Timewaster's Guide Archive
Departments => Music => Topic started by: Spriggan on March 15, 2004, 02:15:58 AM
-
ok we need this thread here.
I just heard a Cake cover of Aretha Franklin's "I will survive", and it was realy freaking cool.
-
yeah, he did a good job. If only we didn't have to edit it.
Anyway, I like Big Head Todd and the Monsters' cover of Led Zeppelin's "Tangerine." Rare is the LedZep cover that even does justice to the song, let alone bring something new to it. But they did it.
-
I've heard two really good ones as of late. Bad Religion doing "Tainted Love", and Less than Jake doing Cheap Trick's "Surrender".
-
ugh... so tired of "ska" bands covering 80s hits...
-
I Like MC Hawkings cover/parody of "Anarchy in the UK", entitled "UFTfortheMC". That and his Led Zepplin cover.
-
I'm tickled to death by Joss Stone's cover of the White Stripes' "Fell In Love With A Girl".
I love The Donnas' cover of "Keep On Lovin' You" and of course Alien Ant Farm's take on "Smooth Criminal"
-
ugh... so tired of "ska" bands covering 80s hits...
I'm not. And I love No Doubt's version of "It's My Life".
-
All along the watchtower was insanely phenominal when Hendrix redid it... 1000 percent better than U2.
-
And Cassandra Wilsons version of love is blindness makes me weep.
-
cry baby
-
dance monkey!
-
dance monkey!
why, yes, I am a dance monkey.
-
Robbie Williams wonderwall,
Young Fresh Fellows I wonder what she's doing tonight
Tori Amos I dont like Mondays
Joe Strummers Redemption Song
-
maybe I should form a new thread for this, but I cannot go any further without saying how much i *hate* *hate* *hate* 311's cover of "Love Song."
*DIE!* *DIE!* *DIE!*
-
definately a covers you hate thread...
-
Yeah, I'll agree on that one. I do like Love Song, but 311.... *shakes head*
-
you know what was a fun cover to listen to? The Lemonheads doing "Mrs. Robinson." Not the best, but fun.
and They Might Be Giants. Who DOESN'T know their "Istanbul (not Constantinople)"? Of course again, their covers of "Jessica" and "Whirlpool" are fun too, but not nearly as good as the originals, imo. THen again, their covers of Science Songs are hilarious.
-
I like a lot of the Schoolhouse Rock Rocks! covers. Especially "Interplanet Janet" by Man or Astro-man?
-
Similarly, the Saturday Morning's Greatest Hits cd had some really good tracks. The Reverend Horton Heat doing one track that covers both "Stop the Pigeon" and "Johnny Quest" was especially well done.
-
yeah that was a fun CD
Sublime doing hong kong phooey was fun too
-
Aerosmith just covered Baby Please dont go and its pretty good too...
-
I like Michael Andrews/Gary Jules's cover of "Mad World".
I also like the SNTR cover of "Don't Dream It's Over" (or whatever the song is called). And (already mentioned) ND's "It's my Life".
I hate SNTR's cover of "There She Goes". And all of the 60's covers of 50's songs--but that's mostly because I get all thrown off when I'm trying to sing along.
-
Has anyone here heard of DJ Dangermouse's "The Grey Album"? I just got it today from my friend (it isn't exactly legal, but it isn't illegal yet), and it's insanely good. It mixes Jay-Z's "Black" album with the Beatles "White" album. I know it sounds like it would be crap, but it really isn't. Too bad it'll never be in stores.
-
actualy the grey album is illegal, if you paid for it.
-
I don't think anyone's selling it, just file sharing.
-
no, there was a website selling cd's of it for like $5. Also from what I understand the file shared version is illegal because the DJ did not get permission to use any of the music he did. He only made it for his use (which is legal) but when he started giveing out copys and haveing them be played at clubs it became illegal. While the DJ never expected, or so he says, the CD to get around this much, all the different people going after him have the right too. And I think the websites offering it for download should be charged with trafficing stolden goods. Enough of this BS fineing people, no one is going to stop downloading illegal files until there's jail time involved.
-
posh. There's scanty evidence that deterrance has a significant effect on actual crime rates.
-
humm, SE by that standard why is anything illegal then? Why bother if it's not going to make a difference. The reason so many people steal software, movies and music via the net is becasue they think they can get away with it. They try and rationalize that they're stealing from some faceless corperation, that no one is getting hurt, and, my favorite, they deserve the item for free. But that's not the reason they do it. If the goverment did what it's suppose to, and arrest these people for theft, people would do it less often. There's no difference between walking into a CD store and shoplifting a CD and illegaly downloading songs.
-
Well one can argue that we have come full circle, in fact, Wired has a nice article about it this month...http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.03/lessig.html
-
I'm sorry, but no- downloading music isn't the same as shoplifting, Sprig.
I own maybe 10 cds. Before mp3's I just listened to the radio all the time. If I were stopped from downloading, I would not start buying cd's - it is not a replacement for them, I would just go without it.
If I shoplifted, I would be stealing from a store, not an artist. I would be TAKING from the store, because they would have to spend money to replace the stolen inventory. If I have no intention of buying a CD either way, then how is downloading it the same thing. You need to work on your analogies, bub.
By the way, this is why I was such a big fan of the Droplift project.
(droplifting being the opposite of shoplifting.)
http://www.droplift.org/
-
well that's something you'll have to deal with Fuzzy, but stealing is stealing no matter how you try and rationalize it. When I die, this isn't somehting I'm going to have to worry about. Downloading music isn't bad, as long as you pay for it.
-
we make things illegal so we can either make money by fines or get people out of the way by putting them in jail. Increasing penalties usually does not change crime rates unless we make the punishment so harsh people start to believe it's violating the "cruel and unusual" charge.
-
My friend just burned me a copy. I'm pretty sure he ordered it from that website. He's not very big on the file sharing thing.
My reasons to stop downloading music are that most the bands I was downloading from were bands on Indie labels, and they normally sell their cd's for like 5 bucks. I figured that for the most part, they need the income from cd's to keep going,
-
we make things illegal so we can either make money by fines or get people out of the way by putting them in jail. Increasing penalties usually does not change crime rates unless we make the punishment so harsh people start to believe it's violating the "cruel and unusual" charge.
wow, I don't even know where to start. But just saying your full of it realy dosen't do it here. But I don't have a lot of time for a reply so I'll just say, with all due respect ,SE, you're ethier ignorent or delusonal.
-
perhaps it doesn't cut it because it really doesn't contribute to the argument. In that it neither upholds your own argument or does anything to attack the other argument, but instead reduces the discussion to trading insults.
-
70% of people parolled or released from prison will be back in prison in less than 2 years. Thats a fact. A sad fact, but a fact. So if punishment is meant to curtail the behavior that put them in in the first place then its failing miserably.
Sprig (about to pull out a debate grenade here) is the death penalty a real deterant? Does it stop people from commiting capital crimes?
-
additional evidence: Prohibition. It didn't work. We provided penalties for consumption and sale of alcohol. it just gave rise to all new sorts of crime areas.
The war on drugs: penalties get stiffer and the drug rate has not significantly dropped. In fact, in many areas it's risen.
-
well that's something you'll have to deal with Fuzzy, but stealing is stealing no matter how you try and rationalize it. When I die, this isn't somehting I'm going to have to worry about. Downloading music isn't bad, as long as you pay for it.
Aww, that's sweet Sprig. I haven't been told I was going to hell since high school. I don't have much to say in response to this that doesn't rely on personal insults, so I'll just leave it at that: Awww. It's so sweet of you to be worried about the state of my soul. That's really a much better motivation than being worried that I'm potentially depriving multi-millionaires of a few bucks.
-
I too do not respond well to being told Im going to hell, or being "evil"
-
Fuzzy, that Droplift project sounds fun. Wouldn't you just love to be in the store to watch a cashier try to figure out how to charge for it?
Spring, I'm interested in your opinions on how such crimes can be tracked and proven, if the government is really doing such a bad job.
-
I'm sorry, but no- downloading music isn't the same as shoplifting, Sprig
I'm going to try and agree with my brother without being as offensive as he is. (Knowing him, that shouldn't be too hard....)
Anyway, I do see the two as the same. Both have been proscribed by law as 'illegal.' I think that's kind of what SE was saying--we define it as illegal and give it a punishment, so that's why you shouldn't do it.
What is the difference between taking the CD from the store and burning a copy? Well, I guess you're ripping off fewer people--since your aren't really violating the store's rights. I guess in that sense it really would be 'less-illegal' to download music than to shoplift a CD.
Is it different to take money from rich people than it would be to take it from a regular person? Fuzzy seems to imply that she thinks it is. Some think that it's okay to steal from the rich, since they have enough already. This thinking does have a grand and noble tradition in western society, and perhaps it has some moral groundwork, but I personally still believe it's wrong.
The thing is, people should have the right under our laws to say whether or not you can have access to something they've produced. I agree that the musicians are stupid, and think that I would buy more CD's through previewing them. However, I didn't make the music--the artists did. And if they want to tell you not to download it, I think it is more ethical to respect their opinion and their legal rights.
That's why I say go download indy music and let the big guys learn that they should work with us, not against us.
Now, this doesn't even cover the 'grey album' issue, since it is an established fact that our laws allow reinterpretation of existing art to stand as its own artistic creation. It is legal, for instance, to take pictures from magazines and cut them up and make a new piece of art out of them. It is also legal to sit down and draw some piece of art, and then have that drawing be your own legal and copyrighted creation. I consider the overclocked remixes to fall under this category.
Last I heard, the Grey Album was suffering from 'cease and desist' orders from the original copyright owners, but the case itself had not gone to court.
-
yeah, note, I'm not arguing about the legality of it. Though that's major ball of wax. I'm not sure how comfortable I am with the idea of the strictness of some laws (not necessarily the ones at issue here) and how moral "civil disobedience" is. Not what I wanted to talk about here, but I thought I'd mention why I'm NOT talking about legality.
What I'm saying is that punishment for crimes is just that. Punishment. You do the crime, you do the time. It's a very poor deterrant (There's an $200 fine for speeding on Sydenstricker Rd in my area, that's on TOP of normal speeding fines... the Speed limit is 30, and I'm never below 40, and usually closer to 50. It's done little to disuade me from speeding) and an even poorer re-educator.
-
EUOL - note that I did NOT say that downloading music was not illegal.
What I said was that it was not the same thing as shoplifiting, which everyone but Sprig seems to agree with.
And again, I say to you - if I am not going to buy the CD either way, which I'm not, who exactly am I stealing from?
And if downloading indy artists is ok, why is it not ok to download songs by say, Moby, who doesn't object to file sharing? If I'm not depriving anyone of money, then it must be intellectual property that I'm stealing - and if they person who created the music doesn't care, how am I in the wrong?
I'm with Saint: yes, downloading music is illegal, but no more "wrong" than speeding on the interstate.
-
I never said you or anyone else Fuzzy are going to hell for downloading music. I just said I don't want that on my consence when I die. Two different things. I was stateing it as a non-religious comment on how I personaly couldn't handle going though life feeling like I've been steeling from people. That's why I stoped downloading music and sofware, because when I do something I know is wrong, no matter how I rationalized it, I'll feel horible about it even years later. I'm the last person who would have the right to pull the "holyer then though" card on someone else. Haveing said that it is my beliefs that lead me to the conclusion that stealing is stealing, weither it's 5 cents or $5,000,000. And that's why I say that downloading illegal music is theft.
It is intresting to see you in a furvor over this shoplifting thing, here you are trying to defend your illegal activites by saying it's not that bad. That you're not hurting anyone except a large corperation that wont miss the money. laws aren't selective, you cannot say stealing from someone who can afford to rebuy the item is different then stealing from someone who cannot. What about stealing from someone who may not notice/miss the item? By your reasoning a person could go out and murder some homeless bumb, and that's different then killing someone who socity might miss. No one will miss the homeless person, so that makes it ok?
As for Moby (limpbisket is another artiest that has the same thoughts on fileshareing), if he has the legal right, to say you can download my music then its fine. That would depend on his contract with his music label. Because usealy the music company holds that right.
Finaly the grey album. EUOL, music and movies are a different medium then others in that the copy rights for those mediums prohibit such things. there is a law called the fair use law, you've probaly all heard of this, that allows you to do certain things with the music/video but it can only be for your own personal, private use. Once you take that song you mixed and give it to someone else, or let someone else listen to it you've violated the copyright. Sad thing is that some of the copyright holders said if the DJ would have asked to use the songs they could have worked something out, maybe even a release for the album.
-
yeah, note, I'm not arguing about the legality of it. Though that's major ball of wax. I'm not sure how comfortable I am with the idea of the strictness of some laws (not necessarily the ones at issue here) and how moral "civil disobedience" is. Not what I wanted to talk about here, but I thought I'd mention why I'm NOT talking about legality.
Actually, SE, I didn't even get to your side of the argument--I waxed too philosophical about other things. I meant to note to you that I think Sprig misinterpreted you, as you were drawing the argument in a different direction. (Ie, you wanted to talk about punishment as a deterrent. Sprig wanted to argue ethics.)
As for your Civil Disobedience thing, I too have had questions about this issue. Many LDS people, as conservatives, have been very adamant that we shouldn't engage in it. However, the church itself has been pretty lenient on people who get arrested for engaging in Civil Disobedience. It's an interesting question.
And again, I say to you - if I am not going to buy the CD either way, which I'm not, who exactly am I stealing from?
I'm sorry, Fuzzy, but I don't accept this as a valid argument. It doesn't mater that you don't intend to purchase the CD either way--it matters that the law has defined what you are doing as illegal, and it is immoral to break the law. In a larger, and more important scope, you could apply your rational to other non-tangible forms of stealing.
Would you say it isn't wrong to sneak into a movie theater and watch a movie? Lets say the movie wasn't sold out, and you would never have bought a ticket. Therefore, the theater isn't 'losing' anything by your sneaking in. Would you claim that you haven't done anything immoral by watching that movie?
The way our society works is you get goods or services in exchange for resources. As a consumer, if you don't want to pay for something, you simply go without. There is no middle ground of 'I wasn't going to pay for it anyway, so for me the rules shouldn't apply.'
I'm with Saint: yes, downloading music is illegal, but no more "wrong" than speeding on the interstate.
I have something to add here, but I'll preface it by noting that I'm not a hundred percent sure on this, so if someone can find something conclusive, I'd like to see it.
Speeding is not illegal. Going a certain number of miles above the speed limit IS usually illegal. But speeding itself has been, what they call in legal circles, 'de-criminalized.' This means that while you can be fined for speeding, you get no criminal record for it, and it's not a misdemeanor.
Downloading music, however, IS illegal since it breaks a specific law--meaning copyright law. As of right now, I don't think downloading music is a 'de-criminalized' activity. It has been ruled on and determined an infraction of the law.
So, the speeding metaphor is actually invalid.
And if downloading indy artists is ok, why is it not ok to download songs by say, Moby, who doesn't object to file sharing? If I'm not depriving anyone of money, then it must be intellectual property that I'm stealing - and if they person who created the music doesn't care, how am I in the wrong?
This is actually part of what's screwed up about the music industry. Moby doesn't own the copyright for his songs--the music company does. In literature, the author owns the copyright, and that allows him or her to (eventually) post the material on-line for free. (Scott Card does this, as do the fine fellows over at the Baen Free Library.)
I, personally, would consider downloading these songs 'less-immoral' than downloading songs by others. However, it is still illegal--and it's the morality of breaking the law that, perhaps, should worry you.
-
May I point out that technically, OC ReMixes are illegal, unless the remixer got the Composer's permission in writing. Thing is, you won't get in trouble for it, since if the game companies started suing, they'd just annoy their fans, and if anything OC promotes them. That said, you're still technically breaking the law.
-
Ah, actually, this point--as I understand it--is still in dispute. There just aren't enough cases to use as references, as the idea of remixing is a newer problem in copyright circles. Either way, it has been established that it is sometimes legal to use samples of songs, or to remake songs.
This website:
http://www.eff.org/IP/grey_tuesday.php
Has an interesting argument about whether or not the Grey Album actually breaks copyright laws.
Downloading actual copyrighted music has been ruled on as illegal. Remixing, however, has not.
(Oh, and Fuzzy and SE--please see my specific responses to your quotes two posts back. JP bumped us onto the next page.)
-
However, it is still illegal--and it's the morality of breaking the law that, perhaps, should worry you.
However, it does not. And I know many people whom it does not worry. Why do you suppose that is?
If it were only me, or only people like me, or younger it would be one thing. Why then, for example, do neither of my strict parents have any issues with downloading music?
-
http://slashdot.org/articles/04/03/19/0112230.shtml?tid=126&tid=141&tid=188&tid=95
-
Fuzzy--please clarifiy for me. Are you arguing that breaking the law is not immoral, or are you simply wondering why you don't feel guilty?
-
Yes. Why do I and other people not feel guilty about it, when we normally have over-developed guilt glands?
-
Hum. Well, I don't know if there's anything I can say about breaking the law not being immoral. It seems fairly clear-cut to me.
As for your--and many others--lack of guilt, I can offer several explanations.
Perhaps, deep down, you just don't feel that it's illegal. You don't think the issue has been decided. Perhaps you see that a good number of people disagree with the law, and think that a government run by the people should listen to what its people want, rather than coming up with random, unpopular laws.
As for your parents, if they're like mine, then it really does come down to the 'faceless crime' idea. My mother pirates like Blackbeard and doesn't care--no matter how often I explain that it's wrong. I think, perhaps, we aren't as moral as we think. If everybody does it, then we think it must be okay--especially if it is a hidden, quiet thing.
Of course, as soon as the RIAA started suing people, my mother made certain that none of our family used programs that could get us implicated. That doesn't stop her from having her friends burn CD's for her.
We, as Americans, are kind of an arrogant people. It defines, in part, who we are. We don't like people telling us what to do. So, we take what we want--as long as nobody is looking--and pretend that there are no consequences. This goes for pirating software too.
I can't really say why we feel this way. I feel it too--I have convinced myself not to pirate any more, but there was a time when I had no problem with it. Yet, I considered myself a very moral person. How did I rationalize this? It still confuses me.
No offense intended, Fuzzy. This is directed at us as a culture, not at you specifically.
-
I did do some quick looking and from what I can tell the only "major" artist, if you can call them that, that actualy has, in their contract, the right to distrubte there music for free via the net is Phish.
What I'm saying is that punishment for crimes is just that. Punishment. You do the crime, you do the time. It's a very poor deterrant (There's an $200 fine for speeding on Sydenstricker Rd in my area, that's on TOP of normal speeding fines... the Speed limit is 30, and I'm never below 40, and usually closer to 50. It's done little to disuade me from speeding) and an even poorer re-educator.
That's true SE, but I think if the law was more enforced then it would deture more people. With your example, would you be going 40+ in the 30 area if there were several cops along the road? if there was the threat of being caught and fined I think most people wouldn't speed on that road. It's the same with the internet. If people knew there was a good chance of getting caught and arrested/fined for downloading illegal files, I don't think we'd be haveing most of this conversation. Now you can argure there are better things for the cops to do then sit on the road setting speed traps, or tracking internet downloads. But that's a different argument.
And let me propose this to Fuzzy and others, what about software? Alot, but not all, of companies do feel it when you steal a game or a program like flash.
-
What about TMBG? They always have free mp3's on tmbg.com, as well as music videos, and streaming music.
-
Perhaps, deep down, you just don't feel that it's illegal. You don't think the issue has been decided. Perhaps you see that a good number of people disagree with the law, and think that a government run by the people should listen to what its people want, rather than coming up with random, unpopular laws.
*nod* Yes, that sounds right. Makes a lot of sense. I really do think that eventually the laws will change.
And Sprig- I don't think I have any pirated software.
-
sorry, I ment more how do you feel about downloading software vs music?
-
As an author, however, I have to wonder about these things. If it became popular to download illegal copies of books, how would it affect me? If I can't sell enough copies, then I won't be able to support myself as a writer. That means that I won't be able to write for a living, and won't be able to produce more books for people to read. In essence, my fans would drive me out of business.
I know, it's not likely--books are a very different medium than music. Perhaps people once made the same argument against libraries. However, it is still something I wonder about.
-
I think also with books, (at least for people like me) even ebooks- free or purchased- could never take the place of real hardback books. I just *need* to have the book. And I prefer hardback if I can get it; just the feeling of it in my hands. With music, it all plays in my CD player/computer the same.
And as for music vs. software... I guess I look at pirated software as a little more of a bad thing. But software does cost a lot of money, so sometimes I think it's more necessary whereas pirating music is never necessary.
Look at Maya, the software my husband uses to do his 3D modeling. $2,000 for the software. That's an insane amount of money for some teenager to pay if he wants to teach himself to use it. The cost is so unbelievable prohibitive sometimes that I don't view it as just.
If you're a kid, or heck an adult messing around with Photoshop to try and learn what it does, then I don't see anything wrong with using pirated software, instead of paying 700 dollars to buy it.
However, if you're a company, and you make money by using said software, it's wrong to not pay for that software. I think some companies support this- that's why there are free versions of things like Maya.
-
Another interesting question- Why does no one complain about downloading music videos? I've got about 2 gigs worth of music videos that I very much enjoy watching, but I never hear anyone whine and moan about how somebody's losing money because of it.
And then there are sites like http://launch.yahoo.com where you can watch all the free music videos you want.
-
actualy you can download maya for free so you can learn it, its how the company is trying to combat pirateing and marketing itself. Maya, at the time they started doing that, the number 2 3d software on the market by a significant percentage, and they were trying to increase the number of people that could use the software. When useing the free version your rendered files are watermarked, and you can only save your file types as a special free were type that regular maya cannot read.
It is very expensive though, I had at one time a hacked copy of 3d studio max, wich is almost as expensive as maya. And I justified haveing it by it's so expensive I'd never be able to afford it.
Speaking of wich, maybe I'll go download it. Been meaning to get back into 3d modeling again.
-
I think some companies support this- that's why there are free versions of things like Maya.
*amused look*
-
Launch requires you to watch adds. So it's not actually free.
-
Ok, Spriggan I have to say this, and if you didn't aim this comment at me then I apologize in advance and will chalk it up to the internet sometimes being a poor communication medium at times.
It is intresting to see you in a furvor over this shoplifting thing, here you are trying to defend your illegal activites by saying it's not that bad.
Dont assume that because I dont agree with you in this case that I am a lawbreaker and illegally downloading music. Im not. I never have. I do see music downloading as an exercise in free speech and civil disobedience and have considered it at times but I have never, I repeat never illegally downloaded one song. So dont moralize and call me a theif.
-
I wasn't, I was directing that to people in the conversatoin that openly admited downloading illegal files then tried to defend their actions as just.
I didn't resond to your comment on parolies because, 1) you're right, and 2) that wasn't what I was trying to talk about. see my post where I reply to SE's commment on speeding
oh, and Jeffe, theft isn't civil disobedience. If you want to protest a law you don't walk up and steal someones wallet. And the laws will never change makeing what everyone is doing legal for one reason. It wont stop with music, people will move from music to moives to software and the next thing you know cars, breaking into peoples houses ect. Just remember there's allwayse a consequence to your actions, and changeing the law so theft becomes legal will be detremental to socity.
-
Theft can indeed be civil disobedience, which is why people like Robin Hood, and Jesse James become heros instead of villians. Our founding fathers themselves started a war by stealing tea, and symbolically pouring it into Boston Harbor. (Granted thats a little more complicated but...)
-
Just thought i'd mention that robin hood, in one of the earlier versions of the tales, would stop travellers, give them a meal, and then charged them the entire contents of their purse. In other words, a highway brigand.
Plus, his burial spot, or something said to be, is about 4 miles from where i live.
-
Yeah and in other early ones he would only do it to Clergy (who were pretty wealthy back then)
-
I don't think I have much more to contribute, except to say that speeding is, indeed a crime. There is a law that states there is a limit to how fast you can go. If you exceed that limit, there is a fine. In no place that I can find is it ever ENFORCED unless you go more than 10 over, but the official law states the limit, and there is always a fine structure in place for "minor speeding" or whatever you want to call it.
So:
breaking law = illegal
speed limit = law
therefore, exceeding speed limit = illegal
So, yeah, the analogy still holds.
-
Just to muddy the water there can be mitigating speeding circumstances... it is legal to speed as long as you aren't driving recklessly when....
You are passing on the left
Many states also have go with the flow laws that allow someone to speed if they are going with the general flow of traffic.
-
contrary to popular belief, though, virginia does NOT have such a law. Though generally driving 70 on I495 is safer than going the proscribed 55, it's still illegal. Though it's one of the rare cases where VA law enforcement is reasonable and doesn't often enforce it.
-
North Carolina does have such a law, it was in the Drivers Test Study Guide, many other states have eneacted that law as well.
-
I don't think I have much more to contribute, except to say that speeding is, indeed a crime. There is a law that states there is a limit to how fast you can go. If you exceed that limit, there is a fine. In no place that I can find is it ever ENFORCED unless you go more than 10 over, but the official law states the limit, and there is always a fine structure in place for "minor speeding" or whatever you want to call it.
So:
breaking law = illegal
speed limit = law
therefore, exceeding speed limit = illegal
So, yeah, the analogy still holds.
Actually, SE, that's what I was getting at. It has been explained to me that the laws surrounding speeding (but, I'll admit I'm now lawyer, so I'm out of my depth here) have been worded so that those who speed are not actually breaking the law, but they can still be given a ticket for it. It's kind of a 'if you want to speed, you have to pay extra' kind of thing.
Or, at least, that's how decriminalization has been explained to me. The same holds for parking tickets--it's not actually against the law to break most parking restrictions. But, for some reason, they can still fine you. Kind of like how you can be fined for parking in a private-property-owned parking lot without a sticker. It's just not a legally criminal activity, but the owners have stipulated "We own the land, so we can charge people who park on it. If they don't have a sticker, we can charge them more."
As for civil disobedience, I would say that stealing can indeed be a form of civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is simply doing something illegal for what one believes to be a higher moral law. Breaking the law as a protest. So, you would have to be doing something illegal for it to count.
-
that doesn't make a lot of sense to me. That doesn't mean it's accurate, but it doesn't make sense, and currently I don't believe it. I'd have to see the wording of the law.
... which I just did for Virginia
Operation of any motor vehicle in excess of a maximum speed limit established ... shall be unlawful and constitute a traffic infraction punishable by a fine
-http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+46.2-878.2 (a page on Virginia's official government page, showing the "code of Virginia" -- the body of laws)
I don't see how that can possibly be construed to mean that speeding is finable but not "illegal."
Utah's body of laws is a heckuva a lot more messed up and hideous. Far as I can tell, what you say may possibly be accurate for Utah, since I can find a section specifying the authority to establish a speed limit, and I can find a section on penalties for exceeding the speed limit, but I can't find any word that states "unlawful" or "illegal." However, that sounds more like mincing words.
and on that note, I can't find those words used in conjunction with murder either. There are some types of homocide which are specfically designated 2nd degree felonies, but the crime of "murder," from my cursory search is not specifically labeled "illegal" or an inarguable term giving it equivelant status. would your friend argue this is not illegal either -- just punishable by a jail term? that doesn't make sense.
Seems to me, if it's prohibited or described as "punishable" in the code of the state, it's illegal. Anything else is pulling a Clintonesque "depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" sort of semantic bashing that is ultimately meaningless.
-
Actually, I'm not drawing this from a 'friend,' I'm taking it from news programs which have been discussing the 'decriminalization' of marijuana. They almost always use speeding as an example of something that is punishable, but not 'criminal.'
Look up decriminalization on google, and you'll get a billion sites talking about legalizing pot.
I'm not sure what the difference was, but I always found their arguments very interesting.
-
sounds like wordplay to me at best. Relying on people not knowing how the law works more likely.
-
It's a very, very common argument regarding marijuana. I'm not saying that the talking heads are right, but it's something I've seen and heard discussed a lot. A good number of people think that decriminalizing possession of pot would free up a lot of police resources and cut out unnesssiary destruction of lives (by giving people a criminal record, which invalidates them for some jobs.)
I'm not saying I agree, but it is an interesting argument. Apparently, decriminalizing marijuana would make possessing pot a fineable offense, but not 'criminal.' Selling it would still be illegal, as would possessing a large amount of it.