More Powerful Than The Government?

[J'Pol]

Jibbler

Again what you are doing is using your common sense view of the world, added to your intuitive understanding to arrive at a concept of what is just and fair.

The law doesn´t give a fig about that. If you infringe copyright then that is an offence and you can be prosecuted for it. If it is a felony you can go to prison for it.

The only good thing is that it is a practical impossibility for law enforcement or the judicial system to do much about it. The scant resources are spent on looking for commercial pirates and the people who facilitate the copying.

Why prosecute 1,000,000 for using napster. Better to shut it down.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by clocker+22 April 2003 - 21:45--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 22 April 2003 - 21:45)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--JmiF@22 April 2003 - 14:39


Like I say I am not saying it is not an illegal act. Just that the crime is not theft.

I think we agree in the main, now we&#39;re down to picking nits. [/b][/quote]
We agree almost entirely.

In fact I think I am supporting your point. People don´t realise what they are supposed to be doing wrong. So they call it stealing.

However as you say it´s difficult to protect - defend yourself if you don´t understand what you are accused of.

[clocker]

Originally posted by Jibbler@22 April 2003 - 14:42
Like it or not, this "understanding" no longer becomes valid if you expect people to follow it on "good faith."

All law is predicated on the assumption that people will follow "on good faith".

Obviously, the best that a society can reasonably expect is that most of the time most people will follow most of the laws. The most flagrant offenders are rounded up and then made examples of for the edification of the rest of the herd.

We just happen to the lone doggies today.

[Jibbler]

Originally posted by JmiF@22 April 2003 - 15:48
Again what you are doing is using your common sense view of the world, added to your intuitive understanding to arrive at a concept of what is just and fair.

With all due respect, I see your point. However this isn&#39;t what is happening here. In this case, they produce music, and distribute it on disk. I buy the end product of that. Now, with the advancements in technology, people are exploiting the system and they are getting the music for free.

Now we have the RIAA lobbying to change the laws, to protect their investment. However their product was flawed from the beginning. They need to pool their resources to develop a new format/product/whatever in order to stay competitive.

Instead they are trying to punish the very same people who helped their business go from rags to riches. They used to call this "burning your bridges." Yes, this is a "common sense" approach, because despite all the legalities and logistics, this is how the majority of civilians approach life.

[TIDE-HSV]

Good catch, Clocker&#33; However, I think it was really probably spontaneous.

[clocker]

Originally posted by Jibbler@22 April 2003 - 15:25


Now we have the RIAA lobbying to change the laws, to protect their investment.

The RIAA is simply looking to extend the enforcement of laws that are already extant. They are also searching for a way to broaden the reach of law enforcement to deal with the global nature of the problem.

They&#39;ll figure it out.

[clocker]

Originally posted by TIDE-HSV@22 April 2003 - 15:53
Good catch, Clocker&#33; However, I think it was really probably spontaneous.

His utterance may well have been spontaneous.
Rosenberg&#39;s was posthumous.
Much higher degree of difficulty.

[clocker]

Originally posted by JmiF@22 April 2003 - 14:51


In fact I think I am supporting your point. People don´t realise what they are supposed to be doing wrong. So they call it stealing.

However as you say it´s difficult to protect - defend yourself if you don´t understand what you are accused of.

Actually J, you made my point better than I did.
The extra bit of clarification makes ALL the difference.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Jibbler+22 April 2003 - 22:25--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jibbler @ 22 April 2003 - 22:25)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--JmiF@22 April 2003 - 15:48
Again what you are doing is using your common sense view of the world, added to your intuitive understanding to arrive at a concept of what is just and fair.

With all due respect, I see your point. However this isn&#39;t what is happening here. In this case, they produce music, and distribute it on disk. I buy the end product of that. Now, with the advancements in technology, people are exploiting the system and they are getting the music for free.

Now we have the RIAA lobbying to change the laws, to protect their investment. However their product was flawed from the beginning. They need to pool their resources to develop a new format/product/whatever in order to stay competitive.

Instead they are trying to punish the very same people who helped their business go from rags to riches. They used to call this "burning your bridges." Yes, this is a "common sense" approach, because despite all the legalities and logistics, this is how the majority of civilians approach life.[/b][/quote]
The only point I was making, badly, was that the law is for the most part detached from common sense. I wholly agree with your position. However if legislation is put in place that contradicts it then the law disagrees with our position and people who are doing something perfectly reasonable are branded as criminals.

The concept of Mens Rea (guilty knowledge) is probably the best way to describe it. What it means is that you knew that something was illegal. There is no requirement for you to feel that morally or ethically you were doing something wrong. Just that it was against the law. For offences (other than absolute offences) to take place then this Mens Rea must be proven. i.e. the person must know that they are breaking the law. They don&#39;t have to believe the law is fair or right, just that it exists.

Interestingly the guilty act is Actus Reus. (To think is feminine, to act is masculine)

[Jibbler]

Originally posted by JmiF@22 April 2003 - 17:03
The only point I was making, badly, was that the law is for the most part detached from common sense. I wholly agree with your position. However if legislation is put in place that contradicts it then the law disagrees with our position and people who are doing something perfectly reasonable are branded as criminals.

Yes, this is truly a problem, here in the states as well as abroad. Its a shame the politics and litagation is controlled by financial influence. Otherwise our laws might have been adapted differently to our culture.