My understanding of your position is that you believe: * Doxxing is never ethical (it's unethical?), even when used by non-government entities to punish unethical (but legal) activity
* Despite that, you would support doxxing to punish illegal activity that is being hidden from public view
I don't really get saying that you would support doxxing in circumstances that you think it would be unethical, but let's set that aside for now. What I really want to know is: why do you think doxxing is always unethical?
Is it about the act and intention of doxxing? How would you feel if ViolentAcrez's boss inadvertently learned his real identity (not through an intentional doxxing like Chen's) and fired him as a result? That would be an IRL-consequence without widely destroying VA's anonymity.
Is it about all non-expressive "punishment" (i.e., non-governmental / community-based / IRL consequences) for anonymous online speech? What if all the other sub-reddit mods banded together to punish VA instead of defend him?
Or what if VA applied for and got a job where he could exist entirely pseudonymously (as "ViolentAcrez"), but whomever hired him didn't connect his pseudonym to his reddit actions until later -- at which point he fired him (never knowing his IRL identity)? That would be real economic punishment for his speech without doxxing.
"Free speech" is traditionally used to mean freedom from government censorship, as in your ViolentAcrez-as-political dissenter hypothetical. The ability to express ideas without lawmaker approval has historically been far more important than being able to so without community approval.
You're hinting at, but not expressly suggesting, an expanded definition of free speech: the right to express ideas and/or content anonymously, without any real-world consequences (even non-governmental consequences). I suspect the reason other commenters have failed to see this issue "clearly" (i.e., the way you do) is that you have implicitly taken this more extreme position without supporting its extremity. Why should anonymity in expression -- without consequence -- be a right?
"They fought the player piano, they fought the MP3 player, they fought DVRs etc."
But did they fight TV Guide? Or the schedule of programs in the newspaper? I'm no defender of the maximalists, but assuming they would consider Ubertalk and Dar.fm to be equally infringing seems to be an unfair straw man until they do it. However much you might disagree with them generally, it's pretty clear they consider copying and unauthorized performance to be greater sins than creation of a directory of already-scheduled, authorized performances.
I've looked at original story and I can't for the life of me figure out who added the "[the]" in brackets. Did Judge Harvey say, "We have met the enemy and he is the U.S"? Or did he say, "We have met the enemy and he is U.S."?
But if the photo posted on the Daily Mail *WAS* the derivative work - i.e., a photo that had been significantly post-processed in creative ways since the original (copyright-less) photo had been taken - that would create a copyright in the derivative work that Caters / the Daily Mail could assert. At a minimum, we can see that the Daily Mail changed the orientation of one of the pics, rotating it to compensate for the odd angle of the first self-portrait; it's possible that (many) other tweaks have been made as well. One can have a copyright in a derivative work despite lacking the copyright to the original. The Daily Mail would be at the mercy of the original copyright holder - if there is one - as far its right to post its derivative work. But since the original copyright holder (the monkey? the chattel owner? nobody?) won't be asserting its right to exclude the Daily Mail from posting, they don't have to worry about that.
Again, this is all IFF the original film / RAW files have been significantly and creatively edited before being posted online.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Moral reasoning can be a tricky thing
My understanding of your position is that you believe:
* Doxxing is never ethical (it's unethical?), even when used by non-government entities to punish unethical (but legal) activity
* Despite that, you would support doxxing to punish illegal activity that is being hidden from public view
I don't really get saying that you would support doxxing in circumstances that you think it would be unethical, but let's set that aside for now. What I really want to know is: why do you think doxxing is always unethical?
Is it about the act and intention of doxxing? How would you feel if ViolentAcrez's boss inadvertently learned his real identity (not through an intentional doxxing like Chen's) and fired him as a result? That would be an IRL-consequence without widely destroying VA's anonymity.
Is it about all non-expressive "punishment" (i.e., non-governmental / community-based / IRL consequences) for anonymous online speech? What if all the other sub-reddit mods banded together to punish VA instead of defend him?
Or what if VA applied for and got a job where he could exist entirely pseudonymously (as "ViolentAcrez"), but whomever hired him didn't connect his pseudonym to his reddit actions until later -- at which point he fired him (never knowing his IRL identity)? That would be real economic punishment for his speech without doxxing.
Re: Re: Re: Moral reasoning can be a tricky thing
"Free speech" is traditionally used to mean freedom from government censorship, as in your ViolentAcrez-as-political dissenter hypothetical. The ability to express ideas without lawmaker approval has historically been far more important than being able to so without community approval.
You're hinting at, but not expressly suggesting, an expanded definition of free speech: the right to express ideas and/or content anonymously, without any real-world consequences (even non-governmental consequences). I suspect the reason other commenters have failed to see this issue "clearly" (i.e., the way you do) is that you have implicitly taken this more extreme position without supporting its extremity. Why should anonymity in expression -- without consequence -- be a right?
Re: Re: I'm sure you're right but...
"They fought the player piano, they fought the MP3 player, they fought DVRs etc."
But did they fight TV Guide? Or the schedule of programs in the newspaper? I'm no defender of the maximalists, but assuming they would consider Ubertalk and Dar.fm to be equally infringing seems to be an unfair straw man until they do it. However much you might disagree with them generally, it's pretty clear they consider copying and unauthorized performance to be greater sins than creation of a directory of already-scheduled, authorized performances.
Does anyone know what he actually said? (as Rajiv)
I've looked at original story and I can't for the life of me figure out who added the "[the]" in brackets. Did Judge Harvey say, "We have met the enemy and he is the U.S"? Or did he say, "We have met the enemy and he is U.S."?
He was making a pun; it makes a difference.
Re: Re: Re: (as Rajiv)
But if the photo posted on the Daily Mail *WAS* the derivative work - i.e., a photo that had been significantly post-processed in creative ways since the original (copyright-less) photo had been taken - that would create a copyright in the derivative work that Caters / the Daily Mail could assert. At a minimum, we can see that the Daily Mail changed the orientation of one of the pics, rotating it to compensate for the odd angle of the first self-portrait; it's possible that (many) other tweaks have been made as well. One can have a copyright in a derivative work despite lacking the copyright to the original. The Daily Mail would be at the mercy of the original copyright holder - if there is one - as far its right to post its derivative work. But since the original copyright holder (the monkey? the chattel owner? nobody?) won't be asserting its right to exclude the Daily Mail from posting, they don't have to worry about that.
Again, this is all IFF the original film / RAW files have been significantly and creatively edited before being posted online.
Re: (as Captain Obvious?)
And they pay for them, too.