6 ms·

Why don't you support illegal activity?

by duairc 14y ago

why-el 14y ago
I don't know why you are downvoted. This is a valid question.
hmottestad 14y ago
I'm not the OP, but here is my opinion. As a rule of thumb I don't support illegal activities. Why would I? Most of the laws I agree with, like no murder/rape/robbery. However some laws I'm against. Like the public drinking ban in Norway, why can't I have a beer by the lake? And on the topic of media industries vs. file sharing. I haven't really made up my mind. Especially after the media industry brought tanks and fighter jets to a knife fight.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  There are so many laws, I don't know how you could possibly say in an informed manner that you agree with most of them. Making ethical decisions is easy for the majority of us, but our knowledge of the law is universally poor. I don't see why we should factor the law into discussions of ethics; it doesn't do anything to simplify the discussion.
  - dandelany 14y ago
    > There are so many laws, I don't know how you could possibly say in an informed manner that you agree with most of them. Oh, come on now. You can be informed on the ones that matter to you the most, and the ones which are most commonly broken, which says a lot about the society you live in. It's not that hard. > I don't see why we should factor the law into discussions of ethics Because laws, in many or most cases, reflect the moral or ethical views of a large number of people, or at least they did at the time they were passed. The fact that laws survived the lawmaking process at all means we should consider the thoughts that went into their creation. I'm not saying you should read every word of every statute. But a nation's laws are in many ways reflections of its cultural ethics.
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      The laws that "matter most" reflect ethics which are "no brainers". "Don't steal", "don't kill", "don't rape", etc. These are ethical concepts that are easy to understand without resorting to consulting the law. The law in these cases is just an imperfect encoding of these obvious ethics. For the sake of governing, they work decently. However using them in an ethical discussion is using them for a purpose that they were not designed. There are so many better sources that we can look to in order to facilitate discussion. Trying to use laws as a vehicle to discuss ethics is like examining Cheese Wiz to learn about dairy.
klrr 14y ago
I dislike illegal activities but I don't think many things around this is illegal. Note that TPB doesn't host any illegal copies, they doesn't distribute any either. The only illegal is the users themselfs.
- saurik 14y ago
  The crime "conspiracy to commit murder" does not require you, personally, to actually kill someone, nor does it even require a death to occur.
  - fein 14y ago
    A firearm shop will sell you the gun, but they won't pull the trigger for you. What about the torrent applications like uTorrent, Transmission, rTorrent, etc? Are they equally as guilty in your eyes?
    - klrr 14y ago
      This have nothing to do with bittorrent, the bittorrent protocol and torrents came long before people started sharing illegal copies of software. It's a great technology and it's actually meant to make downloads faster.
      - TheAmazingIdiot 14y ago
        Umm, no. The very first bittorrent torrent was a 100 MB pirated porn video. I still have it. The client was a .py script. And it was hardcoded with said video.
        klrr 14y ago
        Of course "warez" and such appeared earlier, but it ws far from being so mainstream. And I'm still correct about the first purpose of the protocol.
      - albedoa 14y ago
rz2k 14y ago
Typically that's part of belonging to a community. Are you morally free to kill your guards if you are in prison through a failure of the judicial system? I don't think you are. How about if you are in a death camp, where your government has not made a mistake, but is executing its legislatively determined plan of genocide? I think you are morally free to kill your guards in that case. I also think you are morally free to rob a store for medical supplies during a natural disaster, but not morally free to rob a bank to pay for a relative's life-saving surgery. When to break the law should be a conscious decision, consistent with some framework of ultimate costs and benefits to yourself, your society and beliefs, not merely opportunism or a universal refusal to ever defer to the rest of the community's decisions.
praptak 14y ago
I believe that, in general, supporting the law is good. Even in case of laws one deems silly. Even in a country where the lawmaking is somewhat corrupt. Getting picky about which laws I obey would contribute towards social climate of not respecting the law in general. There are countries like that and their societies suffer as a result. On the other hand for some laws the benefits of breaking them outweigh the above downsides.
- tptacek 14y ago
  The people who say that copyright laws are evil are generally the same people who say the laws that make DDOS attacks a felony are criminalizing "the digital equivalent of a sit-in"... but only when the DDOS is being carried out by people they agree with.
  - 385668 14y ago
    I can't speak for everyone, but when the US gov or the MPAA DDOS's a website they disagree with, I'm not angry because what they are doing is illegal, I'm angry about the hypocrisy in declaring something to be both legally and morally wrong, except when it serves their purposes.
    - jiggy2011 14y ago
      When have they done that?
      - 385668 14y ago
        Repeatedly over the years. Media defender advertised DDOSing websites as a service to IP groups.
    - jiggy2011 14y ago
      When have they done that?
johncoltrane 14y ago
I support any activity that fits into my own set of moral rules. Some activities are illegal but I support them because I don't see them as immoral. Other activities are perfectly legal but I don't support them because I see them as immoral.

Why don't you support illegal activity?

by duairc 14y ago

Why don't you support illegal activity?

why-el 14y ago

I don't know why you are downvoted. This is a valid question.

hmottestad 14y ago

I'm not the OP, but here is my opinion. As a rule of thumb I don't support illegal activities. Why would I? Most of the laws I agree with, like no murder/rape/robbery. However some laws I'm against. Like the public drinking ban in Norway, why can't I have a beer by the lake? And on the topic of media industries vs. file sharing. I haven't really made up my mind. Especially after the media industry brought tanks and fighter jets to a knife fight.

jlgreco 14y ago
There are so many laws, I don't know how you could possibly say in an informed manner that you agree with most of them. Making ethical decisions is easy for the majority of us, but our knowledge of the law is universally poor. I don't see why we should factor the law into discussions of ethics; it doesn't do anything to simplify the discussion.
- dandelany 14y ago
  > There are so many laws, I don't know how you could possibly say in an informed manner that you agree with most of them. Oh, come on now. You can be informed on the ones that matter to you the most, and the ones which are most commonly broken, which says a lot about the society you live in. It's not that hard. > I don't see why we should factor the law into discussions of ethics Because laws, in many or most cases, reflect the moral or ethical views of a large number of people, or at least they did at the time they were passed. The fact that laws survived the lawmaking process at all means we should consider the thoughts that went into their creation. I'm not saying you should read every word of every statute. But a nation's laws are in many ways reflections of its cultural ethics.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    The laws that "matter most" reflect ethics which are "no brainers". "Don't steal", "don't kill", "don't rape", etc. These are ethical concepts that are easy to understand without resorting to consulting the law. The law in these cases is just an imperfect encoding of these obvious ethics. For the sake of governing, they work decently. However using them in an ethical discussion is using them for a purpose that they were not designed. There are so many better sources that we can look to in order to facilitate discussion. Trying to use laws as a vehicle to discuss ethics is like examining Cheese Wiz to learn about dairy.

klrr 14y ago

I dislike illegal activities but I don't think many things around this is illegal. Note that TPB doesn't host any illegal copies, they doesn't distribute any either. The only illegal is the users themselfs.

saurik 14y ago
The crime "conspiracy to commit murder" does not require you, personally, to actually kill someone, nor does it even require a death to occur.
- fein 14y ago
  A firearm shop will sell you the gun, but they won't pull the trigger for you. What about the torrent applications like uTorrent, Transmission, rTorrent, etc? Are they equally as guilty in your eyes?
  - klrr 14y ago
    This have nothing to do with bittorrent, the bittorrent protocol and torrents came long before people started sharing illegal copies of software. It's a great technology and it's actually meant to make downloads faster.
    - TheAmazingIdiot 14y ago
      Umm, no. The very first bittorrent torrent was a 100 MB pirated porn video. I still have it. The client was a .py script. And it was hardcoded with said video.
      - klrr 14y ago
        Of course "warez" and such appeared earlier, but it ws far from being so mainstream. And I'm still correct about the first purpose of the protocol.
    - albedoa 14y ago

rz2k 14y ago

Typically that's part of belonging to a community. Are you morally free to kill your guards if you are in prison through a failure of the judicial system? I don't think you are. How about if you are in a death camp, where your government has not made a mistake, but is executing its legislatively determined plan of genocide? I think you are morally free to kill your guards in that case. I also think you are morally free to rob a store for medical supplies during a natural disaster, but not morally free to rob a bank to pay for a relative's life-saving surgery. When to break the law should be a conscious decision, consistent with some framework of ultimate costs and benefits to yourself, your society and beliefs, not merely opportunism or a universal refusal to ever defer to the rest of the community's decisions.

praptak 14y ago

I believe that, in general, supporting the law is good. Even in case of laws one deems silly. Even in a country where the lawmaking is somewhat corrupt. Getting picky about which laws I obey would contribute towards social climate of not respecting the law in general. There are countries like that and their societies suffer as a result. On the other hand for some laws the benefits of breaking them outweigh the above downsides.

tptacek 14y ago
The people who say that copyright laws are evil are generally the same people who say the laws that make DDOS attacks a felony are criminalizing "the digital equivalent of a sit-in"... but only when the DDOS is being carried out by people they agree with.
- 385668 14y ago
  I can't speak for everyone, but when the US gov or the MPAA DDOS's a website they disagree with, I'm not angry because what they are doing is illegal, I'm angry about the hypocrisy in declaring something to be both legally and morally wrong, except when it serves their purposes.
  - jiggy2011 14y ago
    When have they done that?
    - 385668 14y ago
      Repeatedly over the years. Media defender advertised DDOSing websites as a service to IP groups.
  - jiggy2011 14y ago
    When have they done that?

johncoltrane 14y ago

I support any activity that fits into my own set of moral rules. Some activities are illegal but I support them because I don't see them as immoral. Other activities are perfectly legal but I don't support them because I see them as immoral.