5 ms·

Good guide, but I don't care if it's legal or not, because I feel it is my duty to break unjust laws.

sp332 17y ago
Couldn't you at least try writing your congressman first? Civil disobedience is fine when necessary, but otherwise you just come across as a scofflaw.
- quoderat 17y ago
  I fought against the DMCA at the time, and have been doing such things as writing to my congressman (and woman) since that time, and will continue to do so. EFF donations and other organizations as well. Meanwhile, I will also ignore laws that attempt to tell me what I can do with products I've legally purchased. And now that the DMCA is being applied to physical products (such as, say, cars) it's even more important to fight against it, and I use all the tools at hand to do so -- including violating that law, and doing so publicly. The DMCA is one of the most dangerous laws ever passed, because it gives private companies the de facto ability to legislate how you use products you legally own. The First Amendment implications, at the least, should be obvious.
  - lethain 17y ago
    I think your key point is and doing so publicly. Many people use similar arguments against copyright laws to explain their illegal downloading of licensed material, but do it in secrecy. Violating potentially unjust laws in secret and for one's explicit benefit strikes me as extremely self-serving with a very small dose of morality if any at all.
    - derefr 17y ago
      If a law can be violated in secret (meaning that there are no public side-effects), and "for one's explicit benefit" (meaning that the private side-effects are entirely positive) then it is most likely a consensual crime. There is already a very good case[1] for not specifically violating, but rather just completely disregarding the existence of, such laws. [1] http://www.drugsense.org/mcwilliams/www.mcwilliams.com/books/aint/toc.htm http://www.drugsense.org/mcwilliams/www.mcwilliams.com/books...
  - sp332 17y ago
    That seems fair. But you first said "I don't care if it's legal or not", when really, you care quite a bit!
    - quoderat 17y ago
      Ha, good point! More accurately, I should have said that I know it's illegal, but it's unjust -- so I choose to battle it in various ways.
  - bonaldi 17y ago
    I will also ignore laws that attempt to tell me what I can do with products I've legally purchased. I take it you also object to laws that prevent you using the gun you've purchased to shoot someone, using the lighter you've bought to start a fire, driving the car you've bought over a pet dog, processing uranium in the reactor you've bought, running off copies of your Stephen King collection on the printing press you've bought, deafening your neighbours with the stereo you've bought ... I'm not being facetious either. It's a strange notion that took root among hackers that their computers are somehow exempt from the law's regulation of the products we purchase. That someone paid for their computer is utterly irrelevant to the matter, yet continually you hear the cry "how can they tell me what to do with bits in a machine I own!?!"
    - edmccaffrey 17y ago
      Reductio ad absurdum. Without endorsing either of the two opinions, your analogies are invalid because they are examples of the above logical fallacy. You cannot compare using something in a manner that violates a person's right to not be maimed or killed with something that does not voilate the highest universal human rights.
      - bonaldi 17y ago
        They are reductio ad absurdum -- but that isn't a logical fallacy, it's a valid logical form (http://www.iep.utm.edu/r/reductio.htm http://www.iep.utm.edu/r/reductio.htm). By showing that the logical consequence of an argument is absurd, you show that it's flawed. Either way: the poster I was replying to made no reference to human rights, or the ultimate reasons behind the laws. He simply said he wouldn't hold with laws that limited what he could do with items he had purchased. And this is a nonsense position: many laws limit what we can do with possessions, for a multitude of reasons. Look at the example of the printing press -- it has nothing to do with maiming or killing. The post's getting a lot of downvotes, so is pretty unpopular, but it's not a fallacy, and certainly wasn't intended as trolling. There are arguments against adhering to copyright and licenses. That they're limitations on "something you purchased" isn't one of them.
- gdee 17y ago
  What if I don't have one? (This is the problem with assumptions)
Angostura 17y ago
Hmmm, unjust? Apple's busines model is to use the hardware sales to subsidize software sales. Hence the EULA which prohibits you from using OS X on non-Apple machines. From the article: "The only possible problem here is the EULA, which forbids installing Mac OS X on hardware that is not "Apple-labeled". I solved that issue by placing an actual apple on top of my machine" To which I say - I really don't think you have solved that issue.

sp332 17y ago

Couldn't you at least try writing your congressman first? Civil disobedience is fine when necessary, but otherwise you just come across as a scofflaw.

quoderat 17y ago
I fought against the DMCA at the time, and have been doing such things as writing to my congressman (and woman) since that time, and will continue to do so. EFF donations and other organizations as well. Meanwhile, I will also ignore laws that attempt to tell me what I can do with products I've legally purchased. And now that the DMCA is being applied to physical products (such as, say, cars) it's even more important to fight against it, and I use all the tools at hand to do so -- including violating that law, and doing so publicly. The DMCA is one of the most dangerous laws ever passed, because it gives private companies the de facto ability to legislate how you use products you legally own. The First Amendment implications, at the least, should be obvious.
- lethain 17y ago
  I think your key point is and doing so publicly. Many people use similar arguments against copyright laws to explain their illegal downloading of licensed material, but do it in secrecy. Violating potentially unjust laws in secret and for one's explicit benefit strikes me as extremely self-serving with a very small dose of morality if any at all.
  - derefr 17y ago
    If a law can be violated in secret (meaning that there are no public side-effects), and "for one's explicit benefit" (meaning that the private side-effects are entirely positive) then it is most likely a consensual crime. There is already a very good case[1] for not specifically violating, but rather just completely disregarding the existence of, such laws. [1] http://www.drugsense.org/mcwilliams/www.mcwilliams.com/books/aint/toc.htm http://www.drugsense.org/mcwilliams/www.mcwilliams.com/books...
- sp332 17y ago
  That seems fair. But you first said "I don't care if it's legal or not", when really, you care quite a bit!
  - quoderat 17y ago
    Ha, good point! More accurately, I should have said that I know it's illegal, but it's unjust -- so I choose to battle it in various ways.
- bonaldi 17y ago
  I will also ignore laws that attempt to tell me what I can do with products I've legally purchased. I take it you also object to laws that prevent you using the gun you've purchased to shoot someone, using the lighter you've bought to start a fire, driving the car you've bought over a pet dog, processing uranium in the reactor you've bought, running off copies of your Stephen King collection on the printing press you've bought, deafening your neighbours with the stereo you've bought ... I'm not being facetious either. It's a strange notion that took root among hackers that their computers are somehow exempt from the law's regulation of the products we purchase. That someone paid for their computer is utterly irrelevant to the matter, yet continually you hear the cry "how can they tell me what to do with bits in a machine I own!?!"
  - edmccaffrey 17y ago
    Reductio ad absurdum. Without endorsing either of the two opinions, your analogies are invalid because they are examples of the above logical fallacy. You cannot compare using something in a manner that violates a person's right to not be maimed or killed with something that does not voilate the highest universal human rights.
    - bonaldi 17y ago
      They are reductio ad absurdum -- but that isn't a logical fallacy, it's a valid logical form (http://www.iep.utm.edu/r/reductio.htm http://www.iep.utm.edu/r/reductio.htm). By showing that the logical consequence of an argument is absurd, you show that it's flawed. Either way: the poster I was replying to made no reference to human rights, or the ultimate reasons behind the laws. He simply said he wouldn't hold with laws that limited what he could do with items he had purchased. And this is a nonsense position: many laws limit what we can do with possessions, for a multitude of reasons. Look at the example of the printing press -- it has nothing to do with maiming or killing. The post's getting a lot of downvotes, so is pretty unpopular, but it's not a fallacy, and certainly wasn't intended as trolling. There are arguments against adhering to copyright and licenses. That they're limitations on "something you purchased" isn't one of them.
gdee 17y ago
What if I don't have one? (This is the problem with assumptions)

Angostura 17y ago

Hmmm, unjust? Apple's busines model is to use the hardware sales to subsidize software sales. Hence the EULA which prohibits you from using OS X on non-Apple machines. From the article: "The only possible problem here is the EULA, which forbids installing Mac OS X on hardware that is not "Apple-labeled". I solved that issue by placing an actual apple on top of my machine" To which I say - I really don't think you have solved that issue.