I wasn't defending antipiracy law, I was pointing out that the argument as written was completely wrong and pointless. You then say "BUT NO IT'S ACTUALLY DIFFER

I wasn't defending antipiracy law, I was pointing out that the argument as written was completely wrong and pointless. You then say "BUT NO IT'S ACTUALLY DIFFERENT BECAUSE OF X" where reason X is completely not mentioned in the original post. I guess I should have been more explicit; I agree with your conclusion but the argument was not the right and wouldn't convince anyone. It's like someone saying that Leprechauns aren't real because they know Lucky Charms commercials are CG; sure, but that's not why Leprechauns aren't real. > To pick your analogy Actually if you are going to say that, the analogy is that a competitor is building cheaper tvs that are otherwise exactly the same as your tvs, and they are already breaking the law to do so, but the law isn't really effective at stopping them from doing so. If you put it that way, it actually sounds awful.