What this proves is that the law is so absurd that not even the enforcement officials are willing to comply. Ever heard of the prohibition? There were "corrupt policemen" which bought and sold spirits! Same here. This is why it is relevant: not hypocrisy but lack of common sense in the law.

On the other hand it seems that they are using a public service for their private pleasure. I do see a problem here.

> Is the point to prove hypocrisy? As if we needed any further proof that people and governments are hypocritical.

I guess the point is when will somebody with authority do something about this? When will police start arresting FBI agents? It seems like we're all just okay with these federal agents being above the law they've sworn to protect.

So it's OK, because FBI employees also speed and jaywalk?

Piracy is an Extremely Serious crime that only evil hackers would do. I know this because, the enormous financial penalties and occasional jail time to those downloading a handful of songs.

So please, put our equivocation away, and treat FBI employees who pirate the same we treat the general population.

It may not invalidate the claim that piracy is wrong. But it certainly calls into question their suitability to enforce anti-piracy laws.

As to orofino's claim that it doesn't make piracy any more morally right, I disagree. It is one more piece of evidence that piracy is so widespread that it is morally correct - when people in basically every organization in the world break the law on a regular basis, it means the law itself needs to be reevaluated.

To use his own example, the same can be said for speed limits which are generally supposed to be set to the 85th percentile. If a speed limit is set too low - as shown by more than 15 percent of drivers exceeding it - then the limit itself needs to be corrected.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that something being widespread makes it morally correct. Maybe it makes the law unworkable, but morals are generally a personal choice.

Laws are fundamentally codifications of human nature. So a law that goes against the majority of people's natural inclinations (or to use your term, personal choices) is by definition immoral.

And now we know the origins of 'no u'

Of course it's to prove hypocrisy. Do you really want laws and enforcement of laws to only apply to "regular" people?

If we show them how idiotic it is to have laws that put people in jail for copying songs or charge them millions of dollars, when even the people that are supposed to uphold these laws are doing it, maybe they'll come to their senses.

How exactly is it morally wrong?

What systems should these organizations be most capable of monitoring? This behavior is bad -- felonies and many, many thousands of dollars in fines bad, per their own definition.

So... why aren't they investigating and prosecuting these instances? Here's the lowest hanging fruit!

Yes. Hypocrisy. Justice is blind for a reason, in its statuary portrayal. Without equality under the law... Well, you don't have law as we tend to at least want to popularly define it in the U.S.

P.S. And, if they can't even effectively police their own networks, why should I have any trust that they -- or their agents and partners -- will effectively and correctly police the nation's? Such organizations can and do rot from the top down, and this is something to fear.

Of course they do my ass. To most people it is not obvious so it is a good thing that they are being called out on it. You acting as if everybody already knows does not help. But of course you know this.