Didn't say they were. I was replying to the folks saying that the distribution of flash without crapware was a free market solution. In a free market with no copyright, sure. In a market in which there is copyright though, adobe (copyright holder) decide on the distribution method. Which is what happened here.

The folks I was replying to seemed to think that adobe stopping them was anti free market. I just wanted to clarify that that meant they didn't agree with copyright in any form, which is quite an extreme position.

Ninite does not distribute Flash. Adobe does, and always has. Ninite merely provides an automatic way to download Flash from Adobe's servers and say "No" to every crapware installation prompt.

Adobe gets to decide on the distribution method, whether with or without Ninite. There's nothing stopping Adobe from bundling McAfee with Flash in such a way that it becomes impossible to install Flash without McAfee, it's a free market after all. Instead Adobe gave users a choice as to whether or not to install McAfee, and Ninite helps users express that choice.

> they didn't agree with copyright in any form

The article doesn't say anything about copyright or DMCA. Nobody else has expressed any view on copyright in this thread. The only person in this thread who is talking about copyright is you.

Other than the guy who posted a link to mises.org and agreed that copyright and the free market do clash. And I certainly didn't mention the DMCA, that was all you.

--edit-- And it could still be a copyright violation if the terms of the license require non-automated install. As it's adobe's product they get to say how it is copied (installed).