Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!apollo!lsmith From: lsmith@apollo.uucp (Lawrence C. Smith) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple Subject: Re: pirating, etc. Message-ID: <3b216d54.1199f@apollo.uucp> Date: 28 Mar 88 22:38:00 GMT References: <880324204424.222002c4@Sds.Sdsc.Edu> Reply-To: lsmith@apollo.UUCP (Lawrence C. Smith) Organization: Apollo Computer, Chelmsford, MA Lines: 72 In article <880324204424.222002c4@Sds.Sdsc.Edu> jordan%lvvb.span@SDS.SDSC.EDU (RICH) writes: >This is a bit out of topic, but I had to respond to this. I'll be brief. >On Wenesday, March 23rd, Larry Smith wrote (and included): >. >. >> NEVER surrender ANY liberty for the sake of the security >> of a few. >. >. (to a suggestion that modem purchases be age-restricted) >. >> Silly and unconstitutional. But I find the suggestion more disturbing than >. >>>* DISK-COPY SOFTWARE: Why don't we just make programs like DiskCopy II, >>> the DiskCloners, etc., etc., etc., **ILLEGAL**? >> Once again, prior restraint. This is a rotten legal idea, and it does not >> stand up well in court. Even aside from the (sorry to mention that incon- >> venient document again) CONSTITUTIONAL issues. What is banning programs of >> this sort if not censorship? Besides, banning the tools of crime has never >> been popular in the US. That's why guns and crowbars are still legal (guns >> most places and crowbars everywhere - what, you never heard of burglary? >> Required equipment.) > >> Larry Smith >> Apollo probably does not agree with me. That, too, is "real life". > >Please don't lump things like firearms, crowbars, and copy programs together >with so-called 'tools of crime'. All of these items have legitimate uses (and Of COURSE firearms, crowbars and copy programs have legitimate uses. That is precisely my point. I was attempting (perhaps clumsily) to point out that possession of these devices implies nothing of intent, and despite the fact that screwdrivers and crowbars are employed in virtually every burglary in the world, every day, has not lead to attempts to ban them - for the simple reason that the mere idea of banning such basic and important tools would be utter insanity - even for a politician (sadly, the issue for guns, while similar, is not so obvious) I find most of the "solutions" to piracy posted thus far - culminating in the "no one under 35 rule" - to be in the same category. >in the case of firearms some heavy-handedly overlooked Constitutional pro- >tection) that far outweigh their use by criminals. Granted that criminals use >all of these (along with probably just about every other implement ever crea- >ted) in the commission of various crimes, using the argument that 'banning the >tools of crime is unpopular' as a reason for the continued legality of firearms >is incorrect. Their continued legality is based on what little attention most >lawmakers pay to the Second Amendment, the continuing lack of popularity for "banning the tools of crime is unpopular?" I hope I have not implied any such thing. It is very popular in the US, it is the source of the gun control noise to which you refer. My point is not that banning the tools is popular or unpopular it is that such bans are stupid, useless and counterproductive. >anti-gun laws in election years and when put to public vote, and the strong >belief on the parts of millions of Americans that you " NEVER surrender ANY >liberty for the sake of the security of a few" (I quote). Please be more care- >ful in the analogies you make. With the exception of this one item, I greatly When arguing via reductio ad absurdum one always runs this risk, we actually agree on this item, too. >appreciated and strongly agreed with the rest of your posting. > >(And no, I'm not a member of the NRA) Me neither. > >Richard Jordan > > >DISCLAIMER: The stuff said above is my own stuff. Me, too. Except for what HE said.