Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Jordan
I went back to see if I actually called it a "ban," but I'll concede that that's essentially what it would be. Despite your claim, however, I don't believe it would mean The End Of Civilization As We Know It.
|
Yes, you're right, my post was too extreme. The effects were only meant for the relevant branches and not as apocalyptic as it sounded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Jordan
Probably the most important question to be asked here. All of these measures discussed on this site... TM, DRM, encryption, whatever... are all impacts on privacy, as well as impacts on an individual's right to profit from their own work. If you can't make a profit, and have no way to make a living, how much will you care if the rest of society is free? What good is a free society wherein everyone is starving and freezing?
How "free" is our society now? Is "free society" really just doublespeak, used to frighten the un-mutual?
I propose that an individual's abiity to profit from their work is just as important as the desire for a "free society," since the individual's satisfaction with their lot has a direct impact on the health and function of said society. So, in the case of providing satisfaction to individuals, some "freedom" must sometimes be sacrificed. Case in point: Mandatory taxes that pay for infrastructure, including services that you personally don't use. Second case in point, street cameras that deter crime and make people feel safer, despite the knowledge that they are potentially being watched.
|
Firstly, we are only talking about intellectual property. Books, music, films and, to a smaller degree, software.
Secondly, limiting freedom isn't the last resort the relevant industries take, it's their first and only approach.
Thirdly, allowing people to thrive is very important but not when the result is crippling society. Society is more important than a tiny fraction of the economy.
As an example, I'd like to state consumer protection laws such as laws dealing with monopolies and the like. Monopolies aren't allowed to do as they please either, though the motivation is an economical one.
Forthly, there is no such thing as limiting freedoms only a little. Freedoms are continuely eroded. Once the populance is accustomed to the current level, the bar gets lowered. We've seen this not just since 9/11.
If this were not the case, if politicians were actually interested in a balanced, and result-oriented approach rather than knee-jerk publicity stunts, we might be able to argue over this. As it stands, you can only take stances as a matter of principle because the "enemy" will exploit you being reasonable.
As for your street camera example, the UK has the biggest density of cameras world-wide and yet they did
not prevent crimes/lower crime rates. A very unpopular result, too. If deterring with such reasonably remote tools (i.e. you don't think of them at every turn) were successful, the death penalty or long imprisonment would have reduced crime significantly. Of course cameras help you
after the fact.
This is an example of a publicity measure, not an actual anti-crime measure. It makes you
feel more safe but doesn't actually increase your safety. Much like the airport security nonsense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Jordan
Some form of TM would sacrifice some level of freedom, I agree. But too much? Enough to bring society crashing down around us? I'm not sure.
|
Most western countries are already quite close to corporatism.