"Like I said, she was simply riding in a truck driven by her husband, last I checked that was perfectly legal."
I'm sure you think this is a clever comeback, but she was not arrested for "simply riding in a truck". That point is completely irrelevant.
"If you think it's a good idea to legislate morality, then accept without complaint when others force their version of morality onto you."
This is not a moral argument, at least not from me, it's an entirely practical one. It's based on the fact that it's highly likely a meth addict will eventually turn to violent crime to maintain their habit, and others will suffer as a result. There's no such thing as a casual meth user.
"The only question is whether leaking a *copyrighted* legal contract in the publc interest would ever be considered "fair use"? Probably not."
Why not? Mike explained pretty clearly why it absolutely is fair use: they're providing commentary, it's a matter of public interest, they're not selling the contract and there's no market to harm. Can you rebut any of these points?
You seem to be confusing meth with pot. Completely unlike pot users, people on meth are inherently dangerous, and can act in unpredictable and violent ways. She did deserve to get arrested, but not in a manner that violated such important rights.
The claim is that he did it via the entertainment system, which just adds another whole level of insanity.
At this point I'm simply not inclined to believe this actually happened until an airline or aircraft manufacturer confirms it through their own testing. It just seems so crazy that it's even possible, and that the FBI are simply taking his word for it.
"Got a car that was made in the last 10 years? Do you own the rights to the software in that? Is anybody crying about it?"
If auto manufacturers start partitioning the government to use COPYRIGHT law to prevent me altering the software in my 10yo car, then I'll start crying about it. Until then your attempt at a comparison fails.
Nothing in your little rant comes even close to explaining how this is a COPYRIGHT issue, or why it should be dealt with using COPYRIGHT law. You assume nobody understands the risk or liability issues (quite wrong), while completely missing the point of the article and looking like a bit of a dick in the process.
"People don't want to feel guilty about using Spotify and the rest, the fact is musicians are screwed by streaming."
I don't feel in the slightest bit guilty about using Spotify or other streaming services, any more than I would listening to the radio. Spotify gives the bulk of its income straight to the record labels, so it makes my blood boil when people like you accuse streaming services of screwing artists instead of talking about the tiny fraction of money that labels pay out.
As soon as someone trots out the "why can't I just take this randomly selected desirable physical object" argument, you know nothing of any intellectual worth will be gained from that person's arguments.
"My response was to say that it's fecicious considering how Apple still profit from piracy in some way in another if the machines and the OS take part in it - that YouTube should be expected to have ContentID and take down copyrighted content while Apple is under no such obligation to fill their OS with ID checking software and reporting mechanisms to inform artists of breaches of copyright."
Apple doesn't "profit from piracy", it profits from selling hardware and software that can perform many different functions, including, if the user desires, piracy via the internet. Your claim makes no more sense than claiming Ford profits from its cars being used as bank robbery getaway vehicles.
We know, which makes it all the more amusing to see you once again claim it was a "gotcha" question that he had no safe way of answering. This is factually incorrect, and you know this to be the case, so that would make your comment above a lie. You and Clapper both seem to have the relaxed morals regarding truth-telling.
You're under the mistaken impression that this is a widely known fact among 22 year olds. Most people that age aren't yet world-weary and cynical enough to think such a problem could be as bad as it apparently is.