They claim that your property can be taken from you because to do otherwise would be inconvenient to the people that are committed to committing the taking.

They claim that your property can be taken from you because to do otherwise would be inconvenient to the people that are committed to committing the taking.

[vnsndalce]

Notice the detractors always simply say "NO u can't do this!" or "No u 
can't do this because this belongs to this group!".

While I explain where your rights come from, their history, and their 
extent.

Detractors say "This is like when Author, after being payed millions, 
tries to revoke an exclusive license from Publisher and have existing 
Published Works seized and destroyed!" "AND U CANT DO THAT!"

They try to fit the new case of
'Author was paid nothing, signed over nothing, didn't require anything 
from licensees'
to these cases where good consideration was payed for the license, and 
destruction of physical copies is being sought.

I have explained why this case is different.

For X to have an interest, it is vital that X secured it.

The detractors claim otherwise. They claim that your property can be 
taken from you because to do otherwise would be inconvenient to the 
people that are committed to committing the taking.