dragonsbane said:Personally, I stand for moral relativism every day. It is more important to me that individuals make decisions based on what they feel - individually - are right and wrong. I am glad that some here believe blindly following the "law" keeps them safe both morally and in the eyes of our fine government.
But let me ask you this... in your soul (if you believe in such things), do you really believe it is "wrong" to purchase a song off the iTMS without DRM? I am all for breaking the "law" as long as you know the consequences.
Those arguing for the supremacy of "laws" over moral reason simply hide the fact that they are dividing humans from one another. If you choose to abide by a law, do so. But do not confuse your knowledge of what the law states with a morally superior stance. Your morals are good for you and no one else.
the Rebel said:So if my morality tells me that it is right for me to kill you, then you support my choice to do so?
Breaking the DRM is wrong regardless of whether or not it is against the law. The fact that it is also against the law only compounds the wrongness.dragonsbane said:First you say that breaking the law is wrong. That is why we should not use this app to download songs from the iTMS.
You may not have liked my question, but there was no shouting. Also, if you are going to quote someone, then you should actually quote them rather than paraphrase. The question had nothing whatsoever to do with defending my rights and I did not use the word "murder."dragonsbane said:Then someone pokes in and shouts "If I want to murder you will you defend my right to do that?" I answer that I respect your desire to unwrap DRM and to murder me.. In both cases, you are subject to the laws of the land.
I know that your position is quite weak and indefensible, but can you at least try to refrain from misrepresenting the statements that others have made.dragonsbane said:It is hypocritical for you to say it is OK to speed but not grab a tune using this app. You might not want to use this app, but that is just you. You are a SPEEDER for crying out loud. Our society is about to fall apart because you break the law "when you choose". UUUGH! The horror of it all.
I mean, my goodness, what would we do if everyone thought for themselves and made up their own minds about what they would and would not do! So much better if everyone just followed the laws of the land. I mean... if it is a law then it is good and should be obeyed!!!
He never said it was OK for him to break the law. You are the one who said it is OK to break the law. He said it was wrong.dragonsbane said:You, my friend, have argued yourself into a corner. You say we should not break laws but you willingly break them when it suits you. Why is that OK for you but not for me? I have said from the start: Do what you feel. Learn the law and the consequences for breaking it. But at the end of the day, make up your own mind about right and wrong... and follow it.
According to your philosophy it would seem that nothing is ever morally wrong for an amoral person.dragonsbane said:Convince me of why it is wrong to break this law... but do not try to tell me that by breaking it I am doing something wrong. Illegal, yes. But since when is doing something illegal morally wrong?
How do you figure? The second that file hits my computer, it's mine. So long as it stays on my hardware, I will do whatever I like with it. I will compress it, unwrap it, move bytes around, change the album art to ******, whatever I want.the Rebel said:Breaking the DRM is wrong regardless of whether or not it is against the law.
So Sue Methe Rebel said:The fact that it is also against the law only compounds the wrongness.
How can you turn the speeding thing around on him? He was referencing something that someone else said. And by this someone's actions, he is giving the message that speeding is OK and unwrapping a file is wrong. That is exactly the message is he conveying.the Rebel said:No one said that it was OK to speed, but wrong to violate the DRM. Both are wrong, but you seem to think both are OK.
People do this all the time. Speeding is an example, jay walking is an example, and piracy is another example. People will assess whether they should break a law based on their risk of getting caught. That's how humans work.the Rebel said:If everyone broke the law whenever it suited them, then our society would indeed fall apart.
I can 100% guarantee you that there are laws that you break on a regular basis. Why do you ignore them?the Rebel said:No one said that all laws were good. When there is a bad law then you should work to change the law. The fact that there are some bad laws does not justify ignoring all laws.
If "he" is who i think "he" is, then "he" said that he speeds on occasion. Maybe he doesn't think it's OK, but he does it anyway. So his thoughts on the matter are irrelevant since they are obviously not strong enough to prevent him from doing it.the Rebel said:He never said it was OK for him to break the law. You are the one who said it is OK to break the law. He said it was wrong.
That depends on your definition of morals. It can either be interpreted as one's own moral compass, in which case your statement would be correct. An amoral person would never find himself to be morally wrong. Society will judge the person based on their own moral compasses, which vary greatly from person to person.the Rebel said:According to your philosophy it would seem that nothing is ever morally wrong for an amoral person.
No, they are not irrelevant. Doing something you know is wrong is not the same as doing something you know is wrong and pretending that it's NOT wrong to do. I said that if you know the law, know the consequences, know that you are breaking your OWN WORD, know that there are legal way to address your concerns, and you still CHOOSE to break the law because it's more convenient for you, that's your choice. It is not a correct choice, but it was your informed decision. That's why society steps in when you make bad calls. If it wasn't wrong to break society's rules, they wouldn't punish you for doing it.geniusj said:If "he" is who i think "he" is, then "he" said that he speeds on occasion. Maybe he doesn't think it's OK, but he does it anyway. So his thoughts on the matter are irrelevant since they are obviously not strong enough to prevent him from doing it.
matticus008 said:No, they are not irrelevant. Doing something you know is wrong is not the same as doing something you know is wrong and pretending that it's NOT wrong to do.
geniusj said:Are you claiming that you don't know that speeding is illegal? Because I know that under the DMCA, removing DRM is illegal. That is not true in many other countries, however (including the one where Jon Lech Johansen hails from if I'm not mistaken.) So now will you claim that his country is morally reprehensible?
I'll quote you:matticus008 said:I don't see where you get the idea that I'd think speeding isn't illegal.
Since I know *I* wasn't pretending that what I was doing wasn't illegal, and you didn't specify who you were referring to, I assumed you were speaking of yourself.matticus008 said:Doing something you know is wrong is not the same as doing something you know is wrong and pretending that it's NOT wrong to do.
Click through agreements like the iTunes TOS have little to no legal foundation on which to stand. Their history has been shakey at best. It is also very possible to JLJ to have done this without never having clicked through that agreement, or even having signed up for an iTMS account. I don't even think that iTMS was even available in his country when he started.matticus008 said:I've only said that it is several times. Whether or not the DMCA or similar legislation applies in other countries, the iTunes Terms of Service forbids tampering with it. That is legally binding, and morally unsound, wherever you happen to be.
Again, which could very well mean nothing.matticus008 said:No DMCA? Okay. You've still got the iTunes TOS.
That is not a right for the copyright holder under copyright law. Prior to the DMCA, it was perfectly legal to do as he's doing. If there is no DMCA equivalent in his country, then it is legal. This is how he won the DVD case.matticus008 said:No iTunes TOS in your country? That means no iTunes there, and therefore it's not an issue. But in this country, it exists and applies, period. I've already covered all this, and it would save you a lot of trouble if you would stop and think about it. His country has copyright laws, as well. Unless they also have legislation making DRM illegal, they also have the legal right as copyright holders to stipulate its presence until it is proved otherwise. It's illegal in every country, even DVD Jon's.
Um, no. That's not what that says. That says that speeding is illegal and that doing it anyway is doing so, even though you know it's illegal. The latter part states, Speeding, which you know is illegal, but that you pretend isn't wrong is a different matter. Both are illegal, and both are wrong, but in the former, you accept that reality and in the latter you don't.geniusj said:I'll quote you:
Since I know *I* wasn't pretending that what I was doing wasn't illegal, and you didn't specify who you were referring to, I assumed you were speaking of yourself.
Not true. They have every right to deactivate your account for a violation of their TOS. Do not confuse the legality of Terms of Service with the legality of stipulations within software EULAs. The EULA is legal, sometimes the contents aren't. The contents ARE legal in this case.Click through agreements like the iTunes TOS have little to no legal foundation on which to stand.
No, it wasn't. If I sell you software that has a CD key designed so that you use it with just one machine (which happened long before the DMCA), you don't have a right to remove the CD key and use the software. The copyright holder was legally protecting his or her intellectual property with the CD key, and you agreed to those terms when buying it. That was always legal, and still is. The DMCA did not change that. It didn't make that CD key removal legal, nor did it make what was previously legal illegal.That is not a right for the copyright holder under copyright law. Prior to the DMCA, it was perfectly legal to do as he's doing. If there is no DMCA equivalent in his country, then it is legal. This is how he won the DVD case.
Of course, but they can deactivate your account if they're having a bad day if they want. I'll never fight against that, that's their right.matticus008 said:Not true. They have every right to deactivate your account for a violation of their TOS. Do not confuse the legality of Terms of Service with the legality of stipulations within software EULAs. The EULA is legal, sometimes the contents aren't. The contents ARE legal in this case.
Actually, I believe that it would have been legal to remove the CD Key from software you had purchased, provided that you didn't distribute it to others, and of course that you had purchased it legally. The software developers might not like it, but it was not illegal for you to do. Under the DMCA, however, this would be illegal.matticus008 said:No, it wasn't. If I sell you software that has a CD key designed so that you use it with just one machine (which happened long before the DMCA), you don't have a right to remove the CD key and use the software. The copyright holder was legally protecting his or her intellectual property with the CD key, and you agreed to those terms when buying it. That was always legal, and still is. The DMCA did not change that. It didn't make that CD key removal legal, nor did it make what was previously legal illegal.
matticus008 said:No. Just no. This is not an appropriate forum for asking for help to do something illegal. Find your answers elsewhere.
Originally Posted by dragonsbane
Thank you. I could not have said it better myself. Now what was your point again since you just stated mine almost verbatim? Oh, right, don't use this app because it is wrong to break laws. I agree - if you break a law you are doing something wrong. But you just proved the larger issue which is - do what you want and be prepared for the consequences. All humans should do what they want. All humans should think for themselves. No one should ever be led by "the law". Do not abdicate your responsibility as a human to think for yourself. If you do not agree with a law - and do not mind the consequences if you get caught - then you should not follow it. Period. Never follow a law just because it is a law.
Yup, I see you now agree with my position. Thank you. It is all so clear now =)
Originally Posted by matticus008
Well then, there you go. As long as we're all clear that it is against the law and you're aware of that, that's all there is to it. Aside, of course, from the morality of breaking the law when you don't have cause to or breaking your word.
Can't we all just get along? I mean for cripes sake! Humans do what they want. Breaking the law is illegal - not immoral. The more educated you are about laws, the more you will realize how many you break. Assuming that knowledge of breaking a law is what makes breaking it immoral, then learning about laws is akin to being immoral.Originally Posted by geniusj
People do this all the time. Speeding is an example, jay walking is an example, and piracy is another example. People will assess whether they should break a law based on their risk of getting caught. That's how humans work.
geniusj said:How do you figure? The second that file hits my computer, it's mine. So long as it stays on my hardware, I will do whatever I like with it. I will compress it, unwrap it, move bytes around, change the album art to ******, whatever I want.
I am following the spirit of the law. Meaning, that I am not doing anything that their DRM wrapper is designed to prevent.
He lied. He was NOT referencing what anyone said. He claimed that someone said it, but no one had said it.geniusj said:How can you turn the speeding thing around on him? He was referencing something that someone else said. And by this someone's actions, he is giving the message that speeding is OK and unwrapping a file is wrong.
That does not change the fact that it is wrong.geniusj said:People do this all the time. Speeding is an example, jay walking is an example, and piracy is another example. People will assess whether they should break a law based on their risk of getting caught.
You can not guarantee any such thing. Just because some people break laws on a regular basis does not mean that everyone does.geniusj said:I can 100% guarantee you that there are laws that you break on a regular basis.
He explicitly said that speeding in violation of the law was wrong. Yet dragonsbane stated that he had said the exact opposite.geniusj said:If "he" is who i think "he" is, then "he" said that he speeds on occasion. Maybe he doesn't think it's OK, but he does it anyway.
the Rebel said:That does not change the fact that it is wrong.
.
latergator116 said:When you say wrong, do you mean morally wrong or illegal?
bigpoppa said:It is illegal!
latergator116 said:Yes, I know it is illegal, but the question was directed at the person I quoted (the Rebel).
matticus008 said:We've been through this. It is both illegal (which makes it wrong, period, by definition) and morally wrong. Let's see how simple it can get:
1. ALL things that are illegal are wrong (because they are illegal, and breaking a law is breaking a social contract which is going against what society has decided is right, therefore what you are doing is wrong in the eyes of society)...
That may be, and from your perspective it might be sufficient. However, your personal morals are not the only grounds of moral assessment. You must still comply with group morality (society), which ultimately has power over you. Group morality is the baseline, not individual morality.latergator116 said:Maybe my definition of morals is different from yours. Even though jay-walking is illegal, I see nothing morally wrong with it (as long as it is done safely).
matticus008 said:That may be, and from your perspective it might be sufficient. However, your personal morals are not the only grounds of moral assessment. You must still comply with group morality (society), which ultimately has power over you. Group morality is the baseline, not individual morality.
Individual morality stops at the point where the decision is made and executed. The ramifications, effects, and consequences of that action then enter the realm of group morality, on which your decisions are judged. If you feel morally justified to do something which society has decided is wrong, you are judged to be immoral (even when you don't agree). Carjackers, for instance, may not feel immoral about their actions, but their moral judgment is not the defining characteristic we look to.
Doctor Q said:I'm still interesting in hearing what people have to say about legal, technical, business, and societal issues to do with PyMusique and digital rights management, but I hope we can move on from "right" vs. "wrong".
I don't really think there's all that much to discuss about jaywalking (it's a law for public safety, and a good one as you know if you live in a major city where jaywalkers regularly get hit), and downloading programs (whether you'd pay for them or not) does still hurt other people. Even if the authors aren't losing out on sales (which they are, because the number of programs in use vs. the number of licenses sold becomes disproportionate), the scale of piracy has made it so that legitimate users have to put up with increasingly burdensome measures to use and maintain software that they are using in full compliance with license agreements and laws.latergator116 said:If I decide to break a law that does not affect anyone other than myself, then I have all the moral right to do that. (e.g. jay-walking, downloading programs that I wouldn't normally buy, etc.) I know I am taking a risk by breaking certain laws, but I will take full responsibility if caught.
No, CDs don't have DRM. Some have copy protection, which is designed to prevent customers from extracting the digital audio from the disc to create WAV or compressed audio files. As for the creator of the software, it's up to the courts to decide whether or not he's broken the law in accordance with his country and any applicable international laws. This isn't as simple a case as his DeCSS work. As far as using the software in the United States, it is indeed unlawful. The record companies work under the assumption that they are going to lose some sales to piracy. All companies work under this model. They implemented DRM to work like those beeper things at the doors of retail stores. Sometimes they go off when you've done nothing wrong, and some shoplifters will still get past the system, but it cuts down on theft considerably. Was it illegal for stores to put in those scanners? Should they have trusted their customers more?latergator116 said:Personally, I don't like the restricitions of DRM, so I think PyMusique is a very usefull program. The record industries should'nt assume people are going to use the music illegaly. I mean, if someone wanted to get a song with out all the limitations of DRM, they could easily use limewire. Legaly, the person that created the program has done nothing wrong, so I don't see how Apple or the RIAA could come up with a lawsuit. Quick question, do most CD's have DRM protection or is it just music from the iTMS?
matticus008 said:No, CDs don't have DRM. Some have copy protection, which is designed to prevent customers from extracting the digital audio from the disc to create WAV or compressed audio files. As for the creator of the software, it's up to the courts to decide whether or not he's broken the law in accordance with his country and any applicable international laws. This isn't as simple a case as his DeCSS work. As far as using the software in the United States, it is indeed unlawful. The record companies work under the assumption that they are going to lose some sales to piracy. All companies work under this model. They implemented DRM to work like those beeper things at the doors of retail stores. Sometimes they go off when you've done nothing wrong, and some shoplifters will still get past the system, but it cuts down on theft considerably. Was it illegal for stores to put in those scanners? Should they have trusted their customers more?
EDIT: And you've already indicated that you understand that PyMusique was illegal earlier in the thread, so doesn't that prove the RIAA's position on the matter? People ARE attempting to circumvent the laws, so PyMusique is exactly the sort of reason for increased protection of digital content.