|
posted by dsk on January 6th, 2009 at 6:45PM
>that IP-enforcement leads to surveillance of private spheres
Law enforcement leads to surveillance of private spheres. You steal something, kill somebody, or break any law, and you can't (and shouldn't be allowed to) to claim sanctuary in your house. Cops can get a warrant and infringe on your precious private sphere. And that's a good thing! So the fact that IP laws apply even in your house is obvious.
//
You think Stallman and the FSF won't go after you, even in your house, if you break GPL terms and conditions? HA!
|
To elaborateposted by dsk on January 6th, 2009 at 6:50PM
>So the fact that IP laws apply even in your house is obvious.
This is just a trivial reality of living in a law-abiding society, with codified rights and laws.
If you live in a society WITHOUT codified rights and laws (say a form of anarchism), then big bad RIAA will come into your house anyway and beat your ass because they are bigger than you.
So either way, you'll have to adhere to IP.
|
posted by dennisn on January 6th, 2009 at 8:45PM
Rules and laws are only valid so long as everyone involved agrees with them. But then, if they did, there would be no real need to codify them or write them into stone. Ergo, codified rights are superfluous and unecessary.
In the case of IP, *millions* of people (if not more) advocate FOR copying--and I'm not talking about the clueless pimply teen--I'm talking about the maintainers of mininova, and tpb and all the seeders out there. IP-enforcement, then, is clearly nowhere near a universal law.
Of course, millions of people also advocate for state-coercion in the redistribution of wealth, in murder, etc. In every case there are irreconcilable differences, which cannot be resolved peacefully. In every case, there is a clear aggressor.
For socialism, it is socialists who force themselves upon the people. For IP-enforcement, it is "content creators" who force themselves upon the people. In both cases, under anarchy, or monarchy, or whatever, there WILL be conflict. The only question is, on which side do you stand? Dave appears to stand with the violent state-socialists. Dsk appears to stand with the violent IP-enforcers.
It can get pretty daunting trying to defend myself from all these aggressors--in my PRIVATE life no less.
|
|
posted by dennisn on January 6th, 2009 at 8:26PM
I'll take my chances with anarchy. I don't subscribe to your fear mongering. But I appreciate your concern for my well-being!
(You'll notice how your arguments sound awfully like the socialist's. You try to argue that it is good for others to control my life, for my own good. (Or, more likely, you want others to pay for your own security.))
|
|
posted by dennisn on January 6th, 2009 at 8:22PM
I don't think you fully appreciate what this surveillance implies. Let me rephrase it for you: IP-enforcement will inevitably kill freedom of thought. Now, if we live in a magical world where the authorities are good and right, then we have nothing to worry about! But, when we can't even agree on the laws, let alone uphold them--this is incredibly naive.
As I mentioned many times before, we already have systems that trivially bypass enforcement. Freenet. And the only thing that stands between this and Big Brother is a sleepy public who haven't yet been brainwashed to the propaganda that it is good for them to have their thoughts and communications monitored. But I'm sure this will be an easy sell.
I asked you once before what you felt about this *imminent* dilemma, and you casually nonchalantly dismissed it. You said something along the lines that the moderate enforcement that we have today works just fine--where a few kids are sued thousands of dollars, to scare a few other kids, etc. But what happens when everybody moves to Freenet?
(I also strongly disagree with Stallman on his IP bullshit. He pretty much has the same opinions as you. My license of choice, if I was forced to choose one, would be the WTFPL.)
|
|
|
