> I define the difference between pirate and legitimate broadcasters, in the
> absence of intellectual property laws, to be a matter of ethics, morals,
> personal integrity.
> Your definition of 'best at getting content to lots of people' would have
> tempered by what means of obtaining and delivering that content the ethics
> the people (i.e. that of every individual you seek to deliver to) are
> accept. If the popular opinion of you is that your are a no good theif who
> steals the work of others, then a popular boycott of you is likely to
> limit the Q rating of your network, assuming of course that you can find
> people to work for you.
Are you suggesting that it wouldn't be illegal to re-broadcast your content,
but it would be unethical?
If it's unethical behavior, then why would we remove the laws governing it?
You can't have it both ways-- you want it to be free content on one hand,
but then be able to call me thief if I use it on the other.
And if people would be tempted to call me a thief (as I suspect they would!)
this is only further justification for my position. Why make it legal to be
> Your inability to see through the smoke is obvious, but its the smoked
> of the shyster that is blocking your view.
Ok, look, we disagree, that much is clear. In fact, I'd say we
fundamentally disagree. I'm certain we find the other short sighted,
stubborn, naive... contentious even. But I certainly don't attribute any
malice or intent to decieve to your position. But this is the second time
in as many days that the 'opposition' has questioned my moral integrity, and
frankly I find it kind of weird. My intellect is on display here and you
may attack it at will, call me stupid if you must, but I'd like to politely
ask that we refrain from comments from the position of ethical superiority.
I mean, it's a little early for that, isn't it?
Please and thank you.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:34:49 MDT