@dharbee,
I'm not actually a liar. The US has engaged in military action every year since 1776. The best source (but certainly not the only one) I can offer is On the Justice of Roosting Chickens, a book published by Ward Churchill. The first chapter is his controversial essay about 11 September 2001, and the following chapters are detailed timelines of US military actions since 1776 and US violations of international law since 1948 respectively. Whatever you might think about the essay in the first chapter (I happen to think it's right on), the following chapters are just hard data.
As if the US isn't a direct extension of that? Whatever you want to say about Europe, it applies to the US too. Besides US military occupation and presence around the world, let's not forget that the basis of US existence is the genocide and conquest of hundreds of indigenous nations across an entire continent.
US citizens are responsible for the actions of their government. One could argue that the so-called democratic nature of the US government only increases that responsibility. This is the same for citizens of any country, though. And the US actually set this precedent after WWII. Just as the German citizens were responsible to stop the crimes of the nazi regime, we're responsible to stop the crimes of our own country.
Whoever labeled this comment a troll is a moron. As GNUALMAFUERTE said, the US has a military presence in about 2/3 of the world, and has been at war every year since its inception. You know, the rest of the world doesn't necessarily agree with our self-imposed exempt status from what we do around the world. Eventually, the strong-arm tactics we use will get turned around against us (I believe 2001 was a hint at that fact). If we don't want missiles pointed at us, perhaps we should be working to stop giving people a reason to point them at us in the first place.
One, that isn't how it works. Cops rarely go out on the street selling sugar (or oregano, or whatever). They would be recognized after a few busts, and probably get themselves killed. Instead, they usually hire (or more likely, blackmail) drug dealers to be informants, or to sell real drugs to unwitting customers, who are then busted. A lot of times, the informants only need to bring in one or two arrests for their "deal", and even if they were killed, the cops don't care. They get their bust either way.
Two, the precedent may be to ignore this form of entrapment for a variety of reasons, but it certainly is literal entrapment.
Three, the MPAA is not doing the same thing. Downloading copyrighted works is only illegal when the copyright owner doesn't consent. In this case, by uploading any file with any title to which they have rights, they are consenting to have that file downloaded. If they were uploading the content in violation of copyright law, their actions, too, would be illegal*. There is no violation of law when a person downloads content where the owner consents to the transaction.
* Yes, I'm aware that the actions of narcs selling (or possessing) drugs are illegal too. Evidently law enforcement believes that criminals are okay if they're "our" criminals. Not that this is unusual in our culture.
Slashdot Mirror
@dharbee, I'm not actually a liar. The US has engaged in military action every year since 1776. The best source (but certainly not the only one) I can offer is On the Justice of Roosting Chickens, a book published by Ward Churchill. The first chapter is his controversial essay about 11 September 2001, and the following chapters are detailed timelines of US military actions since 1776 and US violations of international law since 1948 respectively. Whatever you might think about the essay in the first chapter (I happen to think it's right on), the following chapters are just hard data.
@dan828,
As if the US isn't a direct extension of that? Whatever you want to say about Europe, it applies to the US too. Besides US military occupation and presence around the world, let's not forget that the basis of US existence is the genocide and conquest of hundreds of indigenous nations across an entire continent.
@Nullav,
US citizens are responsible for the actions of their government. One could argue that the so-called democratic nature of the US government only increases that responsibility. This is the same for citizens of any country, though. And the US actually set this precedent after WWII. Just as the German citizens were responsible to stop the crimes of the nazi regime, we're responsible to stop the crimes of our own country.
Whoever labeled this comment a troll is a moron. As GNUALMAFUERTE said, the US has a military presence in about 2/3 of the world, and has been at war every year since its inception. You know, the rest of the world doesn't necessarily agree with our self-imposed exempt status from what we do around the world. Eventually, the strong-arm tactics we use will get turned around against us (I believe 2001 was a hint at that fact). If we don't want missiles pointed at us, perhaps we should be working to stop giving people a reason to point them at us in the first place.
Impossible! Once chipped, you're their property for life.
One, that isn't how it works. Cops rarely go out on the street selling sugar (or oregano, or whatever). They would be recognized after a few busts, and probably get themselves killed. Instead, they usually hire (or more likely, blackmail) drug dealers to be informants, or to sell real drugs to unwitting customers, who are then busted. A lot of times, the informants only need to bring in one or two arrests for their "deal", and even if they were killed, the cops don't care. They get their bust either way.
Two, the precedent may be to ignore this form of entrapment for a variety of reasons, but it certainly is literal entrapment.
Three, the MPAA is not doing the same thing. Downloading copyrighted works is only illegal when the copyright owner doesn't consent. In this case, by uploading any file with any title to which they have rights, they are consenting to have that file downloaded. If they were uploading the content in violation of copyright law, their actions, too, would be illegal*. There is no violation of law when a person downloads content where the owner consents to the transaction.
* Yes, I'm aware that the actions of narcs selling (or possessing) drugs are illegal too. Evidently law enforcement believes that criminals are okay if they're "our" criminals. Not that this is unusual in our culture.
... What? ...
No, really... what?