If they can provide evidence that the transfer has taken place, then they should take it to court. An ISP should have no hand in judging if evidence is legit. They are a service provider and their responsibilities are like those of a power company. Only if a court orders them to divulge the information from a murder suspect's smart electricity reader are they allowed to do so. You wouldn't call the power or water company to give them your statement and tell them to notify the police about the dead body and toaster you found in your bathtub, so why would you call on the ISP when you find someone "killing" your profits? When two rights are pitted against each other it's a matter for the courts resolve. I suspect this film studio just doesn't understand that in a society governed by law, you have to follow the proper procedures to minimize innocents being accused of wrongdoing.

Would the film studio shoulder the cost of damages payed out to the customer of the ISP after a court rules that the ISP harassed him/her repeatedly with false accusations based on weak evidence?

The difference is that a bar is responsible for keeping order, so they hire bouncers or lose their license. An ISP is responsible for protecting it's customers privacy, and only a court order can force the ISP to divulge any personal information, and it takes real evidence to get that. ISPs are not responsible for suing their customers on the behalf of a third party. Now a third party is dismayed because it has to go through the proper authorities to see justice served, oh the horror of having to let a court decide when to break our right to privacy.

Copying a violent crime portrayed in a movie is clearly an infringement on their copyright. You have to negotiate a license before you are allowed to re-enact scenes from their intellectual property (though some would argue this falls under "fair use"). Content creators has to be protected from the public, because that's what governments are for, to serve the interests of corporations.

It's the same here in Sweden. CD, HDD, USB, VHS, etc - all storage formats has a "cassette fee" which is then passed on to artists through STIM, the same authority you also pay a fee to if you play music in a pub or if you have a radio station (anything open to the public, I think).

"In AU, film studios issue ultimatum to postal services. Take copyright responsibilities seriously or leave the industry. 'Businesses such as postal services want to enjoy the benefit of being able to make money out of the provision of postal service facilities and they enjoy that benefit. But it carries with it a responsibility,' ".

Perhaps it bothers you because your mother told you to sit up straight whenever you slouched, so now you think everyone is obligated to do so. You automatically assume that all mothers are as strict as yours, so maybe on some level you think that, unlike you, he doesn't respect his own mother.

I guess those people doesn't see the value of spreading their language and culture globally.

I think many people who did like to read newspapers recognized that it is a very wasteful way to deliver news in the information age.

Yeah, sadly no one seems to make an overlord model yet...

So the temperature will go back to what it was before the greenhouse effect?

Obviously this will be taken into consideration, with the assistance of the authority assigned to preserve wildlife in Norway. I am sure I've seen salmon "stairs" that enables salmon to migrate upstream in a dammed up river. Would you care to share what has made you think Norway isn't governed properly?

When I had a job packaging small stuff into a small bag, I enjoyed it until I stopped improving my routine. Then I just did my thing and let my mind wander.

The anti-social type?

Racist people think people with black skin is sub-human. What else is sub-human?

If the image isn't a reference to skin color, then what the hell do you suggest it is a reference to?

The first case is a reaction to the way bush presented himself, as he often appeared somewhat slow - compared to most other presidents anyway. The second case implies that because of her skin color, she is less than human. The first one is a humerous social commentary, the second one is a racist statement.