3 ms·

The stuff you write is bullshit. If we treat the law the way you treat it then we violate the rule of proportion again. How can you talk about "criminal intent

by pms 14y ago

The stuff you write is bullshit. If we treat the law the way you treat it then we violate the rule of proportion again. How can you talk about "criminal intent" when we are talking about copyrights protection? It's extremely different to murder somebody, than to violate copyrights. The first is widely perceived as morally wrong among all nations. What about the second? How can you, therefore, talk about "criminal intent" in case of copyright protection? The intent here is quite obvious, the intent is to CHANGE THE LAW. This is "criminal intent" for you? If intent to change the law were "criminal intent", because it hurts some specific businesses, then the law would never change for the good of nations, instead it would change for the good of people with power. Or, it would change, but like it has happened historically, with a bloodshed. This is right for you? Think about it, use your brain, please!

sigzero 14y ago
No, what you write is bullshit. There are LEGAL ways to try and change a law. That isn't what happened. There was "criminal intent" whether or not you AGREE with the law or now.
- mpyne 14y ago
  A notable case study in subverting the law to change its effect is actually Richard M. Stallman. His GNU campaign was (and is) built on strong IP rights, which is how he managed to bootstrap a strong Free and open source software ecosystem that could survive being in competition with well-funded closed-source companies. RMS was careful the whole time to comply with the law as written since he understood that you can't force change to the legal code by simply imposing it on other people like some kind of 'benevolent dictator'. His quest is not at all finished by I'd like to think we'll at least solve the issue of software patents in my lifetime thanks to his hard work and the work of hundreds of others (including like-minded legislators!). Say what you want about aaronsw but the fact is that he jumped the shark when he broke into a computer network (repeatedly) in order to advance his aims, however benevolent they are.
- metaphorm 14y ago
  civil disobedience means deliberately breaking immoral laws because the legal means for changing those laws are not available or are corrupted and not functional. an act of civil disobedience must be evaluated on moral grounds, not legal ones.

by pms 14y ago

sigzero 14y ago

No, what you write is bullshit. There are LEGAL ways to try and change a law. That isn't what happened. There was "criminal intent" whether or not you AGREE with the law or now.

mpyne 14y ago
A notable case study in subverting the law to change its effect is actually Richard M. Stallman. His GNU campaign was (and is) built on strong IP rights, which is how he managed to bootstrap a strong Free and open source software ecosystem that could survive being in competition with well-funded closed-source companies. RMS was careful the whole time to comply with the law as written since he understood that you can't force change to the legal code by simply imposing it on other people like some kind of 'benevolent dictator'. His quest is not at all finished by I'd like to think we'll at least solve the issue of software patents in my lifetime thanks to his hard work and the work of hundreds of others (including like-minded legislators!). Say what you want about aaronsw but the fact is that he jumped the shark when he broke into a computer network (repeatedly) in order to advance his aims, however benevolent they are.
metaphorm 14y ago
civil disobedience means deliberately breaking immoral laws because the legal means for changing those laws are not available or are corrupted and not functional. an act of civil disobedience must be evaluated on moral grounds, not legal ones.