4 ms·

> Again you are talking about the law, I am talking about ethics, surely you to not believe all thing that are illegal are unethical and that all thing that are

by zeusk 9y ago

> Again you are talking about the law, I am talking about ethics, surely you to not believe all thing that are illegal are unethical and that all thing that are legal are ethical? If you do believe that I return to my original statement in that you have a completely screwed set of ethics and morality > The fact that you seem to get your ethics and morality from the law says a lot. I don't, I personally find large segments of the law to be highly immoral and unethical. As much as you'd like, the judicial system doesn't work on ethics as judged by you. I hope you understand the functionality of the judicial system before making such broad statements about it. > The fact that you seem to get your ethics and morality from the law says a lot. I don't, but I also don't let my own feelings affect my interpretation of law. > Ok that may be a factual statement, that has nothing to do with the fact it should not have been a criminal matter in the first place, but a civil matter where only monetary damages would be punishment Do you know what the difference is between civil and criminal law? It doesn't appear so. > I believe prison should be reserved for people that are a physical danger to other, not as punishment for harming a corporations profits So do I to a certain degree, but you must first understand that the corporations comprise of people like you and me and not some evil mind CEO who eats all the profits. > They would for $25 per computer, That is MS double dipping method for recyclers to force them to purchase a new license for a computer that was already licensed by the OEM at the time of manufacturer You're making presumptuous statements here (and I know because A - your statement is false, $25 is only necessary if the device does not have a recovery disk already; B - your statement is in no way related to my quoted response of approaching Microsoft if they'd be interested in partnering in a recycling program). I'm not going to engage with your prejudice against a corporation of your dislike. > Again you are talking about the law, I am talking about ethics, surely you to not believe all thing that are illegal are unethical and that all thing that are legal are ethical? If you do believe that I return to my original statement in that you have a completely screwed set of ethics and morality When all else fails, paint the other person in black? You believe software should be free to distribute and copy because it is a never ending source and can be created out of thin air once someone has developed it? How about you try counterfeiting US Dollars which are also created out of thin air? Software is the currency of the tech companies that develop it and they like to protect is just like our Govt. likes to protect their own economic interest. If you don't like a company you have the choice of not using their products but don't go around saying they're a bunch of evil morons for protecting their interest.

syshum 9y ago
>>So do I to a certain degree, but you must first understand that the corporations comprise of people like you and me and not some evil mind CEO who eats all the profits. While it is true the corporations are "made up of people" the very nature of a corporation separates liability from those people, thus when you remove said liability people generally tend to behave worse than they would when they are personally liable. Then there are the group dynamics where many many people working together can justify, rationalize, and excuse all manner of actions that when done as a individual, they would individually find abhorrent but when done as a group they do not. This is why at best a corporation can only be described as amoral (at best) The fact that corporations are "made of people" has no relevance to my comments >As much as you'd like, the judicial system doesn't work on ethics as judged by you. I hope you understand the functionality of the judicial system before making such broad statements about it. The legal system of a society should be judged by the ethics of the members making up that society, people like you that believe the law is the law and we just have to accept that are part of the problem in society today I see this law as being unethical as such I am advocating against this law. You believe the law is the law and should remain unchanged as if it was the word of a god. >You're making presumptuous statements here (and I know because A - your statement is false, $25 is only necessary if the device does not have a recovery disk already; B - your statement is in no way related to my quoted response of approaching Microsoft if they'd be interested in partnering in a recycling program). Yes it is as that is their "partnership program" for Recyclers, I do not believe MS should be allowed to charge $25 simply because the owner of the device did not keep or make a recovery disc upon purchase. I believe (and the law supports) that the physical disk is irreverent, it is the LICENSE that they sell not the Physical media. Of course MS, and most other tech companies, want to have it both ways, picking a choosing which sections of law they want to apply based on the circumstances. Sometimes treating it has a Sold Good where the physical product matters, but then other times saying it is a licensed product and the physical media has no value >How about you try counterfeiting US Dollars which are also created out of thin air? I dont think you want to know my thoughts on Fiat Currency. (hint I am not a fan) >Software is the currency of the tech companies that develop it and they like to protect is just like our Govt I have already stated I find our government (aka the law) to be largely unethical and immoral. So you defense is to point out how the Tech Companies are acting like our government... i.e Unethically and Immorally >If you don't like a company you have the choice of not using their products but don't go around saying they're a bunch of evil morons for protecting their interest. I do not define virtue as " protecting their interest." it is possible to be a Evil Moron and be " protecting their interest." at the same time.

by zeusk 9y ago

syshum 9y ago

>>So do I to a certain degree, but you must first understand that the corporations comprise of people like you and me and not some evil mind CEO who eats all the profits. While it is true the corporations are "made up of people" the very nature of a corporation separates liability from those people, thus when you remove said liability people generally tend to behave worse than they would when they are personally liable. Then there are the group dynamics where many many people working together can justify, rationalize, and excuse all manner of actions that when done as a individual, they would individually find abhorrent but when done as a group they do not. This is why at best a corporation can only be described as amoral (at best) The fact that corporations are "made of people" has no relevance to my comments >As much as you'd like, the judicial system doesn't work on ethics as judged by you. I hope you understand the functionality of the judicial system before making such broad statements about it. The legal system of a society should be judged by the ethics of the members making up that society, people like you that believe the law is the law and we just have to accept that are part of the problem in society today I see this law as being unethical as such I am advocating against this law. You believe the law is the law and should remain unchanged as if it was the word of a god. >You're making presumptuous statements here (and I know because A - your statement is false, $25 is only necessary if the device does not have a recovery disk already; B - your statement is in no way related to my quoted response of approaching Microsoft if they'd be interested in partnering in a recycling program). Yes it is as that is their "partnership program" for Recyclers, I do not believe MS should be allowed to charge $25 simply because the owner of the device did not keep or make a recovery disc upon purchase. I believe (and the law supports) that the physical disk is irreverent, it is the LICENSE that they sell not the Physical media. Of course MS, and most other tech companies, want to have it both ways, picking a choosing which sections of law they want to apply based on the circumstances. Sometimes treating it has a Sold Good where the physical product matters, but then other times saying it is a licensed product and the physical media has no value >How about you try counterfeiting US Dollars which are also created out of thin air? I dont think you want to know my thoughts on Fiat Currency. (hint I am not a fan) >Software is the currency of the tech companies that develop it and they like to protect is just like our Govt I have already stated I find our government (aka the law) to be largely unethical and immoral. So you defense is to point out how the Tech Companies are acting like our government... i.e Unethically and Immorally >If you don't like a company you have the choice of not using their products but don't go around saying they're a bunch of evil morons for protecting their interest. I do not define virtue as " protecting their interest." it is possible to be a Evil Moron and be " protecting their interest." at the same time.