Replies

If my choices are choosing between unchecked greed that amounts to theft, and theft itself, I'll look for something in the middle. I take neither side in this. I do however see using one against the other as a viable alternative. One doesn't have to commit oneself to either side. There's always a middle ground. As a general rule, people [i]want[/i] to abide by the law, as do I. There is a threshold there though. If my choices are either getting financially raped by rampant greed or resorting to some sort of illegal scheme to avoid the former, then a decision will have to be made.

It has been my position for some time now that the greed of the RIAA and MPAA are actually forcing people into a moral dilemma...and one where the 'illegal' option can be morally justified. It's a train wreck of a situation. Perhaps the pressure from the 'foreign hackers' will force the content providers into a more realistic business model, and one that is fair to the consumer.

the 'illegal' option can be morally justified...Perhaps the pressure from the 'foreign hackers' will force the content providers into a more realistic business model, and one that is fair to the consumer.

Well you're clearly choosing a side whether you realize it or not. I believe in property ownership myself, and the right of the property owner to set prices of sale, and that the capitalistic market to ensure those prices are fair, not illegal activity. Illegal activity typically causes prices to go up, as more severe controls are required and implemented. Thinking that DRM controls will go down due to theft is the same as thinking a fence that is being jumped for illegal entry will be taken down, rather than a better fence going up in its place.

Ultimately, the just solution is to punish infringement of fair-use prerogatives as severely as we punish infringement of copyright prerogatives. However, this requires removal of the current crop of coin-operated legislators.