The simple fact is that the technology allows for sharing on a grand scale and our youth make full use of it whether it be legal or illegal. Few did any actual stealing when records were vinyl and were prepared to pay for what they wanted.

I noted that the technology of today allows us to do the same things we have always done on a grander scale, but in the late 1970s and '80s, the use of cassettes to record entire albums, as well as individual songs off the radio, was also complained about by the record companies. That is a problem with growing technology and the constant diminishing of true scarcity as a result, along with the constant conflicts it will have with an economic system that runs on the basis of production for profit. That is only going to increase in scope in the future, just as you noted it has been doing over the past few decades, which is why the record and publishing companies (and all the others who deal with intellectual property) are going to have to find equitable ways of selling the material if they want people to keep paying for it.

With the arrival of cassettes and other recording this perhaps dented sales a little but overall people still bought music that they wanted with the occasional sharing of tapes with friends. They didn't do much wholesale copying - apart from the industrious - because it took so long to copy items. These days it is but a click to download and share whatever is available and de-copy-restricted - the morality has just it seems got lost along the way. If any of those who do such illegal file-sharing were also prepared to work for nothing then I might agree. It is simply that the technology has overtaken common sense. I still purchase all my music as I do with most other items but perhaps I am a simple fool.

As I said, you would be a simple fool if you were a business owner and you frequently tried to rip off your customers, and used duplicitous, unethical methods to milk more and more money out of your product's fan base by putting them in a position where they had to buy large amounts of your product that they didn't want just to get a small amount that they did want, and then expected the consumers of your product to be totally ethical in their consideration of you when you made it clear that you didn't feel the need to extend them the same courtesy. Business has no ethics, and expecting it from consumers is hypocritical, despite the fact that the law favors the rights of the former over the latter in most cases. And btw, the people who are losing the most money due to file-sharing are not the artists themselves, as they make the bulk of their money by touring and personal appearances, not off of record sales; the vast majority of the profit made off of record sales goes into the pockets of the big wig owners of the record companies, who do not do even a third of the work that the artists they employ do. That is like saying that the owner of a pro football team does the same amount of work as the actual players on that team. Just sayin'.

What happens in the USA doesn't represent what happens elsewhere. We other nations do not always take our leads from the USA as you can see for many other countries. Tough luck but that is no argument for what he is saying - he comes from Sweden I believe?

Britain almost always takes its lead from the USA, and the two together have more than enough muscle from an economic standpoint--and a military one, if necessary--to bully most other countries into doing things their way. This is a well known fact, and it's the major reason why many countries that were far more liberal than the USA during the 1980s and '90s changed their policies about CP and AoC laws despite no evidence whatsoever that this would actually benefit younger people, and some evidence that it was making certain problems worse. The goal of "protecting" kids is not the actual goal, as the evidence provided by this author makes clear. If the end result consistently fails to match the stated pretext, then obviously the motives are not exactly altruistic, but purely moralistic--the two often do not go hand-in-hand. The "unfortunate side effects" of this legislation were actually the intended effects as far as the politicians are concerned.

This is becoming a grey area too - the advent of such instant recording and sharing technology - and participation in group actions like gang-rape are troublesome. Where is the line drawn between those who watch and do nothing, those who participate by stopping the victim from escaping, and those who fully participate.

We're talking here about those who want to help but are afraid to do so for silly arbitrary reasons connected to our wonderful little strict liability laws that are not concerned about intent.

Those who chance upon such a scene will hardly be seen as perpetrators by most

We're talking about the courts here, not "most" people.

I think unless they keep and share such pictorial evidence - and rightly so if they do the latter.

So if I share a book I have that contains pics of actual murders committed by serial killers--which are perfectly legal and sold in all book stories that have a true crime section--does that make me a de facto perp of the murders? And if a necrophiliac got his hands on the book for the purpose of getting salacious gratification by looking at the pics solely within the realm of his own mind, should he/she be arrested for having thoughts that the majority of us find horrible and disturbing, however rightly? And should we deny researchers with a non-salacious interest in the material the right to possess and distribute it, just in case it may find its way into the hands of a necrophiliac, or anyone who has a puerile interest in murder? In short, are laws ostensibly aimed at thought control--even when it comes to undoubtedly horrific thoughts--ever compatible with a democratic, civil rights based framework?

He was talking about coming across a crime in progress and because of the recording technology of hence becoming a criminal. Perhaps the USA needs to wake up on this issue but I doubt most other countries would take a similar stand - I very much doubt it in the UK and we have just as onerous CP laws as many other places.

I'm sure five years ago many people doubted that Australian parliament would seriously and forcefully propose a law designed to criminalize pornography featuring legally adult actresses with small breasts. If that legislation were to pass, I'm sure that many children would be protected from the deviant thoughts of anyone watching those vids and pretending--in their own minds--that those actresses were underage.

Well Diss, few thing anger me these days and this article didn't raise my temperature that much - I have seen much like it before. Now where did I actually say this (undelined)? As I've said before I don't know why the authorities will not show the extent of CP and I don't say that it essentially is all like this only that there is a great deal of it and it should not be confused with marginal stuff.

Again, my newest friend, where is the proof? And given the not exactly stellar track record for honesty amongst the various LEAs when lucrative government money and promotions, as well as increased powers over society, are on the line, why should we ever just take the LEOs' word for it when they mysteriously and suspiciously make such claims with none of the evidence I suggested should be there? And when, in a democratic system with American rules of jurisprudence, is it ever unreasonable to ask for evidence of outrageous and illogical claims? I highly doubt you are an insider and you simply have this knowledge when so few people on this planet do, including many well-known investigative journalists. You believe it, but you don't actually know it, and that's an important distinction.

What I believe is that we are still in an extended period of social change because of the Internet and other devices so I hardly would expect the laws to cater for such changes and they always seem to lag by significant periods. Leave out the religious stuff Diss, if I find I'm on their side at all it is an embarrassment but that would not alter my views if I thought they were correct. I take nothing from religion and anyone who wants to put us all in some imaginary basket just deserves contempt. Thinking can be independent of ideology but coincide at times with one's enemies.

I included that comparison to religious moralists because you have some important things in common with them despite not actually believing in their conception of Deity (or any conception): Like theirs, your thinking is clearly based on an ideology that favors belief over evidence and moralistic attitudes over provable facts and freedom of choice when it comes to law. Yes, IMO, you should be embarrassed if you consider such people your enemies, because you would get along very well with them if not for that silly little 'deist' thing between the two of you. Nothing imaginary about that basket, dude!

As I've said before, and I think change is happening, teenagers deserve rather better treatment than they are currently getting with regard to sexual matters and especially charges of CP but true CP is really what this all about and is what damages so many kids.

Granted, you consider adolescents as a separate category than children, but you still define "true" CP in a very dogmatic, overly broad fashion, and you very curiously worry much, much less about a lot of things in society that damage many kids in a fully demonstrable manner if they do not have a sexual component to them. This shows where the crux of the "damage" you are concerned about is--the damage you are most concerned about is not to kids from a safety standpoint, but rather the perceived "damage" inflicted upon your image of them. I would love to see you and the LEAs put in a position where you all had to prove that there is an epidemic of kids being forcibly raped and tortured on film that causes far more damage to their number from a statistical standpoint than non-sexual forms of highly demonstrable, fully provable damage like impoverishment; emotional abuse by adults at home or at school; physical abuse by adults at home or at school that is not outright life-threatening but nevertheless quite damaging; problems related to mandatory, standardized education ranging from bullying to extreme emotional stress; neglect; forced economic dependence on adults until they are 18; and lack of education in areas that would help many of them (at least) achieve earlier independence and knowledge. Unfortch, none of these very serious, and very provable, sources of damage to kids strike the emotional chords like sex does, nor do they threaten the power structure of society in any way.

The problem as I see it is that it might be extremely difficult to police and hence will do nothing to stem the production of the worst material and probably make it more likely to be produced when a larger audience, who will not have to worry about possession, might be the result.

And of course, you have every confidence that people who would be consumers of such material were it legal and regulated would just be filled with demented individuals who would pay top dollar to encourage more and more of the production companies to produce huge amounts of the "worst material," because that's just how so many adults who are attracted to underagers happen to be, right? It would be so difficult to find out if even a small amount of this "worst material" was being legally produced, because the adult producers would be so unusually sly and intimidating, even if the kids' parents were legally required to be on hand at all times, correct? Never mind the fact that if the material was legal, many of the parents would be the ones involved. Or is the real problem that you simply do not want to see even the benign material legally produced, so you claim to fear that such an unlikely worst-case scenario would occur to rationalize the "erring on the side of caution" stance? You don't have to answer that last one, I believe it was a rhetorical question.

It is all down to absolutes really. There are no such things in our real lives and we just have to compromise continually.

And always compromise in favor of security over freedom, correct? And where will that end? I believe that I already know what your answer is: it won't, and perhaps it shouldn't.

The child porn freedom is just one of the many 'freedoms' we do not allow such as incitement to murder, libel, racial abuse, religious hatred and many others so I hardly see that freedom hinges on child porn, it is just another control measure within society as many are that attempt to lessen the conflicts that inevitably arise between disparate groupings or are based on a moral consensus, and for CP there appears to be a consensus.

Um, freedom of possessing certain types of information, and freedom of expression, and what thoughts are going through your head when you access said info, is hardly comparable to incitement to murder. Murder is an actual, demonstrable type of harm, as is libel, which is the willful use of lies in written material, which is not the same thing as an opinion. Someone sitting down in the privacy of their own home and thinking salacious thoughts at photos of murder victims are hardly going out and inciting actual murder, even if they are purchasing books or downloading pics that have such images in them. Are you saying this just encourages the publishers of such books to hire serial killers to go out and murder more people if they perceive a demand for such books? There is no freedom of choice or consent when it comes to murder, or someone knowingly publishing outright lies about you, but the expression of opinion, and the thinking of certain thoughts, do constitute important freedoms. Freedom doesn't 'hinge' on the legalization of CP per se, as the author said, but it does hinge on disallowing any type of censorship, and allowing full transparency of information, and freedom of thought while viewing the info. Freedom of speech, opinion, and expression are among the ten most important freedoms in a free society.

Also, religious hatred per se, or making hateful comments about any particular racial group, are certainly morally wrong IMO, but they are not and should not be against the law in the USA, because they constitute free speech. Saying you think black people are inferior to whites is not the same thing as necessarily encouraging white people to run out and lynch a black person. Just because we find certain opinions, thoughts, or images to be abhorrent--and I certainly find racism, sexism, and discrimination based on one's choice of faith (or the choice to have none) to be abhorrent--doesn't mean that I favor stifling the right of people to say so in public.

Finally, keep in mind that at one time, the moral consensus was against equality for blacks, equality for women, and strongly in favor of the repression of homosexuals. So much for your continued arguments that the consensus opinion is always the right one, especially when it constantly changes as social progress is made. Consensus opinion isn't always wrong either, granted, but it has always tended to be wrong when used to support any type of arguments that are morally dogmatic in nature, especially when aimed at specific groups of people.

I don't appear to have any particular philosophy, just what seems to work the best for society and those individuals that make up that society. Some need more protections than others and thus their protections might infringe on others. Tough but I suppose it depends upon what kind of society we want.

In other words, what type of people we think should be oppressed at any given time for the benefit of the group who is in power. What if we want the type of society that is a true meritocracy, and no one is oppressed based upon arbitrary rules, and minority opinions are considered as important to protect as majority opinions so as to insure that all opinions are protected? What if we believe a society where some people are protected at the expense of others actually protects no one and endangers everyone in the long run? Maybe some of us think that the establishment of civil rights of younger people is the best way to protect them from abuse, not forced disempowerment. This is why I do not think that any type of society that willingly justifies the infringement of the rights of some to protect those that we believe need it the most, i.e., using draconian rather than democratic solutions, leads to a good society for anyone save those who are in power.

I might point to this (graph) -

You did point to that graph.

The UK doesn't appear that better off but do you not think the USA has some dramatic changes to make elsewhere as well?

And perhaps those important changes, for once, should not revolve around restrictive laws regarding what pics or vids people can or cannot look at, and should instead involve problems dealing with the elimination of poverty, war, starvation, tyranny, and inequality? Or for once, concerns that do not focus on prohibiting mutually consensual relationships?

Ha, did I ever say it was an easy task. Censorship is always painful to some but I'm afraid that is one of the prices we pay for a relatively safe society.

"Safe" for whom? For those who hold the popular opinions continuing to have a monopoly on the material that is publishable? And those whose status of power depends on certain truths being suppressed? Mmmmhmmm.

We have inbuilt inhibitions that govern our behaviour, social rules, laws and also censorship. Many seem to have problems with the first and second, why add to their burden by loosening the other two?

Because laws are supposed to be based on evidence and objective judgments in order to be as fair as possible for everyone, and censorship stifles the ability of the people to make sound judgements and objective opinions if only the popular ideas, or those that protect the institutions that keep certain people in power at the expense of others, are allowed to be expressed. Stifling unpopular opinions is too often tantamount to suppressing uncomfortable truths, and this has caused and exacerbated many social evils, including racism, sexism, and homophobia in the past, and it supports rampant ageism and hatred of MAPs today. Of course, you only support censorship when it may prevent access to information that will prove one of your cherished beliefs wrong, and you oppose it if it should stifle an opinion you agree with. This is why I believe it's completely apt to compare you to any group of people who, for whatever purpose, holds belief and emotion over truth and reason.

He won't get his way I am confident on that score.

You hope in your lifetime, at least.

We'll have to disagree on the merits or otherwise of such material but we often go through periods of minor madness and the 1970's can be seen that way perhaps.

I will disagree with anyone who suggests there are "merits" to any type of draconian law, tru dat. And it's interesting that you think a liberal decade like the 1970s was full of "minor madness," but the current sex abuse hysteria, and all the draconian laws and harm caused to innocent people in its wake, including many children whose lack of empowerment causes them to suffer many of the worst forms of genuine abuse, does not constitute any form of "madness" at all. But then again, I guess the countless thousands of innocent people of all ages and orientations harmed by lies and the increasing police powers of society that three decades of this hysteria has caused is just tough boogers as long as it "protects" kids from expressing their sexuality, and as long as the many instances of genuine abuse that is inflicted upon them happens inside their place of residence, rather than outside of it.

I can't really see what good came from that time unless one sees a drugged-up nation as at all beneficial - I don't,

You mean, taking a nation of people taking drugs voluntarily instead of having them imposed on us from the big pharmaceutical companies, including the huge amounts of Ritalin that "problem" children are forced to take, which has happened in the decades following the 1970s? I guess all those annoying gains in civil rights legislation, including the beginning of understanding given to the LGBT community, that continued from the 1960s put a damper on folks like you. I'm sure the hysteria and conservatism that we got from the West under the likes of Reagan, Thatcher, and Dubya from the '80s to the present were huge gains for society, and the world in general! (The folks in Iraq and Afghanistan would certainly agree, I'm sure.)

I just wish more could cope with reality as it is without trying to escape from it.

Very sound advice, my friend. Would you ever consider following it as well as giving it?