No I’m not.
I’m saying, quite plainly, that ethics is orthagonal to law. It is unrelated. It has no relationship. Why do you continue to insist on misrepresenting me as having a stance on the law?
There is literally no legal implication to what I’m talking about, because I am talking about ethics, not changing the law.
I’m saying that if you want to argue that a party being sued is engaged in an ethical lapse by vigorously defending against the lawsuit using tools provided by statute for this exact situation, that is an extraordinary claim, and requires extraordinary evidence, which you have (in my opinion) failed to provide.
Such a system already exists. It is called morality.
We resolve errors by saying “this corporation acted unethically” and occasionally people even feel remorse and apologize (but that step is optional)
Why is it so difficult to understand that I’m not proposing a change to the law?
“The law can produce unethical results” is an extraordinary claim to you?
Well, we disagree strenuously, and I don’t see any point to further debate.
Yeah that’s fine, I’m saying plainly that ethics in this case are also clear: Paul Reiche III is in the right. My basis is having read what Stardock holds according to what I discovered from Atari’s bankruptcy documentation, and the DMCA. edt. Also what I understand from copyright law. That your argument against the DMCA use – in this single case, not in others – is incorrect from an ethical perspective. I could add that removing the DMCA may be a net benefit regardless to society but this is not relevant to this specific case, and today.
If you can make a position that affirms what Stardock claims it *potentially has on their copyrights, the DMCA as written, then the use of that vehicle by the defendant, I’ll consider it. Definitely not an expert here and willing to change this position in light of real legal documentation on what Stardock actually owns, as opposed to their claims on technicalities.
Your claim, as I understand it here, is that in this case, the use of the DMCA, by a party being sued, and which has a good-faith belief that their copyright is being violated, was unethical. That is an extraordinary claim, and you’ve provided no explanation beyond this “I know what pornography is when I see it” distinction about types of copyright infringement - a distinction that the law doesn’t recognize.
My claim is that of course using every legal tool available to you to defend against a lawsuit is ethical, and to argue otherwise is absurd on its face. (There are ways to misuse the legal system, which are unethical and - surprise! - they are also literally illegal)
You’re not really giving a good reason why it’s unethical in this specific case, though. You make general claims and try to match them onto a case that doesn’t match a general case. Hell, after you made a case that it would have been ethical if it had some benefit for being done, and then someone laid out the exact and important benefit, and you admitted that the benefit was very significant… and then you about-faced and said that it’s still unethical.
That’s a really bold claim. So you’d be okay hiring slave labor to help your defense? Assuming it was legal of course?
We are exactly one round of responses away from Nazi hypotheticals.
I conceded the specific case quite a few messages back…
Then what the hell are you going on about? This has become utterly nonsensical.
I actually disagree with him here…
But at the same time, stop with this awful arguing tactic. All it does is make you look bad and foolish.
B… but! You’ve been arguing about it still! People are arguing about this specific case! As I even said, after you admitted that, you then turned around and said you still disagree about it’s ethicality and have been arguing that it’s unethical!
OK, sure, let’s run with it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Surely you will agree that “The defense used slave labor to conduct the depositions” is extraordinary evidence! I would absolutely be very very concerned if such a horrible thing happened. That’s exactly the sort of evidence that could change my mind!
So, with that in mind, please feel free to provide extraordinary evidence to support your extraordinary claim that using the DMCA as it was used in this case is unethical. Friend, if you’ve got evidence of slave-trading going on here, I am on your side.
Mostly objecting to the idea that “legal = moral” that peterb keeps bringing up. And all the other misrepresentations of my stance.
Even Peterb is specifically talking about this case.
“My claim is that of course using every legal tool available to you to defend against a lawsuit is ethical, and to argue otherwise is absurd on its face.” ← that is not a statement about a single lawsuit. That is a generalized assertion that using legal tools to defend yourself is de-facto ethical.
If peterb had said “this” lawsuit, we’d be having a different conversation.
I am happy to take it as read that I should have said “…barring extraordinary evidence showing why it’s unethical.”
If the fate of SC:O (outside of damages) determines the solvency of Stardock, they are already screwed. Based on what they said they put into development, and the sales generated it is a massive loss.
Oh come on! My very next words were “and yes ethical”.