3 ms·

This is the most salient explanation that I have seen on HN, although some points need rebutting. For instance >If the effort it takes to secure a number of th

by J3L2404 15y ago

This is the most salient explanation that I have seen on HN, although some points need rebutting. For instance >If the effort it takes to secure a number of the size required to represent a 3 minute song becomes a burden on society, then I do not think they have a right to be successful in doing so. That is only true after the law has been changed, at least from a legal standpoint. > If my securing it from copying that I do not approve of becomes a burden on society, then I do not have a right to be successful in securing it. Same as above. Most responses on HN have been something like "if you want to make money from your creation you should use kickstarter and give it away after that". This is a very foolish attitude both realistically and philosophically. I have every right to use the current laws to my advantage and an obligation to my investors to do exactly that. I have no problem with flouting laws if they are truly unjust, but I have no sympathy for piracy profiteers like Kim Dotcom because he knew very well what he was doing. Copying between friends can never be stopped but if you make enough money from it you are a valid target.

gsoltis 15y ago
I would consider the law unjust once it crosses the line into being a burden on society. That's obviously not a black and white transition, although I gave part of what I consider to be over that line in my last response. From my perspective, SOPA, as proposed, was (is?) an unjust law, in that it meets the criteria I specified for what I consider a burden. It's worth making the distinction between legal rights and natural rights. Obviously, if a particular draconian and unjust law were passed that guaranteed the right to secure your 3kb of data, then you have the legal right to do so. That fact has mostly no bearing on your natural right to do so. It's also worth noting that sharing between friends and someone making a large profit off of sharing are not the only options. It is not hard to envision a situation with a large amount of sharing and no one profiting directly the way kim dotcom did. It has the scale of the profiteers, but the intent and profitability of the between-friends sharing. I think it is a lot harder to find someone worthy of being called a criminal in such a situation.

by J3L2404 15y ago

gsoltis 15y ago

I would consider the law unjust once it crosses the line into being a burden on society. That's obviously not a black and white transition, although I gave part of what I consider to be over that line in my last response. From my perspective, SOPA, as proposed, was (is?) an unjust law, in that it meets the criteria I specified for what I consider a burden. It's worth making the distinction between legal rights and natural rights. Obviously, if a particular draconian and unjust law were passed that guaranteed the right to secure your 3kb of data, then you have the legal right to do so. That fact has mostly no bearing on your natural right to do so. It's also worth noting that sharing between friends and someone making a large profit off of sharing are not the only options. It is not hard to envision a situation with a large amount of sharing and no one profiting directly the way kim dotcom did. It has the scale of the profiteers, but the intent and profitability of the between-friends sharing. I think it is a lot harder to find someone worthy of being called a criminal in such a situation.