For example jay-walking is wrong because it's dangerous but many people do it anyway and it's not generally villianized. So then is the solution having police patrols in the streets fining/arresting people as a deterance? Will that reduce the problem and legitimately help both pedestrians and drivers? Or will educating people on the risks, creating alternatives such as adding more crossing points, improving cars ability to detect pedestrians, etc, etc, be a better solution?
Not everything is black or white, good or bad.
Is it then immoral to walk under the road when some people interpret that as technically jay walking even though you're not directly effecting anyone in the way that the law assumes you will?
The tunnels are private property, with a sign saying "Private Property - Do Not Enter", and nothing gives you the inherent right to use them.
You're conflating laws and morality. Wouldn't it make more sense that the people pirating movies don't see it as morally wrong, instead of people pirating movies because they are amoral?
> It's shocking to me the way so many people, especially in the generation after me, have proudly abandoned any pretense to morals or ethics. Sure GenX has its share of amoral people, but at least they had the good taste to lie about it. I mean, that's kind of admitting that morality is important
You are either saying saying society is more immoral now (which is irrelevant and off-topic), or saying the piracy is immoral, which is debatable. But then you don't provide any points to back up your argument.
Your first sentence, that piracy is illegal, is true but also besides the point of morality. Slavery was legal for a long time and I'm pretty sure we can all agree it was not moral just because it was legal. Apparently it's illegal to have an ice cream cone in your back pocket in Alabama, does that immediately make it immoral?
You keep calling it stealing, which it is not. If you want to bring legality into the debate, piracy is legally not stealing. Loaded words like that do nothing to help a discussion.
> You guys do in fact proudly believe it is right to steal someone else's work product
And where are you getting this info? I haven't pirated anything for years and am generally against it. I certainly don't believe it's anyone's right to do so. I bet many people here feel the same way.
However at the same time, realistically, I don't believe piracy is causing as much harm as anyone makes it out to be. Anecdotally, I don't know anyone who pirates things or has pirated things that would have purchased it otherwise. They just don't view/listen to/use the thing.
Often the most successful software products are the ones with the highest piracy rates. Anti-piracy measures generally screw over the average consumer more than they screw over pirates.
I liken it to jay-walking. Is it illegal? Sure. Is it bad in some circumstances? Sure. Should we dedicate a giant task force to jaywalking, create city streets that have anti-jaywalking barriers, and lock up anyone who does it? That would do more harm than good.
If that's your morality then everyone after GenX surely dodged a bullet. You'd prefer someone act like a psychopath rather than admit they don't agree with your moral code.
Equating one nation's laws at one point in time to morality and ethics is just the icing on the cake. Perhaps you still think that African-American men who marry white women or use non-segregated bathrooms are immoral too?
Not moral or ethics? I don't think so. Do you mean different morals and ethics that yours, maybe?
That comment about the new generations is so old as the first generation, by the way.
If there's a specific law they're breaking, I'd be surprised.
It looks like the law stems from European Directive 2001/29/EC (2001) [2][3]. That directive isn't law in itself, it's an instruction for the EU member states to implement law to deliver that directive (in fact, the UK were initially convicted of failing to implement it by the 2002 deadline).
At a guess, the relevant law is the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, Section 24 [4]:
Secondary infringement: providing means for making infringing copies.
(1)Copyright in a work is infringed by a person who, without the licence of the copyright owner—
(a) makes,
(b) imports into the United Kingdom,
(c) possesses in the course of a business, or
(d) sells or lets for hire, or offers or exposes for sale or hire,
an article specifically designed or adapted for making copies of that work, knowing or having reason to believe that it is to be used to make infringing copies.
[2] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A6...
If that's actually the case, then it's hard for me to see how selling the fully-loaded Kodi box is more illegal than selling a computer with an internet connection. After all, there's third party software for computers that give access to pirated content as well, right?
edit: Ah, I guess I misunderstood the article. Some people are selling boxes preloaded with Kodi, and other people are selling boxes preloaded with Kodi+the third party apps, I guess?