Mise
isle of lucy
A lot of people say that if we put things on the internet, we relinquish all rights to privacy regarding those things. So, for example, if I put photos on Facebook of me throwing up at a party, and a potential employer somehow* accesses it, it would be perfectly legal and right for him to do this, and for him to prejudice any employment decisions about me based on the picture.
However, it tends to be these same people who argue that, if you put an MP3 on the internet, and someone somehow accesses it and uses it for his own purposes, that the originator of the MP3 has every right to demand that the MP3 be returned, and that compensation be paid.
It seems to me that while these may not technically (that is, in the strictest logical sense) be contradictory opinions to hold, they are certainly contradictory in spirit. Someone who, in spirit, believes that the originator of an image or piece of music has a right to decide how and by whom it is used should both be in favour of greater privacy rights on Facebook and in greater copyright protection for large music corporations. Conversely, someone who, in spirit, believes that if you put an image or piece of music on the internet (that is, they believe that putting something on the internet is to display it in public, akin to posting the image on the side of a bus or playing a concert in a public park) you lose all rights over it and it becomes something of a free-for-all, and thus ought to oppose privacy rights on Facebook and anti-piracy laws and copyrights for things put on the internet.
Whaddya think? Perhaps you'll argue that individuals have a greater right to privacy than large corporations? Or perhaps you think that privacy and piracy are simply two different things and no similarities or analogies or comparisons are valid? Perhaps you just always side with corporations, or perhaps you always side against them?
*-see spoiler.
However, it tends to be these same people who argue that, if you put an MP3 on the internet, and someone somehow accesses it and uses it for his own purposes, that the originator of the MP3 has every right to demand that the MP3 be returned, and that compensation be paid.
It seems to me that while these may not technically (that is, in the strictest logical sense) be contradictory opinions to hold, they are certainly contradictory in spirit. Someone who, in spirit, believes that the originator of an image or piece of music has a right to decide how and by whom it is used should both be in favour of greater privacy rights on Facebook and in greater copyright protection for large music corporations. Conversely, someone who, in spirit, believes that if you put an image or piece of music on the internet (that is, they believe that putting something on the internet is to display it in public, akin to posting the image on the side of a bus or playing a concert in a public park) you lose all rights over it and it becomes something of a free-for-all, and thus ought to oppose privacy rights on Facebook and anti-piracy laws and copyrights for things put on the internet.
Whaddya think? Perhaps you'll argue that individuals have a greater right to privacy than large corporations? Or perhaps you think that privacy and piracy are simply two different things and no similarities or analogies or comparisons are valid? Perhaps you just always side with corporations, or perhaps you always side against them?
*-see spoiler.
Spoiler :
See, your disagreement with JR stems from the fact that you possess a moral compass, whereas he is a lawyer 
