As it happens, the television networks that actively supported SOPA and PIPA didn’t take advantage of their broadcast credibility to press their case. That’s partly because 'old media' draws a line between 'news' and 'editorial.' Apparently, Wikipedia and Google don’t recognize the ethical boundary between the neutral reporting of information and the presentation of editorial opinion as fact.
While Google and Wikipedia were very straightforward with their stances on SOPA and PIPA and how they believed it would negatively impact their businesses as well as the freedom of their customers, television networks are not so upfront. Instead of television networks saying what they, as companies, stand for in such a direct way, they make sure to fund and air shows which support their views in an indirect way which doesn't always make it obvious to viewers that what is presented, is in fact mostly opinion. This is transparent in the differences between "news" shows on different networks. Some "news" will take one spin on an issue, vilifying those involved, whereas another will boast about the issue's grand points and turn those involved into saints, all the while claiming this is "news" which as defined by Merriam-Webster, is a "report of recent events" as opposed to opinion parading itself as fact.
Whatever opinions I may otherwise have about some of Google's past behavior, this was a very upfront and honest play on both their part and Wikipedia's. The person who wrote the quote above obviously doesn't look at what they watch on television critically -- which they should. You can't believe everything you hear -- tv included. It's not like there's some governing body making sure what's said on tv is accurate...it's maybe just a notch higher up on the validity ladder than what someone might say to you in passing on the street (though, admittedly with better makeup and lighting).
Well, that would be copyright infringement, and therefore illegal. So people won't do it, or so I would assume.
It's a little idealistic to assume people won't do that. In fact, that quality is something that makes this system more appealing to most people. I mean, as mentioned in a previous post here on Slashdot, there isn't much physically preventing people from downloading pirated music. See this article here which was posted on Slashdot a few days ago: http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2012/02/03/you-will-never-kill-piracy-and-piracy-will-never-kill-you/ Yes, it's probably illegal to keep a copy of something you've technically sold but my argument isn't about the legality of it, it's about what will draw customers or not. I have never heard of an industry -- music, movies, cars, whatever... -- that takes a cut of what is sold as used so though it may technically be 'illegal', there is, in fact, little or no harm being done to the industry here. In addition, many things can be 'backed up' before selling them as used products. This may not work with cars but it works with movies, most video games, music, it can work (though more labor-intensively) with books, and that doesn't hurt these industries because they don't have a cut of these resell profits anyway.
The point is that this could help other industries like the ebook industry which if it isn't, should be suffering because of its ridiculous prices. Being able to sell a 'used' copy of something is, in fact, a selling point when buying something, it increases the inherent value of an item to know, when buying it, that somewhere down the road, if you get tired of it, you can sell it and get some of your money back. This very point is why many gamers were up in arms about a new system that only allows game data to be used by a first user and then it must be re-purchased (something also posted recently on Slashdot).
To put some perfect system in place to prevent people from stealing what they need/want would likely require satisfying the needs/wants of all the billions of people in the world since history has shown that trying to put laws and blockades in place to circumvent stealing is ineffective. As this ideal system would likely come long after pigs take to the sky in flight, it's important to focus on systems that have the least loss and though this system may still allow for users to keep music they've sold, it also causes much less loss overall for industries than other methods. That's the important part here.
The decision doesn't have to be logical; it was unanimous.