"Russians don't pay the same price for music as U.S. citizens... given the (pre-war) conversion rate. They can't. What sane individual would pay their month's rent for an N-Sync album? They won't, which is why prices in less able countries are adjusted according to what they'll pay... The objection to the business model comes when U.S. buyers make overseas purchases for pennies on the dollar. The site allows foreign citizens to overcome their regional price hike."
This is probably the most insightful comment I've read on the issue.
It almost seems that the most legitimate solution for the U.S., even if impractical, would be to implement a national firewall-sort of thing, which could filter certain traffic and charge duty for those items purchased from an international vendor and (electronically) shipped to the U.S., just as physical items are, when purchased and shipped or brought from abroad.
That's how it works for physical items, even if electronic goods are a little beyond the current reach of U.S. Customs. However, the same principle still applies, in theory.
"The people who are running the AllOfMe site are making sizeable financial contributions to the people who decide Russian law. Either through taxes or bribes or a delicate combination of both.
The people who make Russian law also just happen to control 10,000 thermonuclear hydrogen bombs, and the submarines and intercontinental missiles to put them anywhere on earth that they chose to."
Let's not forget to mention the obvious corrolaries:
The people who are against the AllofMP3 site are making sizeable financial contributions to the people who decide American law. Either through taxes or bribes or a delicate combination of both.
The people who make American law also just happen to control far more thermonuclear hydrogen bombs, and the submarines and intercontinental missiles to put them anywhere on earth that they chose to.
Legality can be a very fluid concept when mere mortals declare it to be nothing more than whatever is in the interests of whoever's interests they declare to matter. Neither America nor Russia has the upper epistemic hand in deciding whose laws are more valid.
"Nothing of what you have suggested has any cause-and-effect relationship with either ending terror and terrorists or protecting people from them."
I think there is a two-fold argument you're failing to see:
1. It is extremely easy for terrorist attacks to be carried out, and it is extremely expensive to prevent them. No amount of government-spent money can ever reduce terrorism beyond a minimal amount, as (say we're talking about bombings, here) (a) every economic transaction involving any material that could ever be used to create a bomb would have to be monitored, (b) every public area would have to be so closely monitored as to prevent anyone from secretly leaving a bomb anywhere public, (c) and so on, such that (d) a perfect system of eliminating terrorism is practically impossible, given that no government in the world has the finances or the resources to create such a comprehensive system. A quadrillion dollars may be spent, yet all it takes is a few people to slip through the security and carry out some act of terrorism to show that all that security was for naught, insofar as that money could have saved more lives if it were distributed more wisely.
2. If a quadrillion dollars, let's say, is to be spent on either A or B, and spending a third of that amount on A will improve people's life-spans considerably, contrasted with spending the full amount on B, which extends people's life-spans a negligible, if at all noticable, amount, I must, if I am truly concerned with my well-being and the well-being of others, choose the option that most benefits them. It is as simple as that.
Finally, in response to your quote, the point is that we're not talking about suggesting "any cause-and-effect relationship with either ending terror and terrorists or protecting people from them". Rather, we're talking about a cause-and-effect relationship that actually benefits people. And this does not deny that terrorism is horribly bad and that terrorists are among the most evil people to have ever inhabited the earth.
The point is simply that we ought to be helping people in the most beneficial way possible. As such, shrill cries of "But terrorism might still occur!!!" do more harm then good insofar as they take our sights off of helping people in the most beneficial way possible (i.e., in actually saving lives through various means). Arguing that we should try to bring about theoretical dream-worlds where terrorism has been absolutely eradicated at all costs, while certainly optimistic, is foolish and irresponsible insofar as many times more lives would be saved if we are to appropriately address all areas wherein unnecessary death can be minimized, rather than throwing all of our resources at a single one.
Slashdot Mirror
"Russians don't pay the same price for music as U.S. citizens... given the (pre-war) conversion rate. They can't. What sane individual would pay their month's rent for an N-Sync album? They won't, which is why prices in less able countries are adjusted according to what they'll pay... The objection to the business model comes when U.S. buyers make overseas purchases for pennies on the dollar. The site allows foreign citizens to overcome their regional price hike."
This is probably the most insightful comment I've read on the issue.
It almost seems that the most legitimate solution for the U.S., even if impractical, would be to implement a national firewall-sort of thing, which could filter certain traffic and charge duty for those items purchased from an international vendor and (electronically) shipped to the U.S., just as physical items are, when purchased and shipped or brought from abroad.
That's how it works for physical items, even if electronic goods are a little beyond the current reach of U.S. Customs. However, the same principle still applies, in theory.
"The people who are running the AllOfMe site are making sizeable financial contributions to the people who decide Russian law. Either through taxes or bribes or a delicate combination of both.
The people who make Russian law also just happen to control 10,000 thermonuclear hydrogen bombs, and the submarines and intercontinental missiles to put them anywhere on earth that they chose to."
Let's not forget to mention the obvious corrolaries:
The people who are against the AllofMP3 site are making sizeable financial contributions to the people who decide American law. Either through taxes or bribes or a delicate combination of both.
The people who make American law also just happen to control far more thermonuclear hydrogen bombs, and the submarines and intercontinental missiles to put them anywhere on earth that they chose to.
Legality can be a very fluid concept when mere mortals declare it to be nothing more than whatever is in the interests of whoever's interests they declare to matter. Neither America nor Russia has the upper epistemic hand in deciding whose laws are more valid.
"Nothing of what you have suggested has any cause-and-effect relationship with either ending terror and terrorists or protecting people from them." I think there is a two-fold argument you're failing to see: 1. It is extremely easy for terrorist attacks to be carried out, and it is extremely expensive to prevent them. No amount of government-spent money can ever reduce terrorism beyond a minimal amount, as (say we're talking about bombings, here) (a) every economic transaction involving any material that could ever be used to create a bomb would have to be monitored, (b) every public area would have to be so closely monitored as to prevent anyone from secretly leaving a bomb anywhere public, (c) and so on, such that (d) a perfect system of eliminating terrorism is practically impossible, given that no government in the world has the finances or the resources to create such a comprehensive system. A quadrillion dollars may be spent, yet all it takes is a few people to slip through the security and carry out some act of terrorism to show that all that security was for naught, insofar as that money could have saved more lives if it were distributed more wisely. 2. If a quadrillion dollars, let's say, is to be spent on either A or B, and spending a third of that amount on A will improve people's life-spans considerably, contrasted with spending the full amount on B, which extends people's life-spans a negligible, if at all noticable, amount, I must, if I am truly concerned with my well-being and the well-being of others, choose the option that most benefits them. It is as simple as that. Finally, in response to your quote, the point is that we're not talking about suggesting "any cause-and-effect relationship with either ending terror and terrorists or protecting people from them". Rather, we're talking about a cause-and-effect relationship that actually benefits people. And this does not deny that terrorism is horribly bad and that terrorists are among the most evil people to have ever inhabited the earth. The point is simply that we ought to be helping people in the most beneficial way possible. As such, shrill cries of "But terrorism might still occur!!!" do more harm then good insofar as they take our sights off of helping people in the most beneficial way possible (i.e., in actually saving lives through various means). Arguing that we should try to bring about theoretical dream-worlds where terrorism has been absolutely eradicated at all costs, while certainly optimistic, is foolish and irresponsible insofar as many times more lives would be saved if we are to appropriately address all areas wherein unnecessary death can be minimized, rather than throwing all of our resources at a single one.