Ronn Blankenship wrote:
> At 18:06 09-03-01 -0800, Christopher Gwyn wrote:
>> <chuckle> So? You have access to powerful digital equipment - that
>> makes you a potential criminal in the eyes of the RIAA and MPAA, a
>> criminal which their poor helpless profits must be protected against.
>> ('their profits', not 'the artist's profits')
> The same way that my having access to a firearm makes me a potential
> criminal in the eyes of people like Sarah Brady?
Yup! (Although 'potential danger' is probably a more accurate term
in her eyes.) That I'm more in agreement with Sarah Brady than I am
with you doesn't mean that the same sort of thinking is not being
used. In both cases capability and probability is looked at and
perceived as more important criteria for legal regulation than a
variety of other possibilities are.
For some capabilities, some probabilities, and some potential
outcomes I think that this sort of reasoning is very reasonable - but
for other combinations of capabilities, probabilities and outcomes I
don't think that it is reasonable. Different people have different
criteria for such 'reasonableness', criteria which may be right in
some circumstances and wrong in others. Noticing the similarity of
reasoning is very useful for trying to figure out good reasoning for
good outcomes, but that the same shape of thinking is (apparently)
used by both the RIAA and Sarah Brady doesn't demonstrate that both
are right or that both are wrong. It does show us that even people we
disagree with can 'think like us'....
(how's that for a flame?)
cheers,
christopher
--
Christopher Gwyn
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
