Re: [dvd-discuss] RE: [DVD-discuss] Dion's new CD crashing party for someusers

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

Stream of consiousness yes but presents the problem in perspective. 
Corporations are amoral by design and it is only by regulation and law that 
they are forced to perform service to society. That's something that was 
realized 100+ yrs ago when the Sherman AntiTrust act was passed. What has 
happened is that the reasons for that act have been forgotten several 
generations later and the reasons for regulation of business by government.  
Time to rediscover it!

OTOH right now we have business trying to abridge a number of freedoms, speech, 
due process, self incrimination, search and seizure...of course those poor 
lamentable souls don't understand the consequences of their desire..but that's 
not an excuse. 

Date sent:      	Tue, 9 Apr 2002 21:38:50 +0200
From:           	Tom <tom@lemuria.org>
To:             	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
Subject:        	Re: [dvd-discuss] RE: [DVD-discuss] Dion's new CD crashing 
party for someusers
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 12:25:39PM -0700, Michael A Rolenz wrote:
> > Your last paragraph rather sums it up....UCITA, DMCA, and all that really 
> > are attempts by corporations to abridge due process . Now to be honest I 
> > do not believe that the officers of most corporations see it that way but 
> > "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions"...or in this case less 
> > honorable ones-preserving corporate profits. 
> 
> corporations have evolved into beings complex enough to develop their
> own dynamics. if we consider them a kind of "life form" - not in the
> biological sense, more in a complex systems sense, then profit is their
> primary goal, their "meaning of life", so to speak.
> it also follows that a corporation threatened in its survival or
> profitability will not give any more thought to "moral rights" of human
> beings then we give to "moral rights" of the bacteria we kill when we
> fight an illness.
> 
> there is some hope in the fact that corporations do, ultimately,
> consist of human beings. but the human body consists of individual
> cells just as much as the bacteria do. the question is not what the
> smallest unit is, but whether or not the feeling of being relatives
> survives in the larger structure. human bodies are an excellent way to
> not have to care about the individual cell anymore, and corporations
> are an excellent way to remove accountability from the individuals.
> 
> the ethical problem here is that human bodies are an evolutionary step
> ABOVE the bacteria. the human body has more options, greater
> possibilities and a higher complexity. corporations, on the other hand,
> are a step DOWN on the evolutionary ladder. they have only one goal
> (profit), only a single frame of mind (market-thought) and while
> seemingly a higher, in fact a lower complexity (because everything they
> do can be reduced to moves in the market sphere, whereas human beings
> live and move in many more spheres.
> 
> 
> 
> uh... end-of-stream-of-consciousness.
> 
> 
> -- 
> http://web.lemuria.org/pubkey.html
> pub  1024D/D88D35A6 2001-11-14 Tom Vogt <tom@lemuria.org>
>      Key fingerprint = 276B B7BB E4D8 FCCE DB8F  F965 310B 811A D88D 35A6