P2P COULD be used for something LEGAL, couldn't it? Until someone can filter out those uses, there is no defense for the Republicans trying to ban, limit, or infringe upon my right to do moral things with it.
Still, copyright laws are pretty darn moral. They don't even allow perpetual ownership, since authors are hardly "perpetual"!
Yet more DUH.
Copyright laws exist because previous theft laws only covered physical theft. Murder isn't covered by 'THEFT', so it requires its own law, too. Since the theft involved in copying in ephemeral in nature, copyright laws were merely a clarification that copying was indeed ALSO thievery; knavery, even!
Duh. Suicide IS illegal. They just can't put you in jail for it [yuck]. The Pope just sends you to Hell, and MetLife won't pay back any premiums or benefits to your survivors.
Invalid argument, you lose points at the debate club.
I decided.
I'M the judge.
Just 'cause.
Exactly. Maybe if you refused to buy, and REALLY HAD A REASON to think something was worth less, it would eventually COST less. Like, buy the generic drug, ding-dong.
Morality has very little to do with laws, it's CERTAINLY not dependant upon legislation. It is more of an absolute, such as a fact is a fact, whether or not your preacher can understand Darwin*, or you saw the tree fall, it still fell and made air-waves.
* Of course, Darwin isn't QUITE fact, but the
tripe that goes on trying to claim DIS-proof...
Theft is taking anything, even a copy, without permission, unless YOU are the owner, and there is NO OTHER owner. Thus, even public property can be stolen by one of the "owners". Gosh, murder is immoral, even if you can't get the dead guy to file a complaint. LIFE wasn't YOURS to TAKE. Hell, YOU don't know what to do with it, maybe that's why you don't have one.
[That was probably unfair, but it was so tasty when it occured to me! Sorry, a little.]
Anyway, there ARE questions of morality all around ASSIGNED rights, but if somebody painted a picture, the whole thing is HIS to start with, and copying it is his decision, and the "profits" are his to figure out what to do with. Really, the illegal copies of a movie are just so removed or have so many other hands on them, that you think those people have no moral rights to the movie. You are WRONG. Ask what's-her-name that created the whole story, I'm sure she'd be really pissed if they paid her nothing to make the movie, and that they really were just middle-men for HER to get paid by each audience member. They earned a fee for making it all possible, since she was such an awful manufacturer of celluoid... etc.
Slashdot Mirror
P2P COULD be used for something LEGAL, couldn't it? Until someone can filter out those uses, there is no defense for the Republicans trying to ban, limit, or infringe upon my right to do moral things with it. Still, copyright laws are pretty darn moral. They don't even allow perpetual ownership, since authors are hardly "perpetual"!
Yet more DUH. Copyright laws exist because previous theft laws only covered physical theft. Murder isn't covered by 'THEFT', so it requires its own law, too. Since the theft involved in copying in ephemeral in nature, copyright laws were merely a clarification that copying was indeed ALSO thievery; knavery, even!
Duh. Suicide IS illegal. They just can't put you in jail for it [yuck]. The Pope just sends you to Hell, and MetLife won't pay back any premiums or benefits to your survivors. Invalid argument, you lose points at the debate club. I decided. I'M the judge. Just 'cause.
Exactly. Maybe if you refused to buy, and REALLY HAD A REASON to think something was worth less, it would eventually COST less. Like, buy the generic drug, ding-dong.
Morality has very little to do with laws, it's CERTAINLY not dependant upon legislation. It is more of an absolute, such as a fact is a fact, whether or not your preacher can understand Darwin*, or you saw the tree fall, it still fell and made air-waves.
* Of course, Darwin isn't QUITE fact, but the
tripe that goes on trying to claim DIS-proof...
Theft is taking anything, even a copy, without permission, unless YOU are the owner, and there is NO OTHER owner. Thus, even public property can be stolen by one of the "owners". Gosh, murder is immoral, even if you can't get the dead guy to file a complaint. LIFE wasn't YOURS to TAKE. Hell, YOU don't know what to do with it, maybe that's why you don't have one.
[That was probably unfair, but it was so tasty when it occured to me! Sorry, a little.]
Anyway, there ARE questions of morality all around ASSIGNED rights, but if somebody painted a picture, the whole thing is HIS to start with, and copying it is his decision, and the "profits" are his to figure out what to do with. Really, the illegal copies of a movie are just so removed or have so many other hands on them, that you think those people have no moral rights to the movie. You are WRONG. Ask what's-her-name that created the whole story, I'm sure she'd be really pissed if they paid her nothing to make the movie, and that they really were just middle-men for HER to get paid by each audience member. They earned a fee for making it all possible, since she was such an awful manufacturer of celluoid... etc.