Where can a person draw the line between reasonable and unreasonable laws?

Question

On one side there are obvious laws we all should follow, like those that prohibit murder.

On the other side there are obvious laws we should not all follow, like if the government banned all books or something.

But where can I draw the line? I feel that certain laws (such as those being pushed by the big money machines of the movie and music industries) have gone too far. Suddenly, what I can do with music or movies that I have purchased (my property) is being heavily restricted. Should I just go along with it and let my rights be taken away? Or should I continue in what I feel is my right, and hopefully with sheer numbers of other people who feel the same way eventually force change in the unfairly restrictive laws?

I put this in the R&S section because I am curious about what religious and secular people will say on the matter...

People often say that I am only buying the rights to watch a movie. But I say that is called renting. And unfortunately for the movie industry, the idea of renting was not implicit in the contract I made with them when I bought the movie in the store. I bought the movie, not rented it. Thus, that DVD and all it contains is my property and not a rental. If I wanted to rent a movie I'd go to Blockbuster.

Answer 1

Everything is relative.

Would anyone have begrudged you murdering Jeffry Dahmer or Ted Bundy to save one of their victims? Murdering to protect an innocent is quite acceptable.

Laws are designed to benefit the needs of the many, and to prevent society from descending into anarchy, but an intelligent person can decide for themselves what laws should be obeyed, bent or broken.

For example, I routinely drive at 3:00 or 4:00 am in the morning when the roads are deserted. Do you think I wait at every red light, when there are obviously no cars coming in either direction for miles? Traffic laws exist to prevent accidents between cars. When there are no cars on the road, the law becomes superfluous, so I utilize my intelligence to selectively disobey it. A cop would be well within his rights to ticket me for such a blatant disregard, and I'd have no chance arguing my case in front of a judge, but I also happen to believe I'm more intelligent than any cop or judge I've ever met.

It is for you to decide what chances to take concerning the violation of what you believe to be unreasonable laws. Personally, I only violate laws when I know I have a very good chance of getting away with it, and I don't bother trying to "change the system." I feel it's a lot easier to out-think the system, or just fly below the radar.

Answer 2

You have to come up with your own method to decide what laws or reasonable or not and so you have to decide where you are going to draw that line (I can't tell you where to draw it and neither can anyone else, though I can certainly tell you where I draw it).

There's also the fact that whether a law is a good idea or not depends on the situation in which the law is used in.

As for whether you should continue what you think is right, I'd say you should consider what the consequences will be to yourself and if you think your position is worth it then you should continue to oppose unreasonable laws like copyright.

Of course if you do that you'd better make damn sure you're willing to face the punishment because a judge probably won't accept an argument that the law is stupid.

As for copyright, there are good arguments that we need to get rid of it (though I think we need to keep and expand moral rights (and maybe move the derivative works part of copyright into moral rights where they actually belong anyway). Even if we keep copyright DRM needs to be banned.

Answer 3

Re: Your music...what you purchased was the right to listen to the music...not distribution rights...you also purchased the medium (CD, dvd..etc) that the music is recorded on.

To decide whether or not something is right or wrong is to decide whether it helps or hurts others.

While I would agree that music prices are high it is also not right to steal or help others not paying for the music to steal it through you (pirate copies etc). You are taking something that isn't yours...someone else's intellectual property...it would be no different from buying a patented machine and reproducing it for profit.

Let's say that it was against the law to pray to God..I must respectfully disobey that law; because, Gods law is higher. The same is true of your music...your law says give it away; but the higher law of the land says no...you must obey the higher law..which is also not in conflict with Gods law.

Basically you want all rights to something you don't truly own...you only have the right to a limited use of it (works the same way with software) ...that's called coveting, and if you go ahead anyway it's theft

I hope this helps you.

What contract in the store????? The contract on the box says it's copyrighted and any judge will tell you that "ignorance of the law is no excuse"...you OWN the DVD/CD not the intellectual property on it...it's not a rental...YOU may listen to it as often as you like. Quit trying to justify what you known is wrong!!! I'll be the first to agree that the entertainment prices are ridiculous; but, where you want to steal... I just refuse to buy it anymore....cmon it's just entertainment...it's NOT a necessity like food, water, clothing etc...it really is just a luxury

THE BOTTOM LINE IS THIS:
you know what the law is and probably the consequences too..is it really worth a $200000 or $500000 fine or jail time????

Answer 4

It's a tough issue. Certain laws, like the laws against fatty foods are definitely unfairly restrictive.

Answer 5

A law may be unreasonable, but it is still a law. If one needs to break a law to save another person's life, or save them from harm, then I can understand it. But to break a law because you don't agree with it, makes you a criminal. A good example is the illegal immigration problem. Liberals justify breaking our nation's immigration laws by saying that "they just want a better way of life" or "they just come here to work and support their families." I don't care what a immigrants want or need is, if they break the law, then they are a criminal, and need to be punished.

Answer 6

Some books are restricted because of its content. Murder is not always seen as evil, like the right to die cause of brain dead or old age and in pain or in self defense. Let the situation dictate the laws' boundaries. If you make a copy of a movie to have as a back up, it is okay. But if you make a copy and let thousands of people download it, its wrong.

Answer 7

Sometimes yes there is that gray line, but Jesus told us not to do away with but obey the Law unless it goes against The Word of God.
God should be our First and always 1st priority.

Answer 8

Not where but how based on their own experience. You are just buying the specific use of intellectual property not the property itself.

I say use it any way you want but don't be crying when they sue you like that woman who was sued for file sharing and got a judgment for $200,000.00 against her.

Answer 9

What is mans laws when it comes to the word of God?