Quote:
Originally Posted by Iphinome
As I posted earlier that's a point where most people and I may not agree, I have in the past broken laws for the sake of breaking an unjust law.
|
Well, I don't want to jump into a firestorm here, but I worry about such beliefs. If the masses find a particular law objectionable, or a violation of their rights and civil liberties, then there are options. Start a petition, get enough support, maybe hire a lawyer to launch a class action lawsuit, etc. Protest the laws and policies, try and convince the ones who made the policy (whether at a government level, or in this case, publishers) to change their ways.
But I don't think anyone, as an individual, has the right to pick and choose which laws they will or will not follow. Down that road leads chaos and anarchy.
Who determines what is or is not 'worthy' of being followed? Individuals? Where will that stop, then? You decide preventing distribution of ebooks is 'unjust' (whatever your definition of unjust might be), so you're going to break it. Then your neighbour decides preventing him from getting music off Pirate Bay is unjust, so he does that. Then someone decides that stopping him from speeding is unjust, so he drives down the road near a school at 200mph. Pretty soon, I'll decide that preventing me from killing that bloke that annoys me is unjust, so I should be allowed to commit murder. That's fair, is it?? That's logical?
If you don't like the laws in Country X, then go live in Country Y. If you don't like the prices of music CDs or ebooks, then don't buy them. Learn to live without them. You have options, you have rights; but the one 'right' you
do not have, is to conveniently break laws as you see fit.