Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 16th Jan 2012 19:33 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 503788
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: The negative attention was from the whitehouse too
by Valhalla on Thu 19th Jan 2012 08:27
in reply to "RE[4]: The negative attention was from the whitehouse too"
Of course, the problem you have there is keeping all your ducks in a row. Who's "we"? People who agree with you?
'We' are all of us. That includes people who doesn't share my view, that also include people who share my view on certain things and not on others, and (most unlikely) those who share my views on everything.
What if the bill was spcifically targeted at violators of the copyright of GPL'd works, and contained a few draconian clauses. And you found yourself against it because of that. How do you think that might affect your operational definition of "we"?
It wouldn't change the concept of we being able to rally support, spread awareness and apply pressure no matter which side you are on this question. I would oppose such a bill as you proposed, someone else would be in favour of it and we will both be able to use the internet to get our points across and rally support for our respective causes.
If a huge amount of people rally around either of our causes then we have a real power to affect things.




Member since:
2005-07-24
Of course, the problem you have there is keeping all your ducks in a row. Who's "we"? People who agree with you? I'd love to see that Venn Diagram evolve over time.
It depends upon the topic, of course. Protecting people's "right" to violate copyright on the sly is likely to yield you a large backing of "fine upstanding citizens" who are appalled by the bill in question, for the most ethereal, Platonic, and idealistic reasons.
But that has nothing to do with the true value or worthlessness of the bill.
What if the bill was spcifically targeted at violators of the copyright of GPL'd works, and contained a few draconian clauses. And you found yourself against it because of that. How do you think that might affect your operational definition of "we"?
Edited 2012-01-17 18:34 UTC