French ‘Loi Hadopi’ anti-filesharing law passed

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The UK actually has some of the most stringent financial regulations in the world - certainly far tougher than that of the US - but yes, I totally agree with you that it needs to be toughened still further, and that there should be more "transparency" in the sector.

But it doesn't bother you at all that the only reason *their* behavior is regulated is because of world (or at least national) crises, and they can keep most away because they either "lobby" or just "have friends" in politics, while on the other hand civil behavior is regulated through laws instated by that same corporate lobby, with the only exception being "anti-knifing" legislation sponsored by continued coverage in the Daily Wail?
What kind of democracy is it where corporate interests are deemed so much more relevant by politicians than the right to privacy, which you seem to care so little about, "because it is used as an argument for the right to infringe copyright"? The right to (or expectation of) privacy is the only thing that keeps CCTVs from being everywhere, from the police to wiretap you and decide they hear something bad, which they then sue you for (which is currently not legal because it is trolling for "criminal behavior"). Those are the things that happened when the Stasi and KGB made sure the USSR stayed in power; they are not the things that should be allowed to happen in (moderately) free and democratic societies. Aren't (or weren't) you bothered by those reports on TV that say "CCTVs have helped capture x criminals" that were on at least when I was last there in July '07? Doesn't that "reek" to you?

Freedoms aren't given to you, they're things you're supposed to fight for (both to obtain as well as to maintain); and while your strange bias towards the rights of "artists" is one thing, I fail to understand utterly why you care for the companies who so happily trample upon your rights in order to help their bottom line. (even though nobody knows if the enacted legislation will actually do anything)

If an individual (your neighbor) would tell you that only he has the right to have parties in the back garden (making lots of noise), but you don't (because that would make him enjoy his living there less), would you accept that if he were an affluent life peer with 20 employees, reasoning that his opinion counts for more than yours as he has employees whom he supports through hiring them and you don't? Would you only "respect" that if he hired two hundred?
Similarly with your quote that says that "companies shouldn't suffer from employees behaving badly". Where is the equality for the law?

[HarryT]

Sorry, ZSB, you ask such a lot of questions that I don't know where to begin to respond to you. Would you like to take it one point at a time, and then we can have a proper discussion about the points that you raise? I can't answer you properly when you ask 101 questions in a single post.

Thanks!

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The UK actually has some of the most stringent financial regulations in the world

If that is true, which I doubt, heaven help the rest of the world.

London has become a major financial hub largely thanks to the lax regulation in operation here. The Financial Service Authority is a laughing stock.

And if an investigation into possible corrupt behaviour threatens to get too embarassing, the government can always step in; as they did with the Al Yamamah arms contract when the Serious Fraud Office got too close.

Also, as I understand it, UK companies that want to trade internationally are having to adopt Sarbanes-Oxley standards, which originated in the US and are more stringent than those in operation in the UK.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by mjh215

And yet in nearly every copyright/DRM thread you make sweeping judgements on everyone that disagrees with your viewpoint? Referring repeatedly to them as morally devoid, which I find -highly- insulting (as do others). And even though you are very careful to direct these attacks at those who think different on the topic (And not necessarily those that think filesharing is 'right') and not to specific parties I doubt anyone is fooled by who you think is lacking a proper education. I don't believe -any- other user or moderator could get away with your tactics in these discussions without at least receiving a warning from the other moderators.

-MJ

Hi MJ,

I'm sorry that you find my viewpoints "offensive" but, I am entitled to hold and express them, regardless. Please - you're welcome to disagree with my points of view, but can we try to keep the discussion at the level of opinions, please, and not let it degenerate into personal attacks? It makes for a much "friendlier" atmosphere for everybody that way. I completely respect the rights of others to hold viewpoints which disagree from my own, as I hope we all do.

If you feel that anybody's post is inappropriate in terms of content, please click the "Report Post" button to the left of the post - that's the button labelled "!". That brings the post to the attention of the moderating team and you may be assured that it will be fully discussed.

Thanks!

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

If that is true, which I doubt, heaven help the rest of the world.

It is true, Sparrow - at least according to what I've read. The start of all this mess was the irresponsible lending of US banks. That "bad debt" was then bought by banks all over the world, which led to a lack of trust in the financial stability of banks, which in turn led to them stopping lending money to each other, and it all spiralled from there. That's my impression, at least.

And if an investigation into possible corrupt behaviour threatens to get too embarassing, the government can always step in; as they did with the Al Yamamah arms contract when the Serious Fraud Office got too close.

Yes, totally agree with you there. That was a disgrace to all involved.

Also, as I understand it, UK companies that want to trade internationally are having to adopt Sarbanes-Oxley standards, which originated in the US and are more stringent than those in operation in the UK.

I'm not familiar with that - I'll go and read up on it. Thanks!

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Also, as I understand it, UK companies that want to trade internationally are having to adopt Sarbanes-Oxley standards, which originated in the US and are more stringent than those in operation in the UK.

SOX is still a joke, and it allegedly caused some of the money to actually flee the US to London. That said, there was a reason why those financial institutions in the UK fled there: They got 0-10% tax rates. Because of the sheer amount of money they represented, and the threats they could issue through wielding that/parading it around, they could pretty much get everything they wanted from the UK govt. (Try watching Bremner, Bird & Fortune's Silly Money)

Premise: Money only flees to places that are less regulated than the place where it's fleeing from.

[pshrynk]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Depends on the circumstances. Let's say that you knew that a terrorist had knowledge which could allow you to prevent a terrorist attack that would kill thousands of people, and that the only way to obtain that information was through torture. Would torturing one person to prevent the deaths of 10,000 innocent people be morally justifyable? You decide.

No. And the only reason I say anything more is that the forum software does not allow 3 letter answers.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'd like to think that the people involved in "Extraordinary Rendition" do consider these matters, Sparrow. Is it justifyable to torture someone if you think that they have information that may save the lives of innumerable innocent people? It's a decision that I wouldn't like to have to make. Can you honestly say that there are no circumstances in which such things can be morally justified? I'm not sure that I could do.

To even put the words "Extraordinary Rendition" into quotes gives them sanction and sickens me. They are weasel words invented by madmen and murderers to lessen the blow of the horrors they commit. They're used to distant us from the actual actions, the real cost to countless innocent human beings subjected to kidnapping, sexual abuse, mutilation and rape. And all in the name of 'information'. There is, and never has been any justification for torture. It doesn't work, it didn't work, and never will work in the future.

I'm finding it very hard to take any of your points seriously when you so easily find grey areas in torture, but are so black-and-white about file sharing. You say in an earlier post that you are a "moral coward" but what does this mean? That you can actually, truthfully and honestly see a situation in which torture is the right path to take? It's not a hard question to answer, really its not, and in this case it does have a black and white answer. If, under a specific set of circumstances, you can see where torture is the answer, then you are clearly for this action. If, on the other hand, you can never see any situation in which torture should occur, then you are against.

There is no grey area when it comes to the sustained abuse of human beings.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

I'm finding it very hard to take any of your points seriously when you so easily find grey areas in torture, but are so black-and-white about file sharing. You say in an earlier post that you are a "moral coward" but what does this mean? That you can actually, truthfully and honestly see a situation in which torture is the right path to take?

No. It simply means I cannot categorically rule out the fact that such a scenario may exist. In just the same way that, for example, I think it extremely unlikely that God exists, but because I cannot rule out the possibility that I am wrong, I classify myself as an agnostic and not an atheist. It must be reassuring to have such certainty in your life that you can definitively state that something absolutely cannot happen. I just cannot see the world in such "black and white" terms.

[zelda_pinwheel]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No. It simply means I cannot categorically rule out the fact that such a scenario may exist. In just the same way that, for example, I think it extremely unlikely that God exists, but because I cannot rule out the possibility that I am wrong, I classify myself as an agnostic and not an atheist. It must be reassuring to have such certainty in your life that you can definitively state that something absolutely cannot happen. I just cannot see the world in such "black and white" terms.

...except when it comes to filesharing (etc.) ?

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No. It simply means I cannot categorically rule out the fact that such a scenario may exist. In just the same way that, for example, I think it extremely unlikely that God exists, but because I cannot rule out the possibility that I am wrong, I classify myself as an agnostic and not an atheist. It must be reassuring to have such certainty in your life that you can definitively state that something absolutely cannot happen. I just cannot see the world in such "black and white" terms.

But, and I'm talking logically here, there's a mountain of evidence that states quite clearly that torture does not work. It comes from many different fields, there have been many different studies on the subject. You can be certain that it will never work. You can be certain that it will never yield the results you seek.

Faith in a deity is not even remotely the same as being certain that you shouldn't mutilate, torture and rape people in the name of gathering information. Especially when it's proven to be a pointless endeavour. To use one as an example to excuse your "moral cowardness" for the other is nonsensical.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Faith in a deity is not even remotely the same as being certain that you shouldn't mutilate, torture and rape people in the name of gathering information. Especially when it's proven to be a pointless endeavour. To use one as an example to excuse your "moral cowardness" for the other is nonsensical.

I am absolutely certain that I cannot think of a situation in which I would find it acceptable, Moejoe, but I'm afraid that I must reiterate that I cannot rule out the possibility that such a situation exists. Hence I must repeat that I cannot categorically state an opinion on the matter one way or another. I was not aware that not having an opinion on a subject could be so contraversial.

[zelda_pinwheel]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I am absolutely certain that I cannot think of a situation in which I would find it acceptable, Moejoe, but I'm afraid that I must reiterate that I cannot rule out the possibility that such a situation exists. Hence I must repeat that I cannot categorically state an opinion on the matter one way or another. I was not aware that not having an opinion on a subject could be so contraversial.

so then how can you be so categorical on other subjects, such as filesharing ?

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I am absolutely certain that I cannot think of a situation in which I would find it acceptable, Moejoe, but I'm afraid that I must reiterate that I cannot rule out the possibility that such a situation exists. Hence I must repeat that I cannot categorically state an opinion on the matter one way or another. I was not aware that not having an opinion on a subject could be so contraversial.

That's all I was asking for, condemnation. I also cannot categorically rule out the possibility that I may fly, but I can certainly and categorically tell you that I can't fly and don't believe I will ever be able to fly. Do you condemn torture, the answer is simple, yes or no?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

That's all I was asking for, condemnation. I also cannot categorically rule out the possibility that I may fly, but I can certainly and categorically tell you that I can't fly and don't believe I will ever be able to fly. Do you condemn torture, the answer is simple, yes or no?

I have not encountered an instance of it which I do not find repugnant and most whole-heartedly condemn. Who could say otherwise?