Being able to choose freely is within anyone's grasp, but to choose responsibly is a standard which is nearly never met.

...except if it's illegal government spying? i guess they don't read TOS either.

it's pretty goddamned ridiculous that one person can presumably have so great an effect on the freedom of us all in a way that goes well beyond national boundaries or the ability of any single individual to know if they're doing the right thing.

you're an idiot. we're not talking about some media that is paid for by advertising, we are talking about something people pay their good money for and then are denied getting what they paid for. hardly the same thing. noone has a right to Fraud or Bait & Switch which is essentially what this is. no company has the right to sell something and then give you less than you paid for.

http://havenbastionlaw.blogspot.com/2013/02/hbl-a0067-right-to-memory.html

for a system of government founded on natural law, anything which prevents someone from doing anything they want which isn't harmful to another is de facto illegal. for a system of government founded on common law, any law which doesn't prove itself to be reasonably necessary is illegal.

"Any gun owner who thinks the only thing standing between then and tyranny is their weapons is by definition either an idiot or insane." you believe that trying to beat them by their own rules is an option? no, the physical force you can exert IS the only thing standing between you and tyranny, even if it's not enough.

if you understand the difference between the swiss socialist state and the american police state, then you understand why the freedom to own weapons is of primary importance here, and not there.

the argument is that it is necessary to control the incentive for production because production of child pornography is where child abuse comes from. put that way it seems reasonably straightforward but in actuality there are many steps removed from the actual harm to CP. first the person involved has to not consent (by law, although i have a different take on what it is about consent that is actually important), second there must be actual harm rather than theoretical harm in the actions taken. third the act must have been recorded when it would not have been but for the incentive provided by distribution. fourth, it must actually be distributed. fifth that distribution must have been intentional rather than accidental or incidental. sixth, the acquisition of the CP must have actually provided some motivation or incentive for its production, and finally, the acquisition must have been done intentionally with at least reckless disregard for the motivational consequences. NONE of which addresses the issue that possession itself does not prima facia lead to ANY of that. backing up to the first step: what matters isn't whether someone consents but whether they WOULD have consented if they had the ability to do so. this is the role that guardians play, to make that decision. ex. can a mentally retarded person be consigned to a life of non-sexuality just because they may never have the ability to properly consent to sexual activity? should any person trying to become sexual with them be arrested for rape? they are sexual beings, as are children, and their needs are not addressed by whether or not they DO consent, but by whether or not they WOULD consent.

so you're saying it's better to NOT judge people based on their individual capacities in specific circumstances than to do so? so you're saying blanket rules are better than rules which determine actual consent or responsibility? what the fuck does that have to do with a police state anyway? seems to me it's quite the opposite.

It's called a "strict liability offense" or "status offense" meaning that whether or not you played a part in putting yourself in that position, you are considered guilty of the crime.

if the defendant pays what they would have had to pay to do the purchase legally, plus court costs (which include a nominal fee for the company's time and trouble), that's about as simple and effective as it gets. 1) there will be no incentive to steal because they would end up paying more that way 2) court costs would be covered so the cost to the taxpayer is nil 3) the company would have incentive to sue every downloader at no end cost to themselves, just a little different marketing approach to get that license fee.

you're kinda coming at this backward. you see, only people with the following attributes have the CAPACITY to properly make decisions of magnitude, even for themselves, much less others.

a) intelligence - an IQ of 100 simply isn't sufficient to know what to do about complex subjects, try starting at say 130 for national-level issues

b) knowledge - obviously you have to know what the hell you're talking about, which is kinda the whole point of the thread to here

c) conscientiousness - we don't need any evil geniuses running things, you have to want to be a good leader and do the right thing for the people under you.

mind you, before anyone says some bullshit about "well who gets to decide", this is the absolute baseline. regardless of what system is used to create this intellectual oligarchy (which wouldn't be that difficult to do fairly anyway imo) only someone with those qualifications has the potential to be a good leader at all except by accident or if acting as proxy for others'.

and i suppose that's a good thing because noone ever has a need to post LEGAL binaries on usenet?!

what kind of world would you live in if you never accepted a click-through unconscionable "contract"? you'd have no electronic access of any kind! the only viable options are a) hope it never comes up b) pirate bay