I still don't like the idea of copying. But the analogies discussed here made me realize something. This issue has been with us **always**. But, in a way, we seem to be redefining theft. Let's take an example: Throughout history men and women have spent a lot of effort designing furniture. They would then sell this furniture. Someone else, upon seeing this new design, would go and copy it and make their own, sometimes even selling it. We have entire periods and styles of furniture throughout history based on this. **no-one ever thought a thing about it***. Thoughout history men and women have created products from their own materials that were exactly like others they saw or owned. In some cases it might have been considered tacky (imitating art), but in others it was just thought of as making do. Why are we now making the reproduction of things so restrictive after an entire history of humanity freely reproduced works of which were instrumental in making progress? Imagine if the "copying" of books had been (successfully) banned a thousand years ago? We might not have a Bible, or Shakespears works, or a guitar? Thanks to slashdot I am beginning to see this issue as a fundamental issue of a civilized society and now believe we should have very strict limits on copywrite.

As long as we keep taking these simplistic approaches to terrorism we will never actually make progress. We have so many more tools at our disposal than creating a police state. It's tragic for future generations that we can't think in more than one direction.

Absolutely, What we need in this country is a parlament with porportional representation. Minority parties can represent and can actually work to become a majority party. The system would be more responsive.