Your supreme courts really do suck

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

well, I'm willing to bet that there are numbers involved in the court case. Just because I'm too lazy to look them up doesn't mean they don't exist.

[JP Dogberry]

Isn't it funny, though, how we are told something is illegal, yet I can only think of one person I know who considers it actually immoral?

See, I thought the idea of democracy was rule by the people, and therefore if the people decide something isn't wrong, then it isn't wrong.

So why then are the people, who do believe something isn't wrong, being told that it is illegal?

All this acheives is to bring copyright law into disrepsect, and to bring all law into disresepct. If this one law is stupid and not worth obeying, why should we obey ANY law?

In the end, I think people will come to the decision that they can make their own moral judgements, and resent law for getting in the way of doing things they consider moral. (I draw attention to the number of concientious, adult, Marujunia users in the world).

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

I know LOTS of people who consider it immoral. Probably you don't because you are dealing with college students.

Plus, what you say does NOT answer my arguments. You remove the capability to live off your intellectual property, people producing intellectual property shrinks. You kill a culture.

[Oseleon]

Well You are approching what USED to be called conservatism and what approches a libertarian mindset

If Liberty is the goal of society
and All Laws, by nature, restrict Liberty
however
Laws are often required to prevent 1 party from infringing on the Liberty of another
then
Laws should be limited to those that are absolutly nessicary.  

Keep in mind, that the ability to profit from one's own work IS part of Liberty
However, The right to do what you please with what you have purchased is also Liberty
You have the Protection vs Fair Use debate.  

Now, as to the specific issue, I believe that there are a number of legitamate uses for File sharing software

Back when the Video Caset Recorder was first released, Sony tried to sue BetaMax because people could use the VCR to infring copywright.  They could, for example, record an NFL Game and then charge admission for it to be watched.  
That case was decided in favor of BetaMax because VCRs had the legitamate use of "Time Shifting" (Watching a program at a time other than when it aired)
This set a legal presedent (sp) that Legitimate use of a technology TRUMPS Possible infringement using a technology
This has been clouded and confused by industry pundits and Lawyers lately who know they are dealing with an older and somewhat non-techsavy Judiciary.  
Fortunatly there are organisations like the EFF www.eff.org that attempt to educate the Lawmakers and Judiciary while offering pro-bono representation to citizens who come under the heal of industry lawyers in the technical field.  (They got their start representing hackers)

[House of Mustard]

Isn't it funny, though, how we are told something is illegal, yet I can only think of one person I know who considers it actually immoral?

I believe it's immoral, so you can add a +1 to your tally.

[Oseleon]

I know LOTS of people who consider it immoral. Probably you don't because you are dealing with college students.

Immorality is moot when discussing Liberty and Law, The truly ritious are those who can act moraly in the face of temptation.  However I think MJ is potentialy MORE Dangerous than Alcohol due to it's social status

Plus, what you say does NOT answer my arguments. You remove the capability to live off your intellectual property, people producing intellectual property shrinks. You kill a culture.

Intellectual Property USED to enter the Public Domain 7 years after the Author passed.  However, in the age of media industry, the "author" can now be considered the corperate entity which will exist indefinatly.  
ALso there is the "Disney extentions" to Copywright,  Wlat Disny himself owned the CC to Mickey and friends. If you note, every time Walt Disney's creations are about to become public domain, Congress passes an extension to keep it protected.  The current protection is now in excess of 30 years.  It is very possible that we have seen the death of Public domain and no new IP will ever hit Public Domain... Unless we actualy start to care and get the Bought lawmakers out (Sen. Fritz Hollings R-NC is the current king of Disney's pocket)

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

as far as I know, oseleon, that precedent is NOT 100% institutionalized and NOT free from any restrictions.  

Be wary of depending completely upon precedent. Remember that in our own country legalized slavery was once the precedent, as were any number of other immoral, and now illegal activities. Precedent is certainly important, and should inform our decisions, but if the precedent has flaws, then it should not be followed rigorously.

In this case, it has flaws. There was much more time shifting going on with VCRs than redistribution and charging for taped broadcasts. That is not the case with file sharing. THere are, as has been said repeatedly by BOTH sides of this debate, a number of valid uses for the technology. But it is doing much more damage to liberty than it is enabling legitimate freedoms. To say that the use of the technology "trumps" that liberty, imo does not accept the true sense of the precedent, does not acknowledge the reality of the current situation, and is blind demagoguery.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

Immorality is moot when discussing Liberty and Law, The truly ritious are those who can act moraly in the face of temptation.  However I think MJ is potentialy MORE Dangerous than Alcohol due to it's social status

I will both disagree with you and point out that this is not really an argument about me. Jam, who is arguing your position, was the one to bring up the "morality" of the law.

People throw around "morality" as if it were a religious term and thus not relevant to ethics or government. It is relevant. We have many, many laws and institutions, institutions that we all believe in, that are based on moral feelings.

[House of Mustard]

Oseleon, precedent means very little to the Supreme Court -- the entire reason we have a Supreme Court is to either uphold precedent or to toss it out.  The fact that a court ruled in favor of VCRs twenty-something years ago means nothing (especially since the Supreme Court just set new precedent...).

[House of Mustard]

Intellectual Property USED to enter the Public Domain 7 years after the Author passed.  However, in the age of media industry, the "author" can now be considered the corperate entity which will exist indefinatly.  
ALso there is the "Disney extentions" to Copywright,  Wlat Disny himself owned the CC to Mickey and friends. If you note, every time Walt Disney's creations are about to become public domain, Congress passes an extension to keep it protected.  The current protection is now in excess of 30 years.  It is very possible that we have seen the death of Public domain and no new IP will ever hit Public Domain... Unless we actualy start to care and get the Bought lawmakers out (Sen. Fritz Hollings R-NC is the current king of Disney's pocket)

So what?  Are we arguing that P2P ought to be legal for public domain stuff only?  I think e was referring to living artists and programmers -- not dead ones.

[Oseleon]

No, I am pointing out that the current state of IP law is stacked HEVIALY against the consumer in favor of the Content Creator.
Only through pulling in the opposite direction will we get it back into a balanced middle.  P2P apps are potentialy a useful pawn in that strugle

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

I don't believe that working for the polar opposite is going to do us measurable good. Like I said, improve the file sharing system to be self regulating, THEN I believe it will be right to argue for the government to just stay the heck away from it.

[Spriggan]

Isn't it funny, though, how we are told something is illegal, yet I can only think of one person I know who considers it actually immoral?

See, I thought the idea of democracy was rule by the people, and therefore if the people decide something isn't wrong, then it isn't wrong.

So why then are the people, who do believe something isn't wrong, being told that it is illegal?

All this acheives is to bring copyright law into disrepsect, and to bring all law into disresepct. If this one law is stupid and not worth obeying, why should we obey ANY law?

In the end, I think people will come to the decision that they can make their own moral judgements, and resent law for getting in the way of doing things they consider moral. (I draw attention to the number of concientious, adult, Marujunia users in the world).

Just thought I'd add a bit here.

You're right that an Actual Democracy (as in a government type) is like that, but the US and all other like governments are actual Republics there are no true Democracies in the world.  Now these Republics are Democratic in that they elect leaders and can lead movements to change laws but people don't have direct say in most cases.

Just thougt I'd point that out to JP before I goto bed.

[Entsuropi]

A question for HoM:

Does the term Republic have two meanings? One for ' elected regional heads meeting and deciding policy' and one for 'a country with no monarchy, or are they the same concept?

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

what Sprig actually means is a representative democracy, which is often termed a republic in the US. In a representative democracy, you only choose who makes the decisions, you don't actually make the decisions. That would work more like Athens did. It would also, likely, be marked by even greater lack of participation because of the unfeasability of nearly 300 million people getting together to make decisions on each spending bill.