You're assuming an odd level of tech know-how here. Someone who is aware of the possibility of trojans/viruses, and the ways they can be hidden, but who isn't capable of tracking down communities that vet these things or installing anti-virus software / configuring a firewall.

But DRM doesn't make it significantly more difficult to pirate. You can generally speaking find a crack for anything you can name by typing it into google folowed by crack or keygen. Or one of the many torrent sites that'll turn up when you type in BitTorrent. The bar for beating DRM is the ability to use a search engine (or to know someone who does). This is not a large population. Its a major achievement for DRM to not be cracked 0-day, and having your DRM system go uncracked for a month essentially doesn't happen.

On the other hand the number of legitimate people DRM harms is equally small because they don't even have a moral concern about doing the above when DRM screws with them. That pretty much leaves an even smaller pool of people since they'd have to fit in group 1 in order to fail to break DRM that was going to force them to buy it twice.

I seem to have talked myself out of my original position. I guess you're probably right really. DRM doesn't actually force many people to buy it twice because it is trivially broken and the moral concerns that stop said people are mainly alleviated by buying it once.

He's not. He's saying that art is not exclusively dependent on renumeration. He's right too since you can prove that renumeration isn't necessary as you can find a whole bunch of stuff on youtube the artist isn't being renumerated for. It is therefore safe to state that renumeration is not necessary for the production of art.

As a side note you could substitute murder for DRM in that last sentence, and by its own internal logic its just as valid because the only thing its concerned with is the artist's desires.

Second amendment solutions aren't a solution in your current society either. Your second amendment solutions are so outmatched by LEO/Military that you may as well be unarmed. You're relying on resistance from military/LEOs anyway, and heck they are probably more likely to be sympathetic to you if they don't think you may shoot them.

The only way a second amendment solution is vaguely viable is if a person/people starts assassinating lynchpins and lets be fair here, that would be just as easily done illegally as via second amendment. Probably more so really since hiring professionals is likely to work better.

That whole withhold an easily digitizable good from people while providing a DRM free analogue copy thing was tried in the mid to late 90s. It was really hard to get digital stuff online even though you could buy it and rip it trivially. You may remember how well that worked.

I think you'll find the reason a large amount of programmers are utterly indifferent to copyright is because we effectively give all our code away anyway as far as copyright is concerned, we pretty much all "Work for Hire", our income is dependent on people wanting us to do more stuff that is different to what we did yesterday, rather than doing the same thing, whether or not copyright covers our work makes ~0 practical difference to us.

Because the framing of the Bill of Rights says you are not providing them, you are merely recognizing as self-evident that everyone has/should have these rights. Its the difference between giving me a meal and recognizing that no one should walk up to me and take my meal way.

Every right is contingent on taking something from another: your rights restrict me and take from me the freedom to do whatever I please with/to you and since these things are supposed to be universally respected the forcefully taking is an implicit threat, even if in practice its usually accomplished merely by threat of societal censure.

This also works the other way too, my rights also restrict you. To make a relevant analogy your right to live prevents those people who you (seem to?) advocate letting die due to lack of health care from forming a lynch mob and hanging you from a nearby tree.

Not really. If you presume that politicians are corrupt its pretty logical that people will both be doing illegal stuff (since politicians make the laws) and complaining about corrupt politicians. The position seems pretty internally consistent to me.

2. A fall in average temperatures while greenhouse gasses remain at constant levels
3. Well we could reduce our greenhouse emissions, if they aren't effected by human action then our reduction of greenhouse emissions would have no effect (or a statistically minor effect) on the current rate of increase. Since this would require actually reducing our greenhouse emissions I doubt its going to be a popular test though.

So where did God come from then ? I mean if you're going to posit that man has to have come from somewhere and that was God (as opposed to evolution because something as complex as man requires design) then it seems to follow that something as complex as God also requires design.

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, sorry, so I feel the need to ask: Are you saying that being pro-big business is part of the Libertarian ideal and that they'd be in favor of large government in support of it ?

Because as I understand the concept, their desire for any part of government being huge would disqualify them from actually being Libertarian in the strict sense (also their social policy is not compatible with small government at all, they support several "moral issue" bans that like all "moral issue" bans mandates a massive system to enforce) .

I think you're confused about what a request/motion from a Senator is. Its not asking politely, its essentially proposing that the matter be considered by that House (and as such it needs to be voted on, even if it gets voted down) and the Greens hold the balance of power in the Senate, and our major parties are so polarized at the moment that they'll vote against something just because the other side votes for it, it'd be pretty difficult to dismiss it out of hand anyway in any practical sense.

I think you might have the Liberals confused with someone else, there social policy is not precisely Libertarian (its Replublican-ish,), nor are they a single issue party, they are essentially the ruling half (at the Federal Level, at the state level the Nationals sometimes lead) of our Liberal/National coalition who represent the Conservative side of politics here.

The Social Democrats have not to my knowledge ever held the balance of power (in fact I'm not even sure if that group exists?, I know there are both Labour Democrats and Liberal Democrats), you might be thinking of the Democrats who held the role the Greens currently do (ie the largest party not part of the 2 major groups), up until the late 90s. We have a bunch of parties who feature the word Democrat in their titles, some because they were spin offs of the Democrats, others because it seems like a nice word to have in your title in a democracy.

Also there's not really a Christian Conservative single issue group, there's 2 parties playing that card at the moment Katter's Australian Party (which is new) and Family First. The 2nd is actually pretty much a Christian Conservative group, the former is hard to explain, since he span of one of our major Conservatve Parties his policies are pretty wide ranging but largely conservative, in favour of farming and hunting , and Christian.

Sorry if you were trying to describe ideologies rather than parties but since some of party definitions and names are very different (Our Liberal Party would usually be considered Conservative) I felt the need to qualify.

Disclaimer: I don't care much for any of the major political parties at the moment, but my social positions are Left (significantly left of even our Left party really), I apologize if my bias has slipped in anywhere, I tried to be as factual as possible.

Yeah. I'm aware of that. I think my point is more that in the case of infinite supply there's no reason demand should increase the price, profits would naturally increase from the higher demand anyway (and by increasing the price for no reason they should in theory decrease the demand). It just does because we're accustomed to thinking of it working that way with things that have limited supply and companies are more than willing to take advantage of that in order to make a profit.

This is basically one of those circumstances where capitalism doesn't work properly ,and encourages unethical behavior, because people aren't rational agents, if they were they'd simple wait for the price to go back down before they bought it.

I don't think plane ticket ordering is the best analogy, its a reasonable assumption that a surge in demand would cause a limit of supply in such cases (there's a finite number of seats), so the price increase is still sort of tied to a finite supply.