4 ms·

Upholding copyrights in court seems the basis of the rule of Law, and quite far from the situation in China and Russia. Living in a 'free' country' does not me

Upholding copyrights in court seems the basis of the rule of Law, and quite far from the situation in China and Russia. Living in a 'free' country' does not mean being able to flaunt the law, especially in this case what those sites do is hardly defensible. > the French court ruled that the two sites “clearly claim to be pirate platforms rejecting the principle of copyright and bypassing publishers’ subscription access portals.

atemerev 8y ago
The difference is the ability of the government to pass arbitrary laws. There are (currently, in the West) two opposing views: natural law (laws are the refinement of what already is a natural part of human aspirations), and consensus law (law is what social consensus agrees upon). There’s also authoritarian law, but that is dictatorship. Of these possibilities, only natural law can command respect. Society can be irrational and pass arbitrary laws for longer than you can stay sane, and dictatorship is, well, dictatorship. The US constitution and the bill of rights are explicitly based on the idea of natural law.
- Zrdr 8y ago
  US constitution is based on enlightenment philosophy. Even if I tend to like this more than alternatives, I would not call it natural. As homo sapiens sapiens is a social animal, it's difficult to make the distinction between what it "natural aspirations" and "social consensus".
  - simonh 8y ago
    The concept of Natural Law was an important part of enlightenment legal thinking. When the Declaration of Independence invokes the 'Laws of Nature', it's authors would certainly have been aware of and intentionally referencing contemporary thinking on the subject to justify the declaration. In fact we know from some legal decisions of the time that Natural Law was explicitly used as justification for various legal decisions, in the absence of explicit written laws on the subject.

atemerev 8y ago

The difference is the ability of the government to pass arbitrary laws. There are (currently, in the West) two opposing views: natural law (laws are the refinement of what already is a natural part of human aspirations), and consensus law (law is what social consensus agrees upon). There’s also authoritarian law, but that is dictatorship. Of these possibilities, only natural law can command respect. Society can be irrational and pass arbitrary laws for longer than you can stay sane, and dictatorship is, well, dictatorship. The US constitution and the bill of rights are explicitly based on the idea of natural law.

Zrdr 8y ago
US constitution is based on enlightenment philosophy. Even if I tend to like this more than alternatives, I would not call it natural. As homo sapiens sapiens is a social animal, it's difficult to make the distinction between what it "natural aspirations" and "social consensus".
- simonh 8y ago
  The concept of Natural Law was an important part of enlightenment legal thinking. When the Declaration of Independence invokes the 'Laws of Nature', it's authors would certainly have been aware of and intentionally referencing contemporary thinking on the subject to justify the declaration. In fact we know from some legal decisions of the time that Natural Law was explicitly used as justification for various legal decisions, in the absence of explicit written laws on the subject.