I get that, I just dont like letting pass the thought that torrent is the only way to obtain a backup. Its popular, so it will always have preponderance, but I want people to know that if they DL it from any tech that doesnt upload, they are in the clear. When it comes to protocols, torrent is the exception (in its mechanism of uploading), not the rule.

Not completely correct. You can do bit for bit copying of a DVD for a backup, keeping the encryption intact, you just cannot break the encryption. They are considered separate issues. The DCMA treats fair use as a necessary casualty. Its an interesting twist, but mostly irrelevant to Sony v. Universal other than encrypted DVDs in particular as a source for backups.

Yes, i know, thats why i phrased it the way i did. Torrent is not the only way to transfer data, just like McDonald's is not the only place to get a burger. Its just popular.

NO. Sony v. Universal (and subsequent rulings) have made it clear, it does not matter where a backup comes from, as long as you dont share it. If he downloaded the movie directly, without uploading anything, hes totally 100% legit in the clear. A backup is a backup is a backup, regardless of origin, you just cant share it.

It amazes me that people HAVE to sell these. Cant we allocate them in a proper manner without charging insane fees? ICANN is not supposed to profit....

What is offensive is Internet Explorer SEARCHING the internet when i put in 192.168.1.1. I have to make sure it has http:/// or it will search the web for those numbers instead of treating it as a URL.

I want Gigabit symmetrical with 1 TB of transfer for $50/mo.. This is absolutely 100% possible with current technology. This is what the lowest definition of broadband should be.

List your patents so that we may evaluate your claims.

The vast majority of Apple's patent s are due to the tech environment ripening, not actual innovation. They are just as much a patent troll as they company they are accusing of being a troll. Just because Apple makes product doesnt make them less so. IN fact the whole 'IP holder must make the product' is shitty reasoning at best.

No. The overwhelming vast majority of bullets are shot as cover fire, not direct shoot to kill. IN practice on the battlefield, its a cloud of bullets just like gas, its just a cloud of a different nature.

You are joking right? POLITICIANS are responsible for more human deaths than any other profession, period.

The biggest problem with the Saturn is that they surprise launched it, and pissed off the entire industry. No one wanted to deal with it, no one got exclusive deals.

You are right it CAN be amended, but it takes a HUGE majority to do so. You cant pick away at it with small groups, you have to rally the vast majority of the voters to agree with you. Until that time, the law reads that the government is explicitly disallowed from forbidding weaponry. It is simply a power it does not have. Until you can repeal the 2nd in the proper manner, there is nothing that can be done.

Because they dont want to give anyone standing to force the issue into a court they cant withdraw from. You cant sue if you dont have standing. They want to keep the tool without allowing it to be vetted by the justice process.

You dont understand the crime. The VICTIM determines, by thier natural reaction, what the crime is. If i BELIEVE that you are threatening me with a weapon, it doenst matter what it turns out to be. The fear it induced is the basis of the crime, not the actual item.