Quote:
Originally Posted by stonetools
[/I]
FTFY. Good on you for doing pro bono work, but I'm sure you don't want ALL your work to be Pro bono
|
Not all lawyers' works, but all legal opinions and court rulings, are in the public domain in the US. Lawyers don't get a choice about copyrighting many of their most complicated and influential creative works.
Quote:
|
You know, these seem to me to be weasel words. If you actually are against piracy,then you need to suggest what legal process that YOU would find acceptable.
|
No, it's perfectly reasonable to say, "I'm against [illegal activity] but am not sure what methods would be both effective against it and fair to the non-lawbreaking public."
Quote:
|
Saying that " I oppose piracy, but then I oppose any attempt at law enforcement against piracy" leads me to suspect that you actually don't oppose piracy at all.
|
Nobody said, "I oppose any attempt at law enforcement against piracy." Several people have spoken in favor of legal action against piracy--in cases where evidence is brought to a court, and a plaintiff and defendant both have the right to present a case, and a ruling is made by a jury.
The objection is not to law enforcement but to an attempt to circumvent the need for court cases by imposing restrictions on people and organizations who aren't directly breaking laws, but whose legal actions allows lawbreaking to go on in their presence. Courts going after ISPs for activities being coordinated through TPB are punishing a lot of ancillary people; if those breaking the law are the uploaders & downloaders, find them.
If they are too numerous or scattered to find... the legal system may need changing, because punishing the search engines will just lead to new search engines being developed elsewhere. (Currently, the proposed changes in the legal system are more punishments for the ancillary people, not any attempt to find & punish the people breaking the current laws.)
Does Smith & Wesson get prosecuted for murder based on making it easy to commit?