I do not mean to disagree with the OP, but here's a thought:

What would happen if we required someone like Warren Buffet to ignore the news?

What if he was prohibited from reading a single newspaper?

What would happen?

I know many people who read multiple newspapers every day, without fail. If they were not allowed access to the news, I think their ability to function in their chosen profession would be severely impacted.

There are by and large two types of stories in newspapers. Stories that appeal to emotion and stories that relate to data.

From my experience in newsrooms, stories that are primarily emotional are dealt with by Journalists nearly exclusively, they require strong story telling and usually invasive interviewing and exposure.

Stories from data tend to be collected by outside interests and presented to newspapers. Journalists can then spin stories from the data, or if they are writing for a financial publication typically highlight the most salient points for consumption. Occasionally, and far more infrequently than in the past, the media institution will collect a survey themselves or crunch the numbers, and this is almost always pseudo-scientific.

Ultimately journalists rarely improve this data other than to make it more gossip worthy. There is a huge amount of data presented every day, from pr firms, from foundations and from public bodies, and all of it wants to be read.

Warren Buffet might prefer to read it in the New York Times, but with a strong and deep twitter feed almost anyone can now be as informed as the average news room (there are exceptions to this, on the other hand, reading those same newspapers cover to cover is also a good way to fill your head with soporific twaddle)

While I don't agree with the original article, as I think many publications offer some well reasoned analysis and challenging opinions, social media is more than enough to stay as well informed as anyone, though it remains more difficult to navigate.

On the other hand, imagine if Warren Buffet were only allowed to get his information from cable news. That would be frightening.

Interesting comment. PR may see social media as a threat, for exactly the reason you've mentioned. "Well-informed" is relative I think to what you're doing. For example, someone doing hard science research in a lab may only need access to scientific journals. She needs to keep pace with what is published in her area of research only; she could be oblivious to what's happening in the world and still be effective in her job. But from what I know of Buffet, I think he needs access to what journalists are saying. Again, it matter what you're trying to do.

> What would happen if we required someone like Warren Buffet to ignore the news?

I think that's missing the point a bit. The OP was pointing out that there is an opportunity cost of consuming the news. For the OP, the return on his time investment was not worth it. But for someone like Warren Buffet, it obviously would be.

No, I think I understand the OP. That's why I said "I do not mean to disagree..." Did you catch that part?

I'm simply pointing out that for some people the news is very valuable to what they do. As you say, for the OP it might not have as much value. It depends on what you're trying to do.

I think a more interesting title would be: "The power of being able to think for yourself". For example, it's possible to be able to read the news, when it is overwhelmingly negative or even low quality news (e.g. it doesn't tell you anything you don't already know), and still derive something positive from it. And there are many examples that prove this: businesspeople who read heaps of news and still manage to accomplish quite a lot, at least in the opinion of their peers.

You may stop reading the news. But most everyone else is still reading it. And to the extent your business is concerned with some segment of that group I refer to as "everyone else", the news is a factor to consider.

Hope that's a little more clear.

pg's essay on PR as it relates to startups is a decent intro into how the news can be important for hackers.

How can you make the jump from

1. copyright infringment, mainly a civil offense, that addresses speculatve monetary losses to

2. conspiracy to commit murder, a criminal offense with a history hundreds of years older than the notion of "copyright", that is aimed at preserving a human life?

How do you do that? That is an enormous leap. Is it some sort of mental gymnastics?

Is a human life more important than your "copyrighted work"? Really bizarre thinking, or maybe it's just me.

I don't believe he was trying to make the two morally equivalent, just to say that there is a similar legal principle in question.

I think his point is that the same legal principle applies. TPB is clearly "in-league" with copyright violators. I will not weigh in on whether this is right or not, but it's obvious from their past behaviors (blog posts, etc.). They are guilty of "conspiracy to commit copyright violation".

My comment is not to do with TPB. My comment has to do with mixing legal principles (or more specifcally, areas of law) that are very different and do not mix well.

I disagree that "the same legal principle" applies, but then I'm not sure we have the same principles in mind. It sounds like you are thinking about the concept of conspiracy in general, or contributory infringement. But that's not what I was referring to.

In my mind, there is a clear delineation between what is criminal offence and involves bodily harm ("illegal") and what is simply an alleged violation of intellectual property or contractual rights (e.g. "alleged copyright infringment").

When someone jumps from one to the other, as the commenter did, it is very strange. Because to me they are two very different areas of law with their own distinct philosophical origins. That's why they are almost always separated into a criminal code and a civil code.

There are plenty of examples of conspiracy to commit civil offences. Ignoring them and using an example from criminal law, and in particular homicide, one of the most heinous of all crimes, seems unnecesary. It raises the suspicion that either the commenter is using this example merely for shock value or that his knowledge of the law is very narrow and not well-informed.

I agree with you, that is why I put "consipiracy to commit copyright infringment" in quotation marks. That's not a thing and I don't really have an opinion on whether it should be a thing.

I read you statement as you thinking he was making a moral equivlancy (conspiracy to commit murder was the same as aiding copyright infringement). My point was that he's not making a moral equivlancy, he's just pointing out that to say TBP is not culpable because they don't host the files on their servers is missing the point, at least missing the point as lawmakers might see it.

Correct: I purposely did not delve into any specifics, because I was simply trying to demonstrate that "I did not host the file or do the actual infringement" is really not a sufficiently complex argument to actually mean that you are not liable, and even if it means you are not liable under current law, I do not feel it is at all clear that in some larger ethical sense you shouldn't be liable, and I can sympathize with people who have campaigned to add such liability. And certainly, I did not attempt to argue "moral equivalence" between "murder" and "copyright infringement" (and feel that anyone who thinks I did, such as the guy who decided to hide behind the name "howcan", is just being argumentative: it serves no purpose in pushing forward a discussion and just drags down the conversation; you always need to draw parallels: that's how language works).

However, your statement "that's not a thing" is not entirely accurate: the DMCA's anti-tampering clause actually feels quite a bit like a law in the style of "conspiracy to commit copyright infringement". Specifically, it holds people who distribute tools that bypass protection mechanisms culpable, even if the primary use of that tool is not for copyright infringement (not so for the Pirate Bay), even if any and all marketing is for that positive use (not true for torrents: it is a rare torrent client that isn't marketing in a way that makes it clear "you could use this to infringe; in fact, here's a screenshot of another user doing so"), and even if there is a clear moderation effort and stance against piracy (again: certainly not the case with the Pirate Bay).

Of course, neither the Pirate Bay nor torrent clients are protection mechanisms, so AFAIK these laws would not and could not be used, and the DMCA is a US-specific law and these people aren't operating here, so I'm not trying to say they are already breaking this law (another reason to not go into specifics: they really aren't directly relevant, and it then requires this massive hedge to make certain people don't start arguing some nitpick of an example off into the weeds); however, it is a clear example of "conspiracy to commit copyright infringement" as a real law that has been used with real consequences in the real world in situations where people have committed not a single act of piracy.

Note: the closest I have ever gotten to being a lawyer was a role as the off-stage voice of the judge in a college performance of 12 Angry Men; what I know about this subject comes from running Cydia, the alternative to the App Store dealing in everything other than an App for jailbroken iPhones, which has had me deeply involved in the hearings to get DMCA exemptions. I thereby also watched with much interest the results of Sony's lawsuit against GeoHot, who happened to also have been the first person to unlock the iPhone and an instrumental player in various jailbreaks that were released, and his related-but-separate DMCA exemption that is currently going through hearings.

What that does mean, however, is that I'm on the other side of this: so if anyone (like "howcan") wants to make an argument that I'm somehow making some moral stance that contributing, even accidentally, to copyright infringement of others is as problematic as murder, I should really only have to go "seriously? you're argument is that I shouldn't call myself a murderer?". It also means, and I say this quite sadly, that I have a front-row seat to the effects of these laws: if you want to claim that these laws do not have any teeth, or do not take the overall stance that "conspiracy to commit copyright infringement" is a relevant idea, I thereby feel I need to ask how much experience you have in these matters.

It just seemed like a very extreme example to use to illustrate conspiracy. That's all. You're not the only one I've seen draw such extreme examples. I am being argumentative. But that's only because I think there's an argument worth making. Apologies for singling you out. I probably misinterpreted your comment and chose the wrong time to make my argument.

As long as we understand what "illegal" means and the difference between criminal and civil, I'm happy. I think it's to the benefit of all hackers to know the difference and choose their examples carefully. It matters what you as a hacker think and how you understand these things. If you do not see a clear separation between the civil and criminal, it makes the job easier for those who seek to blur the line to further their own interests.

Anyway, I apologise if I misinterpreted your comment and used it as an entry point for a little rant about the difference between civil and criminal. My bad.