Speaking about The Pirate Bay, I was in school (computer technician fake education) and the whole class followed the trial on the newspapers sites and when I mentioned that I support the actions against TPB some answered like: "What?? Why would you want the TPB locked down??"

Me: "I think PC gaming will be killed or become severely crippled if the warezing doesn't stop."

Can't remember the rest of the conversation but other times I've had that discussion they ALWAYS say: "Have you pirated yourself sometime? In that case, you can't say anything" <---- LOL yes I can!

Also, my local computerenthusiast site is against the downing of TPB and an IP protection law that was passed in I think 2008.

I'm sure you know that the masses want things for free. I know I do

Heh, but that only applies to evil nations you know

The "good guys" (who call themselves democracies and sit in the selfrighteous worldcontrolling club known as the UN) can do whatever they want and just veto any complaints against them.

It's like that galactic senate in Star Wars.

First, since we are in the mutual adoration phase, I also greatly respect and appreciate your views.

However, I did not say "any law".  I did make the sweeping statement that bad laws are worse than no laws, and I stand by that statement.  All laws infringe on our inalienable rights.  Most do so in order to insure everyone can exercise those rights equally.  But bad laws merely infringe on our inalienable rights, without affecting the issue they were passed for.  In other words they are a net detractor.  And this is the case. 

yes, most laws will be modified before passed - but that is no guarantee or justification (Obamacare is a perfect example).

Sounds like the opposite of the argument some junkie used on me in HS.  The discussion was on drugs and I was speaking against them (having seen the effects on some close to me).  She pipes up that "You can't knock them unless you have tried them".

The premise for both arguments is just as stupid.

awwww...   

You're right... I thought you did. (you do in 123... lol... I predicted the future)

But this one does take steps to improve things. Not as many as I'd like, but that's life.

From all the differing opinions there does seem to be a general consensus though...the U.S. government pretty much screws up everything they attempt, unforeseen or not. But how to "police" the internet and still maintain an "acceptable" (which is debatable according to the individual) degree of freedom too? Damned if you do, damned if you don't... 

Oh well, it would appear that the divide that exists between the two sides on this discussion will never come together on this subject.   What a shame because there was so much hope for the human species on this planet.  I guess it's course is set and the future only brings more on the same until.....................

Guess it's a moot point now anyway, John, after all, the rapture's tomorrow....

Guess I should hold off on mowing the yard until Sunday, just in case.

Oh, gosh yes.

The law prohibiting murder infringes on your inalienable right to kill...and damn it, what right do we have to prohibit our self-expressive youth from taking an AK47 to their classmates and enacting their own Columbine?

Gotta nurture these kiddies after all ....

Solid thinking there, Cars.

It is true that some laws are necessary to maintain the public good at all. Murder and rape are not only bad for the victims but tend to be bad for society at large. However, killing in general is neither good nor bad, and in some cases should be completely outside the per view of the government. A good example of this would be dueling. Two consenting adults should be capable of setting up and participating in a duel to the death. With appropriate regulation to ensure that the participants are in fact consenting as were present for many many years, such an act would not have undue side effect for society and should be considered as part of the normal inalienable right of personal liberty.

Personally speaking, I am someone who makes their living on what is termed intellectual property. The code I write is completely owned by the company which hires me to write code for them. In this, they own and can manage that code how they see fit. Yet, that intellectual property exists in two forms. The first is the physical code which resides in whatever manner under their control, while the other form is within my own mind. Does it make any sense to say that a company or individual can own pieces of my own intellect? In fact, many companies force people such as myself into non-competition and state that yes this part of my intellect is in fact their property. Thus, I can not readily benefit from my own labor, nor can I really expand the public good as any information I might attempt to impart to other would also be tainted from that labor.

You ask if I would labor and then freely give away the fruits of that labor. In fact, I fully support the open source and free software movements. Just because one does not completely lock down their labors so that only they can benefit does not mean they can't benefit at all. For instance, an artist who paints a mural on a public building can benefit monetarily from this labor without draconian control over the work.

If the right to free dissemination of information is the highest social order of humanity that MUST be protected at ALL COSTS then what say you all post right here your bank account details...passwords et al, as THAT is all actual information whose distribution WILL benefit others.

Oh, wait.....it might hurt YOU.

My bad.

I think you completely miss the point here. Let's look at a good example and hopefully you will understand my point of view. Let say that we make it legal to steal cars. Now, people who don't want their car stolen will take precautions to ensure that their car is not stolen, ie storing their cars in a manner which makes it harder to steal. Those people who are ok with their cars being taken, will do nothing and be ok with it. Yet, in both cases, the choice of how to handle this is up to the car owner. Now, in the case of IP, no one has told you to post your work on Deviant Art for public view, nor have they told you to not take any precautions to ensure that someone could not just rip your work. This choice has been yours this whole time. In the case of most software development, warez is a serious threat, but most companies take significant precautions concerning the distribution of their software to ensure that they get the maximum amount of sales. In the case of SD, this has been the use of a license validation system for patch dissemination which checks license at patch time. Thus, I am not saying "just give out all your personal information," but if you are person who takes all your bank information and leaves it in your trash for anyone to find, well you deserve to lose your identity.

Ok....

Let's say we DON'T make it 'legal to steal cars'.

Let's leave it EXACTLY as it is.... ILLEGAL.

Let's put the onus instead on the thief to COMPLY with the law....and NOT on the victim to jump through hoops to regain custody of his car.

Do YOU get it yet?...

In the case of SD this has been by people such as Koop, Island Dog, myself and several others actively chasing down abusers of SD's property rights.

Again, don't assume all issues re SD's IP revolve around Games and gaming.  They don't.