"Go play ball on your side of the court and I'll stay on mine. We can easily co-exist.. as neighbours.. but if you mess with my stuff you have to pay (with labour), as well as you force me to pay (with money) when I play with yours."

More people are getting in trouble with violating the GNU than with abusing copyrights. The reason I'm going to continue violating (and advocate it) the GPL is because of the fact that the same people that are up-in-arms about GPL violations are pro-piracy and even feel it's their right to share copyrighted materials freely.

"In reality, without copyright, the GPL would NOT BE NEEDED."

So the goal of the GPL is to allow people to pirate software?

Without the GPL and the copyright, I would have no obligation to release the source of anything.

"Either ignorant or deliberate misinterpretation. He didn't criticise the company for wanting to profit off the GPL, he criticised them for wanting to enjoy the benefit of the GPL while not wanting to fulfil their legal obligations under the same license."

Kind of like people sharing software: Enjoying the benefit of the software (using it) while not fulfilling legal obligations (paying for it).

It's funny how so many people around here are fine with sharing proprietary software yet get so angry when someone tries the equivalent with GPL software (using it in proprietary apps without giving back/re-licensing).

This is why I stopped taking the community seriously.

"Never said that. Profiting by adding to software with a GPL or GPL-like license and then trying to sell that mix of proprietary and GPLed code, directly contravening the licensing terms, is evil."

So is filesharing. Both are violating the license terms. However, only one is politically correct around here.

"Piracy requires the threat or act of violence to capture ships, cargo or hostages at sea. But it isn't going to happen."

Words change over time. Deal with it.

"Without copyright, GPL could be implemented as a contractual agreement. It would loose some of its teeth, but it could still bite."

It would have no bite. I could take GPL software and do what I want with it. You could take the binaries and share them, but I would not be obligated to give you the source.

"Because those will be their strongest supporters."

This is because software pirates don't care about illegally copying software and will support anything that will give them less of a chance of getting caught.

This is why I can't take the movement seriously.

"The Pirate movement is using the word "pirate" specifically in an attempt to reclaim the word, which is currently used as a propaganda term by the copyright lobby in an attempt to link downloading to stealing ships, and associate it with freedom, privacy and all that other good stuff. It's all a war of words."

If I posted your credit card info on a website, should the site get taken down? After all, it's just data and information. I should have the freedom to do what I want with it.

"But if the "crimes" don't involve money, or physical goods, or (physical) personal interaction, or something else trackable in the real world, then "safely hidden" is probably the same as "free speech", "

Right, so if it doesn't meet you definition of crime, it's a-ok in your book. Since nobody here seems to care about the rights of content owners, I wonder why there is an outcry when people violate the GPL?

"Isn't the desire for privacy really a desire for freedom from some form of oppression?"

You are confusing freedom with copyright infringement.

"Have you ever seen the anime One Piece? It's a fantasized story of pirates"

Pirates have almost always been criminals that steal, rape, and pillage. Your one example of anime where they just so happened to be good doesn't justify a name change.

"Why associate the creation of ISPs that protect your privacy with piracy? "

Because their intent is to allow people to pirate digital goods. Privacy is just the excuse.

"Wow, less than 4000 people, go look how many people die on the road every week, or from heart disease, or even farm animal attacks in the last few decades. Then decide where we should focus our efforts."

We can't control those deaths, unless we want to control the general population even more (IE: banning bad foods, alcohol, etc).

If the government put little effort in stopping terrorist attacks, the death toll would likely be considerably higher (because groups would know they could get away with it with little consequence). A good example of this is Somalia.

'Ignorance is claiming Obama isn't an American because he's never shows his birth certificate even though Hawaii has repeatedly indicated they do not give out copies of such. They only give Certificates of Live Birth, similar to what other states do."

You mean to tell me they can't make an exception for the president? It would really put all of the questioning to rest if he showed it. It just seems strange to me that he won't.

"Their next sentence could be about the dangers of muslim theocracies"

Are you honestly trying to tell me that muslim theocracies aren't a threat? Have you seen most countries in the middle east? I'm not saying that it's an immediate threat, but it is something to watch.

"pretending that evolution is a lie that shouldn't be taught as fact"

Evolution isn't a lie. However, there isn't really a way for anyone to prove or disprove the existence of a higher power creating humans.

"pretending that a woman's body is the property of the Federal Government."

I will be fine with a woman's body being her own if the left is fine with my money being my own (2011 will be a wake up call for many people who think that Obama isn't raising any taxes) . I also don't feel that abortion should be covered under any sort of public health care (my money, my choice).

"How many Fox News viewers think Saddam was responsible for 9/11? No, both parties manipulate the truth to their benefit but one party takes it to a whole new and exciting level."

Not many. How many people think that global warming is man-made, even though there is evidence to prove otherwise? How many people believe that bush started the war to make himself rich?

It's pretty obvious that the entire point of the "study" at UofM is to somehow prove that "misinformed" (or people on the right) people are believing lies more than the truth. This line of thinking is pretty typical of elitist leftists that feel they know what is better for the rest of society.