Sure, but what are the chances that they have access to the source for every single windows update? I highly doubt that the GSP gives them the ability to build the binaries themselves in a completely transparent way, so it would be difficult to trust that MS is providing what they say they are. It's also highly likely that the "custom OS" described in the article is based on Linux. The "security through obscurity" comment sounds a hell of a lot like a reporter trying to throw in a phrase to make it seem like they know what they're talking about.

Is it time for blockchain DNS?

Tempest 2000 was also released for DOS in the mid 90s. It was awesome. I'm still bitter about getting ripped off by an eBay seller a few years later when I paid for a copy that I never received.

According to webster, theft is:

a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it
b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property

Abstrackt was referring to the definition of (a), which specifically mentions 'depriving' the rightful owner of their property. In the case of making an 'unauthorized' copy of digital data, no-one is being deprived of anything, unless you consider the opportunity the owner had of selling that item to the copier as 'property'. In many cases, the copier/pirate had no intention of buying the product in the first place, so there's no deprivation going on anywhere. ...but maybe you already knew that and were just being facetious.

To me what it comes down to is does someone have the right to create, distribute, and claim ultimate control over all subsequent uses of a thing. The thing being a song, a computer program, a book, a thought, ...

I don't thing they do. People should have the right to do whatever the hell they want to with the things they buy. If someone wants to stop someone from sharing a thing with their friends and cutting into their profits, they'd better figure out how to lock that thing up or hire some goons to follow people around and make sure they follow their rules... Oh, wait. That's kinda what the RIAA is trying to do...

Who says I don't have a right to listen to, look at, or read whatever the hell is out there for me to see? The law? Just because something is the law doesn't mean it is the truth.

If I sing a song, do I have the right to force people to plug their ears because they didn't pay to listen? They are putting the stuff out there, they either need to figure out a way to control it or adapt to a new model of doing business. Hopefully they don't end up convincing those goons.