Well, regardless of whether or not you think it works, that's what they are trying to do with these sort of setups and that's why they are called "sharing". If it's not working then it's resource sharing that is not working. It's not a fiction, obviously, resource sharing is a reality it just doesn't work in all situations, and where it does work it's never going to be 100% efficient. It's not "framing", it's calling a spade a spade. It is an attempt at resource sharing regardless of your opinion on how well resource sharing works.
It's not ride sharing because it's free, it's talking about shared resources (ie: in this case, the fact that someone is already going your way, so you can catch a ride with them for less than a taxi would cost hypothetically).
Anyway, whatever you name it, regs that prevent this sort of competition are certainly no less corrupt for doing so because of the name. Fact is: you can pay someone who isn't a taxi driver to drive you somewhere if you want to. You SHOULD be able to pay someone to drive you somewhere if you want to.
What he is trying to say is that only extremists apply property rights to digital merchandise. As per usual, he doesn't need to convince, only excuse. He can claim whatever ridiculous thing he wants as an excuse for making our lives miserable.
Yeah, that's exactly what I said. Linux can have security flaws easily (and usually quickly) fixed by patches or configuration. It's impossible for any OS not to have that, but that's nothing stacked against the fundamental design being insecure. The fact that windows has "the ability to get viruses" will only change if they redesign it.
Windows isn't the only platform that can be hacked, but it is inherently less secure due to it's willingness at a base level to run code obtained remotely without any oversight. They added high level stuff to do the oversight, but that's just painting over rotten wood. There are not equal security flaws in Unix. Linux or Solaris can have security flaws and even hypothetically could have some that Windows doesn't have, but not permanent ones that can't be resolved by patch or configuration.
Did these politicians actually obtain these infringing files? As I recall (from you know.. um.. nevermind), it is really not that easy to obtain actual full copies of infringing content from a google search.. Usually you get a bunch of places that claim to provide it and just spam you with ads instead