On 2/28/07, Dave Crossland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The claim is partly misleading because the word "loss" suggests events of a very different nature--events in which something they have is taken away from them. For example, if the store's stock of DVDs were burned, or if the money in the till got torn up, that would really be a "loss."
I'm sorry, but this sentence is patent bollocks. To define "loss" in these narrow terms is utter nonsense. In just about every definition, "loss" can mean being deprived of something, regardless of whether you physically possessed that thing in the first place. By all means keep arguing about the pros and cons of DRM, but spare us stupidities like this please. Cheers, Mario.
