 |
|
MrBaggins
|
|
Ming>
First the arguement was that you'd be prosecuted for this...
Then that you merely could be... that it was technically illegal.
Then that the arguement doesn't include mp3's...
your position looks like a slippery slope to me.
What does "illegal" actually mean, if you aren't prosecuted? That and two bucks'll get you a ride on the subway.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
What reality?
Define why I should care that something is "illegal"
It's just ephemeral if it has no consequence.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
"Don't do that"
"Why? What are you going to do about it"
"Don't do that"
"Well... I'm doing it... now... what are you going to do about it"
*puts a blindfold on and earplugs in*
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
Murder has a consequence everywhere. Its illegality "means" something.
Copyright violation doesn't have a consequence everywhere, or even in every situation.
The two concepts aren't comparable.
Illegality is morally relative. A law is in arbitrary creation of society. It only has meaning within the time and space of that society.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
and even then...
downloading an MP3 in Canada isn't illegal, thus... its justifiable, by your logic.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
and... what does that fact... mean?
its a circular arguement
You break the law, thus you've commited an illegal act.
Right... agreed... and?
What does that actually... mean? Does it mean anything, in a case where that illegality is not prosecuted?
This hypothetical person should feel bad? Should care? Is going to hell?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
I sense you've hit a limit in your arguement.
Illegal is illegal... OK.
but as far as I can tell.. you can't assign any meaning to that illegality.
Personal morality is relative, and thus can't be generalized.
Then we get into another relativity issue.. depent on what copyrighted work we are talking about, like mp3's. or time... in that there wasn't always a law, international or otherwise that applied to software copyright infringement. Such laws were amended after the inception of software creation, and the subsequent software piracy.
Since a society has rolled back a particular law regarding copyright infringement, who's to say that other aspects of copyright infringement law won't also be rolled back in other territories, at other times?
Societies morality changes over time... in various ways... like... slavery, say.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
-Jrabbit
|
 |
of the Electronic Egyptians
Feb 2002
time: 23:32
|
|
[  ]
The social contract of the society in which we live (yeah, that's another slippery one) calls for its members to agree to live by a mutually agreed set of rules. This creates spheres of acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Some parts of those rules are given the force of law in certain geographic locations. Those laws are enforced by Governments. Governments are recognized by members of society in a defined geographic area, and given the power to enforce those laws which are passed by the legal (OK, more-or-less legal) representatives of the people.
The differences being discussed here (MrBaggins, most recent) are between Legal and Acceptable behaviors.
To use Ming's example, we all (generally) agree that murder is Unacceptable in our society. It is also Illegal in all known legal codes.
We have also -- as a society, not necessarily as individuals -- agreed to recognize the concept of Intellectual Property. Legal codes may or may not be drawn up to make them Illegal. But we all (as societies) have agreed that such property theft is wrong.
Those who violate this code -- whether "merely" moral or fully codified as Law -- are rebels against society.
One may argue whether or not intellectual property rights are truly recognized by a given society, but only in the case where it does not have the force of law. We have agreed to live together under the laws deemed necessary by our elected leaders.
The fact that those laws may be stupid or unenforceable does not remove them from the social contract.
Obviously, all you software thieves -- much like drug users, jaywalkers, and bestiality aficianados -- have chosen the primacy of the Individual.
Most of us do.
But not recognizing our social contracts while enjoying their benefits is morally bankrupt.
/
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
Well... an entire society (Canada) excluded personal copyright infringement (through downloading) from its laws, and made thus it socially acceptable.
This "social contract" you speak of, isn't universal.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
17-12-2003 18:56
|