<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Christian Hufgard <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:pp@christian-hufgard.de">pp@christian-hufgard.de</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">Boris Turovskiy wrote:<br>
> Christian Hufgard wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> Because it is much easier to reach Jane and John Doe if we act as a<br>
>> party and we can build up more pressure on other parties.<br>
> You haven't answered my question: why do we try to get the _laws_<br>
> changed rather than work on ways to circumvent them and neutralize the<br>
> harm they cause? Because following your arguments on free content, we<br>
> could as well say (on the topic of surveillance) "OK, the laws are<br>
> there, we accept them, but we'll set up anonymizer services so that<br>
> anybody can avoid the surveillance".<br>
<br>
</div>Surveillance is much for dangerous for us, that no free access to the<br>
latest song of Brittney Spears...<br><br></blockquote><div><br>National elections is a subject a politician more willing to address, but in the long run, he will also address the maintenance of our roads. And if we were at war, I'm sure everyone would care about bombs coming out from the sky, but at the end of the day they will still feel hunger.<br>
<br>Either way we want our whole culture to be free for any non-profit use or not, and you know Pirate's point of view on the subject and our reasons. Truth is you won't change our mind on that subject and I think we won't change yours neither.<br>
<br>Félix Robles<br></div></div>