Clay linked a great article illustrating the dichotomy between gun manufacturers, who are now completely protected from lawsuits by crime victims, versus media hardware and software creators, whose can be sued for “inducing” copyright violations, despite substantial noninfringing uses.
We had this argument 25 years ago with the VCR, and the courts decided it. I’m tired of illegally obtained media being easier to use than legally obtained media. The cat’s out of the bag, fuckers. Find a new business model already.
That said, I do believe there is a point at which the creator of a tool should be punished for creating it. As a theoretical example, imagine some genius invents the “destroy the world button.” This button, when pressed, destroys the world. Though the person who pushes the button is ultimately the asshole responsible for the world being destroyed, the creator of the tool should have known better.
In the example above, there really isn’t a substantial good/legal use of the button. If there were, would that fact always be an adequate criterion for holding the creator blameless? I say yes. I cannot come up with a counterexample, even a purely hypothetical one. Can anyone else?
“A society in which people can do and say what they want will also tend to be one in which the most efficient solutions win, rather than those sponsored by the most influential people. Authoritarian countries become corrupt; corrupt countries become poor; and poor countries are weak.”
—Paul Graham, The Word “Hacker”