This is bullshit.

The same was going around a few years ago when web-based `applications' were emerging and started competing with desktop applications. Back then some naysayers claimed they well apps will never reach the same level of functionality and use comfort as desktop apps.

What has happened is Zoho, ThinkFree competing successfully with Google, Microsoft, and their apps becoming pretty much the right stuff. Zynga bringing in 600mln revenue in 2010 from *Farmville*. DuckDuckGo having 820.000 daily pageviews and returning results more relevant than Google -- all that being one guy startup.

Apples can, and should, be compared to oranges, when we're talking about startups going against incumbents and innovating.

Watch the small, dynamic developers and their apps growing and eating into marketshare of incumbents.

Can't help but wonder if they'd let one use the communist `hammer and sickle' logo in game. Commies committed more genocides than the german fascists [[citation not needed]]. They also lasted much longer.

If they'd let, it's hypocrisy -- and no excuse about different possible interpretations is available. If not, it would be a very uncommon case... you can see people walking around with such logos on T-shirts every other day. You can easily buy gadgets with the commies logo and nobody seems to mind :(

Generate a textual representation of user's action on the site, including also timing between clicks, scrolls and so on (but not just as plain numbers, use some words to *describe* relationship between time of actions).

Whenever user posts content, feed the report, perhaps including also the post, to a spam filter (like CRM114?), to check whether the description matches human, or mechanical behavior. Train the filter on posts it got wrong.

The tricky part is how to describe the action in a meaningful way.

For those who like physical analogies of copyright infringement, here goes my take:

Suppose a neighbor of buys that new awesome European car, great style, full option . The car is instant hit among neighbors, since they all suffer form products of Detroit Big Four. `Chicks dig him', so to say.

Enter copyright infringement.

One night you venture near the car, wielding necessary tools, dark clothed and masked. You write down every detail carefully. You visit local distributor next morning, you order exact same car, down to last detail. Later on you show off, driving in it around.

Will the neighbor be angry at you? Surely you deprived him of some of the car's value (uniqueness).

Yet you stole nothing anything from him. You copied information. No theft of property.

Is this example legal? I guess it is.

Is this morally OK?

What if the neighbor in question lived off of a business model based on having the best car around (scarcity, perhaps artificial)?