Everyone agrees a thief is in the wrong if they break into your house and steal your stuff, in the case of copyright infringement, nothing has been taken from you, you're not missing anything, and it’s not theft.
The same applies to the term "pirate", I guess this is where the pirate parties and TPB shot themselves in the foot, while swashbuckling pirates are seen as romantically cool, in the eyes of the law, pirates are criminals. Copyright infringement is not a criminal crime. Media companies must be laughing their arses off at the self-styled "pirates" since it will only have a negative connotation.
We're all being manipulated by the music and film industries, to dance to their tune, you only have to look at X-Factor or whatever is shown this time of year, to realise once again they are trying (expecting/going to get) for another x-mas #1 because people fall in line with what they want (maximum money). If the "winner" of these programs released a song at any other time, without any of the hype from the shows, who would seriously buy it?
Also if you want further details: http://www.dailytech.com/Analysis+Neonode+Patented+SwipetoUnlock+3+Years+Before+Apple/article24046.htm.
Apple did not invent an amazing new thing in swipe to unlock, they put a motion you perform on screen into an action, it's pretty obvious and should not be patented, I draw a circle on my screen and it writes an "o" into my text message box... Basically the same thing, the input is handled, processed to understand what I'm trying to do, and then something happens (hopefully, if they got it right it'll do what I wanted!), how is drawing a line any different from "swiping", they are the same thing.
Bounce back scrolling? You call this an invention? Things have been bouncing for, well basically since the universe began and the laws of physics settled down (I'm sure even they were a little different at the beginning), people have been adding bouncyness to things for donkeys years, I'm glad someone added some of this bouncyness to my car, or driving would be horrible.
Apple tell you they innovate, you take that at face value, why are you repeating this?
Apple did not invent the first personal computer, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_personal_computers, see how many of those you fail to remember. Nice info in the article from Wikipedia:
Steve Wozniak (known as "Woz"), a regular visitor to Homebrew Computer Club (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homebrew_Computer_Club) meetings, designed the single-board Apple I computer and first demonstrated it there. With specifications in hand and an order for 100 machines at $500.00 US Dollars each from the Byte Shop, Woz and his friend Steve Jobs founded Apple Computer.
And from the HCC article: The Homebrew Computer Club was an informal group of electronic enthusiasts and technically-minded hobbyists who gathered to trade parts, circuits, and information pertaining to DIY construction of computing devices, this is how the original Apple came about, then Apple II and computing as you know it.
I think there is a lot of smoke and mirrors in this industry.
The fact that someone can trade in a game, and use that as credit for the next game they want to play is a good thing, I know/knew people that buy/bought a moderate number of games and used this method, if they couldn't part fund next months new release with an old game they no longer play, they probably wouldn't have bought it at all (or waited till the price was cut to a reasonable level, after all games are quite expensive).
Personally I think a thriving second hand industry is a good indication that the games industry as a whole is doing well, it's not the consumers fault that games are released with limited replay value, if they don't want people reselling games, give people a reason to want to keep them in the first place!
They wont sue each other out of existence, just the tablet markets, if it gets that bad they will just pull out, if this carries on they will just end up doing what they did before. One selling highly priced computers, the other selling, well, practically everything else technology wise.
This spat between the two of them is getting tiring, I've never bought any Apple products, and I don't intend to, I've used a few, and they work well, but I just don't like the closed eco system, and I'm not particularly interested in learning the nuances of a new OS. On the other hand, I have a Galaxy Tab 10.1, and the only thing that annoys me is the speed they are taking to update Android versions (my HTC phone was updated months ago), next time I'd probably go with something more direct. Will this affect my intentions to buy things like TV's from Samsung? No, because you don't get these kinds of issues with those.
You have to wonder though, I mean these guys are pretty good at worming their ways into getting what they want, will they ever actually give up? You have to admire their persistence even if you dislike what they are trying to do. ACTA is basically dead, if there is enough resistance to this new CETA, I guess it would be mothballed, but then what? It'll just end up going into the next trade agreement, maybe as a revision to existing ones. Eventually will people stop paying attention enough?
Are these media companies really trying the old method of asking for something ridiculous, then settling for something "reasonable" (by their standards, and exactly what they wanted in the first place, but we're all expected to accept it as it's been "watered down"), even though it doesn't suit everybody, or are they going to keep on asking/demanding what they want till they get it?
Because when you buy a car (or any other second hand goods) through a private classified ad, Ford (etc) get a slice of that too... This is insane!
I'm sick of all these blatantly obvious ideas being used in court, it's about time resources were directed at innovative new ideas and products, not silly obvious ideas (Method_of_exercising_a_cat) or next logical steps in technology.
If I add the "value" of the film, to the "value" of the DVD (or download), I don't get anywhere near the price I'm expected to pay for them. The only DVD's I tend to buy are the £3 ones from supermarkets and DVD stores, I don't buy digital downloads, they are just too expensive, if I'm shelling out cold hard cash, I want something physical they can't take away from me, if I'm paying pennies then I'll accept a digital copy I can play wherever I like (not just where I'm allowed to). I'm not paying £10+ for a DVD, as I don't think that is good value for money.
The other argument is they need to charge £10+ for a DVD because so many people are copying it? That's nonsense, if they were actually losing money they wouldn't be making more films, the music and film industries are certainly not (as a whole) making a loss.
The "I do not pay because it is not worth it" argument is very true, it *really* isn't worth it, the cost of a DVD is over an hours minimum wage, pushing an hour ar average wage I would guess. When I can get entertainment from the BBC for ~£130 a year, and I listen to and watch a lot of BBC content, I read the website, *that* is value for money, I also don't have to go out of my way to access it.
Because some corporation has brainwashed a lot of people into thinking it is hard done by, and sticks rigidly to an ancient (in terms of media delivery) business strategy, shafts over the little guys, people agree with (and defend) them... It's rather sad.