um that's essentially the argument any software copier er "pirate" (i have a real problem with that term) uses. to call the forced redistribution of someones so

um that's essentially the argument any software copier er "pirate" (i have a real problem with that term) uses. to call the forced redistribution of someones software or content "theft" is also intellectually dishonest, as the original has not be altered, nor have any physical goods been taken. there may be a case made for debasement of value of the original item, with which counterfeits would also be included... but yes, i think this particular issue strikes me as passionate personal illogical over-reaction due to being the victim, which is why victims don't often get to mete out punishments: they are biased. i read the original thread yesterday, and while i sympathize with the victim/claimant, I find this letter from the CEO to sufficiently address concerns of deliberate malfeasance. now, i have no problem with the suggestion that perhaps he could lay bare the financial details of those roughly 150 takedowns they deal with annually.