71 ms·

May be we should address the core of the issue. The main thing about copyright to understand would be: Is there such ‘right’ at all? Is it a ‘right’ if you t

May be we should address the core of the issue. The main thing about copyright to understand would be: Is there such ‘right’ at all? Is it a ‘right’ if you think about it? >I don’t know what I can do to stop this anymore ... This level of frustration people has experienced in Ukraine during Maidan protests. Turned out that ‘peoaceful’ protest is effective only if the other side is smart enough and wish to listen. But if the other side is dumb enough and considers ‘peaceful’ protest as a ‘green light’ to do whatever they want (Look for beating peaceful people in Belarus recently and now in Russia) then it looks like ‘Maidan’ techniques are more effective. So for example you can look and learn how Ukrainians stood for their rights against power abuse and attempts of pushing dictatorship laws through the parliament.

dtx1 6y ago
yeah no. The people understanding this enough to beware of how bad it is, are the absolute minority and we would be crushed by the applauding majority if we tried.
- lovelyviking 6y ago
  The main thing about freedom and rights is that majority doesn’t have a right to take those from a person. I like to use this example: Can someone be eaten by the others if they vote for it? In such case I think it is clear what a person in question should do to protect his ‘right for life’ ‘Majority dictatorship’ is not my expectation of how modern democracy should function.
  - dtx1 6y ago
    > The main thing about freedom and rights is that majority doesn’t have a right to take those from a person. I don't disagree from a philosophical perspective, I disagree from a practical one. Majority dictatorship is only avoided in modern democracies through two processes: existing constitutional laws that are enforced and protected by a court system and the majority will to not oppress people just because they can. If something like the internet is new enough that neither existing laws protect you, nor a majority exists with enough care and understanding about the issue to create new protections, governments will inevitably censor, silence and enslave the minority that yearns for that freedom. If the majority doesn't care, the powers that be have always and will always use excessive force and laws to suppress the minority, see Marijuana, Gay Marriage, Women's rights, Police Reform etc. I see a dark time for the internet ahead of us. It will take time for generations of people who refuse to understand what the internet is to die of, before new generations can learn from the failures of the previous generation and enshrine new protections into law. As long as people decide on these issues, that see the internet as a nuisance to be dealt with and not a whole world to explore and enrich your life with, there won't be any progress made toward a liberal, free internet and ever much more towards a more fascist control of the internet.
    - lovelyviking 6y ago
      Philosophical perspective requires practical insisting. All legal tools are available to insist including constitutions and court systems like with any other issue. There are many means to make majority care. I do not see why waiting for generations is inevitable and we all know what can happen to fascists.

dtx1 6y ago

yeah no. The people understanding this enough to beware of how bad it is, are the absolute minority and we would be crushed by the applauding majority if we tried.

lovelyviking 6y ago
The main thing about freedom and rights is that majority doesn’t have a right to take those from a person. I like to use this example: Can someone be eaten by the others if they vote for it? In such case I think it is clear what a person in question should do to protect his ‘right for life’ ‘Majority dictatorship’ is not my expectation of how modern democracy should function.
- dtx1 6y ago
  > The main thing about freedom and rights is that majority doesn’t have a right to take those from a person. I don't disagree from a philosophical perspective, I disagree from a practical one. Majority dictatorship is only avoided in modern democracies through two processes: existing constitutional laws that are enforced and protected by a court system and the majority will to not oppress people just because they can. If something like the internet is new enough that neither existing laws protect you, nor a majority exists with enough care and understanding about the issue to create new protections, governments will inevitably censor, silence and enslave the minority that yearns for that freedom. If the majority doesn't care, the powers that be have always and will always use excessive force and laws to suppress the minority, see Marijuana, Gay Marriage, Women's rights, Police Reform etc. I see a dark time for the internet ahead of us. It will take time for generations of people who refuse to understand what the internet is to die of, before new generations can learn from the failures of the previous generation and enshrine new protections into law. As long as people decide on these issues, that see the internet as a nuisance to be dealt with and not a whole world to explore and enrich your life with, there won't be any progress made toward a liberal, free internet and ever much more towards a more fascist control of the internet.
  - lovelyviking 6y ago
    Philosophical perspective requires practical insisting. All legal tools are available to insist including constitutions and court systems like with any other issue. There are many means to make majority care. I do not see why waiting for generations is inevitable and we all know what can happen to fascists.