I think there is a bit of history here youre missing.

Originally, EE was a free site (like wikipedia) where people contributed to the benefit of all. Now at some point the makers of EE "sold out" and the new owners threw up the membership fee.

Now I can see why you might think "so what," but for those of us who contributed only to have someone cash in on out hard work leaves a bad taste in our mouths. We thought we were making the world a better place, but really we were building someone elses' empire

For those of you interested you can lock in your yearly rate at $40 a year (a $10 discount on the current price and $20 on the increased price) by going to this link:

http://www.xbox.com/en-US/live/pricelock/default.htm

The idea of "stealing" information or software isn't the same as stealing physical medium. A theft of data still leaves the original owner with the data; so in the case of software when we say "stolen" really we are referring to potential sales which are being taken. However, the industry didn't lose out on $51 billion in potential sales, as that assumes every theft would have been a sale. The reality is that pirates in general pirate more software than they could reasonably afford (I have heard quotes as high as 10x the number of apps on a jailbroken iphone as a non-jailbroken one). As such, its more important to say, "what percentage of the market pirates" rather than, "how much have they pirated," as the former indicates a reasonable evaluation of the loss of potential sales.

Actually he changed the phrase twice and was asked to remove any reference to Android...

Forgive my use of hyperbole. Apparently everything I write must be a "fact."

There have been a large number of Google based apps that have been banned from the app store
http://www.pcworld.com/article/188696/apple_bans_the_word_android_from_app_store.html

Now let's examine Steve Job's letter:

"Adobe’s Flash products are 100% proprietary. They are only available from Adobe, and Adobe has sole authority as to their future enhancement, pricing, etc. While Adobe’s Flash products are widely available, this does not mean they are open, since they are controlled entirely by Adobe and available only from Adobe. By almost any definition, Flash is a closed system."

Closed system?
Property?
Future pricing?

Perhaps you should reread it...

I get that you want to make fun of other people on the internet, but taking an off the cuff remark as a series of "facts" seems a little excessive.

That was hyperbole, but thanks for taking it as "fact."

If you'd like a "fact" though:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/188696/apple_bans_the_word_android_from_app_store.html

Apparently the word "Android" is banned from the app store

So Apple's main complaint against OHA is that its mostly proprietary?

This is kind of like Steve Job's open letter about flash where he warns that Adobe could make it proprietary at any time.

Meanwhile no apps can be accepted at the App Store if they even mention Google...

Mr. Pot meat Mr. Kettle

For anyone familiar with the Red Queen Hypothesis ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Queen ) this should be obvious.

While direct DNA transfer is not the component usually referred to by this "arms race," it is merely an extension of a known theory.

No one makes a big hype about this theory, because it doesn't say your grandfather was a monkey and piss off the religious nuts

I think there are two different arguments you're proposing here:

1) Sharing information is fundamental and should not be restricted
2) Artists are being paid too well

To the latter I might respond, if you feel prices are too high, refuse to purchase the good at higher prices. Nothing is more effective than voting with your wallet. The reasons prices are that high is because people are willing to pay that much. Restricting the copywrite duration won't reduce the amount of piracy. Also, try to remember, people don't publish in scientific journals because they want others to copy, they do it because it garners grants, positions and fame.

To the former, I vehemently disagree. The idea that people should be able to gain things with no effort (here money representing that effort) is the same as suggesting people not be rewarded for their actions. If you enjoy an artist then you should want to give them money; how else will they know their efforts are appreciated.

Let me give you an example. A small company, Gas Powered Games, puts out a video game Demigod. They include no copywrite protection, no DRM, no anti-piracy. What's more they can tell when someone is using a pirated copy on their servers (its an online only game). What they see is 9 out of every 10 people playing are using a pirated copy of their game, on servers they have to maintain. Do you believe they think to themselves "well people naturally copy," or might they have said, "these people obviously enjoy our game because they're playing it, but without paying they are bankrupting our company." It seems a poor way to reward hardwork...