Am 08.07.2010 16:48, schrieb Mark Knecht:
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 4:25 PM, Hartmut Noack<zettberlin@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
> <SNIP>
>>
>> All 3: wrong if you really wanted to see the show. If it would be the
>> Rolling Stones I would sneak in if I can, out of couriosity but I would not
>> complain, if someone would come and throw me out. If I want to see a
>> concert, I pay for it. If the venue/artist charges too much money for my
>> taste I loose my interest in the concert...
>>
>
> So, it wrong but you'd do it anyway as long as what, no one gets hurt?
> I suspect you wouldn't spray the guard at the door with anything that
> knocked him out for 30 seconds, or you wouldn't hire a very pretty
> girl to distract him so he wasn't watching the entry.
>
> Does the penalty matter? If they throw you out then you'd sneak in,
> but if they break your hand then you wouldn't?
>
> Penalties aren't really fair to talk about if we're just discussing right/wrong.
>
>>> 4) A friend purchases a DVD of a movie that cost $1M to make but
>>> brought in $1B at the box office. You rip a copy. Right or wrong.
>>> 5) A friend purchases a DVD of a movie that cost $1B to make but
>>> brought in $1M at the box office. You rip a copy. Right or wrong?
>>
>> Both acceptable. If "a friend" is someone from my hood there is nothing
>> wrong in that. It is not illegal in Germany to make up to 6 private copies
>> and if it would be illegal it would still be OK and the law would be subject
>> to be changed. Because helping a neighbor is more important for the
>> civilisation than keeping virtual properties untouched. And by doing this
>> you do not establish a world-wide anonymous infrastructure to distribute
>> copies to people, you dont know.
>> This may sound like cheap semantics but it is not.
>>
>
> OK - There are local norms which may change the answers to some extent
> around the world. That's cool, although I'd ask what Germany means by
> a 'private copy'.
It is not forbidden to make up to 6 copies for friends and neighbors as
long as you do not use technology that is made to break copy-protection.
Such technology must be officially labeled illegal to make the copy
itself an illegal one.So if copy-protection works by manipulating the
TOC of a CD to make it unreadable in CD-ROM Drives, it is perfectly
legal to copy this CD using a software that is made to repair a broken
TOC. Such copies are allowed only if you own the original. Second
generation is not legal.
> Even our U.S. DRM laws allow one copy of digital
> material for 'archival purposes' so TTBOMK I'm allowed to copy my DVD
> for safe keeping. However I'm not (to the best of my knowledge)
> allowed to loan out the copy. Only the original.
>
> So, it's OK for _any_ individual to break _any_ law which _that_
> individual deems it 'should be changed'?
>
> How did we 'help the neighbor' in this case? Couldn't your friend have
> simply loaned you the DVD, you watch it and give it back when you're
> done?
>
> I very much like your picture of 'virtual properties'. That's worth
> some extra thought.
>
>>> 6) Some bad guys rob a bank but in fleeing the scene of the crime
>>> throw money out the window to put people in the way of the police
>>> chasing them. You are standing on the sidewalk when $1000 lands at
>>> your feet. You pick it up and don't turn it in. Right or wrong?
>>>
>>> 7) Some bad guys rob a bank but in fleeing the scene of the crime
>>> throw money out the window to put people in the way of the police
>>> chasing them. You are standing on the sidewalk when $1000 lands at
>>> your feet. It is raining and you see lots of money getting washed down
>>> the storm drain where it will likely never be found. You pick it up
>>> and don't turn it in. Right or wrong?
>>
>> Both wrong. Everybody knows, that most banks are semi-criminal, antisocial
>> organisations. They are, because they exist in a system that is utterly
>> broken -- the same as broken as ASCAP and GEMA. So at first glance it looks
>> like: take the darn money and run! And this idea has some appeal to me too.
>> But in the end: if I take the money and run, I am not that much better than
>> the capitalist crooks that live by the rule: "take what you can, by any
>> means, allways, never give anything back!". This antisocial
>> quasi-darwininistic philosophy is exactly the very foundation of most of the
>> problems, we have today.
>> And on the other hand it would feel just great to see the faces if I'd walk
>> into the bank to return my catch. A person, they do not trust enough to hand
>> out a credit-card that pushes 1000,- at the table saying: "Take it, its
>> yours. I found it in the gutter the other day, right after the robbery."
>> Maybe I would keep the money anyway - it depends on the actual state of my
>> own account. But I would feel a bit like corrupted, if I would keep it....
>>
>> best regs
>>
>> HZN
>
> I hadn't thought of the parallels with credit cards. Interesting.
>
> Thanks very much for the answers!
>
> Cheers,
> Mark
>
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
Received on Fri Jul 16 20:15:29 2010
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Jul 16 2010 - 20:15:29 EEST