By this logic, if i make a party whose primary platform is to be against bank security systems, I can legally just take whatever I want?

gettaddahere.

we all inherently know that "religious exemptions" for good laws are BS. Political excemptions should be no different. The correct answer is: build support, get into government, change the laws.

So, do you get your goth makeup at hot topic or is it more of a mail order thing now?

No fascism in somalia! Be sure to send us a postcard.

Are there some legitimate business applications for this? Sure. a few. Not many.

Do i want this thing in my life, personal or otherwise? Well, I'll tell you what - the day that I need a glorified gopro camera to show people what i'm eating for lunch in real time, just shoot me already. You know those douchebags who wear those bluetooth phones in their ears? Goglass wearers will come accross as douchebags to them - kind of like douchebag squared for us normals.

and if you're anything like the dozen or so people i've met who also claim to be making ridiculous amounts of money on online poker, you aren't either. in my experience, online poker players are particularly likely to overexaggerate their winnings while not mentioning their losses. furthermore, nearly all such players try to tell me of the sites where there are many novice/donk players out there that can be reliably won from. none of these claims stand up to any sort of serious scrutiny for a number of reasons, and there is excellent reason to suggest that as with brick and mortar casinos, the only people consistently making good coin are the casinos themselves or the russian hackers who extort them.

Or maybe it's that when you amortize the cost of a video game compared to most other forms of popular entertainment, video games work out incredibly cheaply per unit time of entertainment and so the total spend of a typical gamer per year is actually very low. Furthermore, perhaps you, or if not you then others it this thread, are basing your idea of getting "ripped off" by comparing the free market costs of goods (which is essentially what we have here, despite nonsense or hyperbolic claims of 'addiction') against the "piracy costs" as some of you have conditioned yourself that the cost of digital entertainment "should" be near zero.

I don't play many games. I'm a WW2 enthusiast and there haven't been many shooters lately. But in general for about the price of a decent restaurant meal I could get a WW2 shooter that would keep me occupied for 40+ hours (of my life that I can never get back, but that's a different story). I have no problem with this and I further have no problem in technological means to prevent against re-license - or have you all been asleep to what this has done to prices in the ios app market and also in places like steam?

"There's no [copyright] protection for a cover?"

bollocks.

citation needed or apologize.

Joe Average gets smacked down? Is this a joke?

Do a youtube search for "Full Movie"

the idea that youtube somehow benefits big rightsholders is comical. this is why viacom, etc have a multi-billion dollar lawsuit against google/youtube, and rightly so.

Will you be willing to retract your words and make a public apology if/when he wins a substantial settlement?

what is the maximum number of possible states for the price of a shave and a haircut?

Is this going to be more muddling of a complex issue where people contend that swartz was "stealing what the taxpayers had already paid for" because some percentage of the research of JSTOR was funded with grants? are we really going to let people in this thread make that extreme oversimplification of the issue yet again here?

why was my rational post which described the troubling effects of such protectionism on foreign direct investment deleted from slashdot?

No, they wouldn't.

For all the talk of copyright on slashdot and elsewhere on the web, I continue to be shocked and underwhelmed by the basic ignorance people have about it.

Hey, intelligent comments have no place on slashdot!

I'm confused. Let's say we ban, say, kiddy porn. Does the fact that kiddy porn can be made at home instead of commercially make a kiddy porn ban less correct or viable?

If you disagree with the banning of certain magazines - fine. But the fact that you might be able to print them at home has no theoretical bearing on the issue.