This would be simple retaliation against a company, with no public benefit.
I'd actually take the opposite view, on purely factual grounds. If the production company sought tax incentives under a premise of stimulating the state's economy in return, and instead they've been leaching and not holding up their end of the bargain, and now they're brazen enough to try and extort even more money out of the state, then the state has been defrauded and they very much do have a public-benefit interest in being made good, because that money that got ripped off was the public's money.
Or do you believe the only one responsible for the suicide of a raped woman that couldn't cope with the trauma is herself?
Yes, and attempting to appeal to highly emotionally-charged scenarios is really not conducive to rational discourse. To take your example and run with it, there are many, many people who get raped and then manage to pull through and find a way to cope with the trauma. Therefore, the suicide is not a consequence of the rape, but a consequence of something else, and the rapist is guilty of rape, but not of "driving someone to suicide."
Umm, no. That's not hacking nor, (and this is what I think you intended to say, since there's nothing remotely illegal about hacking) cracking.
No, I intended to say "hacking." That particular battle was lost waaaaay back in the 1990s, and everyone today except Richard Stallman understands that.
Although I oppose DRM, it seems wrong to me to say that companies should not be allowed to use it. It's their product, and if they want to cripple it, that's their decision.
Which would be true, if it was true. But it's not; it isn't their product they're crippling; it's my computer. (See: the Sony rootkit, StarForce, SecuROM, iOS, etc.)
My problem is that once it's in my hands, I should be allowed to bypass the DRM should I so choose.
Your real problem is that once it's loaded onto your system, it could be (and often is) already doing damage to your interests before you get around to reverse-engineering it.
Let's put it nice and simple. I assume you agree that writing and distributing a virus or similar malware is illegal, and rightfully so, because of the harm it causes to its victims' property. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) So aside from the fact that viruses infect your system by sleazy code that causes it to copy itself over networks and DRM infects your system by sleazy leonine contracts, what's the difference between DRM and a virus?
Most DRM merely prevents you from doing something, it does not "take control' of anything, so your hacking comparison is not applicable in most cases.
What I said is not "take control of," but "take control ... away from you." It turns my computer against me by causing it to declare something that I deliberately chose to put on there to be invalid and refuse to run it.
Trying to ban DRM would be extremely problematic and no doubt result in unintended consequences and all sorts of abuse, as history demonstrates clearly.
What history demonstrates clearly is that allowing DRM is extremely problematic, resulting in unintended consequences and all sorts of abuse. The Sony Rootkit comes to mind immediately, as does Apple's iOS "walled garden," Sony's removal of useful functionality from the PS3, and dozens of other examples. These are real things, not hypotheticals. What real examples of abuse of prohibitions on abusive software do you have, if history is so full of them?
What it violates are my basic property rights. When rights come into conflict with one another, one has to be found more important than the other, and the other is limited by it. This is a basic principle of civilized society, often expressed as "your right to swing your fist ends where my face begins."
Well, when my fundamental right to have my computer do what I tell it to comes into conflict with a software company's right to distribute whatever they want to, by them attempting to distribute something that makes my computer disobey me and actively work against my interests, their right ends, right there.
Yeah, I remember seeing "tongue maps," and even as a young child I thought the concept was bogus. It was contradicted by the very simple experimental evidence that anything I ate tasted the same no matter where it was on my tongue!
Chile improving relations with Argentina? Not likely, at least not during the current generation. I used to live in Argentina, and they hate Chile there, based on allegations (I have no idea if this is true or not, but "everybody knows" they did it down there) that Chile does/used to steal land from Argentina by establishing towns on Argentina's side of the border and then claiming the area for Chile since it was full of Chilean citizens.
That may be true, or it may be exactly as true as their never-ending cultural obsession with the Falkland islands having been stolen from them by England, (which is to say, a complete and utter fabrication; the islands were never Argentina's in any real sense anyway,) but as long as most people believe it, it'll take a miracle to get any changes.
That was a horrible movie. (And yes, I'm aware it's based on a book. I never read the book, so I can't comment on it one way or another.) If I had known beforehand that the plot was going to be about a bunch of smart people (whose defining characteristic is "they are the intelligent ones") being evil and trying to take over the world, I'd have never gone to see it.
No, the problem really is the existence of DRM. Its only purpose is to take control of a device that you own away from you and put it in the hands of someone else, against your will and against your interests.
In any other context, that's known as hacking, and it's illegal. Why should it be any different for this specific context? (And before anyone embarrasses themselves by claiming that it's not "against your will" because you bought the product of your own free will, even though it contains DRM, please look up the term "Leonine Contract" and understand its implications.)
It may not suffer from flat batteries, but it does suffer from several other major design limitations:
* It doesn't have a built-in database of addresses (you have to already know where you're going to find out how to get there)
* It doesn't have a routing algorithm (even if you know where you are and where you're going, it's up to you to figure out how to get from point A to point B)
* It tends to show roads and political boundaries, but not things you'd actually be interested in such as final destinations. (If I'm trying to get to a hotel, it's a lot easier to remember the name of the hotel than its address.)
* Once it's printed, it's set in stone (as it were). It can't receive updates, either regarding new roads and final destinations or current traffic conditions.
* It can't read itself to you. This is particularly significant when you don't have a passenger along.
In light of all this, there's really no good reason not to use a GPS these days.
What is so important that you HAVE TO HAVE a smartphone for being out and about.
Just off the top of my head, Google Maps. That little app in and of itself was worth the purchase price of the phone and more a while back when I found myself lost in an unfamiliar city I was visiting and the cheapo GPS the rental car company gave me broke down, while I was on the freeway! It enabled me to get to my destination and then back to my hotel safely and on time.
There's more truth to this than is immediately apparent.
Look back on history, and you see that before the Civil War, the notion of the employer-employee relationship as we know it today barely existed. Large companies didn't hardly exist, because they couldn't; people would work enough to save up enough money to strike out on their own, or go into the family business.
Or, if you lived in the South, you could have slaves. The interesting thing about slavery that no one really mentions today is that it's not "free labor"; slaves were an investment in property that have to be maintained, much like a horse (or a large and complex machine today). You have to feed a slave, provide housing, see to his basic needs, and all that costs a certain amount of money. But it was profitable enough that you got large plantations with large slave-labor forces, whereas in the North, free people who were able to save up money and strike out on their own usually did, and so large businesses didn't have much of a chance to develop.
Everything changed with the 14th Amendment, and ever since then, certain types of employers (and it's very instructive to see how many of them have Southern roots!) have been working to gradually restore status quo ante. Look at how many workers today are paid just barely enough to pay for food, housing and basic needs--exactly what an "employer" of yesteryear would have needed to pay for the upkeep of a slave--while still nominally enjoying a state of freedom, and you'll see how far we've fallen...
Yeah, that's a great closer. The argument that anything goes because of September 11th should, frankly, disqualify Rep. Rogers from holding office. Doing "everything possible" would mean abandoning the Constitution that Rogers is supposed to be upholding. We're a nation built on the principle that we don't abridge basic freedoms to "do everything possible" to stop one crime.
You are clearly unaware of the 911th Amendment: Nothing in this document shall be interpreted as abridging or interfering with the Government's power to keep its citizens safe from the threat of terrorism.
Not really. Bear in mind that we're dealing with people who think things were so much simpler back in the good old days when freedom of the press was only meaningful at all to those few people who could afford one. So it wouldn't be at all difficult to define "engaged in journalism" as doing journalist-style work in the employ of a reputable (read: rich campaign donor) publisher. And then we're back to square 1.