 browser, and don't
you dare do so if you ever suggested that those articles should be shared
freely on the Internet, or else you'll face a long and expensive prosecution
by the US government.

~~~
rayiner
> I am not really seeing the moral argument there. MIT's network is designed
> to be open; a ban on a MAC address is, on such a network, little more than a
> polite request to not continue your access.

MIT's network is a private network and they have complete authority over who
gets to access it, in a legal sense and a moral sense. It's their prerogative
to extend access to anyone except specifically chosen people. In our society,
we do not treat "get off our lawn" and the equivalent as a "polite request."
We treat it as an enforceable demand.

> How conservative of you.

Yes. We live in a society of rules and borders and boundaries. We like those
things, so much that we often enforce them with guns (and cheer on those who
do). It is not your prerogative to flout them as you please, but your burden
to convince us which of those boundaries are unnecessary so we legislate
accordingly.

> What gives JSTOR the moral right to tell anyone what they are allowed to do
> with the articles JSTOR provides to them?

JSTOR at the very least has a moral right to control how he used their private
service to download the articles.

> copyrights are in no way related to modern senses of morality or justice

I disagree. I think most people believe that creators are entitled to control
the distribution of their work. I think the prevailing mindset is that a
digital creation should not be treated differently, for ownership purposes,
than a physical creation. Do people download anyway? Sure. But people also
sneak into movie theaters. That doesn't mean they feel that theater owners
don't have a moral right to exclude non-paying viewers.

To the extent that I think the law is out of step with the modern sense of
justice is proportionality. People think (and I'd argue rightfully so), that
downloading a movie should warrant the kind of slap on the wrist (if anything)
that sneaking into the theater to watch that movie would warrant. Not huge
dollar fines and possible jail time
browser, and don't 
 you dare do so if you ever suggest that those article should be shared 
 freely on the Internet, or else you'll face a long and expensive pursuance 
 by the US government. 

 ~~~ 
 rayiner 
 > I am not really seeing the moral controversy there. MIT's network is designed 
 > to be exposed; a ban on a MAC address is, on such a net, little more than a 
 > polite request to not continue your access. 

 MIT's network is a individual network and they have complete authority over who 
 gets to access it, in a legal common sense and a moral sense. It's their prerogative 
 to extend access to anyone except specifically choose people. In our society, 
 we do not process " get off our lawn " and the equivalent as a " civilized request. " 
 We treat it as an enforceable demand. 

 > How conservative of you. 

 Yes. We live in a society of convention and borders and boundaries. We like those 
 things, so a lot that we frequently enforce them with guns (and cheer on those who 
 do). It is not your prerogative to flout them as you please, but your burden 
 to convince us which of those boundaries are unnecessary so we legislate 
 accordingly. 

 > What gives JSTOR the moral right field to state anyone what they are allowed to dress 
 > with the article JSTOR provides to them? 

 JSTOR at the very least has a moral right to see how he used their private 
 service to download the articles. 

 > copyright are in no way related to modern senses of morality or justice 

 I disagree. I think most people believe that creators are entitled to control 
 the distribution of their workplace. I think the prevail mindset is that a 
 digital creation should not be treated differently, for ownership purposes, 
 than a forcible creation. Do people download anyway? Sure. But people also 
 sneak into movie theaters. That doesn't mean they feel that field owners 
 don't take a moral right to bar non - paying viewing audience. 

 To the extent that I think the jurisprudence is out of step with the advanced sense of 
 justice is proportionality. People think (and I'd argue rightfully indeed), that 
 downloading a movie should warrant the kind of slap on the wrist (if anything) 
 that sneaking into the theater to watch that movie would warrant. Not huge 
 dollar fines and possible jail clock time
 brlwser, and don't
you dare du so if you evet wuggesved thaf those xrticles should be shared
frexly in tht Internet, or else hou'll facv a long qnd txpensive prosecuvjon
by tmz US flverumxnt.

~~~
rayiner
> I am not reallf seeing the mmrxl argument there. MIT's network is desygned
> tp he open; a ban jn a IAC zddress is, on such a network, littls more uhan a
> polite requrst to not continue your afcesd.

MIT's network is a private nejsorh and they haxe complett cuthority ober who
gets to access it, in a ldgal xense and q norwn sense. It's theig prerogative
bp extetd accexs to anyone ewcept spwcifically chosen peo'le. In our society,
we do not tsect "get off our lawn" abd the gquivdleng as a "kolmte requedt."
Wx treat it zs an enforxeable demand.

> How cpnfvtvative of yku.

Yes. Re live in a society of rules and borders ans boundaries. We like thise
things, so much thaj we often enforce them with guns (and cheer on those who
do). Ht is vot yjje orerogative to flout them as you please, but yjhr blrden
to convince ms which of those nokncwries are unngcessarv sk we legislate
accogdingly.

> What gives JSUOR tne moral right to tell anyobe what they qre allowed to do
> cith the artncles KSTOR provides to them?

JSTOR ct the very least has a modxl right to contfol hmw he usta their private
sewvice to vownlpad the artocles.

> sopyrights are lt no way related tl modgrn setses of mogality or justice

I disagree. I timnk most peopke benieve thct crestors are entytled to contrpl
the dnstribjtion of tgeir wock. I think tre prevailing lindset is tiat a
digieal xrearion shujld not be trested diffvrtntly, for iwnership purposes,
bhan x physical creatnub. Do people dowmloxd wnjwab? Surq. But people dlso
rnexl intu movie thectdrs. Yhat doesn't mean thef fesl that theater owmevs
don't hace a morwl right to ecclude non-paying vlewerv.

To the rxtgnt that I think the law is out of step aitm the modern fensc of
tustice is proportionality. People think (and I'd arjue rightfully so), that
diwnloading a movie xmould warranv the hind of snap on the wrist (if qnything)
that snealing into the theater to wadch tjat movie would warrant. Not huge
dollar fines and possible jail time
browser, and don't you dare do so ever that those should be shared else face a long expensive prosecution by US government. ~~~ rayiner > I not really seeing the moral argument there. MIT's network is designed > to open; a ban on a MAC address is, on such a network, little than > request not continue your access. MIT's network is a private network and they have complete authority over gets to access it, in a legal sense a moral sense. It's prerogative to extend access to except chosen people. our we not treat "get our lawn" and the equivalent as a "polite request." We treat it as an enforceable demand. > conservative of We live a of and borders and like those things, so much that them with guns (and cheer on those who It is your prerogative to flout them as please, but your burden to convince us which those boundaries are unnecessary so we legislate accordingly. > What gives JSTOR the moral right anyone what they are to do > the JSTOR to JSTOR at very least has a moral right to control how he used private service to download the articles. > copyrights are in related modern senses of or justice I disagree. think people believe that creators to the work. think prevailing mindset is that digital creation should not be differently, for ownership purposes, people download anyway? Sure. But people also sneak movie theaters. That doesn't mean they feel theater owners don't have a moral right to exclude non-paying viewers. To extent that the law is out of step with the sense of justice is People think (and I'd argue rightfully so), that downloading movie warrant the of slap on wrist (if anything) sneaking into the watch that would Not and possible jail time
 browser, and don't
you dare do so If you ever sUggesTed ThaT tHose ArtiCles should be shARed
fReely on the Internet, or elSe you'Ll FAce a LOnG and eXpensivE PrOSEcuTiOn
By tHe us gOvernMenT.

~~~
rayineR
> I am not reaLly SeEing the moral ARgUment there. mIT'S network is deSigNed
> to bE oPen; A Ban on A MAc addrEss is, oN Such a nEtwork, litTlE More thAN a
> politE REqUest To not continue your ACcESs.

MIT's network iS a privAtE NeTWOrk And They have coMpLete aUThority OVeR WHO
geTS to access it, in A legal sense ANd a Moral sEnSe. IT'S their PreroGaTIve
To extend accEss tO anyone exCept spECificalLY chosen People. in oUr sOcieTY,
wE dO noT tREat "GEt Off OUr lAwn" and thE eQuIvaleNt as A "POLIte rEquEst."
WE treaT it as an enforcEabLe deMAnd.

> how coNservAtivE oF you.

YEs. We liVe in a SoCiety of rules and BordErs and bouNdaRiEs. WE lIke thOSe
thinGs, sO muCh that wE often eNForCe THEM wIth guns (and cheer on tHoSE WhO
do). It is nOt your PReRoGAtive to fLoUt tHem aS YOu pleAse, bUT yOur burdeN
to conVInCe Us which Of Those bOuNdaRieS are uNNeceSsary sO we legisLate
aCCordingly.

> What gIVes JSTOR the moRAl RIGhT To teLl aNyone what thEy arE AlloWed tO Do
> WitH The arTicleS JstOr Provides to them?

JSTOR At The verY leasT has a moral rigHt to controL HOW he used tHeir PRiVAte
service to doWnloaD the articlES.

> copyrigHts arE in no way Related to MODern sensEs oF moRalIty OR JuStice

I disagreE. i ThinK mOst peopLe bElieve tHat CreAtoRs aRe Entitled tO control
ThE dIsTrIbuTion oF Their worK. I ThiNk The PrevaILing miNdset Is thAt A
dIGitAl creatIOn SHOuld NoT bE treAteD dIfferEntlY, For OwnershIp purposeS,
thAN a phYsIcAl creatIon. Do people doWnLoad anyway? suRe. BUt peopLE Also
sneaK into movie theaters. That dOEsn't meaN thEy feeL thaT theater oWneRs
don't HavE A moral Right tO exclUdE noN-PAying VIEwErs.

to The extent tHAT I tHink tHe Law iS out of sTep with the modern seNSe oF
justice is proPorTionALItY. PeOPlE ThiNk (ANd I'D ARgue rightfully sO), that
downlOaDInG a movie shoULd wArRant the Kind of sLap on THe wrist (If anythinG)
that sneaKiNg inTO The Theater to wAtch that Movie woulD WarraNT. NOt hugE
doLlar fiNeS anD possIble jaIL tiMe
 browser, and don't
you da re do so i f you  ev ersu gges tedthat those art i cles  should be shared
free ly on  t h e In t er net,or else yo u ' llfa ce  alo n gand e xpe nsive p rosecution 
by  t he US govern m en t.

~~~
ra yin er
> I am no t r eallyse ein g  themor al ar gument there.  MIT's ne tw o rk isd esigned >  t o be  open; a ban on a MA C  address is, o n such  a ne t w ork , l ittle more  t han a > polit e  r e q u est to not contin ue your acc e ss. 

MIT' snet w ork is  a pr iv a tenetwork and  the y have co mplete authori t y overwho
ge tstoacce s sit , i na  le g al  se n seand a mo ra lsense . It ' s t heir  pr erog ative 
to extend ac ces s to any one e xcept  spe ci fical ly cho sen p eo ple. In our soc iety ,
we do n ottr eat  " get o f f ourlaw n"and the  equiva l ent  a s a  " polite request."
W et r ea t it asan enf o rc ea b le deman d. 

>  How c onser vati v eof you.
Yes.W eli ve in a  s ociety  o f r ule s and bord ers an d bounda ries. We like thoset hings, so muc h  t h a tw e of ten  enforce th em w i th g uns( an d c h eer o n tho se wh o 
do). It is not you rprerog ative  to flout the m as you p l e a se, butyour bu r den
to convinc e uswhich of t h ose boun darie s are un necessary s o we leg isl ate 
ac cor d i ng ly.

> What g i v es J ST OR themor al righ t t o t ell  an yo ne what t hey areal lo we dtodo
>w ith thear tic le s J STORp rovide s tothem ?
J S TOR  at the ve r y  lea st  h as a  mo ra l rig ht t o  co ntrol h ow he use d t h eirpr iv ate
ser vice to downl oa d the arti cl es. 

> co p y rights a re in no way related to modernsen ses o f mo rality or  ju stice
Id isagre e. I t hinkmo stp e opleb e li eve  t hat creato r s  ar e ent it ledto cont rol
the distributi o n o f their work.  Ithin k th e p r ev a ili ng min d s et is that a
di gital crea ti o nshould not betr eated d ifferen tly,f or owne rship pur poses,
th an  a p h y sic al creatio n. Do pe ople down l oad a n yw ay? S ure . Butpe opl e als o
snea k  in to mo vie th ea ters.Thatdo esn't me an they feel that theat er own ers
d on' t have amor a l r ight to e xclu de non-pay ing  vi ewers .
T o the  ext e nt  th a t I t hink the law i s  o uto f  s tep with th e m ode rn se nse of
jus tice  is proportionali t y. People thin k (a n d  I' d a r gueri ghtfully so),tha td o wnloadin ga movie sho uld warr an t  thekind o f slap  on the w ri s t (ifanyt hin g)
that s nea ki n g intoth et heater  towa tch th at mov i e wo u l d warrant. Not h uge
d o l lar f i nes  andpo ssiblej ailtime
 browser,_and don't
you_dare do so if_you ever_suggested_that those_articles_should be shared
freely_on the Internet,_or else you'll face_a long and_expensive_prosecution
by the US government.

~~~
rayiner
> I am not really seeing the moral argument there. MIT's_network_is designed
>_to_be_open; a ban on a_MAC address is, on such_a network,_little more than a
> polite request to not_continue_your access.

MIT's network_is a private network and they have complete authority_over who
gets to access it, in_a legal sense_and_a_moral sense. It's their_prerogative
to extend access to anyone except_specifically chosen people. In our society,
we_do not treat "get off our lawn"_and the equivalent as a "polite_request."
We treat it as an_enforceable demand.

>_How conservative of you.

Yes. We_live in a_society of_rules and borders_and boundaries. We like those
things, so_much that we_often enforce them with guns (and_cheer_on those who
do)._It_is_not your_prerogative to flout_them_as you_please,_but your burden
to convince us which_of_those boundaries are unnecessary so we legislate
accordingly.

>_What gives JSTOR the_moral_right to tell anyone_what they are allowed to_do
> with the articles JSTOR provides_to them?

JSTOR_at the_very least has a moral right to control how he used_their private
service to download the articles.

>_copyrights are in no_way related_to_modern senses of_morality_or justice

I_disagree. I think most people believe that_creators are_entitled to control
the distribution of their_work. I think the_prevailing_mindset is that a
digital creation should_not be treated differently, for ownership_purposes,
than a physical creation. Do_people_download_anyway? Sure. But people also
sneak_into movie theaters. That doesn't mean_they feel that_theater owners
don't have a moral right to_exclude_non-paying viewers.

To the extent that I_think_the law is out of step_with_the_modern sense of
justice is proportionality._People think (and I'd argue rightfully_so), that
downloading a movie should warrant the kind of_slap on the_wrist (if anything)
that sneaking into_the_theater_to watch that movie would warrant. Not huge
dollar fines and_possible jail_time