Quote:
Originally posted by Geoff332@Sep 12 2003, 12:20 AM
But it does challenge property rights. Now, you might not think that property rights are necessary for democracy. But this is an entirely different argument from what you suggested. It is also inconsistent with every contemporary justice system that I can think of (or at least the ones I would want to live under).
Filesharing does harm people. It takes something they have produced (their music) and gives it to someone else. The person who made the music gets nothing from it and if the person who receives it would have given them money for it in some other way, then they have lost that money. Now, you may consider that is not significant harm, which can be argued for. But to assert that it doesn't harm anyone is not factually correct.
You can (and do start to) make a case that the harm is less than the benefit of file-sharing. But the assertion that "it would be undemocratic for government allow laws to be passed against the majority of people" is false with all the definitions of democracy. If you rest your criticism on this assertion, then you are on very dubious grounds. The argument that, "everyone does it, so it must be OK" is not a good place to start, especially when there are alternatives. |
Well, I am communist, I'm not too supporting on property rights...
In terms of harm, I was talking about physical harm, as you had raised the point of killing jews. But if we are going to turn this a little...the money people would have lost if, instead of downloading, bought legitimately would do far greater harm to them than the lost revenue for the companies. (ah, i just re-read the last post and you raised this...)
If we are a democracy it is the will of the people that matter. If they wish to create a law, that doesn't contravene human rights, it should be created. If they wish one turned over, and it does not breach human rights, then it should done. As I don't agree that property rights are human rights, and I do believe, and you havn't disputed, that the majority support file sharing, to actively make laws stopping file sharing would be supporting the minority over the majority. As the law is against the will of the people, it is undemocratic.
And I never said it is okay because everyone does it, I am saying it would not be okay for a democratic government to support judgements against the majority.
If it is so horrific a crime that you need to prosecute 12 year olds for committing it, yet the majority support it, it is the duty of politicians to persuade the majority against it through debate, not law.