompasses the active refusal to obey certain laws, demands and commands of a government or of an occupying power without resorting to physical violence."
In case you're wondering, the word "civil" doesn't mean "out in the open", in this context, it connotes something more like "being courteous while also resisting", ie, non-violent.
Since you mention Gandhi, it would seem you think he qualifies as a bonafide civil disobey-er, so lets look at HIS rules to follow to engage in civil disobedience:
1. A civil resister (or satyagrahi) will harbour no anger.
2. He will suffer the anger of the opponent.
3. In so doing he will put up with assaults from the opponent, never retaliate; but he will not submit, out of fear of punishment or the like, to any order given in anger.
4. When any person in authority seeks to arrest a civil resister, he will voluntarily submit to the arrest, and he will not resist the attachment or removal of his own property, if any, when it is sought to be confiscated by authorities.
5. If a civil resister has any property in his possession as a trustee, he will refuse to surrender it, even though in defending it he might lose his life. He will, however, never retaliate.
6. Retaliation includes swearing and cursing.
7. Therefore a civil resister will never insult his opponent, and therefore also not take part in many of the newly coined cries which are contrary to the spirit of ahimsa.
8. A civil resister will not salute the Union Jack, nor will he insult it or officials, English or Indian.
9. In the course of the struggle if anyone insults an official or commits an assault upon him, a civil resister will protect such official or officials from the insult or attack even at the risk of his life.
Can you point me to which rule it is where he says, "to qualify as a civil disobeyer, you must openly announce what disobedience you plan to engage in."? I seem to be not seeing that one in the list...
Just because YOU DON'T LIKE those who engage in methods you disagree with to "Civilly Disobey" what THEY FEEL are unjust copyright laws, and you also think "Civil Disobedience" connotes something sorta kinda *good*, or noble, and you don't like something that you think of as kinda good describing something you think is kinda bad, doesn't mean you get to nitpick-ily and arbitrarily add clauses to the definition of the thing you think is good that will apply for the rest of us, in order to try to filter out the activities of those nasty, evil copyright infringers.
This is the sort of thinking Bill Maher complained so lucidly about on his show (that got him canned, btw) -- that he would *dare* to say those flying the planes into the towers were "BRAVE"! The gall of him! HARUMPH!
Well, the thing is, they WERE brave. Also, misguided, cruel, and also, I might add as being pertinent to the current discussion, not very "civil"; by the definition of the word, however, they were ALSO "brave". As in, willing to disregard personal safety to fight and give their very lives for something they believed in. Just because we "like" the word "brave", and not terrorists, doesn't make them NOT "brave". Maher, of course, goes on at great length about the apparent inability of Americans to hold two ideas in their heads at one time. Suffice to say its not brain surgery -- it is *possible* for something to be describable both as something we think of as "bad" and something we think of as "good" and not cause the fabric of the universe to unravel.
There can be little doubt that what the vast majority of copyright infringers do is both "civil" and also "disobedient", as regards the law of (most of the)
"... we're heading for a mass extinction event... "
Anyone who actually studies the number of species on this planet and the rates of change in that number will be able to easily demonstrate to you that we're not headING for such a thing, we're already smack dab in the middle of one, caused by the continued (and rapidly accelerating) conversion of the planet's biomass into HUMAN mass...
Yes, you did, which I've never taken you to task for. You're free to disagree with me all you like, and I won't type a word to you. What you said in addition to disagreeing with me, however, is a bit different. What you said that started this whatever-it-is-you-and-I-are-involved-in, was that *I* am "immoral" for disagreeing with YOU. In case you haven't sort of picked up on this point yet, that subtle difference (like the subtle differences you accuse me of being too stupid to see) is what I find troubling.
Well, OK, I said lying was wrong,
If that was all you said, we'd've BOTH saved ourselves a lotta time. What you DID say, however, was that, against my own morals, I *should* consider this particular sort of lie to be wrong, simply because you do. I disagreed (and still do).
Is lying always wrong? Were the Allies "wrong" to lie to the Germans about troop movements while using the codes they knew the Germans had broken in WWII?
I assume you feel, as I do, that sometimes lying is "wrong" and sometimes it's "right". I don't expect your views on the subject to match mine.
I feel that lies like this one, which directly harm no one, and despite your fallacious use of the term "stealing", relieve no one of any of their property, should be left to individuals to decide for themselves whether they are "right" or "wrong".
You, on the other hand, feel that everyone must view such lies as "right" or "wrong" (if it's an important enough lie in your view), based on whether YOU view them as right or wrong; if they disagree, then THEY are the "immoral" ones.
What I'm trying do in "wasting my time" in this online (*ahem*) discussion is to show you that, in light of your explicitly stated desire to minimize the times other's morals impose on your own, this position is illogical. Obviously, your two positions here are self-contradictory -- you don't want others telling you which lies are right / wrong, yet you wish to dictate this to others. If we assume for a second that you are NOT the ultimate arbiter, God himself descended among us, how can you reconcile wishing for the power to wreak upon others, that which you do not wish or expect to have wreaked upon YOU?
Should I now realize this is a way out there, radical position?
No. To say the same message yet another way, I simply DON'T CARE whether you think all lies are wrong, and have no position on whether this view is "out there", or not. When you say that I must feel as you do about this particular form of lying, or else I am "immoral", then I will disagree with you, sometimes in petulant, insulting ways, as I am a human being, sometimes given to moments of over-reaction, weakness, and, yes, sometimes even self-defensiveness.
In other words, I JUST DON'T CARE what you think about whether this lie is "right" or "wrong" -- I simply am making the point that I expect the same from you: ie, to not care whether *I* think this particular lie is "right" or "wrong".
Do you spew your obnoxious vitriol at anyone who beleives anything different than you?
No, only those that obnoxiously tell me that I must adopt their differing beliefs as my own, at risk of my immoral soul.
BTW, I checked my first reply -- you should too -- the word "idiot" doesn't appear in it.... and I should infer from your missive that your reply to me was all sunshine and light, was it, Mr. Holier-Than-Thou-Ultimate-Arbiter-Of-Morality-For- Everyone?
Sorry if I find being told I should consider myself "immoral" for believing in my own morals, rather than adopting yours, more offensive than a few silly, meaningless words like "whipper-snapper" or "pea-brain".
I hope I've got better things to do than this drivel in my late 30s
I'm always fascinated when I hear people say things like that -- what are they / you hoping for? To be worrying about your bills instead of being engaged in "drivel" like arguing with someone about the nature of morality (admittedly in a meaningless fashion, but it's still more fun making you freak out over a silly online discussion than paying bills is). Changing diapers? Wiping your mid-life-crisis sports car with a diaper, for that matter?
Or do you just hope your brain has completely shut down by then, so you can go about your work in drone-like fashion without thought, a faceless man in a gray-flannel suit?
said that I thought lying to iTunes in order to get music under terms you had no intention of obeying sounded immoral to me.
Incorrect again. Saying this would've been fine. What you said was that you thought violating iTMS TOS should sound immoral to me, thereby making me the one being accused of "evil", by virtue of having a different view of this particular moral choice than you, which affects you in no way. I merely responded to your accusations in kind. Multiple times, without losing my temper, as you've done twice now. To use your line of thinking: How far off is graduation for you, after all?
(Hint: there's a difference between a teasing, jesting, though admittedly (intentionally) provocative, "I smell the blood of a hypocrite" or "you dang whipper-snapper", and "dipshit" or "You must be the biggest fucking idiot who has ever lived". I don't mind though, seriously, mindless attacks (particularly not-very-creative verbal ones) mean less than nothing to me; thoughtful ones, as your first one was, I find more interesting... )
Right. You thought I was talking about victimless crimes when Mussolini was the example.
I used Mussolini as an example only in jest, and to give you a ribbing for being so judgmental and so boringly, simple-mindedly heavy-handed. You used it in the context of others imposing their moral code on him, which I really never even responded to.
I HAVE been talking about "crimes" similar to that of violating iTMS TOS, in terms of the imposition of moral codes; wasn't that what this "discussion" was originally about? The analogies with larger issues were to make the COMPARISON with being justified in violating something you've agreed to, not to say they were the same in terms of the rights being violated. It doesn't take a genius to figure out physical violence occupies a different part of the enforcement spectrum than violating the terms for an online service; after all, even my painfully-stupid brain managed it. (take a deep breath and try to remember the definition of "comparison", and you might get through reading the sentence without cursing. Not that I have a particular problem with cursing, btw; it's just that seem to only use it when you've lost control of your emotions.)
I'm sure you'll have some stupid reason that shouldn't count as imposing morals
Yes, but since any reasons I might offer would be of no interest to you since you've determined their stupidity in advance (as a wise man always does when evaluating information he's not heard before), I won't bother.
I'm not even going to read any replies you might write to this
And I'm going to take my ball home so NOBODY can play!!!! Harumph!
. 8^D
Doesn't being that stupid HURT?
Not as much as being as smart as you, apparently. (You horrible, lower-than-low RANDOm woRd CRAPi-talizer!!!)
that illegal P2Pers might, dare I say, just want free music without the consent of the (C)-owner?
I'd never dispute that this does in fact apply to some percentage of those using P2P apps... can you dispute that there are some to whom it does NOT apply?
I happily used both P2P and bought CDs... until the cartel shut Napster down. From that day, I've bought no more RIAA-signed-artist's CDs, and I never will, until the RIAA is no more, regardless of their actions going forward. I do already buy tracks from Magnatune and CDBaby from independent artists.
I'd be happy to discuss with you the real chilling effects that draconian, technology-implemented and legally-backed, privately-implemented copyright controls have on Free Speech (such as the Ed Felten case, or Dmitry Sklyarov, or FatWallet and Wal*Mart), and why it is that there are those of us who seriously do consider issues of copyright to be related to "protest or civil disobedience", but be aware that that is a far different question than what we were discussing.
PyMusique, as a service, was a way for users to go ahead and PAY the unreasonable price the cartel is asking albeit with the same freedoms they'd enjoy if they'd simply bought the CD (for about the same price as using their own equipment to distribute the product, I might add). And that makes your question about whether P2Pers are just out for a free lunch fairly off-topic (not that I'm very good at staying on topic, either, mind you.)
What we WERE discussing was the question of whether violating an online service's TOS is justified, if you, in fact feel they are unreasonable. And, more specifically, we were discussing whether it is justifiable for one person to claim another's "morals" are wrong, because he disagrees with their view that violating unreasonable terms is, in fact, a "moral" thing to do.
All that said, and, in deference to your original question, I'd like to take you back a few years...
"I'm going to throw out the proposition... call me crazy... that maybe this really isn't protest or civil disobediance... that illegal (VHS tape recorders / radio stations / photocopier makers / printing press manufacturers) might, dare I say, just want free access to use ( music / audio / text / literature ) without the consent of the (C)-owner, merely for their own ends / profit?
Protesting via civil disobedience (any form of protest, really) is akin to marketing against the status quo. Not only is it disobeying a law, but it involves doing it in order to get seen, to inform, and to attempt to change minds. Just ( watching some little status bar suck down an MP3 file / recording a TV show to watch later / making a copy of a section of a book in a library / printing a bible to sell and make money on without the Vatican's OK) is hardly informational, inspiring, or inciteful.
Although voting with your dollars might mean the decision between having your cake and eating it too, the route of wholesale uncompensated use of (audio music / musical compositions / photocopies of books / recorded TV shows / the words of God) is hardly defensable."
The fact is, this isn't the first time we've heard this story. We've heard it over and over again, from the same people many times, even though they themselves started off as "pirates" (like the movie industry that "pirated" Edison's patents on the movie projector), and the world was better off as a result of ignoring those with the story of protest and cultural "doom". Each time, until now, those with sentiments similar to yours have been outvoted, shouted down, or otherwise ignored,
We've found that, up until the last several decades, we've always valued Progress and the Freedom of people to do as they please with what they've paid for as more important than protecting the publisher of a dead creator's right to control what all the rest of the people do (the throne using the names of dead authors to control the d
That was my original quote -- stealing a wallet doesn't fall under this rubric -- we're talking about "victimless" crimes (or at least I was) like drug use, prostitution, and violating the TOS of an online service. My apologies if this wasn't clear.
Given that that IS what I'm talking about, the point remains: in the case of iTMS TOS, you are advocating that a personal "moral" choice, that directly harms no one else, should be legislated in such a way that it follows your personal moral code, and further, that you should feel justified and receive no reprimand for dictating other's morality for them.
Which is what I orginally said, and still do. And I still don't buy the validity of that point.
Arguing about whether it's "right" or "wrong" to allow murder, rape, or theft of physical property that undisputedly belongs to one individual is pointless and silly -- we can't have a society without prohibitions on such things. This is, however, a far different thing than arguing about choices you make that only directly affect you and your life, and believing there is "one right way" that those choices must be made to conform to, and, further, that we as a society should be working towards ensconcing one particular, "preferred" set of those moral choices within our legal codes.
there are many cases where it pisses me off that others try to impose their differing moral code upon me... Yet... I think it is perfectly permissible, and even desirable for people to enforce their moral code on others.
Get used to being pissed, I'd say. Keep in mind we're not talking about enforcing your moral code to defend your own life or basic human rights -- we're talking about the culturally-ingrained notion that moral choices that directly harm no one else should follow one moral code or another, which is what you are arguing for (restricted, as you've noted, to those cases where your opinion is that the need for your morals to be applied is strong enough). You are, of course, entitled to the opinion that moral codes should be imposed on others... I can't then understand why you'd be be so pissed when others try to impose theirs on you, however. That is, after all, what you're arguing in support of.
one person imposing their moral code on another is... the basis of all law enforcement; it is the basis of every defense of human rights.
Untrue. Law has less to do with morals that lawyers have to do with ethics. Laws are simply rules we've agreed together in some system to live by. The fact that those rules nearly always extend their purvey into the realm of personal moral choices is just a natural effect of our cultural obsession with seeking the one perfect set of moral choices for us all to live by.
I'm sorry I can't make it black and white for you.
Ah, but it is I whose argument affords credence to the notion that moral codes are NOT black-and-white, you that is arguing they should be. That's what saying your morals should be imposed on another is: a judgement that in this case, the moral choices are black-and-white; in this case, my morals are "right" and the others are "wrong"... for everyone.
You'll just have to stretch your brain around the fact that I beleive some moral principles should be imposed on others
Don't worry, no stretch, you've convinced me.
even though there is no objective standard for what they are
Ok, still no stretch.
yet I still don't think there is "one right way to live for all humans"
Ok, now you've stretched. Of course this is what you believe, you just said so yourself above. You just don't like to hear it stated this way. You prefer to say, "in certain situations, what I think is right should be applied to all others", which is really no different.
I'd prefer to keep the list of morals to be imposed on everyone to an absolute minimum.
Ah, a point of agreement. My list, of course, will always be equal to or less than yours, since mine is basically empty.
violating iTunes TOS is an almost stupidly trivial matter, it is lying and/or (depending how you look at it) stealing. I think those are, in most cases, wrong.
Agreed. Just as, in most cases (per my moral code, of course) treason against the King, or public disobedience are "wrong".
I do not see a problem with my deciding stealing is wrong, nor with my willingness to enforce that judgement on others
Nor do I. Stealing is taking something from someone else, thereby leaving them without it. You'd be hard pressed to find someone in our society who disagrees with these moral assessments. Violating the iTMS TOS does not, however, qualify as stealing by any sane definition. Even if it did, I'd be hard pressed to feel too badly for those "wronged" by such a violation who had cooked up such "immoral" terms in the first place. That'd be like feeling really bad for a thief who got car-jacked during his getaway, IMO.
That's all beside the point, however. You seem to keep trying to defend your position on this -- it's not your position I'm attacking, though I do disagree with it -- it's your willingness to declare
You're doing better, but you need to give up the "I've already decided on my position, and I won't budge on that, so I'll just try to fit my arguments to what I've previously decided will be my position, even if there are obvious contradictions in what I say... " stage of argument: many people seem to believe their morals are correct, and must be imposed on others... but I am not among them. ... is wrong, and I think it's in the category where it's OK for me to say others should agree with me
uh... what? What is saying others should agree with you on an issue of moral choice, if it is not saying your moral code should be "imposed on others"? Some moral codes are superior to others, yet there is no objective way of establishing which those are.
Truly, you have a dizzying intellect. If there's no way to determine which codes are superior, barring God or Allah or Zeus showing his divine face in plain view for all to see (I'm not holding my breath), how is that any dfferent from no code being better than another? If one code IS better than another, but there's absolutely no way to determine this information, what possible difference could it make to our lives? And why are you wasting your time trying to convince ANYone who obviously disagrees that your moral code is superior that it is, when by your own admission that other party has NO possible "objective" means if determining what you are saying is true?
Any time someone makes a statement that this or that code is superior to another, they're inherently making a moral judgement, which, by your own words cannot be determined to be any better or worse than another in any objective manner. So... it just boils down to one person deciding his moral code should be applied to others, just as I said, and just as you are DOING.
My, how well you've been trained... you don't even REALIZE (or can't admit) that every fiber of your being simply SCREAMS OUT that there just MUST be ONE RIGHT WAY TO LIVE for all humans!!!! Admit the truth you know in your heart, my son / daughter, there is no one true way, no definitive "right" set of choices, no one absolute morality. It's ok over here, honestly, the world doesn't collapse and fall away into a black hole or anything... its actually a lot less stressful and more relaxed, not having to go around judging others against a meaningless yardstick all the time...
Here's a final hint for you: choices in matters of morality are simply a person with an opinion about what s/he thinks is right or wrong in a given situation.
And you know what they say opinions are like... everyone really does have one, after all.
Well, so long as we're all giving our $0.02 here, I'd say "invented", "revealed", "introduced" are all three both offensive and, more importantly, INACCURATE words to describe the genesis of our so-called "modern", salvationist religions.
Terms like "perpetrated" or "inflicted" or "committed" or even "wreaked upon" would be far preferable, if you ask me...:^D
I've been entirely swayed by your stupendous rhetorical skill.
It's not been my intention to "sway" you; rather, it's been my intention to try to keep you from "swaying" me. The overriding point of all my posts here is NOT about the rightness or wrongness of violating iTMS terms -- it's been about the relativity of morality, and why it so silly and senseless to try to dictate YOUR moral values to someone else, and expect them to adopt them as their own.
I think violating unjust terms, to anything, publicly or privately, is justified, whether you "ma(k)e a lot of noise about the injustice (you're) fighting" or not. You disagree and think that, unless you protest publicly, such actions are immoral. I'm not trying to convince you that you should change your mind and consider as moral what I consider as moral -- and all I'm asking in return is for you to grant me and my moral code the same respect I've afforded you and yours.
The problem is that you, like the rest of us, are brainwashed to think that there just simply MUST BE one "perfect" moral code, ONE RIGHT WAY for humans to live, and, this being the case, you naturally don't want to change YOUR morals, so the only possible solution is to try to MAKE EVERYONE ELSE adopt your code. Which would be fine, except for that small, niggling detail that everyone else feels the same way... stalemate. As with many such stalemates, there's only one solution to such a dilemma... and that's to walk away, as I have done. Try it, you might like it.
in the quote above, I have been unable to communicate my point
Despite your sarcasm, this is entirely true, though the misunderstanding is probably due as much to my over-reaction as to any mis-wording on your part; I took your quote to mean that I was "lying" about whether I found dis-obeying iTMS terms to be "immoral", and took offense (obviously). This is probably because I don't use iTMS, and would never use it, with or without breaking the DRM, for reasons far different from what is listed in their TOS. I'm NOT, therefore, in any way "lying" to the iTMS service, so I took what you said as a personal attack.
My apologies.
I agree with you that those who use PyMusique or otherwise violate TOS, are, in fact, "lying", I, unlike you, simply find that lie to be justified, whether you keep said lie to yourself, or trumpet it from the highest rooftops. My point in all this is that I don't see any reason (or sense) in my telling you you should find their lies to be justified if it goes against your personal moral code, so why is it so hard for you to return that consideration to me?
Generally, they are based on quite publicly refusing to agree to those terms.
Incorrect. Those selfsame terms quite emphatically state, "live by these terms, or get the hell out of the country that's run by them."
So, let me get this straight... if you live under the terms for awhile, then register your PUBLIC disagreement, you can THEN decide to defy those terms, and THAT will be "morally right" to you?
So that if I sign up for iTMS, like the terms, then they're changed by Apple, I can NOW "morally" violate those terms, so long as I PUBLICLY declare my disagreement with them?
Well, that's an (*ahem*) INTERESTING viewpoint, to say the least...
She did not agree to, and said so.
Sure she did... when she got on the bus whose terms were, "agree to the rules of riding on this bus, or don't ride at all." Isn't that what you and the other cartel apologists are suggesting for people who disagree with the iTMS terms? "Either live by the rules of the bus, or don't get on the bus in the first place!"
FEE-FIE-FO-FUM! I smell the blood of a hypocrite!
Now consider the case at hand: There is no assumtion that you have any agreement with or obligation to the bus company whatsoever. Then you implicitly state, when you pay your fare, "Yes. I agree to follow the rules of bus company in exchange for the privilege of paying to ride on the bus." Then you knowingly break those rules. You don't tell them you disagree before you get on, or that you won't ride unless they change them, you just refuse to sit where they say, and demand to be taken where you're going, despite your breaking of the agreement, and ask them to not notice that you're not following the rules.
Sorry, but I don't have any problem at all seeing a moral distinction here.
Sorry, but I do. (SEE! I can say the opposite of what you said, just like you did to me! But, somehow, unlike you, I don't think it seems to make either one of us any more "right" or more "wrong" than we were before... hmmm, that's weird... did you feel better after your simple-minded contradiction? I feel I'm being cheated here!)
And here's one that'll really explode your tiny little pea-brain. My view of the world doesn't REQUIRE you to see as moral what I see as moral. That was, in fact, the point of the original post, if you'd bother'd to read it past your slavering, knee-jerk, apologist attempt to nitpick closely enough to find some tiny, irrelevant flaw in the absolute perfection of the analogies presented.
You see, little one, here in the grown-up world, we realize that two different people can believe totally different things, and they can BOTH HONESTLY believe their own version! They think something OPPOSITE, yet NEITHER ONE is "lying"! Can you believe it? Maybe in a few more years, but, isn't the world a dark and wonderful, yet strange and confusing place?!?
You might want to note for future reference: comparisons are used as parallel examples with similar features -- they're not supposed to be the EXACT SAME situation, that's why they're... COMPARISONS!
It would take a very thick skull to suggest there's a huge philosophical difference between mindlessly clicking-thru a 40-page license agreement and having the expectation that riding on a bus means you agree to follow the rules of the bus line, who are in no way obligated, a priori, to give you a ride. Even if there were no such implied agreement for using a public service of any sort (and there is, as has been proven in court over and over again), ignorance of the law would still be no excuse. The terms are, ride where we say, or get off -- you can register your disagreement with the terms from the street, just as iTMS users can register their disagreement from OUTSIDE the confines of the service. If you really have that much trouble seeing the similarities here, what can I say but
Good idea. I wouldn't either, if I were placed in the highly untenable position of defending your apparently-held idea that morality is NOT, in fact, relative.
If it were me, I'd dodge the issue by replying seriously to the humorous part of the post, ignorning the main point, then reacting with feigned haughty indignation at what was obviously a tongue-in-cheek word selection... oh, no wait, that's if it was YOU, not me...
I always suspected that people willing to put up with or defend DRM were probably uneducated and ignorant, but I never dreamed... I would counter that the following two alternatives are feasible:
1)... 2)... 3)...
Seriously, though, you're forgetting that your morals apply only to YOU. I don't consider it at all immoral to agree to unfair TOS and then break those selfsame TOS, either as a means of protest, or simply because you feel entitled to break what are unfair terms. In fact, aren't all revolutions and / or protests, whether considered in hindsight by history to be "moral" or "immoral", BASED on disobedience to "terms" that were previously agreed to, either on an individual or collective basis?
Didn't the Founding Fathers in the U.S. agree to the levels of taxation without representation that the crown put upon them, by simply agreeing to the "Terms" of living in the colonies? Weren't they free to leave for France, or live with the dirt-worshipping savages if they didn't like those terms? Does that make their actions in starting a revolution automaticaly "immoral", in your eyes?
For that matter, couldn't you just get around nearly ANY government policy and / or tax by simply being having NO income, owning NOTHING, being homeless and eating bugs for every meal? Didn't we all implicitly "agree" to be citizens of our countries, by virtue of NOT LEAVING those selfsame countries and applying to have our citizenship revoked? If a citizen of some country has NOT taken that "simple" step, aren't they being "immoral", by your definition, EVERY time they break or protest a rule or law they feel to be unjust? Wasn't Rosa Parks then quite the immoral wretch for not sitting on the back of the bus, as she'd "agreed" to do, by living in a place where the majority supported such rules?
The music industry is an out-of-control corrupt and convicted monopoly. Thinking that everyone in the world should find it "immoral" to break the rules they set up to maintain their ultimate control over distribution, when they could easily relax their obsession with control and multiply their profits unimaginably, just because YOU find it to be immoral for you personally, is just plain silly.
If YOU want to support their practices (which are ultimately aimed at controlling (and metering) everything you hear), and feel that using one of their services against the TOS is "immoral", fine. I certainly won't be the one to tell you that you SHOULD consider breaking the TOS the "moral" and "just" thing to do.
I disagree, and would simply ask for the same consideration from those of your corporate-sycophant-ish ilk that I've first freely offered to you.
But you're assuming that the conclusion of the case before it is brought. No one has proven P2P distributors like Grokster ARE "contributory and vicarious infringers", anymore than Sony was with the VCR. So there IS NO "right of action" to support the *AA getting special treatment by the law. They ALREADY have laws to prevent what they're trying to supposedly prevent with this lawsuit (copyright infringement) already -- as I've already said, let them use them, rather than dictating what technology is allowed to exist via Government bribes.
Do you also favor making it illegal to sell a car without a speed regulator that obeys the national speed limit, since speed limits are widely violated? How about making it illegal to talk about HOW to violate the speed limit? You like that one, too?
This could also be written as asking the courts to find the P2P networks liable for copyright infringement because they provide a tool that is overwhelmingly used to circumvent the RIAA's copyrights, at the expense of society's ability to easily infringe on the RIAA's copyrights.
Uh, no it couldn't -- they say two different things, and therefore are NOT the same, surprisingly enough. But, if you're still playing along, here's one that DOES make sense, DOES say the same thing, and also smoothly proves your analogy flawed (unless you also think movie companies should also be allowed to bribe the Government to shut down VCR makers...)
This could also be written as asking the courts to find the VCR makers liable for copyright infringement because they provide a tool that is overwhelmingly used to circumvent the MPAA's and broadcast network's copyrights, at the expense of society's ability to easily infringe on those copyrights.
See, that says much the same thing. Your version bears no comparison to mine, because you're talking about what's good for big businesses to make money without working for it, while mine talks about preserving the rights of individuals and small companies to innovate without asking aforementioned big companies for permission which would never be given.
That makes them different. This analogy stuff is easy and FUN if you just try!
But why shouldn't they also be able to sue those who are contributorily and vicariously liable as well?
So then how are Grokster et al by your estimation MORE liable than Sony, or Xerox, or Gutenberg, for that matter?
Just because you SAY they're more guilty doesn't make it legally so. In what OBJECTIVE way are people who make P2P technologies contributing more directly to copyright infringement than the people who make copiers, which are also used in both legal and illegal fashions? Or do you believe ALL technologies capable of copying should be outlawed on the whim of any corporation that feels their use might interfere with their desired revenue stream?
But I don't see anything special about the file sharing networks that should get them a "free pass"
No, you apparently feel they should be singled out for special prosecution while allowing VCR and copier companies are allowed a "free pass" for providing largely the same sort of technology in a different medium.
Yeah, that makes good sense, now that I look at it that way...
MADD does not have a private right of action against drunk drivers -- only the state can prosecute drunk drivers
What ARE you talking about? Are you saying RIAA can prosecute file sharers criminally? Look at the law again. The Government prosecutes ALL defenders in ALL criminal cases. The RIAA is suing in civil courts against file sharers, just as you, me, or MADD or anyone else has the option to do against drunk drivers, file sharers, or people with the letter "Z" in their last name.
Anyone can sue anyone over anything in this country in civil court, justified or not, so the hair-splitting you're doing above is meaningless.
The discussion, and this case, is about whether a private corporation / group can bribe the Government to make a particular tool, that has both legal and illegal uses, totally illegal in order to serve their own narrow ends, at the expense of the rest of society. Which, as you'll note, makes the MADD analogy quite apt, and not what you've automatically labelled as a "straw man"
Here's a quick lesson: a false analogy -- which is what the MADD comparison would be if it WERE a logical fallacy (which it isn't, IMO (obviously)) -- doesn't qualify as a "straw man". A straw man is when you take a weaker argument of your opponent, or one he hasn't actually made but that is related to his main argument, and knock the crap out of it, instead of your opponent's true (or better) argumentative points.
No charge for the lesson.
The RIAA, however, does have a right of action against copyright infringers.
So let them use it -- as they are doing now with the file-swapper lawsuits, which I have no problem with -- instead of trying to make certain general-purpose tools they disapprove of illegal.
But I never said this
But that is what this case is about, and what you DID say followed with the ridiculous *AA logic (which was the point of my analogy) and what said analogy alluded to IS a direct comparison to what the *AA is trying to accomplish with the case.
Which was my point. And why I chose your own words (how could an analogy be more apt than using the same words with the nouns replaced, if the resulting replacements make logical sense (as I believe they do, if MADD were more like the *AA)?). Which is why I made the analogy to point out that what you were saying was crazy... IF you're arguing the *AA should prevail in this case. If all you're saying is "The *AA should fail in lawsuits like this, and continue to use the courts without special dispensations or taxpayer subsidies from the rest of us", then we're in complete agreement, and the point of whether the analogy holds is moot.
Well, then maybe it is up to those who want to use P2P to share legal files to set up a way to police the networks so that illegal materials are NOT shared. If people are unwilling to keep illegal material off the networks, they are simply inviting the copyright holders to come after them and shut them down.
If P2P users are unable to accept any restrictions as to what they can share, then yeah, this is the result. The *AA, as I noted elsewhere, doesn't give a rat's ass about you sharing your vacation photos, home movies, or research data over the P2P networks -- if you don't share copyrighted material without permission, the *AA won't get involved. But if P2P users are unwilling to police themselves, or accept any restrictions, then they are going to continue to be hounded by the *AA.
Good points. I've been trying to make a similar point, but freakin' idiot people won't listen to me:
===================
Well, then maybe it is up to those who want to use cars to drive sober to set up a way to control who is driving a car so that no drunk people can drive. If people are unwilling to stop drinking at least 24 hours before driving a car, they are simply inviting MADD and other groups to come after them and take away their driving privileges.
If drivers are unable to accept any restrictions as to what condition they drive in, then yeah, this is the result. MADD, as I noted elsewhere, doesn't give a rat's ass about you driving sober -- if you don't drive drunk, MADD won't get involved. But if drivers are unwilling to police themselves, or accept any restrictions, then they are going to continue to be hounded by MADD, who will ensure that the era of cars that allow anyone to drive them without MADD permission, is over.
====================
Using your smart language I have similar theses to post about guns, general-purpose PCs, and bottle-openers.
Like you, I realize that the Government MUST step in and remove people's ability to make their OWN choices about right and wrong uses of their tools, if we are to live in truly FREE fashion, and I can't understand what all the whining is about.
Slashdot Mirror
actually increases in crop yields for the human food supply -- from any source -- lead to increases in human population, not increases in the numbers of "lives saved".
people are made of food after all ... without MORE food to make more people, they would simply not exist. a biologist will tell you this with certainty: if, when there were 6 billion people on earth, we had kept on growing just enough food for those 6B people, we would not now have 7B. we had to start growing more food (enough for 7B) to make more people before they could come into existence. population follows food production, not the other way 'round.
the food distribution system being what it is, the percentage of people starving seems to stay relatively constant in our world.
viewed through the lens of logic, then, rather than emotion, intentionally increasing production of food for human consumption, by whatever means, is actually more like a sadistic attempt to cause a larger number of people to die of starvation, not an attempt to "save lives".
the fact that the IP system (in the US, at least) means that using GMO's to accomplish an increase in food production turns ownership of the means to feed ourselves over to a few already-very-rich corporations just seals the deal that we shouldn't do it.
"So I can steal GPL code then?"
Sure. Abolish copyrights, and there'll be no NEED for the GPL.
" ... but culture can't survive in the long term if its creators don't get rewarded for their work ... "
1) Bullshit. "Culture" did, can, and will survive if there were NO payments for artistic creation. Artists create because they're DRIVEN to it; they'll do it regardless of payment. Jerry Bruckheimer "creates" because he gets PAID.
2) Your fevered histrionics aside, allowing copying doesn't mean creators will NEVER EVER EVER EVER make another cent. There are other business models. There may never be another Madonna, Garth Brooks, or Beiber, but who cares?
"Would you like it if your boss withheld your paycheck and told you your code "wanted to be free" and that you were a casualty of technology changing the world?"
Sure, because they don't pay me for my code, they pay me for my working on THEIR code. They stop paying, I stop keeping their shit working, and find somebody else who wants their code improved, rewritten, or otherwise changed and still working afterwards, to pay me.
A better analogy for the copyright industries would be if I wrote code for my boss, got paid for it, agreed to let them own it, then went and bribed Congress to change the law so that my boss had to continue to pay me my full salary for as long as they wanted to keep using the code I AGREED TO LET THEM OWN in the first place.
Anything else you need explained?
its how humanity is 'wired' and its always, always been this way.
it most certainly is NOT how "humanity" is wired. endemic to this *culture*, yes, but not "humanity".
Aside: by "culture", i mean: the totality of "civilized" cultures, Eastern and Western, that share a common parent in the totalitarian agriculturists that got their start somewhere inside what anthropologists call "The Fertile Crescent".
99.9% of the time "humanity" has existed on this planet, it's been in the form of hierarchy-less, law-less, ruling-class-less ethnic tribal units ...
it may be that there is no way to have what we call a "civilized" culture WITHOUT it adhering the the golden rule you refer to ... no way to know, since your golden rule is so intrinsically written into the workings of OUR particular kind of "civilized" culture. but to insist such behavior is inherent to human existence is to *willfully* don the blinders those 1% would request you to wear ...
s/green technology/fossil fuel companies/
============
are you aware that, compared to this relative pittance of $0.5B, the US government subsidizes the fossil fuel industries to the tune of upwards of $700B ... per YEAR?
how profitable would those companies be without taking THAT money from taxpayers and giving it to them?
what about if we stopped spending ($3.5Trillion+ / 10 years) for the war machine to provide us first-in-line status at the MidEast Gas Pump?
does your invisible-hand-of-the-almighty-free-market ideology apply equally to all comers, or just those new corps that pollute less and aren't owned by already-rich guys with CongressCritters in their pockets?
"However, at best we can only say that it is not necessarily intrinsic to the human condition."
.... ;^)
... ) And even if you could, why would you?
Also fair enough -- my point here would be that "not necessarily intrinsic to the human condition" means the same thing as "definitely NOT part of human nature" -- and if its not part of human *nature*, and there've been successful human societies WITHOUT it, then there its not INEVITABLE that a human society become hyper-consumers to be successful. My message is one of HOPE, you see, not despair, for that way lies madness.
For if we are fated to perpetual growth in both our number and in the amount we consume (after all, to be a hyper-consumer, we must consume MORE as compared to whatever measure we use to gauge our own consumption, which typically will mean the consumption of other humans, who, if they share our delusion about the hyper-consuming nature of humans, will then compare to US, which will spur THEM to consume more, and so on and so on) AND we live in a finite universe, what possible ultimate outcome can we hope for our race except ruin?
*steps down from pulpit*
All that said, another (minor) correction:
"Think about it: 50,000 years ago the tribes that survived were the ones who horded resources for themselves"
This is not strictly INCORRECT -- especially in light of your later comments about hoarding in one's on body -- but it represents a pretty inaccurate mental model for the situation 50,000 years ago. Namely, the tribes that ACTUALLY thrived 50,000 years ago, near as anthropologists can tell, are the ones who waged war most successfully on their neighbors. Yes, those we think of "noble savages" were, in most cases (and most especially in areas where many tribes competed for "resources"), quite warlike, cruel, and brutal, at least as regards members of other tribes (My, how things have changed, huh?
And the "resource" most fought over was, of course, *LAND*. And that's why its so misleading to say hunter-gatherers "hoarded" resources -- to people that DO NOT collect all their food up in warehouses and grocery stores and then lock it away from each other, the world is MADE OF food -- everything a human hunter gatherer sees -- with a typical human's ability to eat both so high and so low on the food chain, in such variety, and gain sustenance from said eating -- in his world is his food, or at the least it's the food of SOME of his food. To a human living in a world made of food, to speak of "hoarding" of food is a bit of a non-sequitur. How can one "store" or "hoard" the world in which one lives? (Within one's own body does make some sense as an answer to this, as you've pointed out
However, to be more strictly accurate, I'd encourage you to think rather in terms of the competition between tribes to (mostly) monopolize the (human) use of a region -- that is a more accurate model. "Hoarding" has a connotation of "storage", which really just doesn't much apply to the way most hunter-gatherers lived.
To bring this around to the original point, I'd agree that "competition between humans for desired things (land, food, whatever)" may well be intrinsic to human nature (or, more probably, just "any nature", as opposed to "human nature") -- but the evidence suggests hyper-CONSUMPTION is NOT.
And, if you'll allow me to wax even MORE long-winded, this is the crux of the point -- the KEY difference between "us" and "them" is NOT in the way we "hoard", or even "how we consume", it is ACTUALLY in "how we compete". What happened 8,000 years ago, with the STYLE of agriculture that started being practiced (what anthropologists recognize as "agriculture" actually started much earlier), was that we decided to become not just "those who compete" but rather think of ourselves as "those who make the rules for competition".
If we define "agriculture" as "the encouragement of desired plants to grow in a certain area", then what started being pra
ditto, fellow blasphemer!
b
What you probably think of as "hyper-consumption" is not intrinsic to the human condition.
That started only about 8,000 years ago, with the rise of "modern" agriculture and what we think of as "civilization", as best as anthropologists can tell, somewhere in the Fertile Crescent.
It is all these varieties of "civilized man" that that are toxic to their surroundings (to varying degress), not "man" himself.
Placed in a truly historical perspective, the hyper-consumption you appear to feel is intrinsic to homo sapiens sapiens, in fact, only appears in the most recent tenth of a percent or so if the species' history.
ween [off] dependence on high energy consumption colonise the solar system
you do realize these two are mutually exclusive options?
Since when is committing a crime without openly announcing it considered 'civil disobedience'?
...
Since the definition of the term doesn't generally include "openly announcing" what you are doing, only the doing of it. From WikiPedia:
"Civil disobedience encompasses the active refusal to obey certain laws, demands and commands of a government or of an occupying power without resorting to physical violence."
In case you're wondering, the word "civil" doesn't mean "out in the open", in this context, it connotes something more like "being courteous while also resisting", ie, non-violent.
Since you mention Gandhi, it would seem you think he qualifies as a bonafide civil disobey-er, so lets look at HIS rules to follow to engage in civil disobedience:
1. A civil resister (or satyagrahi) will harbour no anger.
2. He will suffer the anger of the opponent.
3. In so doing he will put up with assaults from the opponent, never retaliate; but he will not submit, out of fear of punishment or the like, to any order given in anger.
4. When any person in authority seeks to arrest a civil resister, he will voluntarily submit to the arrest, and he will not resist the attachment or removal of his own property, if any, when it is sought to be confiscated by authorities.
5. If a civil resister has any property in his possession as a trustee, he will refuse to surrender it, even though in defending it he might lose his life. He will, however, never retaliate.
6. Retaliation includes swearing and cursing.
7. Therefore a civil resister will never insult his opponent, and therefore also not take part in many of the newly coined cries which are contrary to the spirit of ahimsa.
8. A civil resister will not salute the Union Jack, nor will he insult it or officials, English or Indian.
9. In the course of the struggle if anyone insults an official or commits an assault upon him, a civil resister will protect such official or officials from the insult or attack even at the risk of his life.
Can you point me to which rule it is where he says, "to qualify as a civil disobeyer, you must openly announce what disobedience you plan to engage in."? I seem to be not seeing that one in the list
Just because YOU DON'T LIKE those who engage in methods you disagree with to "Civilly Disobey" what THEY FEEL are unjust copyright laws, and you also think "Civil Disobedience" connotes something sorta kinda *good*, or noble, and you don't like something that you think of as kinda good describing something you think is kinda bad, doesn't mean you get to nitpick-ily and arbitrarily add clauses to the definition of the thing you think is good that will apply for the rest of us, in order to try to filter out the activities of those nasty, evil copyright infringers.
This is the sort of thinking Bill Maher complained so lucidly about on his show (that got him canned, btw) -- that he would *dare* to say those flying the planes into the towers were "BRAVE"! The gall of him! HARUMPH!
Well, the thing is, they WERE brave. Also, misguided, cruel, and also, I might add as being pertinent to the current discussion, not very "civil"; by the definition of the word, however, they were ALSO "brave". As in, willing to disregard personal safety to fight and give their very lives for something they believed in. Just because we "like" the word "brave", and not terrorists, doesn't make them NOT "brave". Maher, of course, goes on at great length about the apparent inability of Americans to hold two ideas in their heads at one time. Suffice to say its not brain surgery -- it is *possible* for something to be describable both as something we think of as "bad" and something we think of as "good" and not cause the fabric of the universe to unravel.
There can be little doubt that what the vast majority of copyright infringers do is both "civil" and also "disobedient", as regards the law of (most of the)
This is where you're indisputably wrong:
... we're heading for a mass extinction event ... "
...
"
Anyone who actually studies the number of species on this planet and the rates of change in that number will be able to easily demonstrate to you that we're not headING for such a thing, we're already smack dab in the middle of one, caused by the continued (and rapidly accelerating) conversion of the planet's biomass into HUMAN mass
All I did was disagree with you ...
Yes, you did, which I've never taken you to task for. You're free to disagree with me all you like, and I won't type a word to you. What you said in addition to disagreeing with me, however, is a bit different. What you said that started this whatever-it-is-you-and-I-are-involved-in, was that *I* am "immoral" for disagreeing with YOU. In case you haven't sort of picked up on this point yet, that subtle difference (like the subtle differences you accuse me of being too stupid to see) is what I find troubling.
Well, OK, I said lying was wrong,
If that was all you said, we'd've BOTH saved ourselves a lotta time. What you DID say, however, was that, against my own morals, I *should* consider this particular sort of lie to be wrong, simply because you do. I disagreed (and still do).
Is lying always wrong? Were the Allies "wrong" to lie to the Germans about troop movements while using the codes they knew the Germans had broken in WWII?
I assume you feel, as I do, that sometimes lying is "wrong" and sometimes it's "right". I don't expect your views on the subject to match mine.
I feel that lies like this one, which directly harm no one, and despite your fallacious use of the term "stealing", relieve no one of any of their property, should be left to individuals to decide for themselves whether they are "right" or "wrong".
You, on the other hand, feel that everyone must view such lies as "right" or "wrong" (if it's an important enough lie in your view), based on whether YOU view them as right or wrong; if they disagree, then THEY are the "immoral" ones.
What I'm trying do in "wasting my time" in this online (*ahem*) discussion is to show you that, in light of your explicitly stated desire to minimize the times other's morals impose on your own, this position is illogical. Obviously, your two positions here are self-contradictory -- you don't want others telling you which lies are right / wrong, yet you wish to dictate this to others. If we assume for a second that you are NOT the ultimate arbiter, God himself descended among us, how can you reconcile wishing for the power to wreak upon others, that which you do not wish or expect to have wreaked upon YOU?
Should I now realize this is a way out there, radical position?
No. To say the same message yet another way, I simply DON'T CARE whether you think all lies are wrong, and have no position on whether this view is "out there", or not. When you say that I must feel as you do about this particular form of lying, or else I am "immoral", then I will disagree with you, sometimes in petulant, insulting ways, as I am a human being, sometimes given to moments of over-reaction, weakness, and, yes, sometimes even self-defensiveness.
In other words, I JUST DON'T CARE what you think about whether this lie is "right" or "wrong" -- I simply am making the point that I expect the same from you: ie, to not care whether *I* think this particular lie is "right" or "wrong".
Do you spew your obnoxious vitriol at anyone who beleives anything different than you?
No, only those that obnoxiously tell me that I must adopt their differing beliefs as my own, at risk of my immoral soul.
As Cartman would say: hahahahaHAHUH!
.... and I should infer from your missive that your reply to me was all sunshine and light, was it, Mr. Holier-Than-Thou-Ultimate-Arbiter-Of-Morality-For- Everyone?
Made you reply!
I win!
BTW, I checked my first reply -- you should too -- the word "idiot" doesn't appear in it
Sorry if I find being told I should consider myself "immoral" for believing in my own morals, rather than adopting yours, more offensive than a few silly, meaningless words like "whipper-snapper" or "pea-brain".
I hope I've got better things to do than this drivel in my late 30s
I'm always fascinated when I hear people say things like that -- what are they / you hoping for? To be worrying about your bills instead of being engaged in "drivel" like arguing with someone about the nature of morality (admittedly in a meaningless fashion, but it's still more fun making you freak out over a silly online discussion than paying bills is). Changing diapers? Wiping your mid-life-crisis sports car with a diaper, for that matter?
Or do you just hope your brain has completely shut down by then, so you can go about your work in drone-like fashion without thought, a faceless man in a gray-flannel suit?
said that I thought lying to iTunes in order to get music under terms you had no intention of obeying sounded immoral to me.
... )
Incorrect again. Saying this would've been fine. What you said was that you thought violating iTMS TOS should sound immoral to me, thereby making me the one being accused of "evil", by virtue of having a different view of this particular moral choice than you, which affects you in no way. I merely responded to your accusations in kind. Multiple times, without losing my temper, as you've done twice now. To use your line of thinking: How far off is graduation for you, after all?
(Hint: there's a difference between a teasing, jesting, though admittedly (intentionally) provocative, "I smell the blood of a hypocrite" or "you dang whipper-snapper", and "dipshit" or "You must be the biggest fucking idiot who has ever lived". I don't mind though, seriously, mindless attacks (particularly not-very-creative verbal ones) mean less than nothing to me; thoughtful ones, as your first one was, I find more interesting
Right. You thought I was talking about victimless crimes when Mussolini was the example.
I used Mussolini as an example only in jest, and to give you a ribbing for being so judgmental and so boringly, simple-mindedly heavy-handed. You used it in the context of others imposing their moral code on him, which I really never even responded to.
I HAVE been talking about "crimes" similar to that of violating iTMS TOS, in terms of the imposition of moral codes; wasn't that what this "discussion" was originally about? The analogies with larger issues were to make the COMPARISON with being justified in violating something you've agreed to, not to say they were the same in terms of the rights being violated. It doesn't take a genius to figure out physical violence occupies a different part of the enforcement spectrum than violating the terms for an online service; after all, even my painfully-stupid brain managed it. (take a deep breath and try to remember the definition of "comparison", and you might get through reading the sentence without cursing. Not that I have a particular problem with cursing, btw; it's just that seem to only use it when you've lost control of your emotions.)
I'm sure you'll have some stupid reason that shouldn't count as imposing morals
Yes, but since any reasons I might offer would be of no interest to you since you've determined their stupidity in advance (as a wise man always does when evaluating information he's not heard before), I won't bother.
I'm not even going to read any replies you might write to this
And I'm going to take my ball home so NOBODY can play!!!! Harumph!
. 8^D
Doesn't being that stupid HURT?
Not as much as being as smart as you, apparently. (You horrible, lower-than-low RANDOm woRd CRAPi-talizer!!!)
that illegal P2Pers might, dare I say, just want free music without the consent of the (C)-owner?
... can you dispute that there are some to whom it does NOT apply?
... until the cartel shut Napster down. From that day, I've bought no more RIAA-signed-artist's CDs, and I never will, until the RIAA is no more, regardless of their actions going forward. I do already buy tracks from Magnatune and CDBaby from independent artists.
...
I'd never dispute that this does in fact apply to some percentage of those using P2P apps
I happily used both P2P and bought CDs
I'd be happy to discuss with you the real chilling effects that draconian, technology-implemented and legally-backed, privately-implemented copyright controls have on Free Speech (such as the Ed Felten case, or Dmitry Sklyarov, or FatWallet and Wal*Mart), and why it is that there are those of us who seriously do consider issues of copyright to be related to "protest or civil disobedience", but be aware that that is a far different question than what we were discussing.
PyMusique, as a service, was a way for users to go ahead and PAY the unreasonable price the cartel is asking albeit with the same freedoms they'd enjoy if they'd simply bought the CD (for about the same price as using their own equipment to distribute the product, I might add). And that makes your question about whether P2Pers are just out for a free lunch fairly off-topic (not that I'm very good at staying on topic, either, mind you.)
What we WERE discussing was the question of whether violating an online service's TOS is justified, if you, in fact feel they are unreasonable. And, more specifically, we were discussing whether it is justifiable for one person to claim another's "morals" are wrong, because he disagrees with their view that violating unreasonable terms is, in fact, a "moral" thing to do.
All that said, and, in deference to your original question, I'd like to take you back a few years
"I'm going to throw out the proposition... call me crazy... that maybe this really isn't protest or civil disobediance... that illegal (VHS tape recorders / radio stations / photocopier makers / printing press manufacturers) might, dare I say, just want free access to use ( music / audio / text / literature ) without the consent of the (C)-owner, merely for their own ends / profit?
Protesting via civil disobedience (any form of protest, really) is akin to marketing against the status quo. Not only is it disobeying a law, but it involves doing it in order to get seen, to inform, and to attempt to change minds. Just ( watching some little status bar suck down an MP3 file / recording a TV show to watch later / making a copy of a section of a book in a library / printing a bible to sell and make money on without the Vatican's OK) is hardly informational, inspiring, or inciteful.
Although voting with your dollars might mean the decision between having your cake and eating it too, the route of wholesale uncompensated use of (audio music / musical compositions / photocopies of books / recorded TV shows / the words of God) is hardly defensable."
The fact is, this isn't the first time we've heard this story. We've heard it over and over again, from the same people many times, even though they themselves started off as "pirates" (like the movie industry that "pirated" Edison's patents on the movie projector), and the world was better off as a result of ignoring those with the story of protest and cultural "doom". Each time, until now, those with sentiments similar to yours have been outvoted, shouted down, or otherwise ignored,
We've found that, up until the last several decades, we've always valued Progress and the Freedom of people to do as they please with what they've paid for as more important than protecting the publisher of a dead creator's right to control what all the rest of the people do (the throne using the names of dead authors to control the d
moral choices that directly harm no one else
That was my original quote -- stealing a wallet doesn't fall under this rubric -- we're talking about "victimless" crimes (or at least I was) like drug use, prostitution, and violating the TOS of an online service. My apologies if this wasn't clear.
Given that that IS what I'm talking about, the point remains: in the case of iTMS TOS, you are advocating that a personal "moral" choice, that directly harms no one else, should be legislated in such a way that it follows your personal moral code, and further, that you should feel justified and receive no reprimand for dictating other's morality for them.
Which is what I orginally said, and still do. And I still don't buy the validity of that point.
Arguing about whether it's "right" or "wrong" to allow murder, rape, or theft of physical property that undisputedly belongs to one individual is pointless and silly -- we can't have a society without prohibitions on such things. This is, however, a far different thing than arguing about choices you make that only directly affect you and your life, and believing there is "one right way" that those choices must be made to conform to, and, further, that we as a society should be working towards ensconcing one particular, "preferred" set of those moral choices within our legal codes.
there are many cases where it pisses me off that others try to impose their differing moral code upon me ... Yet ... I think it is perfectly permissible, and even desirable for people to enforce their moral code on others.
... I can't then understand why you'd be be so pissed when others try to impose theirs on you, however. That is, after all, what you're arguing in support of.
... the basis of all law enforcement; it is the basis of every defense of human rights.
... for everyone.
Get used to being pissed, I'd say. Keep in mind we're not talking about enforcing your moral code to defend your own life or basic human rights -- we're talking about the culturally-ingrained notion that moral choices that directly harm no one else should follow one moral code or another, which is what you are arguing for (restricted, as you've noted, to those cases where your opinion is that the need for your morals to be applied is strong enough). You are, of course, entitled to the opinion that moral codes should be imposed on others
one person imposing their moral code on another is
Untrue. Law has less to do with morals that lawyers have to do with ethics. Laws are simply rules we've agreed together in some system to live by. The fact that those rules nearly always extend their purvey into the realm of personal moral choices is just a natural effect of our cultural obsession with seeking the one perfect set of moral choices for us all to live by.
I'm sorry I can't make it black and white for you.
Ah, but it is I whose argument affords credence to the notion that moral codes are NOT black-and-white, you that is arguing they should be. That's what saying your morals should be imposed on another is: a judgement that in this case, the moral choices are black-and-white; in this case, my morals are "right" and the others are "wrong"
You'll just have to stretch your brain around the fact that I beleive some moral principles should be imposed on others
Don't worry, no stretch, you've convinced me.
even though there is no objective standard for what they are
Ok, still no stretch.
yet I still don't think there is "one right way to live for all humans"
Ok, now you've stretched. Of course this is what you believe, you just said so yourself above. You just don't like to hear it stated this way. You prefer to say, "in certain situations, what I think is right should be applied to all others", which is really no different.
I'd prefer to keep the list of morals to be imposed on everyone to an absolute minimum.
Ah, a point of agreement. My list, of course, will always be equal to or less than yours, since mine is basically empty.
violating iTunes TOS is an almost stupidly trivial matter, it is lying and/or (depending how you look at it) stealing. I think those are, in most cases, wrong.
Agreed. Just as, in most cases (per my moral code, of course) treason against the King, or public disobedience are "wrong".
I do not see a problem with my deciding stealing is wrong, nor with my willingness to enforce that judgement on others
Nor do I. Stealing is taking something from someone else, thereby leaving them without it. You'd be hard pressed to find someone in our society who disagrees with these moral assessments. Violating the iTMS TOS does not, however, qualify as stealing by any sane definition. Even if it did, I'd be hard pressed to feel too badly for those "wronged" by such a violation who had cooked up such "immoral" terms in the first place. That'd be like feeling really bad for a thief who got car-jacked during his getaway, IMO.
That's all beside the point, however. You seem to keep trying to defend your position on this -- it's not your position I'm attacking, though I do disagree with it -- it's your willingness to declare
You're doing better, but you need to give up the "I've already decided on my position, and I won't budge on that, so I'll just try to fit my arguments to what I've previously decided will be my position, even if there are obvious contradictions in what I say ... " stage of argument:
... but I am not among them.
... is wrong, and I think it's in the category where it's OK for me to say others should agree with me
... what? What is saying others should agree with you on an issue of moral choice, if it is not saying your moral code should be "imposed on others"?
... it just boils down to one person deciding his moral code should be applied to others, just as I said, and just as you are DOING.
... you don't even REALIZE (or can't admit) that every fiber of your being simply SCREAMS OUT that there just MUST be ONE RIGHT WAY TO LIVE for all humans!!!! Admit the truth you know in your heart, my son / daughter, there is no one true way, no definitive "right" set of choices, no one absolute morality. It's ok over here, honestly, the world doesn't collapse and fall away into a black hole or anything ... its actually a lot less stressful and more relaxed, not having to go around judging others against a meaningless yardstick all the time ...
... everyone really does have one, after all.
many people seem to believe their morals are correct, and must be imposed on others
uh
Some moral codes are superior to others, yet there is no objective way of establishing which those are.
Truly, you have a dizzying intellect. If there's no way to determine which codes are superior, barring God or Allah or Zeus showing his divine face in plain view for all to see (I'm not holding my breath), how is that any dfferent from no code being better than another? If one code IS better than another, but there's absolutely no way to determine this information, what possible difference could it make to our lives? And why are you wasting your time trying to convince ANYone who obviously disagrees that your moral code is superior that it is, when by your own admission that other party has NO possible "objective" means if determining what you are saying is true?
Any time someone makes a statement that this or that code is superior to another, they're inherently making a moral judgement, which, by your own words cannot be determined to be any better or worse than another in any objective manner. So
My, how well you've been trained
Here's a final hint for you: choices in matters of morality are simply a person with an opinion about what s/he thinks is right or wrong in a given situation.
And you know what they say opinions are like
Well, so long as we're all giving our $0.02 here, I'd say "invented", "revealed", "introduced" are all three both offensive and, more importantly, INACCURATE words to describe the genesis of our so-called "modern", salvationist religions.
... :^D
Terms like "perpetrated" or "inflicted" or "committed" or even "wreaked upon" would be far preferable, if you ask me
I've been entirely swayed by your stupendous rhetorical skill.
... stalemate. As with many such stalemates, there's only one solution to such a dilemma ... and that's to walk away, as I have done. Try it, you might like it.
It's not been my intention to "sway" you; rather, it's been my intention to try to keep you from "swaying" me. The overriding point of all my posts here is NOT about the rightness or wrongness of violating iTMS terms -- it's been about the relativity of morality, and why it so silly and senseless to try to dictate YOUR moral values to someone else, and expect them to adopt them as their own.
I think violating unjust terms, to anything, publicly or privately, is justified, whether you "ma(k)e a lot of noise about the injustice (you're) fighting" or not. You disagree and think that, unless you protest publicly, such actions are immoral. I'm not trying to convince you that you should change your mind and consider as moral what I consider as moral -- and all I'm asking in return is for you to grant me and my moral code the same respect I've afforded you and yours.
The problem is that you, like the rest of us, are brainwashed to think that there just simply MUST BE one "perfect" moral code, ONE RIGHT WAY for humans to live, and, this being the case, you naturally don't want to change YOUR morals, so the only possible solution is to try to MAKE EVERYONE ELSE adopt your code. Which would be fine, except for that small, niggling detail that everyone else feels the same way
in the quote above, I have been unable to communicate my point
Despite your sarcasm, this is entirely true, though the misunderstanding is probably due as much to my over-reaction as to any mis-wording on your part; I took your quote to mean that I was "lying" about whether I found dis-obeying iTMS terms to be "immoral", and took offense (obviously). This is probably because I don't use iTMS, and would never use it, with or without breaking the DRM, for reasons far different from what is listed in their TOS. I'm NOT, therefore, in any way "lying" to the iTMS service, so I took what you said as a personal attack.
My apologies.
I agree with you that those who use PyMusique or otherwise violate TOS, are, in fact, "lying", I, unlike you, simply find that lie to be justified, whether you keep said lie to yourself, or trumpet it from the highest rooftops. My point in all this is that I don't see any reason (or sense) in my telling you you should find their lies to be justified if it goes against your personal moral code, so why is it so hard for you to return that consideration to me?
Generally, they are based on quite publicly refusing to agree to those terms.
... if you live under the terms for awhile, then register your PUBLIC disagreement, you can THEN decide to defy those terms, and THAT will be "morally right" to you?
...
... when she got on the bus whose terms were, "agree to the rules of riding on this bus, or don't ride at all." Isn't that what you and the other cartel apologists are suggesting for people who disagree with the iTMS terms? "Either live by the rules of the bus, or don't get on the bus in the first place!"
... hmmm, that's weird ... did you feel better after your simple-minded contradiction? I feel I'm being cheated here!)
... COMPARISONS!
Incorrect. Those selfsame terms quite emphatically state, "live by these terms, or get the hell out of the country that's run by them."
So, let me get this straight
So that if I sign up for iTMS, like the terms, then they're changed by Apple, I can NOW "morally" violate those terms, so long as I PUBLICLY declare my disagreement with them?
Well, that's an (*ahem*) INTERESTING viewpoint, to say the least
She did not agree to, and said so.
Sure she did
FEE-FIE-FO-FUM! I smell the blood of a hypocrite!
Now consider the case at hand: There is no assumtion that you have any agreement with or obligation to the bus company whatsoever. Then you implicitly state, when you pay your fare, "Yes. I agree to follow the rules of bus company in exchange for the privilege of paying to ride on the bus." Then you knowingly break those rules. You don't tell them you disagree before you get on, or that you won't ride unless they change them, you just refuse to sit where they say, and demand to be taken where you're going, despite your breaking of the agreement, and ask them to not notice that you're not following the rules.
Sorry, but I don't have any problem at all seeing a moral distinction here.
Sorry, but I do. (SEE! I can say the opposite of what you said, just like you did to me! But, somehow, unlike you, I don't think it seems to make either one of us any more "right" or more "wrong" than we were before
And here's one that'll really explode your tiny little pea-brain. My view of the world doesn't REQUIRE you to see as moral what I see as moral. That was, in fact, the point of the original post, if you'd bother'd to read it past your slavering, knee-jerk, apologist attempt to nitpick closely enough to find some tiny, irrelevant flaw in the absolute perfection of the analogies presented.
You see, little one, here in the grown-up world, we realize that two different people can believe totally different things, and they can BOTH HONESTLY believe their own version! They think something OPPOSITE, yet NEITHER ONE is "lying"! Can you believe it? Maybe in a few more years, but, isn't the world a dark and wonderful, yet strange and confusing place?!?
You might want to note for future reference: comparisons are used as parallel examples with similar features -- they're not supposed to be the EXACT SAME situation, that's why they're
It would take a very thick skull to suggest there's a huge philosophical difference between mindlessly clicking-thru a 40-page license agreement and having the expectation that riding on a bus means you agree to follow the rules of the bus line, who are in no way obligated, a priori, to give you a ride. Even if there were no such implied agreement for using a public service of any sort (and there is, as has been proven in court over and over again), ignorance of the law would still be no excuse. The terms are, ride where we say, or get off -- you can register your disagreement with the terms from the street, just as iTMS users can register their disagreement from OUTSIDE the confines of the service. If you really have that much trouble seeing the similarities here, what can I say but
...I won't bother to reply...
... oh, no wait, that's if it was YOU, not me ...
;^D
Good idea. I wouldn't either, if I were placed in the highly untenable position of defending your apparently-held idea that morality is NOT, in fact, relative.
If it were me, I'd dodge the issue by replying seriously to the humorous part of the post, ignorning the main point, then reacting with feigned haughty indignation at what was obviously a tongue-in-cheek word selection
Never mind.
.
I always suspected that people willing to put up with or defend DRM were probably uneducated and ignorant, but I never dreamed ...
... ... ...
I would counter that the following two alternatives are feasible:
1)
2)
3)
Seriously, though, you're forgetting that your morals apply only to YOU. I don't consider it at all immoral to agree to unfair TOS and then break those selfsame TOS, either as a means of protest, or simply because you feel entitled to break what are unfair terms. In fact, aren't all revolutions and / or protests, whether considered in hindsight by history to be "moral" or "immoral", BASED on disobedience to "terms" that were previously agreed to, either on an individual or collective basis?
Didn't the Founding Fathers in the U.S. agree to the levels of taxation without representation that the crown put upon them, by simply agreeing to the "Terms" of living in the colonies? Weren't they free to leave for France, or live with the dirt-worshipping savages if they didn't like those terms? Does that make their actions in starting a revolution automaticaly "immoral", in your eyes?
For that matter, couldn't you just get around nearly ANY government policy and / or tax by simply being having NO income, owning NOTHING, being homeless and eating bugs for every meal? Didn't we all implicitly "agree" to be citizens of our countries, by virtue of NOT LEAVING those selfsame countries and applying to have our citizenship revoked? If a citizen of some country has NOT taken that "simple" step, aren't they being "immoral", by your definition, EVERY time they break or protest a rule or law they feel to be unjust? Wasn't Rosa Parks then quite the immoral wretch for not sitting on the back of the bus, as she'd "agreed" to do, by living in a place where the majority supported such rules?
The music industry is an out-of-control corrupt and convicted monopoly. Thinking that everyone in the world should find it "immoral" to break the rules they set up to maintain their ultimate control over distribution, when they could easily relax their obsession with control and multiply their profits unimaginably, just because YOU find it to be immoral for you personally, is just plain silly.
If YOU want to support their practices (which are ultimately aimed at controlling (and metering) everything you hear), and feel that using one of their services against the TOS is "immoral", fine. I certainly won't be the one to tell you that you SHOULD consider breaking the TOS the "moral" and "just" thing to do.
I disagree, and would simply ask for the same consideration from those of your corporate-sycophant-ish ilk that I've first freely offered to you.
That's the difference between the RIAA and MADD.
...)
...
But you're assuming that the conclusion of the case before it is brought. No one has proven P2P distributors like Grokster ARE "contributory and vicarious infringers", anymore than Sony was with the VCR. So there IS NO "right of action" to support the *AA getting special treatment by the law. They ALREADY have laws to prevent what they're trying to supposedly prevent with this lawsuit (copyright infringement) already -- as I've already said, let them use them, rather than dictating what technology is allowed to exist via Government bribes.
Do you also favor making it illegal to sell a car without a speed regulator that obeys the national speed limit, since speed limits are widely violated? How about making it illegal to talk about HOW to violate the speed limit? You like that one, too?
This could also be written as asking the courts to find the P2P networks liable for copyright infringement because they provide a tool that is overwhelmingly used to circumvent the RIAA's copyrights, at the expense of society's ability to easily infringe on the RIAA's copyrights.
Uh, no it couldn't -- they say two different things, and therefore are NOT the same, surprisingly enough. But, if you're still playing along, here's one that DOES make sense, DOES say the same thing, and also smoothly proves your analogy flawed (unless you also think movie companies should also be allowed to bribe the Government to shut down VCR makers
This could also be written as asking the courts to find the VCR makers liable for copyright infringement because they provide a tool that is overwhelmingly used to circumvent the MPAA's and broadcast network's copyrights, at the expense of society's ability to easily infringe on those copyrights.
See, that says much the same thing. Your version bears no comparison to mine, because you're talking about what's good for big businesses to make money without working for it, while mine talks about preserving the rights of individuals and small companies to innovate without asking aforementioned big companies for permission which would never be given.
That makes them different. This analogy stuff is easy and FUN if you just try!
But why shouldn't they also be able to sue those who are contributorily and vicariously liable as well?
So then how are Grokster et al by your estimation MORE liable than Sony, or Xerox, or Gutenberg, for that matter?
Just because you SAY they're more guilty doesn't make it legally so. In what OBJECTIVE way are people who make P2P technologies contributing more directly to copyright infringement than the people who make copiers, which are also used in both legal and illegal fashions? Or do you believe ALL technologies capable of copying should be outlawed on the whim of any corporation that feels their use might interfere with their desired revenue stream?
But I don't see anything special about the file sharing networks that should get them a "free pass"
No, you apparently feel they should be singled out for special prosecution while allowing VCR and copier companies are allowed a "free pass" for providing largely the same sort of technology in a different medium.
Yeah, that makes good sense, now that I look at it that way
MADD does not have a private right of action against drunk drivers -- only the state can prosecute drunk drivers
... IF you're arguing the *AA should prevail in this case. If all you're saying is "The *AA should fail in lawsuits like this, and continue to use the courts without special dispensations or taxpayer subsidies from the rest of us", then we're in complete agreement, and the point of whether the analogy holds is moot.
What ARE you talking about? Are you saying RIAA can prosecute file sharers criminally? Look at the law again. The Government prosecutes ALL defenders in ALL criminal cases. The RIAA is suing in civil courts against file sharers, just as you, me, or MADD or anyone else has the option to do against drunk drivers, file sharers, or people with the letter "Z" in their last name.
Anyone can sue anyone over anything in this country in civil court, justified or not, so the hair-splitting you're doing above is meaningless.
The discussion, and this case, is about whether a private corporation / group can bribe the Government to make a particular tool, that has both legal and illegal uses, totally illegal in order to serve their own narrow ends, at the expense of the rest of society. Which, as you'll note, makes the MADD analogy quite apt, and not what you've automatically labelled as a "straw man"
Here's a quick lesson: a false analogy -- which is what the MADD comparison would be if it WERE a logical fallacy (which it isn't, IMO (obviously)) -- doesn't qualify as a "straw man". A straw man is when you take a weaker argument of your opponent, or one he hasn't actually made but that is related to his main argument, and knock the crap out of it, instead of your opponent's true (or better) argumentative points.
No charge for the lesson.
The RIAA, however, does have a right of action against copyright infringers.
So let them use it -- as they are doing now with the file-swapper lawsuits, which I have no problem with -- instead of trying to make certain general-purpose tools they disapprove of illegal.
But I never said this
But that is what this case is about, and what you DID say followed with the ridiculous *AA logic (which was the point of my analogy) and what said analogy alluded to IS a direct comparison to what the *AA is trying to accomplish with the case.
Which was my point. And why I chose your own words (how could an analogy be more apt than using the same words with the nouns replaced, if the resulting replacements make logical sense (as I believe they do, if MADD were more like the *AA)?). Which is why I made the analogy to point out that what you were saying was crazy
Well, then maybe it is up to those who want to use P2P to share legal files to set up a way to police the networks so that illegal materials are NOT shared. If people are unwilling to keep illegal material off the networks, they are simply inviting the copyright holders to come after them and shut them down.
If P2P users are unable to accept any restrictions as to what they can share, then yeah, this is the result. The *AA, as I noted elsewhere, doesn't give a rat's ass about you sharing your vacation photos, home movies, or research data over the P2P networks -- if you don't share copyrighted material without permission, the *AA won't get involved. But if P2P users are unwilling to police themselves, or accept any restrictions, then they are going to continue to be hounded by the *AA.
Good points. I've been trying to make a similar point, but freakin' idiot people won't listen to me:
===================
Well, then maybe it is up to those who want to use cars to drive sober to set up a way to control who is driving a car so that no drunk people can drive. If people are unwilling to stop drinking at least 24 hours before driving a car, they are simply inviting MADD and other groups to come after them and take away their driving privileges.
If drivers are unable to accept any restrictions as to what condition they drive in, then yeah, this is the result. MADD, as I noted elsewhere, doesn't give a rat's ass about you driving sober -- if you don't drive drunk, MADD won't get involved. But if drivers are unwilling to police themselves, or accept any restrictions, then they are going to continue to be hounded by MADD, who will ensure that the era of cars that allow anyone to drive them without MADD permission, is over.
====================
Using your smart language I have similar theses to post about guns, general-purpose PCs, and bottle-openers.
Like you, I realize that the Government MUST step in and remove people's ability to make their OWN choices about right and wrong uses of their tools, if we are to live in truly FREE fashion, and I can't understand what all the whining is about.