"You might be thinking of morality as revealed by sacred scripture"
I'm not at all. I'm talking about the mores of a given society -- the moral code that a group of people have agreed upon (consciously or otherwise). I'm not talking about the source of the moral code or whether or not I agree with it.
Personally, my moral code is based on logic and reasoning and it consists of the golden rule. But my moral code is not identical to that of the society I live in.
"the idea that human beings need a government is one of the most widely held beliefs today"
It's not that human beings need a government. It's that a government is the inevitable consequence of human beings working together. The only way to escape government completely is to never cooperate with other human beings.
"What actions do you believe they are taking to control data sharing that they do not have control over, specifically?"
That's a lengthy list. It would probably be easier and quicker to search this site for the various examples. But I'll provide two of my pet peeves:
They are trying to destroy (or make illegal) P2P file sharing and they routinely attack and shut down (or try to shut down) nonaffiliated sites and services that distribute music that is being legally served up.
"the point is that the products sold by copyright owners are fundamentally different than other products"
Not so much. I've been creating and selling software for over 30 years now. Software has precisely the same characteristics that you are describing, and has a much longer history of rampant piracy and how to deal with it.
While there are some bad actors in this area of the software business (mostly game companies, which are pretty much movie companies at this point anyway), for the most part software companies have learned how to deal with piracy without causing harm to society at large. The music industry appears to be many decades from achieving equivalent wisdom (and even then, they'll only do it if we keep pressing them).
The law is not supposed to uphold our morals (or shouldn't be, anyway). Legislating morality is not only a terrible idea that leads directly to tyranny, it's ineffective. Morality is enforced the way it's always been enforced: through social pressure.
That's not to say there's no connection, but the proper connection is in the other direction: what laws are acceptable is informed by morality, but laws never dictate or uphold morality.
"Labels aren't trying to "control" all the sharing of music"
Then why is it that literally everything they do indicates otherwise? Based on their actions, the labels appear to want to stop all data sharing that they don't have control over, whether it involves "their" music or not.
"So end-to-end encryption only works if no one can read the message?"
"end-to-end" means that the only people who see the unencrypted message are the sender and the receiver. If anyone else has access to the cleartext, then it's not end-to-end.
That's not what he said. What he said was it was the same as instructions for how to build such things. It's a very strained analogy, but not totally wrong.
This is true. The ludicrous part is the implication that the size difference means anything at all about intelligence. It doesn't, because that's not how brains work. Size matters in certain contexts, but a 10% difference within the same species doesn't make a difference.
Yes, I do this as well. The less I trust you, the thicker the contract I have with you will be. I assume the same is true in reverse.
The deal that I was the most skittish about in my career was cemented with a contract that was about an inch and a half thick. I was right to be nervous. Although I thought I had covered every square inch of my ass with it, I missed one little detail and got ripped off anyway. From then on, I determined that if I feel the need for such a comprehensive contract, I need to just pass on the deal altogether.
There is one really great reason for contracts: it makes clear what the details of the agreement are. It's shocking how often people think they're on the same page about things when they aren't even in the same book. The process of hammering out a contract goes a long way to fixing that problem.
The other reason for a contract is to bring in the force of law. This can be valid, but is pretty weak, since the force of law is largely only available to those who can afford it, contract or no.
I have a close friend that I've been engaging in ventures with for decades. We know and trust each other very well, and we haven't bothered with contracts for decades. There's no need, since all of our arrangements are the same anyway, so there's no need for clarifications.
However, I want a contract with anyone else I do business with, because of the first reason I stated above: so that I'm comfortable that we understand each other. The second reason is usually irrelevant to me.
"I wonder if the CIA has secretly redefined "terrorists" to include any American citizen who has no desire to simply surrender their inalienable rights"
Black pepper means that black pepper was used. "Natural black pepper" means mostly the same thing (in the US, "natural" on food labels has a greatly ambiguous meaning and its presence in describing food or ingredients should be ignored). "black pepper flavor" means a flavor that tastes like, but isn't, black pepper.
"Call me Pollyanna, but the US has bounced back from crap like this before, and it can do it again. We've a lot more power on our side now too to keep our politico-critters in line, what with the Internet and all."
OK, Pollyanna. But I agree with you. The US has been in much worse situations a number of times in history and have able to correct the problem. It's a long, hard slog, but worth it.
And you're also right that we're in a much better position this time around, as ordinary people have access to much more powerful tools than ever before.
While I expect that things will not get better soon, I am very optimistic that they will get better eventually. As long as we keep pushing for it.
"Doing something which has been made illegal is a crime by definition."
This is true, which is why I try to avoid using the word "crime". Crime implies wrongdoing, and not everything that is illegal is wrong to do. Therefore, using the word "crime" can be misleading.
Or he takes the point of view of far too many subservient citizens: that anything other than full-throated, uncritical support of everything the cops do is "slamming the police".
"I’ve lost faith in their intention to respect the law."
You're ahead of me, then. I've never had such faith (because of their history over my lifetime).
However, that doesn't mean that legislation is pointless at all. The point of passing such legislation isn't that they will magically start obeying the law. It's that if what they're doing is in violation of the law (and the information we currently have says it's not) then there is a chance of being able to hold them accountable.
On the post: Elected Officials Grudgingly Admit Snowden Forced This Debate On Surveillance... As White House Insists He Belongs In Jail
Re: Proscription of murder is a moral.
"You might be thinking of morality as revealed by sacred scripture"
I'm not at all. I'm talking about the mores of a given society -- the moral code that a group of people have agreed upon (consciously or otherwise). I'm not talking about the source of the moral code or whether or not I agree with it.
Personally, my moral code is based on logic and reasoning and it consists of the golden rule. But my moral code is not identical to that of the society I live in.
On the post: Study: The TSA's Security Theater Troupes Missed 95% Of Smuggled Weapons And Explosives
Re: Re: What would be better?
It's not that human beings need a government. It's that a government is the inevitable consequence of human beings working together. The only way to escape government completely is to never cooperate with other human beings.
On the post: Study: The TSA's Security Theater Troupes Missed 95% Of Smuggled Weapons And Explosives
Re:
I don't know if it's comprehensive, but it appears to be. In any case, the number of hijackings is much higher than the number of bombings.
On the post: Steve Albini Takes On 'Parasitic' Record Labels And Copyright's 'Outdated' Illusion Of Control
Re: Re: Re: Steve sounds like an asshole
That's a lengthy list. It would probably be easier and quicker to search this site for the various examples. But I'll provide two of my pet peeves:
They are trying to destroy (or make illegal) P2P file sharing and they routinely attack and shut down (or try to shut down) nonaffiliated sites and services that distribute music that is being legally served up.
"the point is that the products sold by copyright owners are fundamentally different than other products"
Not so much. I've been creating and selling software for over 30 years now. Software has precisely the same characteristics that you are describing, and has a much longer history of rampant piracy and how to deal with it.
While there are some bad actors in this area of the software business (mostly game companies, which are pretty much movie companies at this point anyway), for the most part software companies have learned how to deal with piracy without causing harm to society at large. The music industry appears to be many decades from achieving equivalent wisdom (and even then, they'll only do it if we keep pressing them).
On the post: Elected Officials Grudgingly Admit Snowden Forced This Debate On Surveillance... As White House Insists He Belongs In Jail
Re: Morals?
The law is not supposed to uphold our morals (or shouldn't be, anyway). Legislating morality is not only a terrible idea that leads directly to tyranny, it's ineffective. Morality is enforced the way it's always been enforced: through social pressure.
That's not to say there's no connection, but the proper connection is in the other direction: what laws are acceptable is informed by morality, but laws never dictate or uphold morality.
On the post: Steve Albini Takes On 'Parasitic' Record Labels And Copyright's 'Outdated' Illusion Of Control
Re: Steve sounds like an asshole
Then why is it that literally everything they do indicates otherwise? Based on their actions, the labels appear to want to stop all data sharing that they don't have control over, whether it involves "their" music or not.
On the post: Surprising, But Good: Facebook Enables PGP Encryption On Messages
Re: Re: This is not end-to-end
"end-to-end" means that the only people who see the unencrypted message are the sender and the receiver. If anyone else has access to the cleartext, then it's not end-to-end.
On the post: US Government Making Another Attempt To Regulate Code Like It Regulates International Weapons Sales
Re: Re:
On the post: Sting Operation Shows How Full Of Crap Health Journals Are When It Comes To Dietary Studies
Re:
On the post: Steve Albini Takes On 'Parasitic' Record Labels And Copyright's 'Outdated' Illusion Of Control
Re: Re: Re: "...you don’t need contracts..."
The deal that I was the most skittish about in my career was cemented with a contract that was about an inch and a half thick. I was right to be nervous. Although I thought I had covered every square inch of my ass with it, I missed one little detail and got ripped off anyway. From then on, I determined that if I feel the need for such a comprehensive contract, I need to just pass on the deal altogether.
On the post: DailyDirt: All Natural Doesn't Necessarily Mean Good For You...
Re: If it exists in nature...
Close, but wrong end. Bees vomit honey.
As far as the "natural == good" mistake, my go-to example is the fact that arsenic is completely natural.
On the post: Steve Albini Takes On 'Parasitic' Record Labels And Copyright's 'Outdated' Illusion Of Control
Re: "...you don’t need contracts..."
The other reason for a contract is to bring in the force of law. This can be valid, but is pretty weak, since the force of law is largely only available to those who can afford it, contract or no.
I have a close friend that I've been engaging in ventures with for decades. We know and trust each other very well, and we haven't bothered with contracts for decades. There's no need, since all of our arrangements are the same anyway, so there's no need for clarifications.
However, I want a contract with anyone else I do business with, because of the first reason I stated above: so that I'm comfortable that we understand each other. The second reason is usually irrelevant to me.
On the post: CIA Boss Claims That Merely Debating Surveillance Is Helping The Terrorists
Re:
I don't think they made a secret of that.
On the post: DailyDirt: All Natural Doesn't Necessarily Mean Good For You...
Re: "natural black pepper flavor"?
On the post: Steve Albini Takes On 'Parasitic' Record Labels And Copyright's 'Outdated' Illusion Of Control
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's funny! If people didn't take the responsibility to educate other people then we would never have a society or the concept of "humanity" at all.
"War on Drugs and War on Poverty are fantastic examples of this."
No, they aren't, as neither of those were created to help other people. They were created to increase the power and wealth of a mall subset of people.
On the post: CIA Boss Claims That Merely Debating Surveillance Is Helping The Terrorists
Re:
On the post: Silk Road Mastermind Ross Ulbricht Sentenced To Life In Prison
Re: Re: Re: Re: Legal truth
OK, Pollyanna. But I agree with you. The US has been in much worse situations a number of times in history and have able to correct the problem. It's a long, hard slog, but worth it.
And you're also right that we're in a much better position this time around, as ordinary people have access to much more powerful tools than ever before.
While I expect that things will not get better soon, I am very optimistic that they will get better eventually. As long as we keep pushing for it.
On the post: Silk Road Mastermind Ross Ulbricht Sentenced To Life In Prison
Re: Re: Objectively speaking...
This is true, which is why I try to avoid using the word "crime". Crime implies wrongdoing, and not everything that is illegal is wrong to do. Therefore, using the word "crime" can be misleading.
On the post: Body Cam Footage Clears Police Officer Of Bogus Sexual Assault Allegations
Re: Re:
On the post: Three PATRIOT Act Provisions Likely To Sunset, Briefly, But USA Freedom Will Pass Shortly
Re: Re: Re:
You're ahead of me, then. I've never had such faith (because of their history over my lifetime).
However, that doesn't mean that legislation is pointless at all. The point of passing such legislation isn't that they will magically start obeying the law. It's that if what they're doing is in violation of the law (and the information we currently have says it's not) then there is a chance of being able to hold them accountable.
Right now, there is no such chance.
Next >>