4 ms·

> If you want to consume the content, you pay the content creator in their currency of choice (be it github stars, their name immortalized in an attribution cla

by wolfgke 10y ago

> If you want to consume the content, you pay the content creator in their currency of choice (be it github stars, their name immortalized in an attribution clause, or cash). I consider doing this as a gesture of politeness, but nothing that should be enforced by violence.

falcolas 10y ago
> I consider doing this as a gesture of politeness I disagree. The rights of a content creator are, after all, enshrined in the constitution. That's a bit more than "being polite". That said, the right of the public to have access after a defined period of time is also enshrined, so that does need to be taken into account. > nothing that should be enforced by violence Thats quite the jump - violence? I'm going to make the assumption that you're referring to the idea that no law should be made that you aren't willing to resort to violence to support. Even under that assumption, I am OK with this being the law of the land. I believe that a person has the right to demand compensation for access their work, regardless of the form that work takes.
- syshum 10y ago
  >> I'm going to make the assumption that you're referring to the idea that no law should be made that you aren't willing to resort to violence to support. All laws are enforced by violence, that is what makes them law. Law is force, Force is violence. Every law, from Jay Walking, to First Degree Murder is based by the threat that an armed agent from the government will enforce that rule upon you.
  - falcolas 10y ago
    > Law is force Not really - a law is a codification of desired human behavior. > an armed agent from the government will enforce that rule upon you. This is definitely at the extreme end of the list of possibilities. The enforcement of those laws can take any number of forms, but most do not involve armed agents. Most involve certified letters and negotiations between lawyers in front of an (unarmed) judge. This is especially true when we're discussing copyright (with the occasional exception proving the rule). Even speeding tickets are handled more and more frequently by mail. Armed agents are typically reserved for cases where harm to either a body or a property are possible.
    - pessimizer 10y ago
      > Not really - a law is a codification of desired human behavior. No, that's a standard. > This is definitely at the extreme end of the list of possibilities. No, it's in the middle of the inevitable steps of escalation. A speeding ticket becomes an armed agent hitting you with a stick and jail time if you wait long enough. As does a court judgment over an illegally downloaded song.
      - falcolas 10y ago
        > becomes an armed agent hitting you with a stick and jail time if you wait long enough At which point you've broken a separate law, and have been held in contempt of court. Ditto the copyright infringement example. If you break the law, and then willfully break the law again, you can't expect to be treated with leniency.
    - syshum 10y ago
      Clearly you are not in the United States... >>Most involve certified letters and negotiations between lawyers in front of an (unarmed) judge. While the judge himself may be unarmed, he has armed protection often several armed protectors at the ready. And if you ignore the commandment of the judge he/she has no problem ordering those armed agent to bring violence upon you to compel your obedience
      - falcolas 10y ago
        > he has armed protection Which is drastically different from an armed agent coming to get you. I know of COOs of corporations who have armed bodyguards - does that make them a direct threat to you? > if you ignore the commandment of the judge If you ignore a judge, then you're breaking a separate law, and being held in contempt of court. At which point, you're playing in a whole separate ballgame than if you were caught speeding.
        EdHominem 10y ago
        > whole separate ballgame than if This is the game libertarians play with 'Initiation of force'. You're saying that you're allowed to disagree, can negotiate with an unarmed judge, won't be hurt, etc, but then if you ignore a ruling - boy howdy you initiated violence against the state and they have a right to hurt you. If I'm not free to ignore the outcome of the first issue (speeding, as you say) then the men with guns have metaphorically been there all along. Stop dodging and just admit it - our laws are backed by the threat of lethal force. All of them, from murder down to jaywalking or posting speed-trap data on twitter.

by wolfgke 10y ago

falcolas 10y ago

> I consider doing this as a gesture of politeness I disagree. The rights of a content creator are, after all, enshrined in the constitution. That's a bit more than "being polite". That said, the right of the public to have access after a defined period of time is also enshrined, so that does need to be taken into account. > nothing that should be enforced by violence Thats quite the jump - violence? I'm going to make the assumption that you're referring to the idea that no law should be made that you aren't willing to resort to violence to support. Even under that assumption, I am OK with this being the law of the land. I believe that a person has the right to demand compensation for access their work, regardless of the form that work takes.

syshum 10y ago
>> I'm going to make the assumption that you're referring to the idea that no law should be made that you aren't willing to resort to violence to support. All laws are enforced by violence, that is what makes them law. Law is force, Force is violence. Every law, from Jay Walking, to First Degree Murder is based by the threat that an armed agent from the government will enforce that rule upon you.
- falcolas 10y ago
  > Law is force Not really - a law is a codification of desired human behavior. > an armed agent from the government will enforce that rule upon you. This is definitely at the extreme end of the list of possibilities. The enforcement of those laws can take any number of forms, but most do not involve armed agents. Most involve certified letters and negotiations between lawyers in front of an (unarmed) judge. This is especially true when we're discussing copyright (with the occasional exception proving the rule). Even speeding tickets are handled more and more frequently by mail. Armed agents are typically reserved for cases where harm to either a body or a property are possible.
  - pessimizer 10y ago
    > Not really - a law is a codification of desired human behavior. No, that's a standard. > This is definitely at the extreme end of the list of possibilities. No, it's in the middle of the inevitable steps of escalation. A speeding ticket becomes an armed agent hitting you with a stick and jail time if you wait long enough. As does a court judgment over an illegally downloaded song.
    - falcolas 10y ago
      > becomes an armed agent hitting you with a stick and jail time if you wait long enough At which point you've broken a separate law, and have been held in contempt of court. Ditto the copyright infringement example. If you break the law, and then willfully break the law again, you can't expect to be treated with leniency.
  - syshum 10y ago
    Clearly you are not in the United States... >>Most involve certified letters and negotiations between lawyers in front of an (unarmed) judge. While the judge himself may be unarmed, he has armed protection often several armed protectors at the ready. And if you ignore the commandment of the judge he/she has no problem ordering those armed agent to bring violence upon you to compel your obedience
    - falcolas 10y ago
      > he has armed protection Which is drastically different from an armed agent coming to get you. I know of COOs of corporations who have armed bodyguards - does that make them a direct threat to you? > if you ignore the commandment of the judge If you ignore a judge, then you're breaking a separate law, and being held in contempt of court. At which point, you're playing in a whole separate ballgame than if you were caught speeding.
      - EdHominem 10y ago
        > whole separate ballgame than if This is the game libertarians play with 'Initiation of force'. You're saying that you're allowed to disagree, can negotiate with an unarmed judge, won't be hurt, etc, but then if you ignore a ruling - boy howdy you initiated violence against the state and they have a right to hurt you. If I'm not free to ignore the outcome of the first issue (speeding, as you say) then the men with guns have metaphorically been there all along. Stop dodging and just admit it - our laws are backed by the threat of lethal force. All of them, from murder down to jaywalking or posting speed-trap data on twitter.