Right, that is why this case is MIT & JSTOR Vs: Aaron Swartz..
Wait, neither of those groups, the ones who were theoretically trespassed upon or abused are interested in this case. JSTOR dealt with him to their satisfaction back when this all actually happened.
This entire case, and the new eager stacking of charges, is a way to punish someone that the prosecutors don't like. They have managed to bend laws until "daring to be annoying to the government-WITH A COMPUTER" is at a higher level then rape.
But on average the public Does approve of safe driving regulations that make sense (speed laws in most cases) and fire code, retail access and ease-of-use concerns that motivate most reasonable parking laws.
Heck, even most stubborn people will admit that as long as the government exists, and taxes and revenue also exists, there must be some kind of Revenue Service, something Internal to the government that exists to make the tax system function (in theory)
SO people do support those laws, far beyond their occasional grouching when one or more of them has some kind of effect on them personally.
Other laws, like the prohibition of alcohol, are so disrespected and disliked by people they get the laws overturned.
Still others, like the prohibition of some narcotics, are more or less ignored by vast swathes of otherwise law-abiding citizens and even ignored by some law enforcement organizations.
But what you are saying is that governments should force companies to use your commercial product (or the product of a company like yours), passing on costs to all users as always happens, instead of end users being responsible for their own actions.
You don't see the problem that comes from that even beyond the possibility of mandated interference with protected speech as collateral damage?
(not trying to call you an evil schemer, just looking at things from the position of a user instead of a seller)
Some people can choose to buy a game for a slight deduction. they Choose to. They know exactly what is in the box when they are handing the money to the counter attendant.
So some people who want to pay a little less for a somewhat less valuable product get what they want, someone else gets to unload a product that is no longer very valuable to them in exchange for a small amount of cash or credit which almost always gets turned right around into new games one way or anther.
as a very, very small addendum, In my opinion it is Possible but not likely for a publisher to be a brand.
The example that comes to mind is Baen Books. Over many years, and with the additional good will of the sane and awesome digital sales, I have come to view Baen as a reliable source. If their editors liked it, I will like it (usually) and I can use that to help my search for new content.
But on the whole the publisher usually gets lost, muddled inside the B&N/amazon/used transaction. They come to the forefront when they do something negative, undermining any attempt to get ahead.
When hollywood trade groups throw money and influence around DC it is democracy.
When Internet/Tech trade groups ask to have a seat in the room where massive deals are going on that effect them (and us) that is obviously backroom suspicious evilness full of shadowy money and mouthpieces for despicable puppetmasters.
So the fix is to zero out your "account" with the government and take all this money to dump into the market machines?
I am sure that it will make for plenty of wealthy fund managers who take their cuts coming and going, and some people might hold on to enough to keep earnings near inflation.. but that is all.
Later on when grandma, or your parent, or you turn to that fund you thought had been socked away for a rainy day and find the sock had a huge hole in it you will wonder why you let all the liability be shifted to you while all the profit was shifted to someone else.
I am glad that you are "thinking" and feeling confident. Of course, the people actually in place to Know those things have not agreed with your position. In fact, in a few cases they have even come out on the negative.
And then you go on to quickly add "but there was nothing really important in the leaks anyhow, so its not like Assange is a Real whistleblower anyhow, despite all these things i think he was somehow responsible for."
Weird mixed message, and i have been seeing it a lot.
"Leaks Kill Babies And Puppies!"
"Leaks Contain Nothing Of Any Interest! Its Not Like Real News"
Anonymous Coward is a term applied within some online communities to describe users who post without a screen name; it is a dummy name attributed to anonymous posts used by some weblogs that allow posting by people without registering for accounts.
The practice, which had its roots in BBS and USENET culture, was made especially popular on Slashdot, where the mildly derogatory term is meant to chide anonymous contributors into logging in. Some weblog engines such as Scoop use the term "Anonymous Hero" instead.
Variations on the name "Anonymous Coward" are also sometimes used by trolls to mock the dummy name and/or confuse other users into thinking that they are posting as Anonymous Coward.
Gee, its like you are taking a common internet phenomenon and twisting and squirming your hardest until you can use it as a half-witted attack against someone you have decided not to like. Should i applaud your acting ability in this role as "anonymous fool" or simply call you dumb and walk away?
Anyone who disagrees with me is a child!
They Must be living in mommies house, because grownups like Me! Me! Me~! all know that I am totally smart and right.
Keep the comedy flowing, anonymous coward who also also calls people "slimeballs" when they protest a lying political and claims this entire article is fabrication (but at the time of this post, has not replied to the evidence of how wrong they are)