That's quite interesting. I wonder.. Doesn't this assume that rational and free are necessary attributes of at least one agent ? In this case, say God is a rational free agent who declares there to be no free will... is he not depriving us of the rights of freedom (and possibly rationality) ? In which case the argument's possibly circular.
Not possible that someone has inherent right to rule. From that everyone must be created equal ? From that everyone shares fundamental rights?
Nice line of reasoning, but it fails on two counts. 1/ Not everyone is created (born, actually) physically or mentally equal, therefore how does one _prove_ everyone is created equal in any other respect? There *are* people who are physically and mentally superior. Why are they not more fit to rule ? (I guess I have to go and read some Kant and Rousseau to see how they do it)
2/ Even if one proves that no one kind of person is more fit to rule over another, that still doesn't prove that anyone has any rights. If everyone is created equal, that doesn't guarantee that we all have any more rights than a rock, which by expansion is created equal with us. If we can eliminate the rights of rocks based on some fundamental shared characteristic (being alive, being intelligent etc) then why can't we eliminate some other members of our species on similar grounds (less intelligent, less physically motile, green eyes, red hair) ?
Interesting. So freedom isn't a fundamental right, then, since I'm certain that a slave or a prisoner can define a set of his rights, even though being imprisoned in body.
The problem with all absolute systems is that there's no simple way to derive them. If there is an absolute moral code, (fundamental rights), then we'd be able to point to it and say "this is it" and it should be the same for everyone. If this were the case, there'd be no discussion on what was moral or not, because you could just refer to your "big Book of Morality" (letters in the sky, what have you) and everyone would just agree on it.
Indeed, this is the assertion of those philosophers. However, your appeal to authority doesn't answer the fundamental question - whence do those rights arise? As in all absolute moral philosophies, this question is rarely adequately dealt with. "The Human Condition" isn't adequate, at least, not so far as I understand it. We 'assume' that these rights are inalienable, and assert that fact in the Constitution, but cannot prove that this is so.
You've completely misread my point. It's not because others wish to deprive you of your 'rights' that you have none, but rather that the basic assumption that your rights are somehow inalienable at all is unproven. Simply declaring said 'rights' as fundamental and inalienable doesn't make them so. Did not Kant struggle with this himself ? Is this not why there are so many different attempts at framing an absolute moral philosophy throughout history?
The Constitution claims to merely recognize certain rights, hailing to moral absolutists as you point out. But we certainly cannot prove that it isn't the source of those rights in this country, since no moral philosopher can prove such rights exist, except perhaps within the confines of human culture (please point me to one who has - my education is no doubt woefully inadequate).
So no matter that the Constitution of the U.S. claims otherwise, it may well be the source of your rights in that country.
Finally, I certainly don't advocate giving up your rights. Quite the opposite. Since I don't subscribe to the view that any rights are fundamental, then each hard-won freedom is precious. It seems there's an attitude that 'fundamental' rights are somehow different from other rights, and a growing incredulity when such rights are not merely violated, but reduced or eliminated by the inheritors of a government that was designed to protect them.
If you go to the library and borrow a book/DVD and watch it, you have experienced the book or the movie in exactly the same way as if you'd downloaded it to your computer, or bought it from the store. With the Library, if you want to see it again, you have to go back to the library and borrow it again.
The fundamental difference is one of convenience. For the convenience of being able to experience the item at your whim, you pay the price to own the physical item. After which, you should be able to do what you will with it, (including, for example, giving it to your friend, making a coaster out of it, or skipping through previews at the beginning).
However, the experience of the item is fundamentally the same if you own it or borrow it. To say the differences are "obvious" misses the similarities the original poster was revealing to you.
The argument is not based on whether something is legal or not... that is not disputed... it's concerning whether it ought to be illegal or not.
Actually, there's some discussion as to whether that little meme is actually true or not.
Whence do your rights spring ? Point to me the source for your fundamental rights, please? It might seem that you have a right to live, a right to freedom and happiness, but those "rights" were fought for, and won in a bloody revolution (at least, in the US they were). The people who fought for those rights enacted your Constitution, and gifted the people with their "rights". So in actuality, these rights you feel are "fundamental" were granted you by a government.
Calling something a "natural" or "Fundamental" right is nothing more than wishful thinking.
If it's so fundamental, why do you need to fight so hard to preserve it?
And you'd better fight hard, because it's not just your right to the fair use of artistic works (or to profit from their production) that is being eroded day by apathetic day.
Well just be thankful the source for your dogma is honestly open to revision. All other of the worlds religions sweep any such "reinterpretations" under the carpet. "Oh, no! No *our* book is the inerrant and unchanging word of God!" Whoops.
The competition argument misses one fairly important problem.
The average joe has consistently shown his willingness to give up his rights time and again. Sure there are a few vocal individuals who will fight for everyones rights, but Joe sits back and reaps the rewards of their labour without even knowing it half the time. When the individuals fail, Joe blissfully carries on, unaware of, sometimes even complicit with, his loss.
Do we really expect that Joe will fight against DRM for his Fair Use rights by boycotting those products with slightly more inconvenient DRM than the others ? Does anyone actually expect the few Joes who do will be noticed in the noise of those who don't ?
There's a term for this sort of thing "nickel and diming them to death".
A fencing sword such as an epee or foil is less useful for killing someone than a crowbar or a kitchen knife. A replica weapon for display is probably about as useful as a crowbar or club, since display weapons are not usually as sharp as the real thing. A real sword is designed to be used as a weapon. I missed the club in your list. Yes, its definitely a weapon. Yes a gun is a tool. It's a tool designed to injure things. You can practice your marksmanship with it, as a sport. You can hunt with it. But you can't tell me that the firearm wasn't invented for the express purpose of war.
The distinction between these items is that some of them were created for the purpose of killing things, and some of them weren't. As you've astutely pointed out, almost anything can be used in the commission of violence. Your fist, for example. But some things are designed as weapons. It's their express purpose. At some point, the efficiency for that purpose outweighs any other secondary purpose to which they can be put. For example, a.22 rifle makes a fun little target rifle. A fully automatic military rifle, on the other hand, is so efficient at dealing out damage that most countries restrict its possession. According to your logic, however, there's no distinction between any item that can be used to cause physical injury. Lets let everyone own LAW rockets then. How about nuclear missiles ? Still don't see a distinction?
My assertion, (which I admit was poorly worded) was that, when a crime whose intent was not injury (i.e. burglary, robbery etc) is committed without a gun, the instance of fatal injuries is generally less than if the same crime is committed with a gun. This includes injuries to the criminal when the victim is defending themselves with a gun.
And as for the statistics: The data on the UK that I've seen has shown the number of crimes where a firearm was reported to be used has gone up in absolute numbers over the period of 1994-2002. So banning the guns hasn't stopped their use. Imagine that ? So, while violence has increased, so has the use of firearms in commission of violent crime. I don't see any contradiction with my statement.
Just because something is banned doesn't mean that it is no longer used. As you observed, someone already willing to break one law isn't going to observe the one about not using firearms.
But please, review my post for where I said a law banning weapons was the appropriate measure to prevent their use. You're putting words in my mouth.
A weapon is designed for the primary purpose of injuring others during war. Does giving them to everyone make you safer ? Statistics say no. Does passing laws restricting their ownership make you safer ? No to that too, I'm afraid.
Every male in Switzerland does national service. They're required to have an assault rifle in their home. They've got one of the lowest crime rates in the world.
Gun ownership in the US is also very high (although nothing on the Swiss). But so is the crime rate.
There's just no absolute correlation between legal gun ownership and crime rate - one way or the other.
However, where there is a crime involving a gun, the chances for grave or fatal injury go up due to the nature of the forces involved. The more powerful the weapon, the more grave the injuries sustained, even when intent to harm is low. How many times do you hear of a someone brandishing a weapon in a threatening manner, only to shoot an 'innocent bystander' by accident ?
Perhaps he missed the 'sword' near the end of your list. Perhaps you'd like to address the other 23 things in your list and how they're functionally equivalent to a gun.
A Sword is a weapon. These other things (including the kitchen knife) are primarily used for purposes other than killing things.
However, while it's true that gun ownership doesn't correlate with violent crime, there most certainly is a correlation between crimes involving guns and fatal injuries during crimes.
However, when making comments concerning what is essentially an economic argument, geographic size is not what people would normally assume you were talking about. Two things are facts: Japan is a small landmass, and it has a gigantic population with significant economic power.
Which do you think was the most relevant to a discussion about purchasing and innovation trends ?
Actually, that's not all that bad of an idea. The concept of a professor who has to "teach" you misses a fundamental basis of universities... namely that the students were originally there to learn from acknowledged leaders in a field. Now, however, University is often just regarded as an extension of the rest of your mandatory schooling. Instead of a bunch of mature, studious, and engaged people who earnestly enrolled in order to study under a master, you've got a bunch of near-children who are at "college" so they can get a degree in order to get a better job than working in McD's (maybe).
Actually, the study of the law is the study of how our society chooses (by common, if tacit, agreement) to enforce internal regulations on its constituents. As such, it's bears a social function which, while often derided, is perhaps more important than any purely technical discipline. Certainly civilization would not be what it is today without computers, skyscrapers or other engineering marvels. But without the system of laws that have evolved to govern interpersonal interactions, one might suspect such marvels may never have come about in the first place.
Whether you like it or not, the legal system in place in your chosen society is not merely a set of arbitrary rules set forth by our predecessors, but a living and evolving body of work, the purpose of which is to ensure we all get along.
(And like any evolving organism, the law as it stands is not perfect for it's function, nor free of mutation or error.)
Certainly the practice of law may often involve absorbing a body of knowledge, but theres far more to it than mere regurgitation.
And to your specific argument that your property line "should extend to low orbit does not"... what pomposity! What basis do you have for such an assertion? Where are your rights to property defined, if not within the codifications of your society's laws ? While, philosophically, one might believe you have certain inalienable rights, the only guarantee you may exercise any of them is in the U.S. Constitution. There's nothing written anywhere else that protects them. " The study of law is therefore a study of how one particular, arbitrary system functions now and has functioned in the past (precedent)." Actually, the study of law includes jurisprudence, the philosophy of legal systems, not merely how best to get your case won in court. There's also a study of justice - how laws succeed or fail to achieve it, and the idea of human rights, social morality etc. It's a lot deeper than you expect, although one might not notice given the publics usual perception of lawyers.
BTW - IANAL, but I took several years in law school before going into information technology.
1/ Downloaders are *not* taking something from someone. The file is copied. This is why copyright is such a knotty problem. The original artist is not deprived of a physical item. It isn't theft.
2/ You are, potentially, depriving them of fair compensation for their efforts. However, the protections afforded by the law are being enforced by the distributors, not the artists. This is because most artists don't retain ownership of their copyright. At first, this benefitted the artist. They got an upfront fee so they could eat next week, and the printer/music distributor took the risk of mass-producing copies of the work in the hopes that it would sell. Now, one sees that the internet provides an almost-free channel for rapid distribution, which eliminates a lot of the costs associated with music production. The benefit to the artist is diminished, and the risk is increased (that copies will be disseminated outside the control of the distributor).
The distributor is using any means possible to reduce that risk. This is understandable, in the same way that the Gas Lamp companies did everything in their power to eliminate the Electric Light Bulb. It was a threat to their business model. But why should the government step in to help anyone maintain their business model? Is this a capitalist democratic republic, or a communist state with state-sponsored business protections ?
There is very little reason to see this in moral terms. If we choose to look at this from a utilitarian perspective, in fact, it appears that the greater good of society gained by a cheap and unfettered access to artistic works outweighs the smaller good of the financial well-being of a limited list of corporations and even smaller list of artists. (That's even considering the argument that lessening copyright protections will harm the artist. Given that the current protections are only nominally on the artists behalf, and that the distribution model of the internet increases an artists potential audience, I don't see that this is as strong an appeal as it sounds). Furthermore, the harm caused by the corporations in their efforts to protect their interests is of a greater relative detriment to the individuals sued than any caused by either the individuals in question or the entire practice of file-sharing in general.
So while I agree that the practice of P2P file-sharing is eroding the monopoly of the *AA's and that it is currently legal for them to protect that monopoly, I don't feel you've made a case for file-sharing's immorality.
"Even if the new information holds up ? and intelligence and law enforcement officials disagree on its conclusiveness ? the links tying Yasin, Saddam and al-Qaeda are tentative."
Can't you at least dig up some un-ambiguous dirt? I'm sure Fox has some for you. Troll.
Or maybe an even better one might be.. "But Officer, I have a prescription for that product which I bought legally from this drugstore down the street. I had no idea the drugstore was a front for illicit drugs, that this powder was actually heroin, nor that the kids across the street were freely sampling from it without my knowledge..."
Ahh, but the American Public is of the opinion that taking the 1 Oreo now is a sure thing, but the 2 Oreos in 30 minutes is a gamble.
You might not have 2 Oreos left in 30 minutes because someone else ate them all.
You might rescind your offer in 27 minutes time or fail to honor your promise.
And finally, time and again it's been shown that the American Public can get 1 Oreo now from you and in 10 minutes time, get another one from someone else. (or from you as you realize your bargaining power is diminishing from the advent of a sudden influx of Oreo dealers).
Delayed gratification is not always a winning strategy.
Or alternatively, by the fact that kids are inadequately raised in the first place, so that they don't care about learning things they Need to Know. How ? By the process of socialization with each other, while being simultaneously bathed in an aura of consumerism and apathy.
Slashdot Mirror
Look at something that isn't a Mercator projection for a change. Greenland ain't that big.
Oh - and it's not made of floating ice, either.
That's quite interesting.
I wonder.. Doesn't this assume that rational and free are necessary attributes of at least one agent ? In this case, say God is a rational free agent who declares there to be no free will... is he not depriving us of the rights of freedom (and possibly rationality) ? In which case the argument's possibly circular.
Not possible that someone has inherent right to rule.
From that everyone must be created equal ?
From that everyone shares fundamental rights?
Nice line of reasoning, but it fails on two counts.
1/ Not everyone is created (born, actually) physically or mentally equal, therefore how does one _prove_ everyone is created equal in any other respect? There *are* people who are physically and mentally superior. Why are they not more fit to rule ? (I guess I have to go and read some Kant and Rousseau to see how they do it)
2/ Even if one proves that no one kind of person is more fit to rule over another, that still doesn't prove that anyone has any rights. If everyone is created equal, that doesn't guarantee that we all have any more rights than a rock, which by expansion is created equal with us. If we can eliminate the rights of rocks based on some fundamental shared characteristic (being alive, being intelligent etc) then why can't we eliminate some other members of our species on similar grounds (less intelligent, less physically motile, green eyes, red hair) ?
Interesting. So freedom isn't a fundamental right, then, since I'm certain that a slave or a prisoner can define a set of his rights, even though being imprisoned in body.
The problem with all absolute systems is that there's no simple way to derive them. If there is an absolute moral code, (fundamental rights), then we'd be able to point to it and say "this is it" and it should be the same for everyone. If this were the case, there'd be no discussion on what was moral or not, because you could just refer to your "big Book of Morality" (letters in the sky, what have you) and everyone would just agree on it.
Or is that too naive of an objection?
Indeed, this is the assertion of those philosophers. However, your appeal to authority doesn't answer the fundamental question - whence do those rights arise? As in all absolute moral philosophies, this question is rarely adequately dealt with. "The Human Condition" isn't adequate, at least, not so far as I understand it.
We 'assume' that these rights are inalienable, and assert that fact in the Constitution, but cannot prove that this is so.
You've completely misread my point. It's not because others wish to deprive you of your 'rights' that you have none, but rather that the basic assumption that your rights are somehow inalienable at all is unproven.
Simply declaring said 'rights' as fundamental and inalienable doesn't make them so. Did not Kant struggle with this himself ? Is this not why there are so many different attempts at framing an absolute moral philosophy throughout history?
The Constitution claims to merely recognize certain rights, hailing to moral absolutists as you point out. But we certainly cannot prove that it isn't the source of those rights in this country, since no moral philosopher can prove such rights exist, except perhaps within the confines of human culture (please point me to one who has - my education is no doubt woefully inadequate).
So no matter that the Constitution of the U.S. claims otherwise, it may well be the source of your rights in that country.
Finally, I certainly don't advocate giving up your rights. Quite the opposite. Since I don't subscribe to the view that any rights are fundamental, then each hard-won freedom is precious. It seems there's an attitude that 'fundamental' rights are somehow different from other rights, and a growing incredulity when such rights are not merely violated, but reduced or eliminated by the inheritors of a government that was designed to protect them.
You claim the difference is obvious. It isn't.
If you go to the library and borrow a book/DVD and watch it, you have experienced the book or the movie in exactly the same way as if you'd downloaded it to your computer, or bought it from the store. With the Library, if you want to see it again, you have to go back to the library and borrow it again.
The fundamental difference is one of convenience. For the convenience of being able to experience the item at your whim, you pay the price to own the physical item. After which, you should be able to do what you will with it, (including, for example, giving it to your friend, making a coaster out of it, or skipping through previews at the beginning).
However, the experience of the item is fundamentally the same if you own it or borrow it. To say the differences are "obvious" misses the similarities the original poster was revealing to you.
The argument is not based on whether something is legal or not... that is not disputed... it's concerning whether it ought to be illegal or not.
Actually, there's some discussion as to whether that little meme is actually true or not.
Whence do your rights spring ? Point to me the source for your fundamental rights, please? It might seem that you have a right to live, a right to freedom and happiness, but those "rights" were fought for, and won in a bloody revolution (at least, in the US they were). The people who fought for those rights enacted your Constitution, and gifted the people with their "rights". So in actuality, these rights you feel are "fundamental" were granted you by a government.
Calling something a "natural" or "Fundamental" right is nothing more than wishful thinking.
If it's so fundamental, why do you need to fight so hard to preserve it?
And you'd better fight hard, because it's not just your right to the fair use of artistic works (or to profit from their production) that is being eroded day by apathetic day.
Well just be thankful the source for your dogma is honestly open to revision.
All other of the worlds religions sweep any such "reinterpretations" under the carpet.
"Oh, no! No *our* book is the inerrant and unchanging word of God!"
Whoops.
The competition argument misses one fairly important problem.
The average joe has consistently shown his willingness to give up his rights time and again. Sure there are a few vocal individuals who will fight for everyones rights, but Joe sits back and reaps the rewards of their labour without even knowing it half the time. When the individuals fail, Joe blissfully carries on, unaware of, sometimes even complicit with, his loss.
Do we really expect that Joe will fight against DRM for his Fair Use rights by boycotting those products with slightly more inconvenient DRM than the others ? Does anyone actually expect the few Joes who do will be noticed in the noise of those who don't ?
There's a term for this sort of thing "nickel and diming them to death".
A fencing sword such as an epee or foil is less useful for killing someone than a crowbar or a kitchen knife.
.22 rifle makes a fun little target rifle. A fully automatic military rifle, on the other hand, is so efficient at dealing out damage that most countries restrict its possession.
A replica weapon for display is probably about as useful as a crowbar or club, since display weapons are not usually as sharp as the real thing.
A real sword is designed to be used as a weapon. I missed the club in your list. Yes, its definitely a weapon. Yes a gun is a tool. It's a tool designed to injure things. You can practice your marksmanship with it, as a sport. You can hunt with it. But you can't tell me that the firearm wasn't invented for the express purpose of war.
The distinction between these items is that some of them were created for the purpose of killing things, and some of them weren't. As you've astutely pointed out, almost anything can be used in the commission of violence. Your fist, for example. But some things are designed as weapons. It's their express purpose. At some point, the efficiency for that purpose outweighs any other secondary purpose to which they can be put.
For example, a
According to your logic, however, there's no distinction between any item that can be used to cause physical injury. Lets let everyone own LAW rockets then. How about nuclear missiles ? Still don't see a distinction?
My assertion, (which I admit was poorly worded) was that, when a crime whose intent was not injury (i.e. burglary, robbery etc) is committed without a gun, the instance of fatal injuries is generally less than if the same crime is committed with a gun. This includes injuries to the criminal when the victim is defending themselves with a gun.
And as for the statistics: The data on the UK that I've seen has shown the number of crimes where a firearm was reported to be used has gone up in absolute numbers over the period of 1994-2002. So banning the guns hasn't stopped their use. Imagine that ? So, while violence has increased, so has the use of firearms in commission of violent crime. I don't see any contradiction with my statement.
Just because something is banned doesn't mean that it is no longer used. As you observed, someone already willing to break one law isn't going to observe the one about not using firearms.
But please, review my post for where I said a law banning weapons was the appropriate measure to prevent their use. You're putting words in my mouth.
A weapon is designed for the primary purpose of injuring others during war. Does giving them to everyone make you safer ? Statistics say no. Does passing laws restricting their ownership make you safer ? No to that too, I'm afraid.
Every male in Switzerland does national service. They're required to have an assault rifle in their home. They've got one of the lowest crime rates in the world.
Gun ownership in the US is also very high (although nothing on the Swiss). But so is the crime rate.
There's just no absolute correlation between legal gun ownership and crime rate - one way or the other.
However, where there is a crime involving a gun, the chances for grave or fatal injury go up due to the nature of the forces involved. The more powerful the weapon, the more grave the injuries sustained, even when intent to harm is low. How many times do you hear of a someone brandishing a weapon in a threatening manner, only to shoot an 'innocent bystander' by accident ?
That's the kind of thing I'm talking about.
chainsaw, pencil, pen, lamp, rock, stick, club, baseball bat, crowbar, CRT, LCD, Computer, Stapler, Holepuncher, chair, Cat-5 cable, phonecord, desk, old ladies walker, cane, sword, kitchen knife, clorox bleach, amonia, etc...
Perhaps he missed the 'sword' near the end of your list.
Perhaps you'd like to address the other 23 things in your list and how they're functionally equivalent to a gun.
A Sword is a weapon. These other things (including the kitchen knife) are primarily used for purposes other than killing things.
However, while it's true that gun ownership doesn't correlate with violent crime, there most certainly is a correlation between crimes involving guns and fatal injuries during crimes.
Well that's only because calling them pittens didn't amount to much.
However, when making comments concerning what is essentially an economic argument, geographic size is not what people would normally assume you were talking about.
Two things are facts: Japan is a small landmass, and it has a gigantic population with significant economic power.
Which do you think was the most relevant to a discussion about purchasing and innovation trends ?
Exactly
Actually, that's not all that bad of an idea.
The concept of a professor who has to "teach" you misses a fundamental basis of universities... namely that the students were originally there to learn from acknowledged leaders in a field.
Now, however, University is often just regarded as an extension of the rest of your mandatory schooling. Instead of a bunch of mature, studious, and engaged people who earnestly enrolled in order to study under a master, you've got a bunch of near-children who are at "college" so they can get a degree in order to get a better job than working in McD's (maybe).
Actually, the study of the law is the study of how our society chooses (by common, if tacit, agreement) to enforce internal regulations on its constituents.
As such, it's bears a social function which, while often derided, is perhaps more important than any purely technical discipline.
Certainly civilization would not be what it is today without computers, skyscrapers or other engineering marvels. But without the system of laws that have evolved to govern interpersonal interactions, one might suspect such marvels may never have come about in the first place.
Whether you like it or not, the legal system in place in your chosen society is not merely a set of arbitrary rules set forth by our predecessors, but a living and evolving body of work, the purpose of which is to ensure we all get along.
(And like any evolving organism, the law as it stands is not perfect for it's function, nor free of mutation or error.)
Certainly the practice of law may often involve absorbing a body of knowledge, but theres far more to it than mere regurgitation.
And to your specific argument that your property line "should extend to low orbit does not"... what pomposity! What basis do you have for such an assertion? Where are your rights to property defined, if not within the codifications of your society's laws ?
While, philosophically, one might believe you have certain inalienable rights, the only guarantee you may exercise any of them is in the U.S. Constitution. There's nothing written anywhere else that protects them.
" The study of law is therefore a study of how one particular, arbitrary system functions now and has functioned in the past (precedent)."
Actually, the study of law includes jurisprudence, the philosophy of legal systems, not merely how best to get your case won in court. There's also a study of justice - how laws succeed or fail to achieve it, and the idea of human rights, social morality etc.
It's a lot deeper than you expect, although one might not notice given the publics usual perception of lawyers.
BTW - IANAL, but I took several years in law school before going into information technology.
Typical MMMORPG player - always blaming macros for the superior skill of others.
j/k.
If only you believed in capitalization, too.
This is an ad hominem attack.
Someone presents a rational argument (biased or not) and you respond with "That's irrational because you hate the U.S."
Your response has no logical validity at all.
1/ Downloaders are *not* taking something from someone. The file is copied. This is why copyright is such a knotty problem. The original artist is not deprived of a physical item. It isn't theft.
2/ You are, potentially, depriving them of fair compensation for their efforts. However, the protections afforded by the law are being enforced by the distributors, not the artists. This is because most artists don't retain ownership of their copyright. At first, this benefitted the artist. They got an upfront fee so they could eat next week, and the printer/music distributor took the risk of mass-producing copies of the work in the hopes that it would sell. Now, one sees that the internet provides an almost-free channel for rapid distribution, which eliminates a lot of the costs associated with music production. The benefit to the artist is diminished, and the risk is increased (that copies will be disseminated outside the control of the distributor).
The distributor is using any means possible to reduce that risk. This is understandable, in the same way that the Gas Lamp companies did everything in their power to eliminate the Electric Light Bulb. It was a threat to their business model. But why should the government step in to help anyone maintain their business model? Is this a capitalist democratic republic, or a communist state with state-sponsored business protections ?
There is very little reason to see this in moral terms. If we choose to look at this from a utilitarian perspective, in fact, it appears that the greater good of society gained by a cheap and unfettered access to artistic works outweighs the smaller good of the financial well-being of a limited list of corporations and even smaller list of artists. (That's even considering the argument that lessening copyright protections will harm the artist. Given that the current protections are only nominally on the artists behalf, and that the distribution model of the internet increases an artists potential audience, I don't see that this is as strong an appeal as it sounds). Furthermore, the harm caused by the corporations in their efforts to protect their interests is of a greater relative detriment to the individuals sued than any caused by either the individuals in question or the entire practice of file-sharing in general.
So while I agree that the practice of P2P file-sharing is eroding the monopoly of the *AA's and that it is currently legal for them to protect that monopoly, I don't feel you've made a case for file-sharing's immorality.
From that very article
"Even if the new information holds up ? and intelligence and law enforcement officials disagree on its conclusiveness ? the links tying Yasin, Saddam and al-Qaeda are tentative."
Can't you at least dig up some un-ambiguous dirt? I'm sure Fox has some for you.
Troll.
Or maybe an even better one might be..
"But Officer, I have a prescription for that product which I bought legally from this drugstore down the street. I had no idea the drugstore was a front for illicit drugs, that this powder was actually heroin, nor that the kids across the street were freely sampling from it without my knowledge..."
Ahh, but the American Public is of the opinion that taking the 1 Oreo now is a sure thing, but the 2 Oreos in 30 minutes is a gamble.
You might not have 2 Oreos left in 30 minutes because someone else ate them all.
You might rescind your offer in 27 minutes time or fail to honor your promise.
And finally, time and again it's been shown that the American Public can get 1 Oreo now from you and in 10 minutes time, get another one from someone else. (or from you as you realize your bargaining power is diminishing from the advent of a sudden influx of Oreo dealers).
Delayed gratification is not always a winning strategy.
Actually, before TV it was radio, and before that it was dance halls and before that it was trashy dime novels and ...
Every generation is faced with something that it considers a distraction to it's kids from good old fashioned education as it knew it.
Or alternatively, by the fact that kids are inadequately raised in the first place, so that they don't care about learning things they Need to Know.
:)
How ? By the process of socialization with each other, while being simultaneously bathed in an aura of consumerism and apathy.
At least - that's how I recall my upbringing
Those self-assembling 3D Nanostructures are really cool, and by really cool, I mean totally sweet.
Their purpose is to flip out and kill people. They fight ALL the time.