I agree with your statement that there is a difference between morality and legality. But legality without morality is not oppression.
Legality is the state in which people have to do what is right because they would face a penalty otherwise (in order to combine everyone's personal freedom). Morality goes further than that because morality does not just look at people's actions but also at people's motivation, their thinking, etc. Legality can be enforced by a state, morality cannot because no one can actually make someone else think a certain way. (I can prevent them from saying what they think, but their inner convictions cannot be controlled by anyone.) There are of course actual states that try to regulate the morality of their citizens but such attempts are futile. That is why actual laws can never be based on morality.
That said, actual laws need to comply with legality and since morality demands the same things as legality (plus things regarding motivation etc.), laws that are in accordance with legality are also in accordance with morality (but do not cover all areas that morality does).
So that means legality and morality are two mostly independent systems and while I would rather live in a moral world, I have to (and can) deal with the fact that I live in a world with people who are not completely moral and since morality cannot be enforced, I have to settle for legality (which is enough most of the time because it guarantees my freedom).
I totally agree with you in respect to copyright being unjustifiably used against society, though.
it's making everyone else's vote count as 1/6th the vote of people "selected" by the government.
If that was the case, cumulative voting would be bad, yes. But it doesn't work that way. What cumulative voting is, it gives everyone more votes to distribute among candidates. So everyone's vote is basically split into fractions, but everyone's ballot has the same weight overall. So if I (and everyone else) got 10 votes, I might chose to give 3 (respectively 3/10 of my vote) votes to candidate A, 2 (2/10) to candidate C, D, and J and 1 (1/10) vote to candidate X. This way, I can show that I like candidate A the most, but I'm also ok with candidates C, D, J, and X, but not with everyone else on the ballot.
Unfortunately, you're trying to use "technical difficulties" as a term to make it sound as if it was all unavoidable and just a complete accident rather than saying "yeah, the rights management fucked itself again. It's a known issue and completely unnecessary but that's what's causing the problems."
But I was trying to explain that it was avoidable and DRM "fucked itself up again". I don't disagree with you; I think we just have a different understanding of the term "licensing issues".
There are two different reasons for licensing issues: One are merely technical reasons (the system is somehow broken). The other one is that the system legitimately refuses to work, for example because someone didn't pay the licensing fee. The poster I replied to suggested that the theater or the DRM service had not paid for the license and I was trying to argue that this was not the case, but that the system itself was/is broken.
So what I did was restrict the term "licensing issue" to the meaning "the system is working correctly, but it cannot play the movie because we do not have the right to show it". Maybe this usage is too narrow. Sorry about that! I hope I could clarify what I meant.
Sounds to me like not everyone is identical... Wow, imagine that!
Sure. But since this thing only measures an increase or decrease in brainwave activity, it cannot be explained by a simple "We are all different.". That's why the fact caught my interest in the first place.
It is much harder to find a job than to keep one.