Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso  That's bollox man.
I didn't diminish them. I asked if they are impartial. I presume they are not, because I've never heard of them ever saying anything nice about musicians.
...
You say law and technology. So no mention of artists, or creativity. Anyone impartial would look at the problem from the point of view of creativity, law and technology. Two out of three isn't impartial..... or good enough.
Nice try.... but no cigar. |
You are using the word "impartial" as a hammer; to beat down and diminish a voice opposing the bill on the grounds that they may have an organizational agenda. Only "two out of three" of your arbitrary qualifications? Well, that ain't good enough, is it? I will give an honest answer to your dishonestly leading question, however: the EFF's aim is to protect free speech, privacy, innovation, and consumer rights.
Oh, they don't have the point of view of "creativity"? Well. I guess they're incapable of presenting a reasoned response to the bill.
Bollocks. The bill is not about creativity -- whatever that could possibly mean in a legislative context -- it's a
law about
technological measures. You are supporting this bill without understanding its implications -- and you may even be
incapable of understanding its implications due to a limited understanding of the technologies and legal methodologies in question. And that's not a slight against your person; it's all going to seem arcane to anyone lacking a background in the subject. But it's intellectually dishonest to try to diminish the EFF because they aren't comprised of musicians.