And Disney is fine with getting a copyright on their versions of fairy tales, you can still go to the original source if you want for your own versions.

Yeah, and the judge will laugh at you, and tell you to go to a class on contract law. That, or find you in contempt.

It’s your comparison that is moot, because you don’t seem to understand the difference between a radio broadcast and streaming video on the Internet.

A radio broadcast it goes out to everybody that can be reached by its signal, it costs the same if 1 person receives it or a hundred.

The same is not true of most data sent out on the Internet, especially not video streams. That’s sent from one point to another.

Besides, this article is not talking about the person doing the receiving anyway, this complaint was about the person who disseminated the link. All it would take to make that an offense would be for the company to include as part of its sale to include a warning for you not to share it.

How unlikely is it for them to not have such language?

Should even up the balance real fast.

Can a store give-away freesamples of a product and then call the police for shop lifting.

1) DRM should be illegal (because it prevents people from exercising the fair use rights they are entitled to under copyright law)

2) Infringing copyright should be illegal (it already is, and it is not the same crime as stealing)

3) Putting a link on a webpage to a legal video should not be illegal (because the existence of a link does not infringe copyright)

They tend to be volatile and litigous, even if their own stupidity is ultimately to blame.

“But DRM is no excuse for piracy.”

No, but the fact that pirates don’t actually take anything or harm anyone is.

I believe that it’s universally established that pirates aren’t taking the media itself as they’re merely copying data (which doesn’t deprive anyone of anything by itself). So, it can be concluded that the fact that the pirate has the media is irrelevant because that by itself does no harm to anyone.

The next conclusion that many people seem to come to is that the pirates are ‘stealing’ potential profit. That’s illogical because not only does basic logic state that for you to be able to steal something, it must first exist, but if it was actually possible to steal potential profit, everyone in existence would be ‘guilty’ of doing so.

You ‘steal’ potential profit merely by not giving someone your money or interfering with their flow of profits. Meaning, if you decide not to buy a product from a store, you have ‘stolen’ potential profit from them because if you had bought the product, they would have been better off (because they would have had more money, which is similar to artists who have their media pirated).

Not paying someone for doing a job that you requested they do is not the same as ‘piracy’ because in those scenarios, you deprive the worker of time. Pirates use their own time and resources to copy the data.

Basically, no, DRM alone is not a very good excuse to pirate something, but basic logic is.