I'm surprised I can find very little about this on Google. I would like to know the distinctions between direct causality and indirect causality. I found these resources online: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality http://depts.washington.edu/methods/causality.html So what I get from this: A direct cause acts on the object itself. An indirect cause acts on a third party, which then acts on the object. An example: A lot of people say the MPAA supports infringing our rights, for example, with SOPA. The MPAA does this because of piracy. So if I pirate a movie, am I directly or indirectly causing my rights to be infringed upon? He is the direct cause of pirating one movie, or whatever he pirates, but he is not the direct cause of infringing on his rights, as a third party (the MPAA) is acting on the object (infringing rights). So it is indirect, right? Thank you.
Only assholes say this. The purpose of SOPA is to protect the rights of the people and/or companies that created the content, by discouraging online piracy--i.e., accessing the content without paying for it. It is not your rights that are infringed. It is the rights of the writers, the producers, the directors, the actors, the camera operators, the builders of scenery, the stunt people, the cities or private parties who lease out their sites for location photography, the composers of the songs and background music, the orchestra and singers that perform them, etc. For example, if ten million people watch a movie but only five million pay for the right to do so, all of those people listed above, in aggregate, are losing half of their income. This will not happen immediately, because they have already been paid. But the next time the studio produces a movie, they will adjust their accounting to expect only half as many ticket (and internet, cable TV, RedBox, etc.) sales. This will cause them to pay only half as much to the people who create the next movie. The loss of income due to piracy means that movies which are expected to be only marginally profitable may not to be produced. These are often the movies that people like us enjoy. So the assholes who perform piracy are reducing our opportunities to watch the oddball movies we love. If you know someone who pirates, just shoot the bastard.
Yeah I poorly worded that. A lot of people believed SOPA infringed upon our rights, which is why sites like Wikipedia, etc. went down for a day or so (link). Do you disagree with these companies? From Wikipedia: I should have said, "So if I pirate a movie, am I directly or indirectly causing SOPA?" Another example: An ex-wife kills her ex-husband's new wife. The ex-wife did this because the ex-husband left her. So is the ex-husband's action of leaving a direct or indirect cause of his death? Or put it another way: X causes Y X causes Y because of Z Is Z the direct or indirect cause of Y?
This is not a linguistic issue. Arguing over the meaning of words like "directly" and "indirectly" is not going to get to the heart of the matter. This is about the way people treat each other, how much responsibility they take for things that are at least partially caused by their own actions, and what people must do in order to keep civilization running I am moving this discussion to the Ethics, Morality and Justice subforum. Fraggle Rocker Moderator
