Slash Boxes
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • If you are against copyright and the RIAA then how are books different or exempt from this? It's a curiosity for me since the scope of copyright seems to elude many who support free distribution of music and movies but get upset at other forms of books.

    • You can't agglomerate everyone's positions together without finding some contradictions. :) For every 25 drooling, raving anti-copyright person on slashdot, there's always someone there calling them a bunch of drooling, raving lunatics and defending the system.

      My belief is that even when I disagree with a law, I should follow it and work for change legally within the system. This means I don't copy music, software, etc. For me, this actually comes up most often with church sheet music. My father is a

      J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers
      • I have that's not an absolute position of yours. What about when slavery was legal? Would you have tried to follow that law? How about if you were a slave?

        How about laws on the books all over the place that attempt to limit people's rights to protest (requiring permits, etc.)? Should people respect those?

        The DMCA? Jim Crow laws?

        It seems to me that choosing to follow a bad law is a matter of tactics in a given struggle (assuming the struggle involves overturning that law). Sometimes it makes sense t
        • Martin Luther King had great success in intentionally violating certain unjust laws.

          How can you possibly relate slavery and civil rights to DCMA and Copyright?

          Copyright has always been a grey issue: the limited times provision in the Constitution [] is open to interpretation so that it can evolve to promote the public interest 200+ years after it was originally crafted.

          The issue with Copyright isn't about bad laws per se; it's about a balance between corporate interests and the public interest, and (a

          • How can you possibly relate slavery and civil rights to DCMA and Copyright?

            I wasn't trying to do that. I was simply responding to jdavidb's statement that he thought it best to always obey the law. I think this is a pretty bad blanket position to take if you're at all concerned with achieving social/legal change. That's all.

            Whether or not obeying a particular law that you disagree with should be a case-by-base decision. Sometimes there are good ethical reasons to disobey. Sometimes there are good strategic reasons to obey it, and other times strategy would dictate intentionally disobeying.