Moral justification.

[Quarterquack]

http://torrentfreak.com/acslaw-anti-piracy-law-firm-torn-apart-by-leaked-emails-100925/

I realize this may be the wrong section, but according to the point I wanted to argue, it felt like the most appropriate one.

Pirates, who troll the internet, are being commended for running a program that a two year old can download, install, setup and use in order to take down a law firm's website, then harassing its CEO endlessly.

There used to be a time where pirates were the respectable crowd. Where it wasn't about being "ahead of the curve", or being smarter than the system, either. Nowadays, the line drawn between morally justified actions, and criminal has blurred, and criminals justify their moral stance, then call more heinous criminal acts "payback." Nowadays, the most intelligent pirates still stand their ground, as the heads of University IT departments, as IT departments' members in fortune 500 companies, and as bona fide geniuses. Following is a bunch of sheep that click a button when being told to do so, and appreciate/enjoy the fact that another man's life is being destroyed.

I'm fairly young, but ever since I touched my first computer (1994) I've been a pirate, so I reckon I've got a few years of experience on most people. I've been through it all, between starforce being the justification, between community being the reason, and between september-jailtime (scene reference) being the incentive for payback. Filesharing, as well as all other dubious activities associated with it, has always had good reasoning behind it, and better/more intelligent individuals (than ye average redneck) backing it up.

Nowadays, it seems like it's more about idiotic buffoons throwing a tantrum to get what they want, thinking that outsmarting the system and dislocating where power lies is a solution to a problem they themselves created; people thinking that a pseudo-revolution is somehow tantamount to sticking up for what's "right", even when all of them know deep down that pro-piracy arguments aren't convincing, even to their own selves.

So here's the question: By what moral justification does one stand up for a criminal act, that people deliberately argue is an action carried out by white hats? Am I the only one that does not think the actions carried out in the past few weeks were done for the right reasons? Should I let this argument go, in favor of my previous stance that every pirate is free to make his own choices, as we all draw the lines between good and bad differently; or are there true evils that cannot be justified?

[megabyteme]

The actions taken were against an extortion ring. I don't care if the ones destroying this "law firm" are using scripts that can be run by 4 year-olds. Seriously. We are the targets of this extortion scheme. If we do not make a show of force, more and more of these scumball, bottom-feeders will come after us. It is about time pricks like this get some shit thrown back at them.

[IdolEyes787]

I agree with ringhunter:blink: there is an appreciable difference between "sharing files" or "piracy" or whatever euphemism you want to apply to what we do and malicious intent.
Btw I am also firmly of the belief that the "action" for most involved had little if anything to do with defense or even retribution.As ringhunter alluded to it was a bunch of children doing the internet equivalent of picking up and smashing their toys with about the same amount of thought process involved.

Even if I am totally wrong then I'm still pretty sure that the words defending and attacking have two entirely different meanings.
Also not sure on this one but probably a safe bet that someone in the "law firm" said something remarkably close to "If we do not make a show of force, more and more of these scumball, bottom-feeders will come after us". :mellow:

[megabyteme]

No, if you read RH's link, the "law firm's" email analized (sic) how much cash they could extort from people who's IPs had been collected. It's a scam; its extortion. Plain and simple.

If there is a pedophile/rapist in my neighbor hood, and someone- anyone be they 4 or 94, burns down their house (law firm) I'm calling the neighborhood a safer place.

And I hope the prick running this "law firm" loses his 30K pound deposit on his Ferrari/Lambo.

[Quarterquack]

You're absolutely right; this goes back to thieves stealing from thieves. But at the same time, how can someone wish for payback/vengeance when they put themselves in the pinch in the first place? Everyone knows that when you do something wrong/irresponsible you only keep your head down and act normal. The asking for money is not extortion, and if you think taking money from offenders as a penalty/subsidization is wrong, then please never visit a courthouse. Did you know that the coptic pope is being sued for 150,000$? Right. There are more serious cases out there that deserve being worked up on, than simple legal theft going head-to-head against illegal theft. And no matter the circumstance, I'm finding this habit of trying to ridiculously harass the hell out of someone, under the veil of anonymity, and calling it heroism more and more inane.

By your analogy in your second post, killing is morally justified. Does that mean any action, no matter the gravity of the evil associated with it can have acceptable motives backing it up? What's wrong with simply reporting the rapist to the authorities? I recently (not sure how whack this will sound) caught a spy in my neighborhood. My first action was to level with him, I went over to his place to make him feel comfortable, and told him I had no idea what he was doing but I knew what he was. He explained to me that a house down the block has "rape parties" where they host a party, drug chicks, drag them to a locked room in the basement and use the facade of the party as cover-up. When I said I doubt the legitimacy of his claim, he took me down to the station with him, and showed me months' worth of proof he had collected, some of which was him inside the rape room itself. Now he might have as well pulled out a gun and put two lead droplets of justice in those guys' heads, but he didn't. This is about being morally right. If people think payback, especially through means such as the one up in the example is morally just, then something is wrong with the world. If you want to do what is right, then do it. Don't reason with morally gray areas, then convince yourself that killing/stealing/harassment is morally justified in your case.

This is the right way to go about things: http://beingthreatened.yolasite.com/ in the cases of the people above.

[IdolEyes787]

MBM is 'Merican so what do you expect?

Just be thankful that as of yet you can't shoot someone over the internet.

[A]

tit for tat.

[Quarterquack]

Makes the whole world blind.

[A]

When the whole world is already dark?

[Quarterquack]

Makes no sense turning the last light off.

[A]

Makes no sense turning the last light off.
If there is light to turn off that is ...

[Quarterquack]

By that logic we are all harassment offenders/serial killers, and as much as we'd like to believe that there is a slippery slope between good and evil, the former probably doesn't exist at all.

[A]

By what logic?And what is this good and evil that you talk about?You talk as if its a fixed and stated entity with clear cut guidelines.The reason there is so much conflict is mainly because ones "good" is another guys "evil".To understand good and evil is to know that there isint such a thing at all.

[Quarterquack]

Read the last line of my first post.

At the same time, there are some empirical evils. Murder, ruining someone else's life etc. Sure you can justify having the anger to motivate you into such actions, but you can't justify what is viewed by most as a morally gray area. My fundamental question in this thread, was by what measure could people justify the actions carried out in the OP. Surely it's not right, and at best, justifications for the deed are questionable even to the people who use the argument of payback. It isn't about payback as much as it is about conformity and mass bullying, and I sincerely doubt anyone can classify such actions as ones in the gray area that are left up to ever person to decide on as to whether they are good or bad in their opinion.

[A]

You really do believe,what you believe to be "evil" and "good" is the defacto for everyone else as well,dont you.Because even if you "pretend to know" that its not,you seem to "judge" based on that.

You seem to have a set answer for the question you asked then why bother looking for answers?
Question:"My fundamental question in this thread, was by what measure could people justify the actions carried out in the OP."
Answer:"Surely it's not right, and at best, justifications for the deed are questionable even to the people who use the argument of payback. It isn't about payback as much as it is about conformity and mass bullying"
and then you justify your answer in the next sentence:"and I sincerely doubt anyone can classify such actions as ones in the gray area that are left up to ever person to decide on as to whether they are good or bad in their opinion. "
Even the so called gray area is fixed according to what you believe what the gray area is to be.:mellow:

So what are you actually trying to do in this thread?

[ca_aok]

I disagree with the actions taken by the pirates (and 4channers) but I also strongly disagree with the actions of the firm. These people are despicable bastards extorting money from the uninformed. I feel absolutely no pity for them and firmly believe they get what's coming to them, but at the same time I'm certainly not going to go DoS their site myself, or repaste their emails, or send them harassing phone calls, etc.

The big issue here is the core of filesharers are a group of people too young to really distinguish between right and wrong or think about the consequences of their actions. Of course there's a group of angry "cyber-terrorists" (for lack of a better word) who see their hardline tactics and promotion of digital anarchy as the solution to the anti-p2p movement, but I think they're quite the minority.

[megabyteme]

@RH- I never said to kill the individual in my example, just run them out of "the neighborhood". Also send them a "message" that we will not tolerate their existence in our neighborhood.

I suggest you delete all "ill-gotten files" and bathe yourself in the river Styx. It is the only way to cleanse you dirty, dirty soul.

-------------

And who says any of us are "evil". As far as I am concerned, this "crime" is the equivalent to J-walking. Should we allow ourselves to be mugged, or raped without putting up a fight because we have "done wrong" and therefore "deserve whatever happens to us as a result".

The victim was "asking for it". :dry:

[sandman_1]

The courts are suppose to rain down "justice". They are not to be bastardized by greedy lawyers who's only interest is to profit. They could care less about if justice is dealt out, as long as they line their pockets with cash. So what 4chan did, I have no qualms about.

Why do I pirate? Because I see the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. This is the case in the U.S., where the middle-class is eroding and the upper-class is becoming richer and richer. http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/the-u.s.-middle-class-is-being-wiped-out-here%27s-the-stats-to-prove-it-520657.html?tickers=^DJI,^GSPC,SPY,MCD,WMT,XRT,DIA The rich get bail-outs and claim they are too big to fail or complain that they don't make billions more each year despite making billions in profit. Do the average people get bail-outs? Hell no. So I am all for "sticking it to the man" because "the man" is sure as hell sticking it to us. By the way, guess how many millionaires are in Congress? 237 as of 2009. Feel represented?

[megabyteme]

Also, the word "copyright" has been bastardized as much as the word "pirate". In (somewhat) line with sandman's post, both changes in the word serve big business.