upvote
> Did I say or imply that breaking DRM was bad? It is a neutral description of what was done.

Well you said it's supposed to be an "alternative term". If it's valid to reword your statement as "seeding Anna's Archive is showing support for large scale DRM breaking", then everyone should be huge huge supporters of them with no downside whatsoever. Which I think is pretty different from your actual argument.

> Why? GP is arguing that as long as you're not depriving the original owner of access to the data, it can't be called stealing.

They didn't say that, they said a much simpler sentence applying to this specific context.

reply
If you consider the context of my original comment (or just read what it says), you'll see that I wasn't implying that breaking DRM was necessarily morally bad, only that it'd make you a target for prosecution in the US. Which is clearly true, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_City_Studios,_Inc._v... and many others.

> everyone should be huge huge supporters of them with no downside whatsoever

The downside being, as I very clearly stated in my original comment, that you might face legal troubles for that, at least if your support entails breaking the law (which seeding torrents does).

reply
Supporting a DRM breaker doesn't put you at risk.
reply