posted by dennisn on December 16th, 2008 at 6:29PM
No and no. Do you not agree that it violates our constitutional rights? Our right to our own lives? That copying, say in our own private homes, is an entirely personal action, that nobody has the right to violently prevent us from doing?
I know it's tempting to avoid the issue, and blur the laws--you have no choice really, when you're dealing with an illegal and contradictory law. So, I suppose if you want to completely trample over our most fundamental social contract, I can't stop you--but you should at least recognize that this is what you, and other copy-enforcement advocates are doing.
And this careless attitude leads to precisely the kinds of ideas that you mention: sacrificing individual freedom for the "greater value for society". Number one: says who? I certainly don't agree with you there. And number two: it is illegal to violate other people's rights.
There is no room for feeling and subjectivity in law, however tempting it may be.
I know it's tempting to avoid the issue, and blur the laws--you have no choice really, when you're dealing with an illegal and contradictory law. So, I suppose if you want to completely trample over our most fundamental social contract, I can't stop you--but you should at least recognize that this is what you, and other copy-enforcement advocates are doing.
And this careless attitude leads to precisely the kinds of ideas that you mention: sacrificing individual freedom for the "greater value for society". Number one: says who? I certainly don't agree with you there. And number two: it is illegal to violate other people's rights.
There is no room for feeling and subjectivity in law, however tempting it may be.
