I understand that content owners want to be able to charge for their content, but something is wrong when their DRM won't even allow you to pay to use their product.

Not really, it's just the actualisation of their marketing dreams. Recently you've seen "buy it once per device you own". This is just the logical progression of that "Buy it again and again, unable to use it on any device you own".

Get with the program! Consume!

Warning, rambling post ahead =)

If I'm in the park barefoot and someone with a foot fetish sees me, to them I'm engaging in a display of sexuality.

At the same instant, someone who doesn't _like_ feet simply sees someone who's barefoot.

Likewise, the foot fetishist may well simultaneously see me as both 'simply barefoot' and as 'engaging in a display of sexuality'.

Given that 'we' wish to prevent a display of sexuality, how do we do so without also preventing someone from going barefoot?

Likewise, I may or may not be a foot fetishist (as it's happens I'm not). The question arises, when I remove my shoes and socks, which is uppermost in my mind, that my foot is just a foot or that it is a body part associated with sexuality?

In this context, the foot is a reasonable counterpart for the female breast, which also has both (and other) roles; just a body part, also a body part associated with sexuality.

So, this is a poorly developed argument but I'm arguing that the sense in which the-law-discussed-by-this-article is seen to be morally defensible is perhaps that a woman may successfully argue that when removing her top that she is merely exposing a body part, not engaging in a display of sexuality.

A man, by contrast, may apparently never successfully argue that when removing his shorts that he is merely exposing a body part, even when said body part is demonstrably behaving only as a body part, not as a sexual organ.

Or perhaps that breasts are not primarily associated with sexuality, given their commonly-known function(s) during childbirth (and advertising) but a man may not make a similar claim.

Of course, this can not be seen as a way to make a valid distinction since a breast's role in childbirth is irrelevant in this situation; therefore it's simply that breasts are body parts which women are free to expose to the sun (or other people) as they see fit, as indeed men are free to expose their torsos.

I'm sure you would consider it unreasonable to label a women for the rest of her life as a sex offender for displaying her breasts. Why should it be any different for any other body part when the intention is to prevent displays of sexuality rather than display of body parts.

At some point, these conflicts must be resolved logically, within the legal framework. By which, I mean that people should decide what it is they want to punish (let's forgo consideration of any deep psychological issues they might have which would lead them to need this) and ensure that a law is drawn-up in such a way that it may lassoo only those breaking it.

Of course this is a question of intent. As we can never have knowledge of intent 'we' are happy to sometimes punish those without 'malicious' intent, just so long as we also punish those with 'malicious' intent. Is this really defensible? Are we really smart enough to write our own laws? I submit that we are not.

This is awesome. Every time something like this is publicised, people will be pushed towards the conclusion that our way of life is retarded and maybe the terrorists will bring an improvement [if they even exist.]

Stupid stupid retards everywhere abusing power that was given them to hold in trust on our behalf. Public servants who've become little emperors. Guardians of 'the rules' on the Island of Dr. Moreau.

I'm sick of it. Aren't you?

As a Brit, I'm sooo tired of what this country has become. Almost any change should be an improvement.