Forum - View topic

NEWS: Woman Arrested for Uploading Anime via Perfect Dark

You believe it's thievery, many do not. I don't think I have to justify anything. What I do requires only voluntarily beneficial transactions between individuals. What you want requires the use of a monopoly mafia to tell everyone that they have to do something or not do something. That monopoly has been well known to use it's power, whether or not the end goal is good or whether or not the means is good. The law enforcers are paid by thievery.

But you don't have any legitimate right to force me to do what you want anymore than you have a right to force pot smokers not to smoke pot or homosexuals not to be gay.

Beneficial to you and the other person, but not so much for the people that actually own the rights to the show, or else they wouldn't try to fight it.

Big problem with your argument. Being gay isn't illegal and smoking pot is (at least in most places), so lumping them together is inaccurate.

Plus, currently, distributing copyrighted content without the permission of the copyright owner is illegal, so there is a right to force you to stop. We've all seen the arguments about the morality of this subject go round and round, but the fact is that behavior as described in the article is currently illegal.

You believe it's thievery, many do not. I don't think I have to justify anything. What I do requires only voluntarily beneficial transactions between individuals. What you want requires the use of a monopoly mafia to tell everyone that they have to do something or not do something. That monopoly has been well known to use it's power whether or not the end goal is good or whether or not the means is good. The law enforcers are paid by thievery.

...I buy anime because it's beneficial for me to buy it. I download it because it's beneficial for me to do that as well. I don't force anyone to accept that what I do is morally right. If you want to freely disassociate from me because you don't like what I do then by all means do so. But you don't have any legitimate right to force me to do what you want anymore than you have a right to force pot smokers not to smoke pot or homosexuals not to be gay.

I only chime in to point out the amusing irony of that in itself being a circular justification for your actions.

It's curious you'd say "force" to begin with; if something is morally right, shouldn't merely demonstrating so be enough to explain yourself?

And since when is torrenting a civil rights issue on the scale of homosexuality?

In comparison to illegal downloading, the activity of such is done neither with the consent of the rights holders nor to their benefit.

I'm not going to force you to acknowledge how ignorant or offensive that was, if you want to freely (or non-freely, even) disassociate from me or anyone else you'd like to because you don't like being held accountable for being ridiculous, you have my express permission to do so.

The "rights" were conferred by government fiat.

I do have a right to defend myself, but not to initiate aggression against someone else.

I'd be agreeable to penalties based on them if I agreed to a contract of some sort saying that I wouldn't copy. But I didn't do this, and neither do most people.

Society should be built around the non-aggression principle, that being that I have no right to initiate aggression against others.

So were all rights. There's no such thing as natural rights - all rights are political and legal constructs.

So all laws should be opt in? The logistics of such a system would surely be...problematic.

In any case, in a representative democracy your vote is your contract. Don't like the law? Vote for somebody who agrees with you. Can't find anybody? Run for office yourself.

A noble sentiment but helping yourself to the fruits of somebody else's labour without their consent and in the face of their protests could be construed as being pretty aggressive.

What gave you the right to write this post, or to go to work, etc?

Copying is no different than walking or talking or any myriad of other things that humans do. We copy merely by seeing, listening, etc. It is our nature. If you think this is amusing you should explain yourself.

If morality could easily be conferred by explanation none of humanity would have disagreements over any of it. But you will find multiple religions and many views on all sorts of things.

What are "civil rights"? (Seriously, the term is used so many ways) I didn't make that argument in any case, the purpose of the comparison was to display that neither homosexuality nor smoking pot nor copying is an act of aggression. I am a voluntarist, so I believe that which doesn't involve initiation of aggression is ok, insofar as no one elses person or property was damaged.

I don't need the consent of a third party to begin a transaction between myself and someone else. The whole point of my post is that I don't believe the state can "give rights" to others that allow them to restrict the use of my property and tell with whom I can and can't trade.

Offensive is in the eye of the beholder. The very fact I don't accept your view is what offends you, so any argument I would offer in regards to it would probably irritate you.

It's obvious that you need force to make me accept your morals or you wouldn't be in support of police enforcement for state granted monopoly rights. Apparently you weren't capable of demonstrating your morals like you imagined.

I don't need the consent of a third party to begin a transaction between myself and someone else. The whole point of my post is that I don't believe the state can "give rights" to others that allow them to restrict the use of my property and tell with whom I can and can't trade.

It's not easy, but as long as it's a problem it isn't going to solve itself. According to written history, we've made some progress. There's room for a little more, don't you think?

Sure, but homosexuality isn't an act at all. See the prior post.

Why not protect the artists? Do they deserve to be cheated?

Well, axe murderers don't accept my view and they offend me. Are you saying you stand on the same ground? I don't think a coward is on the same level as a murderer. If you're that intimidated by the prospect of my irritation, try to focus on demonstrating some responsibility rather than making a flak jacket out of gays.

Statements about my personal morality began and ended with what I said about well-being and consent being two necessary criteria to homosexual behaviour. I trust you agree?

Also, I clearly stated "my objection to your shameless exploitation of the social oppression of gays to justify your animes". The onus is on you, having asserted the connection, to demonstrate it. I have a problem with your logic first; your confounding morals are only accesory to that. Seriously, can't gays catch a break?

I'm not sure how you are defining progress. I see that in the 20th century we've had the greatest regressions in individual rights and freedom. It was the 19th century that saw an advance of liberalism, and the prosperity that followed it and continued into this century was the result.

It is not more violence that we need to achieve goals, it is less interference between those who voluntarily trade.

I guess I should say "gay sex" but I don't really like it. To be honest I'm a bit of a homophobe. I have no desire to stop homosexuals from doing anything they want privately, and I'll agree it is natural for some (not all though, there are bisexuals/etc. and that should make it clear if anything there is some choice involved in the matter). That doesn't mean I have to like it. I do find it distasteful, and that's one reason I use the example is because it's something I personally dislike but I have no right to subject others to my preference when they aren't using aggression against me.

I'm a free market advocate in the extreme, and while I'd love to get into the your points on labour laws, regulations, unions, etc. (because I despise them for the use of violence they all entail) I can't do it here for now, so if you want to take this up elsewhere I have no problems with that.

Suffice it to say in summary on these issues you brought up that I don't agree that the results you think would occur from getting rid of these laws would happen. Many of these laws (child labor, minimum wage, etc.) occurred long after advancements produced by the market allowed for them. They really serve to keep people down by giving them no avenues up, and in regards to child labor I think vocational training is significantly more important than "generalized education." More internships in modern society with less public schooling would benefit us on the whole.

Because I don't think we need to "protect" them from other people. They can really do it on their own. There are many people who vehemently disagree with intellectual property but have just as much desire to see artists continue to make art, etc. And we will do what we have to, even buying within the current system regardless of how much we dislike it, to see that occur. I've got no desire at all to see less art or to see artists do poorly. This system we have now steals from them and many other productive people to give to hedge fund managers that only earn what they do because of the continual inflation created by government central banks.

I've also got no love of corporations, particularly corporate welfare, bailouts, etc. as all of those things draw money away from the people to put it in the pockets of the wealthy. But regardless of whether our regimes are conservative (interested in war, and laws on morality) or liberal (interested in welfare and redistribution) they all extend state power and only ensure inevitable bankruptcy.

I don't think I said I was intimidated? I simply don't think I can be anything but offensive to you. I imagine you have views that I dislike immensely and would find offensive also.

I don't disagree with your points there, the reason I brought up homosexuality was to put it in a voluntary context. While I may personally not like it, it's voluntary and I have no justification for trying to force people not to act on it.

My logic is simple. Having voluntary homosexual relationships is voluntary (no surprise there). Buying drugs which you choose to buy is voluntary. Copying files on the internet from someone else in a peer to peer exchange is voluntary. That's the connection, and so I think it's illegitimate for someone to interfere in any one of those things, regardless of whether some of them are choices based on personal preference or sexual preference or weird chemical deficiencies in the brain.