> is explicitly made with the intention of illegally pirating movies.
Intention is a quality of the author, not a quality of the work. In the real world governed by the laws of reality, an object or tool or even bundle of software has no intention. It's just a thing.
Claiming that the intention can magically transfer through the object is like some 21st century form of shamanism.
I reject such stupid notions.
If, generally speaking, this software is used to commit illegal acts, then it is those acts which are illegal, not the tool that is used in the commission of the acts.
By banning the tools, you're not preventing the illegal act... you're preventing anyone from using it for legal acts, and cementing the idea that it is only used for those things illegal.
But we're not even really talking about banning it... that would cost too much in lobbyist bribes, too much political capital, too much time and effort. Instead, we're going to twist existing laws to pretend that somehow someone else's code can be censored because of some unfounded ideas about what the code does. That's a chickenshit move if ever there was one.
> If you think not being able to share copyrighted content without the permission of the copyright holder violates the first ammendment then you should be working towards repealing
I no longer trust that our government represents its people well enough for that to be possible. And I reject the idea that you can just set me off on impossible quests and that if I refuse them you win the argument.
Intention is a quality of the author, not a quality of the work. In the real world governed by the laws of reality, an object or tool or even bundle of software has no intention. It's just a thing.
Claiming that the intention can magically transfer through the object is like some 21st century form of shamanism.
I reject such stupid notions.
If, generally speaking, this software is used to commit illegal acts, then it is those acts which are illegal, not the tool that is used in the commission of the acts.
By banning the tools, you're not preventing the illegal act... you're preventing anyone from using it for legal acts, and cementing the idea that it is only used for those things illegal.
But we're not even really talking about banning it... that would cost too much in lobbyist bribes, too much political capital, too much time and effort. Instead, we're going to twist existing laws to pretend that somehow someone else's code can be censored because of some unfounded ideas about what the code does. That's a chickenshit move if ever there was one.
> If you think not being able to share copyrighted content without the permission of the copyright holder violates the first ammendment then you should be working towards repealing
I no longer trust that our government represents its people well enough for that to be possible. And I reject the idea that you can just set me off on impossible quests and that if I refuse them you win the argument.