Quote:
Originally Posted by murg
If you are against the former (geo-circumvention) and not against the latter (piracy), then your statement was correct.
The reason I questioned this is that this is generally the opposite of the stated opinion of pretty much everyone here, who state that they are against piracy, and the lesser majority that state that they don't have a problem with geo-circumvention.
I'm not questioning the opinion, just the way it was worded.
|
Thanks for clarifying. I wondered if I was suffering from one of those mental blocs which I believe we all occasionally have but it looks like you might have been. In my statement, as you correctly point out, the former was geo-circumvention, and the latter piracy. I said:
"I condone the former" (geo-circumvention). I do not condone the latter (piracy), but I certainly understand it.
Probably the easiest way I have found to break a mental bloc like this is to substitute an appropriate synonym in the relevant passage. From the dictionary definition you quoted I like "turn a blind eye to", though it is not the best choice gramatically. My above statement would then become "I turn a blind eye to the former." (geo-circumvention). "I do not turn a blind eye to the latter." (piracy)." Or, using the synonym "accept", I accept the former (geo-circumvention) but not the latter (piracy).
To clarify, I am "for" geo-circumvention and "against" piracy, However, in some instances I am very close to a pro-piracy stance, as I consider some of the behaviour of some rights holders almost the moral equivalent.