As for what are considered crimes today, there are certainly victimless crimes.JohnG@lt wrote:
There's no such thing as a victimless crime. If there is no victim, there can't be a crime.jord wrote:
The only reason people don't commit victimless crimes is because of the inherant risk of being caught and punished.
There is no such risk in downloading music, thus it's done.
Then those 'laws' should not exist.SenorToenails wrote:
As for what are considered crimes today, there are certainly victimless crimes.JohnG@lt wrote:
There's no such thing as a victimless crime. If there is no victim, there can't be a crime.jord wrote:
The only reason people don't commit victimless crimes is because of the inherant risk of being caught and punished.
There is no such risk in downloading music, thus it's done.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Ugh. You not what the notion entails I'm not going to go into specific examples.JohnG@lt wrote:
There's no such thing as a victimless crime. If there is no victim, there can't be a crime.jord wrote:
The only reason people don't commit victimless crimes is because of the inherant risk of being caught and punished.
There is no such risk in downloading music, thus it's done.
Of course I was. Which was crystal clear from the context of the surrounding thread conversation 10-odd months ago.Phrozenbot wrote:
Context or not, that rhetorical question was very ambiguous. It implied that digital content from the internet was illegal if you read it literally, though clearly you were speaking of internet piracy? IJS
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Forget I said anything.FEOS wrote:
Of course I was. Which was crystal clear from the context of the surrounding thread conversation 10-odd months ago.Phrozenbot wrote:
Context or not, that rhetorical question was very ambiguous. It implied that digital content from the internet was illegal if you read it literally, though clearly you were speaking of internet piracy? IJS
Plaigarism IS different because it is claiming someone else's work as your own.Phrozenbot wrote:
If you think about it, any original idea of yours, was it truly original? As in, it was in no way influenced by someone else's idea? Our scientific progress is about building upon ideas to make them better, I see nothing wrong with being influenced greatly so much as to say "copy" someone else in a creative way either. We all do it to an extent.SenorToenails wrote:
Indeed, I would argue that they are. Copyrights were probably never meant to be extended solely to protect a certain mouse and the corporation that owns it...Phrozenbot wrote:
It is against the law and it should not be broken, but this brings question if copy right laws are too stringent.
Plagiarism is entirely different though.
The idea behind copyrights was to allow the author/creator/whatever to profit off of their work for a while and then have to make something new while their previous work would add to the public domain. It encouraged advancement in the arts because you would need to make something new every 20 years in order to keep eating. Now, one successful piece can provide profit for what, 120+ years? That's absolutely absurd.
Perhaps that's what jord was getting at?JohnG@lt wrote:
Then those 'laws' should not exist.
Do people just follow laws because they are laws..?JohnG@lt wrote:
Then those 'laws' should not exist.SenorToenails wrote:
As for what are considered crimes today, there are certainly victimless crimes.JohnG@lt wrote:
There's no such thing as a victimless crime. If there is no victim, there can't be a crime.
I don't murder people because I have no desire to.
I don't take Heroin because I don't want to.
I don't commit cheque fraud because I have no experiance and it and would likely fail and end up with a prison sentance.
The illegality of something has no bearing on my decision to not do it, why would it...
Last edited by jord (2010-09-09 15:04:10)
It's always been indefinite. Simply need to pay a maintenance fee for the patent/copyright every five years (possibly three, fuzzy memory on the subject).SenorToenails wrote:
Plaigarism IS different because it is claiming someone else's work as your own.Phrozenbot wrote:
If you think about it, any original idea of yours, was it truly original? As in, it was in no way influenced by someone else's idea? Our scientific progress is about building upon ideas to make them better, I see nothing wrong with being influenced greatly so much as to say "copy" someone else in a creative way either. We all do it to an extent.SenorToenails wrote:
Indeed, I would argue that they are. Copyrights were probably never meant to be extended solely to protect a certain mouse and the corporation that owns it...
Plagiarism is entirely different though.
The idea behind copyrights was to allow the author/creator/whatever to profit off of their work for a while and then have to make something new while their previous work would add to the public domain. It encouraged advancement in the arts because you would need to make something new every 20 years in order to keep eating. Now, one successful piece can provide profit for what, 120+ years? That's absolutely absurd.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Very much agreed.SenorToenails wrote:
Plaigarism IS different because it is claiming someone else's work as your own.Phrozenbot wrote:
If you think about it, any original idea of yours, was it truly original? As in, it was in no way influenced by someone else's idea? Our scientific progress is about building upon ideas to make them better, I see nothing wrong with being influenced greatly so much as to say "copy" someone else in a creative way either. We all do it to an extent.SenorToenails wrote:
Indeed, I would argue that they are. Copyrights were probably never meant to be extended solely to protect a certain mouse and the corporation that owns it...
Plagiarism is entirely different though.
The idea behind copyrights was to allow the author/creator/whatever to profit off of their work for a while and then have to make something new while their previous work would add to the public domain. It encouraged advancement in the arts because you would need to make something new every 20 years in order to keep eating. Now, one successful piece can provide profit for what, 120+ years? That's absolutely absurd.
We're having two different conversations.jord wrote:
Do people just follow lawa because they are laws..?JohnG@lt wrote:
Then those 'laws' should not exist.SenorToenails wrote:
As for what are considered crimes today, there are certainly victimless crimes.
I don't murder people because I have no desire to.
I don't take Heroin because I don't want to.
I don't commit cheque fraud because I have no experiance and it and would likely fail and end up with a prison sentance.
The illegality of something has no bearing on my decision to not do it, why would it...
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
treason? tax evasion? homosexuality? sodomy? indecency?JohnG@lt wrote:
There's no such thing as a victimless crime. If there is no victim, there can't be a crime.jord wrote:
The only reason people don't commit victimless crimes is because of the inherant risk of being caught and punished.
There is no such risk in downloading music, thus it's done.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Uhhhh, that's not true at all.JohnG@lt wrote:
It's always been indefinite. Simply need to pay a maintenance fee for the patent/copyright every five years (possibly three, fuzzy memory on the subject).
It was originally 14 years and if the author survived, they could pay for another 14 and that was it.
Look it up, copyright act of 1790.
Edit:
Last edited by SenorToenails (2010-09-09 15:08:25)
Treason is betrayal of the nation. Everyone in the nation is a victim.Uzique wrote:
treason? tax evasion? homosexuality? sodomy? indecency?JohnG@lt wrote:
There's no such thing as a victimless crime. If there is no victim, there can't be a crime.jord wrote:
The only reason people don't commit victimless crimes is because of the inherant risk of being caught and punished.
There is no such risk in downloading music, thus it's done.
Same goes for tax evasion as it places a heavier burden on taxpayers.
Homosexuality, there is no victim unless it is not consensual.
Same for sodomy.
Indecency in public is a tough one. I feel people are too uptight personally, but whatever, I can understand being offended by it.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
It's not you...really. RDMC started it, you just bore some of the brunt of it. It wasn't directed at you specifically, but rather a point about necroposts/threads as a whole.Phrozenbot wrote:
Forget I said anything.FEOS wrote:
Of course I was. Which was crystal clear from the context of the surrounding thread conversation 10-odd months ago.Phrozenbot wrote:
Context or not, that rhetorical question was very ambiguous. It implied that digital content from the internet was illegal if you read it literally, though clearly you were speaking of internet piracy? IJS
My apologies.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
1 example I will give of a victimless crime is possesing a controlled substance.
There are more, but I don't see how there's no such thing as a victimless crime.
There are more, but I don't see how there's no such thing as a victimless crime.
I see both victims and no victims. Sorry what's the point.Uzique wrote:
treason? tax evasion? homosexuality? sodomy? indecency?JohnG@lt wrote:
There's no such thing as a victimless crime. If there is no victim, there can't be a crime.jord wrote:
The only reason people don't commit victimless crimes is because of the inherant risk of being caught and punished.
There is no such risk in downloading music, thus it's done.
I think John is saying that those shouldn't be against the law, since there really isn't any crime if there is no victim.jord wrote:
1 example I will give of a victimless crime is possesing a controlled substance.
There are more, but I don't see how there's no such thing as a victimless crime.
He's saying what should be, you are saying what is. That's the difference here.
Ahh, well the point I was trying to make is that we have laws on the books that create victimless crime when there shouldn't be any. For a crime to be a crime, there needs to be a victim. When there is no victim it is a mislabeled moral stance.jord wrote:
1 example I will give of a victimless crime is possesing a controlled substance.
There are more, but I don't see how there's no such thing as a victimless crime.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Yes, precisely.SenorToenails wrote:
I think John is saying that those shouldn't be against the law, since there really isn't any crime if there is no victim.jord wrote:
1 example I will give of a victimless crime is possesing a controlled substance.
There are more, but I don't see how there's no such thing as a victimless crime.
He's saying what should be, you are saying what is. That's the difference here.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
you completely misunderstand the legal and philosophical concept of a 'victimless' crime.JohnG@lt wrote:
Treason is betrayal of the nation. Everyone in the nation is a victim.Uzique wrote:
treason? tax evasion? homosexuality? sodomy? indecency?JohnG@lt wrote:
There's no such thing as a victimless crime. If there is no victim, there can't be a crime.
Same goes for tax evasion as it places a heavier burden on taxpayers.
Homosexuality, there is no victim unless it is not consensual.
Same for sodomy.
Indecency in public is a tough one. I feel people are too uptight personally, but whatever, I can understand being offended by it.
go read a book
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Morally unacceptable. There.JohnG@lt wrote:
Ahh, well the point I was trying to make is that we have laws on the books that create victimless crime when there shouldn't be any. For a crime to be a crime, there needs to be a victim. When there is no victim it is a mislabeled moral stance.jord wrote:
1 example I will give of a victimless crime is possesing a controlled substance.
There are more, but I don't see how there's no such thing as a victimless crime.
So school me fuckface.Uzique wrote:
you completely misunderstand the legal and philosophical concept of a 'victimless' crime.JohnG@lt wrote:
Treason is betrayal of the nation. Everyone in the nation is a victim.Uzique wrote:
treason? tax evasion? homosexuality? sodomy? indecency?
Same goes for tax evasion as it places a heavier burden on taxpayers.
Homosexuality, there is no victim unless it is not consensual.
Same for sodomy.
Indecency in public is a tough one. I feel people are too uptight personally, but whatever, I can understand being offended by it.
go read a book
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
john im not going to get into some big argument and 3-page long-quote train with you because you can't stand to be wrong or lacking a clue on any given subject (we have all seen it many, many times in D&ST...). im just saying to you "read a book" before you come out with all this quasi-authoritative bullshit: "laws without a victim should NOT be a law AT ALL"- yeahhhhh NO... shut up. recognise that you don't know everything and just go do a cursory wikipedia search or check a relevant legal journal. at the end of the day, it's not a great deal of effort to spend in order to prevent yourself from looking like a bellend.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Elaborate please. Are you sugggesting my example is immoral?Phrozenbot wrote:
Morally unacceptable. There.JohnG@lt wrote:
Ahh, well the point I was trying to make is that we have laws on the books that create victimless crime when there shouldn't be any. For a crime to be a crime, there needs to be a victim. When there is no victim it is a mislabeled moral stance.jord wrote:
1 example I will give of a victimless crime is possesing a controlled substance.
There are more, but I don't see how there's no such thing as a victimless crime.