So if an MP3 is a material object and can thus be resold, what does this say about copying it?

In The New Yankee Workshop, host Norm Abram buys a piece of furniture and then brings it back to his shop. He then makes a very near exact replica of it and often donates or sells the replica. We have just concluded that an MP3 is a similar material object. What does this say about piracy? Is Norm a furniture pirate?

What does this say about software license agreements? Ignoring software patents, is it still illegal for me to reverse compile a piece of software to see how it works and then implement a piece of it in another project? Or is it not so material?

I haven't used it in many years, but tomsrtbt (Tom's RootBoot) used to be the go-to linux-on-a-floppy system. Boots just as fast as DOS but also (usually) supports networking.

Hm, you seem to have omitted those on Google's order of magnitude...

Fiscal Year 2011 Operating income in USD (according to Wikipedia):

• Disney: $8.043 billion
• Fox Entertainment Group (owns 20th Century Fox): $2.9 billion (parent company News Corp is $4.5 billion)
• NBCUniversal is owned by Comcast (51%) and GE (49%), so estimate at .51*6.104+.49*15.166 = $10.5 billion
• Sony Pictures: $300 million
• Paramount Pictures: $300 million, but owner Viacom, full-in on movie/tv content, is: $2.13 billion
• Warner Brothers: $845 million (parent Time Warner is $26.9 billion)

Let's low-ball it and assume lower interest loosely based on members' divestments outside of TV/movies or even outside of the named MPAA members:

• Disney: 50% - $4 billion
• Fox: 60% - $2 billion
• Universal: 10% - $1 billion
• Sony Pictures: 80% - $250 million
• Paramount: 80% - $250 million
• WB: 60% - $500 million

That totals $8 billion. Now pit that against Google, whose $10.4 billion operational budget isn't much higher. If Google goes on the offensive, they'll have to back down pretty quickly once it's clear that MPAA members fighting to stay in business will dig deeper into their reserves than a company with very little skin in the game (relatively speaking; youtube is what percentage of Google's operation? especially if you cut out cute cats and crotch shots?).

I never said it does. I agree that it does not mean the government must buy its people newspaper subscriptions, books, and therefore computers and internet connections, but it does mean that those with such things should not be restricted from using them.

"Free press" ensures that if somebody wants to write something, he or she can. It also ensures that that writer can distribute his or her works (publish). The web is bidirectional; it would lack content if there were nobody writing anything. POSTING to the web, particularly via social media, is highly restricted in certain places. Freedom of expression doesn't say you are allowed to express yourself quietly to your bedroom wall, it facilitates expression to the masses. This also means that the masses need to be able to digest your works.

That's the one, freedom of expression — unsuppressed communication with local and global communities.

We've seen social media sites act as catalysts to revolutions in places that restrict other forms of expression. This is largely because it is very difficult to suppress "the internet" as a whole, or even specific popular general interest sites.

The printing press and books aren't "human rights" either, just a means by which to achieve communication (expression). What we need is to draw a firm line that shows that, at the moment, the internet is the predominant form of communication and must therefore be protected as a human right; the term "free press" needs a modern equivalent.