I'll take more time than I should to respond to your comment. It doesn't deserve to be in this discussion, as it's just a knee-jerk reaction with little substa

I'll take more time than I should to respond to your comment. It doesn't deserve to be in this discussion, as it's just a knee-jerk reaction with little substance. In short, I'll just say this: * "media companies" is an unnecessarily broad category. But saying "books' rights owners" would invalidate your entire point. Now, you could have pointed out that the MPAA and RIAA felt they had no choice but to lock things down and "attack". Then you could have pointed out the similarity in contexts between their situation and the books' rights groups. Then it would have been reasonable (although a huge stretch, IMO) to suggest that the books' rights groups may make similar decisions. But you chose not to, which leads me to my next two points: * you cannot prove a negative (this is a big one, so you might want to re-read it) * your tone is overly emotional and inflammatory, something that at once weakens your points and makes me not like you very much