"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:49f212c9$1@news.povray.org...
> On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 11:39:27 -0600, somebody wrote:

> >> The MIT Guide to Lockpicking teaches you how to open most locks very
> >> simply.  That is protected free speech.  The use of that material,
> >> though, can lead people to illegal activities.

> >> So should the guide be blocked from public access?

> > Is it a legal and freely distributable publication? If so, no.

> It is freely distributable copyrighted material.

Then, my answer is no. That was easy, wasn't it? See, internet isn't really
any different than "real life". If the "MIT Guide to Lockpicking" is freely
distributable IRL, same should go for the internet. The complication is the
borders, as you indicate below, but I suspect it's not an insurmountable
problem.

> Today it's legal.  There are some people (like those who passed the DMCA)
> who happen to think that the mechanisms that protect things should not be
> protected free speech.
>
> Similarly, in some countries, it is legal to discuss, crack, and disclose
> the copy protection mechanisms in software.  The US isn't one of those
> places, but there are plenty of places where it is allowed.

Does that make it viable as a sustainable model? Sure, Kyrgyzs (*) may not
care about whether cracking software hurts Autodesk or not - it's not their
intellectual property. But I'm pretty sure they would care if the shoe was
on the other foot. More importantly, from a developmental standpoint, they
won't be able to establish an Autodesk of their own until the laws change.

For the simple reason that I cannot see legalizing copyright infringement as
part of a viable economic model, I can claim it's wrong to legalize it. If
you care less about economy, more about morals, maybe you may find it's
wrong from a "golden rule" standpoint.

(*) I know nothing about copyright laws in Kyrgyzstan. I just singled them
out because their name is cool.

> You need to stop looking at these issue through US-centric eyes.

Ethical relativism is an absurd and meaningless proposition when its taken
to its nihilistic extreme of  "anything goes" and "all opinions are equally
valid". Ironically, ethical relativism itself is actually a western-centric
view.

So, *someone* is going to impose their views. Why would that someone be the
someone who wants a completely lawless internet rather than someone who
wants a highly controlled one? I don't subscribe to the notion that
lawlessness is de facto standard, that it's the natural state of things,
that it's the default.

> Either that or just flatly state that your opinion is not mutable,

I suspect that my opinion is no more or less mutable than yours. I have yet
to see a single person change his/her opinion during an online discussion in
the short history of internet. I'm not tempted the least bit to be the
first.

Post a reply to this message