- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Congress withdraws SOPA, PIPA anti-piracy measures
|
|
|
Comments (32)
12 earlier comments in the full thread.
Well, the honest truth is that morality is relative, no matter how much religious people might want to argue it. What one person considers "right" others consider "wrong". Here in the USA, we (at least most of us) don't think it's "wrong" for a woman to show her face or ankles in public, but in middle eastern countries that can get you arrested or stoned. Heck, even in Victorian times in England it was considered wrong for a woman to show her ankles in public, but things have changed.
So, everyone has their own morals. Many times, most people in a society agree on the basics: it's wrong to murder, rape, assault, etc. (Again, societies differ: in middle-eastern societies, rape is considered perfectly OK, except that the woman is to be stoned for "instigating" it.) But on the finer points, there's frequently disagreement. On the big things (murder etc), society usually encodes its morals into laws. On the smaller things, not so much. Either the law doesn't address the issue, or in the case of corruption or other systemic problems, laws are enacted which go directly against the morals of most members of society. Just look at US society during Prohibition: the law said alcohol is "bad", but the people didn't agree and a giant black market rose up. The law was repealed shortly after. Point is, you can't look at the law for deciding what's right and wrong. Right and wrong are generally timeless; you can't say it's OK to do some action today, and wrong to do the exact same action tomorrow, yet if you try to base your morality on laws that's exactly the silliness your flawed logic will lead you to. Was it wrong for people to consume alcohol in 1933, yet perfectly OK in 1934? That concept is utterly ridiculous. Either having a glass of wine with dinner is OK, or it's not. Since it's been OK for western society for several thousand years, it was OK for Jesus (for anyone who's Christian, which is a large amount of US society), and it's OK now, the obvious conclusion is that the Prohibition laws themselves were wrong, and if a law is wrong, there's nothing wrong with ignoring that law.
As for bribery, IMO that's wrong too. A lot of people agree with me, from what I can tell (there's no shortage of activists trying to get campaign finance reform enacted, with little success since it's basically the foxes guarding the henhouse). Unfortunately, the laws haven't caught up with society's morality. The best we can ever do is keep trying to get our leaders to make the laws fit our society's morality where appropriate, or otherwise simply leave us free to have our own morality (this may not be possible if it causes harm to society or others; e.g. "your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins"). But saying that we should follow all the laws all the time without question is wrong, and I'm sure Martin Luther King Jr. would agree with me on that one.
Personally, I think we should have copyright, but that the terms need to be drastically shortened. Copyright is supposed to be a balance between the interests of content creators, and society, allowing the creators a limited monopoly on reproduction and distribution, in exchange for the work going into the public domain afterwards so everyone can enjoy it for free. What we have now is not limited in any practical sense, it's longer than just about anyone's lifetime, and it keeps getting extended, so it's essentially unlimited. The Founders originally set it at 14 years, which is pretty good, but if I could revise the system, I'd make it only 5 years, and if you want more protection than that, you need to register your work and pay a fee for an extension, like they already do for patents. The extension would only be good for 5 more years, after which you could pay another fee for an additional 5 years, and this could last indefinitely. The catch is, those fees would go up by an order of magnitude every 5-year term, so at some point, the profits from that work simply won't be worth the astronomical fees, and they'll let it lapse into the PD. For totally unprofitable works, they'll be out into the PD in a nice, short 5 years, which is much more fitting in this age of ultra-fast lossless communications than the days of communications over horseback and sailing ship.
So, everyone has their own morals. Many times, most people in a society agree on the basics: it's wrong to murder, rape, assault, etc. (Again, societies differ: in middle-eastern societies, rape is considered perfectly OK, except that the woman is to be stoned for "instigating" it.) But on the finer points, there's frequently disagreement. On the big things (murder etc), society usually encodes its morals into laws. On the smaller things, not so much. Either the law doesn't address the issue, or in the case of corruption or other systemic problems, laws are enacted which go directly against the morals of most members of society. Just look at US society during Prohibition: the law said alcohol is "bad", but the people didn't agree and a giant black market rose up. The law was repealed shortly after. Point is, you can't look at the law for deciding what's right and wrong. Right and wrong are generally timeless; you can't say it's OK to do some action today, and wrong to do the exact same action tomorrow, yet if you try to base your morality on laws that's exactly the silliness your flawed logic will lead you to. Was it wrong for people to consume alcohol in 1933, yet perfectly OK in 1934? That concept is utterly ridiculous. Either having a glass of wine with dinner is OK, or it's not. Since it's been OK for western society for several thousand years, it was OK for Jesus (for anyone who's Christian, which is a large amount of US society), and it's OK now, the obvious conclusion is that the Prohibition laws themselves were wrong, and if a law is wrong, there's nothing wrong with ignoring that law.
As for bribery, IMO that's wrong too. A lot of people agree with me, from what I can tell (there's no shortage of activists trying to get campaign finance reform enacted, with little success since it's basically the foxes guarding the henhouse). Unfortunately, the laws haven't caught up with society's morality. The best we can ever do is keep trying to get our leaders to make the laws fit our society's morality where appropriate, or otherwise simply leave us free to have our own morality (this may not be possible if it causes harm to society or others; e.g. "your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins"). But saying that we should follow all the laws all the time without question is wrong, and I'm sure Martin Luther King Jr. would agree with me on that one.
Personally, I think we should have copyright, but that the terms need to be drastically shortened. Copyright is supposed to be a balance between the interests of content creators, and society, allowing the creators a limited monopoly on reproduction and distribution, in exchange for the work going into the public domain afterwards so everyone can enjoy it for free. What we have now is not limited in any practical sense, it's longer than just about anyone's lifetime, and it keeps getting extended, so it's essentially unlimited. The Founders originally set it at 14 years, which is pretty good, but if I could revise the system, I'd make it only 5 years, and if you want more protection than that, you need to register your work and pay a fee for an extension, like they already do for patents. The extension would only be good for 5 more years, after which you could pay another fee for an additional 5 years, and this could last indefinitely. The catch is, those fees would go up by an order of magnitude every 5-year term, so at some point, the profits from that work simply won't be worth the astronomical fees, and they'll let it lapse into the PD. For totally unprofitable works, they'll be out into the PD in a nice, short 5 years, which is much more fitting in this age of ultra-fast lossless communications than the days of communications over horseback and sailing ship.
One quibble:
the Founders did not set copyright at 14 years, or for any term at all -- in fact the topic of putting "intellectual property" provisions into the constitution was so contentious (plausible benefits versus likely abuses), they dealt with the whole matter by passing the buck, fobbing it off onto Congress.
the Founders did not set copyright at 14 years, or for any term at all -- in fact the topic of putting "intellectual property" provisions into the constitution was so contentious (plausible benefits versus likely abuses), they dealt with the whole matter by passing the buck, fobbing it off onto Congress.
@Bernard: Good point, but the first copyright act came out in 1790, so the Founders were directly working with the Congresspeople at the time, and George Washington himself signed the bill into law.
> Well, the honest truth is that morality is relative, no matter how much religious people might want to argue it.
The honest truth is that there is absolutely no way to determine the matter one way or the other, and your statement is therefore entirely a matter of opinion. And discussion beyond that point will rapidly degenerate into a TOS violation which will close the thread, and therefore it's best left at that.
The honest truth is that there is absolutely no way to determine the matter one way or the other, and your statement is therefore entirely a matter of opinion. And discussion beyond that point will rapidly degenerate into a TOS violation which will close the thread, and therefore it's best left at that.
Quoting:Again, societies differ: in middle-eastern societies, rape is considered perfectly OK, except that the woman is to be stoned for "instigating" it.
Morality is not absolute. I suggest you don't try that, otherwise her family will feed you what is in your crotch.
@Fettoosh: Being a product of western society, it's against my morals to do such a thing. However, the truth of my statement can be seen in multiple press reports about events in Iran; that's just the way they live over there. Don't forget "honor killings", a very common thing in that region. We had an Iraqi right here in Phoenix run over his daughter (killing her) because he was mad that she was "too westernized". He almost managed to escape prosecution by fleeing the country, but the Brits apprehended him in London before he could continue his flight to the mid-east.
@khamul,
Pride and honor played a huge role in that culture for a long time, on the other hand, it kept a social balance in tact all that time when there were no civil law enforcement.
That is why I said Morality in not absolute, it all depends on the social structures, customs, and education.
Pride and honor played a huge role in that culture for a long time, on the other hand, it kept a social balance in tact all that time when there were no civil law enforcement.
That is why I said Morality in not absolute, it all depends on the social structures, customs, and education.
A lot of what is wrong with laws in all countries currently is the extent that government tries to interfere with the private lives of individuals.
The way you dress, the religion you have, whether or not you can put Android on your phone, whether you can rip your CD to listen to it on your media player, whether you can have a same-sex relationship, whether or not you must wear a helmet when you drive a motorbike. These are all things that affect people personally.
Apart from some special exceptions to do with running government itself (paying taxes, conscription etc), laws should be restricted to arbitrating how we interact with each other in a public setting, the whole "your rights end where mine begin" type of argument. The problem is that government's interference with the liberty of private individuals in situations that do not affect others has become more of a norm in all types of societies. This is one of the reasons that I do not like copyright encapsulated legislation. I would much more support "smaller government" although I don't think of myself as a "conservative". I support the NHS and a form of the welfare state. I just think that governments have much bigger problems than trying to micro-manage private life.
The way you dress, the religion you have, whether or not you can put Android on your phone, whether you can rip your CD to listen to it on your media player, whether you can have a same-sex relationship, whether or not you must wear a helmet when you drive a motorbike. These are all things that affect people personally.
Apart from some special exceptions to do with running government itself (paying taxes, conscription etc), laws should be restricted to arbitrating how we interact with each other in a public setting, the whole "your rights end where mine begin" type of argument. The problem is that government's interference with the liberty of private individuals in situations that do not affect others has become more of a norm in all types of societies. This is one of the reasons that I do not like copyright encapsulated legislation. I would much more support "smaller government" although I don't think of myself as a "conservative". I support the NHS and a form of the welfare state. I just think that governments have much bigger problems than trying to micro-manage private life.
Apparently not in Victora.[url= POLICE]http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/dad-cops-arrows-o... have lectured a father for carrying a year-old child on his back, reigniting the baby-sling safety debate. [/url]
Quoting:Mr Langford said he reported the police to the Ethical Standards Department because they lectured him on parenting once they had checked the baby was safe.
Lord Almighty. The ETHICAL STANDARDS DEPARTMENT? It's 1984 in Victoria it seems. Da**.
@skelband, @BernardSwiss,
Here in the U.S., it seems to me that government spokespeople keep threatening or do even HINT to threaten the public with the horrid specter of impending acts of terrorism if their legal measures aren't carried out to the fullest extent possible. Also, it seems to me that the U.S. media CONTINUES to frame "copyright encapsulated legislation" for the public as just about the ONLY measures to stop piracy theft -- take it or leave it!!
2c
Here in the U.S., it seems to me that government spokespeople keep threatening or do even HINT to threaten the public with the horrid specter of impending acts of terrorism if their legal measures aren't carried out to the fullest extent possible. Also, it seems to me that the U.S. media CONTINUES to frame "copyright encapsulated legislation" for the public as just about the ONLY measures to stop piracy theft -- take it or leave it!!
2c
What's wrong with an Ethical Standards Department for the police? This isn't something to monitor the ethics of regular citizens, it's to keep the police in line. We could certainly use something like that here in the USA, where cops routinely abuse suspects, beat them while they're on the ground, use tazers when they're not necessary and the suspects aren't resisting, etc.
We lovingly call Victoria "the Nanny State", however that said. It's useful that they actually have an organisation responsible for keeping an eye on the ethics of thier police force, especially given all the other minor laws they have that attempt to micro manage the state's citizens.
They could have found another name for it....I mean one that didn't sound like it came directly out of an Austin Powers movie. Just sayin'.
@me: "I just think that governments have much bigger problems than trying to micro-manage private life."
I might add that trying to micro-manage private life is both futile and extremely expensive.
I might add that trying to micro-manage private life is both futile and extremely expensive.
Continuing with the subject of copyright, this just in which demonstrates something that Cory Doctorow talked about in one of his stories:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/01/25/pirate_bay_3d_printe...
They future is here now folks!
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/01/25/pirate_bay_3d_printe...
They future is here now folks!
@skelband: It's not futile. The East German Stasi managed to successfully micromanage private life in many ways for a long, long time. Sure, their economy was horrible, but they kept millions of people miserable for decades.
@khamul:
Perhaps futile is the wrong word. Inefficient and in the main ineffectual in effecting real lasting change to attitudes and behaviour, except cynicism and suspicion I guess. :D
Perhaps futile is the wrong word. Inefficient and in the main ineffectual in effecting real lasting change to attitudes and behaviour, except cynicism and suspicion I guess. :D
@skelband
"Computer: Tea, Earl Grey, Hot."
"Computer: Tea, Earl Grey, Hot."
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
So can't you apply the same to what "they" are doing? I'm sure they look upon taking campaign contributions with the same nonchalant attitude many of us had with copyrighted file downloading.