Quote:
Originally Posted by llreader
Those "amoral kids" are almost as bad as the hyperbolic folks who want to make a civil offense into a criminal act. I am not going to speak for Mr. Blue Sky, but if we want to have a rational discussion we need to not blow so much smoke right out of the gate. A number of people on these forums are trying to make some reasonable points about the the repercussions of different types of unauthorized copying, and shrill cries of "Thieves! Thieves!" is not particularly useful.
This is a complex subject for a reason; there are a number of issues to be balanced when deciding how to deal with copying, on both the legal and ethical level. It would be helpful if posters (on *both* sides) were willing to bring a bit more to the table and discuss this in a reasonable way.
|
People who want to do something are going to rationalize it any way they can so they can tell themselves they're not doing anything wrong, that law doesn't really apply to
me because my situation here is somehow different. Once people have rationalized that, they'll stick to that argument, however ridiculous, because to admit otherwise is to admit a violation of morality, which no one likes to do.
A civil offense
is a criminal act. You may want to hang a label on it that sounds nicer, but a criminal is someone who violates the law. When you exceed the speed limit, you are technically a criminal at that point.
Violating copyright law is a crime. You may try to rationalize it by saying your situation is different, yadda, yadda: just the meaningless noise of someone trying to justify themselves. No, you haven't killed anyone, yes, it may help sales for the author, yes, the publishing houses charge too much, yes, the law ought to be changed, etc., etc. I've heard it all over in the music file sharing community. Talk to the hand. It's all just rationalization. It's still violating the law, so it's still a criminal act.