E-Piracy Act

It always amazes me the lengths people will go through to justify their theft of others intellectual property. I mean we all know we all have done it before. Just don't kid yourself into thinking it isn't theft, and it isn't criminal.

Someone earlier said that they had owned (and lost in a fire) a few vintage NES/SNES cartridge game. They were (hypothetically) attempting to rationalize that because they had owned them before at one point in history, that fact entitled them to download them off the internet, and play them using emulator software. When Sony or Nintendo or SE sells you a game cartridge, they are only selling you a game cartridge. If you break it or otherwise destroy it, you're SOL, and would need to buy it again, unless otherwise notified. You are not entitled to a new copy of something simply due to the fact that you bought one previously. If you think this is unfair I have a simple solution for you. Don't buy the product.

If I want to sell you something, shouldn't I have every right to sell you whatever I want to? Weather that means you can use play this music song file only 100 times, or as many times as you want and I'll replace it for free if its damaged or destroyed. Why can't I sell you what ever I want to and you can choose to buy it or not buy it if you want to? What on earth is wrong with that system?

For me, this isn't really about whether or not it's stealing. I don't really give a darn about that. This concerns me because it is step towards taking a freedom away from the people.

It seems to me that in the past decade or so, our freedoms have begun being slowly peeled away. It's much more difficult to even do such simple things as riding an airplane. Our president recently signed (I think?) an act that would allow the military to arrest and detain suspected terrorists indefinitely. That includes American citizens. Exactly what makes you a suspected terrorist? I don't know. But it is frightening that you don't even have to be a proven terrorist for this to happen. I never thought that would pass because it is within our rights to have a swift trial, but it did pass. And now this. (At least it did not pass, did it?) But if we continue in this pattern, which freedom will be next, exactly?

I realize that America is still more free than many other countries. But the fact that the other bill was signed, and the fact that this bill was even considered, makes me a little bit nervous about how free we're going to be in the future.

I really don't get what all the fuss is about.

Nothing in the NDAA applies to citizens, or a "martial law". Hell, most of what you see people whining about was already a placed law (Public Law:Authorization for Use of Military Force September 18, 2001). And even in this case, it was used on two suspected al Qaeda terrorists back in 2004, and hasn't been used since (which if you read the law, is understandable why).

The NDAA doesn't expand the government’s detention authority. It really doesn't mandate the military detention of other terrorist suspects. But best of all... it doesn't authorize detention of citizens (in any way). However, it does make Obama's promise of closing Guantanamo Bay an impossibility for at least the next year.

And to all the "the Bill of Rights is dead" people: No federal statute can repeal the Bill of Rights. While I do agree that some of our rights are being squandered and/or taken away a bit at a time, this act plays no part in that.

Edit: Some Links~

The NDAA itself

A helpful guide as your reading the NDAA (or you can just read this if your lazy :)

If your referring to the NDAA, it actually has nothing to do with detaining citizens at all. My post explains why, beyond a doubt.

Post I'm referring to:

... and even they shouldn't be detained indefinitely. It makes me uncomfortable.