4 ms·

You might want to read up about the Berne convention, various international copyright treaties and such. You can "ignore" laws, but you might find yourself in h

by ksk 8y ago

You might want to read up about the Berne convention, various international copyright treaties and such. You can "ignore" laws, but you might find yourself in handcuffs on a plane, clutching an extradition order if you get popular enough. In any case that is an irrelevant aside as far as I am concerned. I don't wish for people to be jailed over this. >What makes you think people have any interest in following this law in the first place? It seems like you haven't really given this foundation, which is crucial for your original comment. Wow, really? Yes, I admit, my argument assumes that normal rational people don't go breaking laws.

jMyles 8y ago
> Yes, I admit, my argument assumes that normal rational people don't go breaking laws. I mean, yeah, that's a very strange assumption. Throughout the history of common law societies, normal rational people have indeed gone around breaking bad laws. Many foundational thinkers, dating back to the magna carta and further, have argued that citizens are morally bound to do this in order for this legal system to work. It's a big part of the basis of the western legal tradition. Of course Henry David Thoreau is the best known, but he's certainly not the first, nor is he an aberration Take this example: cannabis has been prohibited federally since 1937 - surely you don't think that the persistent, substantial part of the population who has consumed cannabis throughout that time is abnormal or irrational? ...and to add a slight but meaningful nuance: remember that in the tradition of the legal republic, the state is not the sovereign - the individual is. So, each of us has to determine for ourselves which edicts of the state are in fact legitimate laws. It's a perfectly valid view to hold that copyright or drug prohibition (or whatever) are not legitimate laws. You then have to ascertain the reaction of the state (a reaction which you are free to hold as illegitimate / unlawful) when it finds that its edicts are being disobeyed. It's up to each of us to build community consensus around us to disobey these edicts in keeping with our view of the legitimacy and constitutionality of the law. We are also free to use our own sensibilities about these laws when deciding to refrain from making a citizen's arrest (this refusal during the fugitive slave law period is part of what led to the creation of slave patrols, some of which have evolved into today's professional police forces) or to refrain from finding guilt as a jury. By contrast, this discretion is not cognizable for a magistrate or peace officer, whom, at least traditionally, are bound to regard all statutes of their jurisdiction as lawful. This is a cornerstone of the common law tradition.

by ksk 8y ago

jMyles 8y ago

> Yes, I admit, my argument assumes that normal rational people don't go breaking laws. I mean, yeah, that's a very strange assumption. Throughout the history of common law societies, normal rational people have indeed gone around breaking bad laws. Many foundational thinkers, dating back to the magna carta and further, have argued that citizens are morally bound to do this in order for this legal system to work. It's a big part of the basis of the western legal tradition. Of course Henry David Thoreau is the best known, but he's certainly not the first, nor is he an aberration Take this example: cannabis has been prohibited federally since 1937 - surely you don't think that the persistent, substantial part of the population who has consumed cannabis throughout that time is abnormal or irrational? ...and to add a slight but meaningful nuance: remember that in the tradition of the legal republic, the state is not the sovereign - the individual is. So, each of us has to determine for ourselves which edicts of the state are in fact legitimate laws. It's a perfectly valid view to hold that copyright or drug prohibition (or whatever) are not legitimate laws. You then have to ascertain the reaction of the state (a reaction which you are free to hold as illegitimate / unlawful) when it finds that its edicts are being disobeyed. It's up to each of us to build community consensus around us to disobey these edicts in keeping with our view of the legitimacy and constitutionality of the law. We are also free to use our own sensibilities about these laws when deciding to refrain from making a citizen's arrest (this refusal during the fugitive slave law period is part of what led to the creation of slave patrols, some of which have evolved into today's professional police forces) or to refrain from finding guilt as a jury. By contrast, this discretion is not cognizable for a magistrate or peace officer, whom, at least traditionally, are bound to regard all statutes of their jurisdiction as lawful. This is a cornerstone of the common law tradition.