From: Shlomi Fish (shlomif_at_nonexisting.hamakor.org.il)
Date: Thu 26 May 2005 - 15:11:06 IDT
On Thursday 26 May 2005 13:10, Imri Zvik wrote:
> At least know your idols.
> And I quote "Open source is a development methodology; free software is a
> social movement." The FSF is specifically asking people not to mix both
> terms on their website.
>
Fair enough. I do. I like both terms and use them for different purposes. Sue
me for that!
> I am overwhelmed with your contributes to the public. Your freecell solver
> is a state-of-the-art, bleeding edge software, and I'm sure you gave up on
> a lot of money when you made it public domain.
Was that supposed to be a sarcastic remark? Freecell Solver is just _one_ of
my contributions to the public good. I also wrote many stories that are
distributed online for free, other original FOSS, contributions to other
people's FOSS, wrote many technical articles and presentations (including the
Perl for Perl Newbies series), wrote several essays (almost all of them
Creative Commons by), and maintain several web-sites.
I only received some money from my O'Reilly-Net articles, but that's it.
>
> Now seriously, you keep missing the point here (not to mention your
> idiotic, childish examples): 1. the fact you were able to decide your
> program will be public domain/GPL/whatever is all thanks to the copyrights
> laws, who let the owner/creator/author decide what to do with his creation
> (within the other limits of law, which disapproves human sacrifice (do you
> have any other idiotic example?)).
Right. But there are limits to what you can dictate people to do with your
copyrighted work. You cannot keep the copyrights to yourself forever. You
cannot prevent people from breaking copyright protection (DMCA, etc.). And
no, you cannot prevent non-commercial copying of the work. (commercial
copying is a different issue altogether).
I fully respect copyright law, and do not seek to abolish it, but I don't
think innocently copying a piece of work (without trying to make a business
out of it) is immoral or unethical. Maybe it's illegal according to various
local laws, but that's a different issue altogether.
>
> 2. You are not breaking the law "innocently" nor "guiltlessly", as you are
> fully aware that what you're doing is ILLEGAL (not to mention that even if
> you weren't aware, not knowing the law, doesn't make you not guilty).
I don't feel an ounce of guilt for copying these songs, because I fully
acknowledge that what I did is perfectly OK. I also don't feel remorse. So it
is done guiltlessly.
As for innocently - I am fully aware that it is illegal. However, there are
many small children who do it too, just to get the songs/media/etc. they
like, and you cannot blame them for being un-innocent. When the law-suits
against file-sharers started, the RIAA sued a 12-years-old Honour Student.
>
>
> Also, the definition of "crime" is:
>
> crime
> n 1: (criminal law) an act punishable by law; usually considered
> an evil act; "a long record of crimes" [syn: law-breaking]
>
> Therefore, you *ARE* a criminal, by definition.
>
It depends on the definition of law - whether the state's law ("Law of the
Land"), or absolute/objective law (the so-called "Law of God"). And also
notice "usually considered an evil act". If you make a survey among Israelis
asking how many consider file sharing an _evil_ act, do you think the
majority will say yes.
You can call me a criminal if it makes you happy. If you want to put a happy,
productive person like me who never did harm to anyone under the same
umbrella as murderers, rapists, thieves, and criminal liers, be my guest.
> To endanger democracy you don't have to use force, threats or fraud. The
> biggest danger to democracy is when people decide to take the law into
> their own hands. I thought they teach you that in high school.
Democracy is the tyranny of the majority, and a system that eventually
deteriorates into a combination of Fascism and Communism. The word you are
looking for is probably "Liberalism", which is a philosophy advocating
individual rights and freedoms.
A liberal country must not enact irrational laws. If it does, they will be
violated. Take a look at what a mess drug prohibition has caused for example.
And no, violating arbitrary irrational laws does not cause chaos. Can you
point at how the 20% of the Israeli who download and share media on the
Internet, can cause _real_ crimes to take place? (murder, theft, rape, etc.)
And for the record, I retrospectively found the discussions in my Civics class
in high school, to be quite a brain damage. You may wish to read "The Neo
Tech Discovery" to understand why they are.
>
> In the bottom line, Shlomi, as a couple of people already mentioned here,
> you are talking about things way over your head here,
No, I'm not.
> trolling, and
> misreading texts
I have not mis-read any text.
> (not to mention that you are encouraging people to break
> the law, misleading them into thinking that what they are doing is OK, and
> not illegal, which is very wrong too).
I am not encouraging anyone to break the law. I'm just saying that all the
people who do break the letter of the _Israeli_ _State_ law are not really
doing anything which is morally or ethically wrong.
> You should not abuse stages given to
> you to encourage people to break the law.
And you should start understanding that the Law of Israel is not the word of
God. To quote Thomas Jefferson:
"The spirit of resistance to government, is so valuable on certain occasions,
that I wish it always to be kept alive."
>
> (I wonder if anyone from the Israeli Records Association is reading this
> thread...)
>
Feel free to squeal on me to them.
Regards,
Shlomi Fish
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish shlomif_at_iglu.org.il
Homepage: http://www.shlomifish.org/
Tcl is LISP on drugs. Using strings instead of S-expressions for closures
is Evil with one of those gigantic E's you can find at the beginning of
paragraphs.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 08 Oct 2005 - 15:41:58 IST