dylan tribute
Mr. Antondjango's Band

Mail Me!!!




Morality is NEVER determined by what governments decree.
It MAY be, and it SHOULD be;  most of the times it IS, i reckon.
And in democratic nations it is supposed to be like that all the time.
But it's NOT like that, unfrortunately.

Thus the original question:
*is downloading off the net a crime* is supposed to be answered:
1. Yes (technically)
2. It depends (morally)

Logic suggests that, parallelly, if the question had been:
*is killing people a crime*  the only possible answer SHOULD be:
1. Yes, all the time, both *technically (legally) and *morally*
if we're talking about *voluntary* (felonious is the technical word, I
think) homicide.
If we're talking about *legitimate defense*, instead, this question must be
1. Yes (techinically)
2. No (morally)

And we WOULD be, actually, Josh
But that's, once again,  where the heart of the question is:
We would be *thieves* in that country; we would be *heroes* (so as to say),
if you see the prism from the *moral* perspective.
(we would be considered like that in all other countries, in other words, as
jews who refused submission to nazism are, for example )

So, at the end of the day, the original question, in my opinion, should be
*is it right/fair/just considering copyright infringement a crime (though a
minor one)?*

And I accept, I really do,  that there are people who would answer  *yes, it
But please don't tell me that we HAVE to answer that it is.
I, personally, think it isn't.





"Wilbur Slice" <wilbur@wilburslice.com> ha scritto nel messaggio

>>Literally and legally, yes.
>>Not morally and logically, no.
> Morality is a subjective issue, and there are widely varying opinions
> about these things.  For example, I believe that stealing someone's
> intellectual property is morally wrong.  You believe it is morally
> acceptible.  So be it.  But that's not really all that relevant - in
> the real world, the law is the law.

But still morals has its laws.
Morality is what (should) distinguishes thinking beings from stones and
If you think it's *moral* denying a copy of a CD to one of your friends who
asks you, go ahead.
I think it's compulsory (=moral) making a copy for him; it's immoral denying
the copy in the name of a (so called) legality.
And stupid, to boot.

> And I don't know what you mean about "logically".  That doesn't really
> make sense in this issue.

It does.
Read above, put yourself in your friend's shoes and think again.

>>That's, once again, the bottom line of the question.
>>The Iraq War is *legal*.
>>That's well established too, isn't it?
> No, it's not.  But that's a whole separate issue.

No, no, no, i'm really sorry for you.
If you can't distinguish between morality and legality you're the same kind
of people who reckon a UNO resoluiton *legally* *grants* you the right to
bomb a country.
Face it, Wilbur.
IMMORAL (though not *moral* = virtuous) as well.
That's the bottom line.

> "Logics"?  ???  I make my living in logic, and I don't know what you
> mean by that.

See above (2)

> *Your* morals.  I think your "morals" are faulty.  But, as I said,
> that doesn't matter - they law is whatthe law is.  You might think
> it's perfectly moral to steal cars from rich people, but you'll still
> go to jail for it.

See above (3)
You (will) go to jail for stealing cars = right
You (might) go to jail for downloading songs = wrong
You (surely don't) go to jail if you sell arms to the 3rd world = wrong.
Where do you stand?

>>Your loss, not ours.
> What did I lose?

You miss thinking morally




"Wilbur Slice" <wilbur@wilburslice.com> ha scritto nel messaggio

> And there's the problem with trying to argue "morality".  There is a
> wide range of opinions about morality.  I think your position is
> morally wrong, because you are stealing - you are taking someone
> else's property (the copyright owner's intellectual property) without
> paying for it.

No, i'm infringing copyright laws.
(at the most)
I'm not *stealing* anything.
What is on the net is a *duplication* (illegal, yes) of what is supposed to
be protected if *original*.
The rest are clones.
If I duplicate one cds 100 times and then I make 1000 mp3 cds, have I stolen
1000 times more than the first downloader???
The verb *steal* is absolutely out of discussion, here.
You'll have to live with this, my friend.

And, by the way, if downloaders are stealers, why don't you try and sue
Would you call the police if you happen to see someone robbing a bank?
So, go ahead, sue all your friends who you know for sure have downloaded
some mp3s, c'mon!

That is stealing, by definition, and stealing is
> immoral IMO.  In your opinion, stealing is not only moral but
> commendable.

No, *making a present* and *making a favour* is commendable.

>>No, no, no, i'm really sorry for you.
> You can't see the difference between the war in Iraq and copyright
> violations?

No, not in this discussion.
I' mean, we're not discussing how many people are dying because of
downloading music, are we?
So, the issue is *what is legal is also moral? what is illegal is also
Under this respect, no, there's no difference.
Indeed, they are clear.cut cases of the frequent appalling dicotomy

>>Face it, Wilbur.
> No, I am of the opinion that the Iraq war is illegal AND immoral.

Don't fool around, man.
I think so, too.
But what about those who think it IS legal?
(55% of the Americans, that is)
Does that make it MORAL because it is LEGAL???

>>IMMORAL (though not *moral* = virtuous) as well.
>>That's the bottom line.
> Well, let's specify:  the *illegal* downloading from the net is
> illegal and immoral.

No, illegal, and immoral is making war or killing or stealing.
Downloading songs is illegal, NOT immoral.

>>> "Logics"?  ???  I make my living in logic, and I don't know what you
>>> mean by that.
>>See above (2)
> I think maybe you need a dictionary.

Which kind of dictionary?
I think i've studied all those available in commerce.
Sure it's not the other way round?

>>> *Your* morals.  I think your "morals" are faulty.  But, as I said,
>>> that doesn't matter - they law is whatthe law is.  You might think
>>> it's perfectly moral to steal cars from rich people, but you'll still
>>> go to jail for it.
>>See above (3)
>>You (will) go to jail for stealing cars = right
>>You (might) go to jail for downloading songs = wrong
>>You (surely don't) go to jail if you sell arms to the 3rd world = wrong.
> No.  None of that is "logic".  It's opinion, and it's subjective.

Yes, that is only logical.... :-)))
And your answer is....?

>>You miss thinking morally
> LOL!!
> That from someone who thinks stealing music is not only morally
> acceptible but even commendable.

I'm a Christian, I'm sorry for you, Wilbur.
I think that the law is made for men and not viceversa.
So if I have to cure one of my friends on a Sunday (law infringement) I HAVE
to cure him first, desregarding the law.
A Christian guy can't use the word *stealing* for downloading songs because
he has to keep it for children who are LEGALLY deprived everyday of their

Which they haven't paid for, though, so maybe they are starving to death for
a reason in your book, aren't they?




> 1) I'm not "angry" about downloading.  If you  perceive any "anger", it's
> probably just annoyance and disdain for  people who try to rationalize it
> as if they are entitlted to  steal.  And make no mistake about it, it IS
> stealing.   Artists and record companies produce music as their product -
> they do  it for their living, and downloaders are flat-out stealing from
> them

Ok, we'll never agree on that.
It's a word problem, yes, I agree this time.
Not on my sode, though.
You keep on avoiding distinction between *letter* and *meaning*
The fact that soemthing it's *called / defined / accepted as * stealing does
not mean  it *IS* stealing.
But I see you don't want to accept this.
I'll take it.

>  2) I don't download stuff illegally from the net, no.  But I have  bought
> bootleg LP's and CD's and I have made burned copies of CD's for  friends
> and so forth.  But I'm not trying to fool myself into  believing that it's
> somehow not stealing.  It's stealing nickles  and dimes, and the bootlegs
> are justifiable in that they are not  otherwise commercially availale and
> when they do become commercially  available, I buy them.  I don't
> particularly mind individuals  stealing a few songs here and there, just
> recognize that you're ripping  someone off, that's all.  Admit it. It's
> violating copyright  law.  I also drive too fast sometimes, and I violate
> other laws  here and there - but I understand that I'm violating them.
> To  live outside the law you must be honest.

Ok, we perfectly understand each other here!
(which is not *agreeing*, uh!)

>  3) I apologize about the language remarks.  Yes, I have always  been able
> to tell you are not American - your use of the language is a  little
> "foreign" sometimes and it's not that hard to tell.  But  your English is
> actually very good - MUCH better than my Italian (which  is about nil).
> But you're right, I shouldn't have made any kind  of an issue out of it.
> I just though that there might be some  problem in our communication
> because you were expressing your ideas in  a way that didn't really make
> sense because maybe you were using words  that you weren't familiar with,
> or that you weren't understanding all  the implications of the words I was
> using.  And while I should not  have made an issue of it, your assertions
> that your English is better  than mine was just a tad over the top as
> well.  Whatever...   I'll just drop that, and I will say that while your
> English isn't going  to fool many people into thinking you're American
> native English  speaker, it is really quite good.

Ok, I'll take this again.
Even though it sounds quite cheap for you to say *your english is quite
good* and then say *it's better than my italian, which is nil*
Yes, it might be my reward for saying *my english is better than yours*,
which actaully may be an exaggeration, but the point is that
a) there are no english words I'm not familiar with
b) my  s/l/w/r comprehension are all finally and ultimately set for good
(they've been for ten years now) around 100%
c) I've been teaching English Lit for 20 ys now
d) in my job I always work in *cooperation* with mothertongue teachers and
I've always accepted *language games*; I'll let you bet who sometimes wins
e) when I go to England I never have troubles in pretending I'm American
(and English when I meet Americans)
Now I know, Wilbur, that showing medals and trophies is like making an ass
of myself *__* and I'll accept the risk.
But I must also tell you that my bilingualism is always accepted so your
remarks sound very odd to me.
And a little bit bitter, I must admit.
I won't mention it again as well, I apologize as weel for my sarcastic
remarks as well.
But I insist nobody has never dismissed my bilingualism.
As you're the first guy who does, you must be a real language expert so I'll
take the liberty of asking linguistic opinions, from time to time....

>  4)

>  5)
>  Your best argument is:  "Yeah, it's stealing, but it's like  stealing
> pennies from a pile of money - it's trivial and ultimately  justifiable
> because it actually stimulates music sales by increasing  awareness and
> allowing people to try things that they might otherwise  not listen to."
> But that only works if two conditions are  met:  1) not EVERYBODY does it,
> and those who do don't do it ALL  the time, and 2) you actually DO
> purchase legitimate music as well.

No, that's not my argument at all, let alone *my best*
My argument is what I stated in the first paragraph.

>  Finally, I think part of the problem is that when I say downloading
> songs is stealing, you think I'm saying that it's "a crime like killing
> or raping."  That's just ridiculous.  Not all crime is the  same - there
> are trivial little crimes that are so insignificant that  nobody is going
> to do anything about (like downloading a few songs,  copying a disk for a
> friend, driving 5mph over the speed limit, etc.)  and there are horrible
> crimes like mass murder and rape.  There  are all SORTS of crimes, and
> they are not all equivalent.

I've never said that.
of course there are grades,otherwise there wouldn't be grades of
*condemnation*, as well.
Obviously that's not my point.
My point remains *is it ethical to respect the law per se or is it sometimes
ethical to disregard it*?
(now that works fine, doesn't it?)

Ok, thanks for the answer and take care.