OT: Which is better: XP or 2000? > Another Piracy Discussion

[tesco samoa]

If the majority of people are commiting morally wrong acts. Perhaps it is not morally wrong anymore. Morals are based on what a society sees as what is right. Laws would change to reflect that. THen it would no longer be morally wrong to that society.


For tv adds and skipping look no further than dvd's and for recording content. Look no further than the pile of crap delaying digital tv... and the converters....

Some country in Europe has the law state that you can make a back up for 7 family memebers... Or something like that. Clarification from some one from that country please.

PS I would rather have a 'self-centered" and 'stubborn' fyron than a quiet passive fyron. Shows he passionate about what he thinks. Which in turn makes me think and I can tell it makes others think. Always remember you have the choice to agree or disagree.

[Gryphin]

I Feel
You can debate the “legality” of this till the internet stops working.
A person can get away with this indefinitely.

Isn’t the real issue here ethics ?

[Fyron]

Originally posted by Roanon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
The way I look at it, only actions that are stealing can be considered stealing.

Means: only actions that *you* consider stealing are stealing? Fyron, there *are* other opinions than yours, and they are at least equally right or wrong

Well I'm not the first to think of the words "self-centered" and "stubborn" I guess

---

Umm... that had absolutely nothing to do with "my opinion". It was a simple statement of the fact that only an action that is stealing is stealing... I fail to see what it could possibly have to do with opinion. Of course, what is stealing could in some convuluted way have to do with opinion, but what I said had no opinion in it at all.

Of course, if people would actually look at the definition of "steal" that I posted, they would see that a lot of these actions do indeed qualify as stealing... nothing to do with any opinion, but with cold hard fact of the language. "steal" is a much broader term than some people think it is.

If the majority of people are commiting morally wrong acts. Perhaps it is not morally wrong anymore.

So if the majority of people start killing their neighbor, does killing your neighbor stop being morally wrong? If a majority start killing off their firstborn child, does that make killing off your firstborn no longer morally wrong? (not talking about abortion here, talking about wacking the little tike some time after birth)

[ December 03, 2003, 14:32: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[tesco samoa]

Mongolian society from the 300's to the 1500's believed in plundering there fallen foe's Taking what they conquered as theirs.

In that society that was what was right.

If we lived in a society where we had to give up our first born to sacifice then that would be right. Those who hid their first born would be wrong. As per that societies laws and customs.

To answer your question. If the majority of people stated to kill their neighbours in your society right now. It would be wrong according to the laws and customs of your society. But if the trend continued within your country I am sure that some of the laws and customs would change to reflect this change in society. So then it would not be morally wrong according to that society. Remeber 50 years ago in your country it was morally wrong for a black person to sit in the front of a bus. It was morally wrong for an Irish person to apply to many jobs in the Toronto area.
But luckly society changed and the laws changed to reflect these changes in society. Which drives the morals of a society. It is based on the laws and customs of that society at that time.

[geoschmo]

That's true Tesco. Although I hope to never live in a soceity where such things are acceptable.

This whole issue is one of semantics. Copyright infringment or theft. It may not fit a strict legal definition of theft, but it's still taking what's not yours, and it's still wrong as far as our laws and soceity have determined to this point. Will that change in the future if people continue to ignore it? Perhaps. But that doesn't change the fact that it's illegal now.

There were many brave souls in the 60's that fought against the discriminatory laws and practices of the day. Rosa Parks decided it wasn't right that she had to sit in the back of the bus, so she did something about it. We can applaud her courage now, but she paid a price for her disobedience then. As many others did, and some worse then her.

I guess the question is do you honestly feel that you have a right to copy and share music, software and other IP type stuff? Enough so that you feel it worth taking a stand and suffering the consequences? Do you feel that by taking a stand and freely "sharing" software and music someday you will be considered as a freedom fighter and be admired for your courage? If you do, then do what you feel is right. But be prepared to face the consequences so that future generations can share freely.

Or do you maybe just want to get the stuff without paying for it?

[Fyron]

Moral relativism only goes so far...

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Moral relativism only goes so far...

I agree with you, but the discussion seems to have come around to a question of what is legal. Legality and morality are two different things. Often they are complimentary, sometimes contradictory, but they are never the same.