Because violating copyright is not the same as stealing (at all), or stealing a car (which the copyright industry loves to say it is), or detonating explosives in a mosque (which this article conflates it with).
Radical terrorism is an enormous red herring simply because only a very small percentage of the total population will engage in it, they are easy to identify (Israel has been doing it successfully for years), and regulating their _computer_ use will not make or break their aims.
Therefore, we must logically conclude that the article is really about copyright, and not terrorism.
Huh? You seem to be stuck on something that is irrelevant to the current conversation (at least, the point that I was making). I have no interest in debating copyright with you.
If you are stuck on that point, replace "copyright" in my original post with "operating a drone-mounted pistol". Better?
Radical terrorism is an enormous red herring simply because only a very small percentage of the total population will engage in it, they are easy to identify (Israel has been doing it successfully for years), and regulating their _computer_ use will not make or break their aims.
Therefore, we must logically conclude that the article is really about copyright, and not terrorism.