<-- Warning: charset 'X-UNKNOWN' is not supported -->
On Mon, 2 May 2005, Jason Spatafore wrote:
> On Monday 02 May 2005 09:57, Kevin Brown wrote:
> > If you don't agree with the laws the legislature is passing, then either
> > convince others to vote for someone else at the next election and/or write
> > your current representative and let them know what you think. ?They
> > can't/won't change what they are doing if they don't hear from people who
> > disagree with them.
>
> You are to be judged by your peers. If you are an individual who disagrees
> with the laws you are being prosecuted for, why do you not get to choose the
> peers who are to judge you? All in all, our constitution *was* written for
> the people and by the people. It was originally created to protect people
> from heavy oppression and forceful rule. Whether you think so or not, that is
> not the case.
>
> Think about it...when Napster was first started, 60 MILLION people shared
> files and wanted to do so. We were 'educated' that this is 'wrong' and
> 'illegal'. And, nowadays, we have 'learned' that it is wrong. In the end
> though, is it really wrong? Is it wrong when 60 million people were involved?
> Why didn't the 60 million people get to say "Umm, I like it. Too fucking bad,
> Sony/RIAA/insert any other financially strong institution here."
>
> Also, I would like to inform everyone that numerous justices on the supreme
> court have been quoted saying "Our laws are not to be influenced by societal
> pressures." And I have to say this very loud and very clear: OUR ENTIRE
> GOVERNMENT *IS* TO BE INFLUENCED BY SOCIETAL PRESSURES!!! That is what
> DEMOCRACY is all about!!! BUT, our constitution has one flaw: Lifelong
> judicial terms. If the judges were directly elected...would the laws be as
> they are? No, they would forever change. Legislature may proposed the laws,
> and get them encouraged by the executive branch. BUT, the people charged with
> declaring what is 'unconstitutional' are failing to do their jobs...and there
> are no repercussions in such a case. Checks and balances my ass...
>
> *clears throat*
>
> --
> Sincerely,
>
> Jason Spatafore
> http://www.spatafore.net
> A+ Certified Service Professional
> ---------------------------------------------------
> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change you mail settings:
> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>
Not to rehash the intellectual property arguments, but I want to kill the
abusive #@!*%($# my wife is unfortunate enough to work with, but I have been
'educated' that this is 'wrong' and 'illegal'. Are you saying I should just
say "Umm, I think it is too fucking bad" and skin them while they sleep
anyway?
Laws are designed to encourage behavior that is healthy for our society and
discourage behavior that is unhealthy for our society. Laws that make it
possible to protect your creation from abuse is good, forcing these laws on
content providers who do not wish to protect their creations is bad. Creating
public fear instead of education is also bad. But again, if you purchase a
house that has a clear stipulation that the original architect has finale say
on any modifications, then you do not have the rite to modify your house
without his/her approval. But you do have the rite not to buy the house.
[Please remember I believe in fair use, and I believe the RIAA goes to far]
---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list -
PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change you mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
(text/plain)