If enough people simply refuse to fly, the airlines will go belly up, or they will lobby to remove the TSA. Though, the private thugs they replace them with probably won't be any better.

Just some food for thought:

Nationalization of airlines is just another step towards totalitarianism. Control the travel, control the people. The airlines are cheap when they're bankrupt -- watch for a consolidation in the airline industry, then the government to take stake in what's left over.

In a competition between lobbyists of the military industrial complex and those of the airline industry, who do you think would come out on top?

So refusing to fly will ironically starve the airline industry of the funds necessary to combat the entrenched security apparatus. You would be better with a rich airline industry, whose incentive is to make flying easy, fast, safe and cheap.

The thing to do may be to fly, and fly often. A rich airline industry will want to seek to increase its profits, and will see reducing security costs as a way to do that. A poor airline industry will seek bailouts, shelter and favour from the government (such as the granting of rights to overseas routes); these shall come with strings attached.

As a historical anecdote, there is a pattern of economic sanctions imposed by the UN entrenching incumbent demagogues, such as Saddam Hussein in Iraq. It starves the population and deprives them of the wealth necessary to form and fund an opposition. Perhaps the airline industry in this context is somewhat analogous.

Not to make conclusions - the relationship between airlines and the TSA is at best complex. However, I am confident that stymying the great and growing divide between fundamental rights and the TSA is not as simple as ceasing to fly, and it may actually be a counter-productive.

I am fairly certain the impugned rights are from the 5th and 14th Constitutional Amendments, and in particular the Due Process Clause.

The problem is that the State is issuing orders that affect the rights of individuals, without any opportunity for those individuals to participate or respond in the process giving rise to the order.

There does not appear to be any restraint on speech on these facts.

Actually, under the fractional reserve system they use taxpayer money via the overnight lending system. Customer money is really a reserve to cover "catastrophe", but accounts for a fraction of the money lent by most banks. For example, when Lehman Brothers went bankrupt it was borrowing around $75 every day from the Federal Reserve for every dollar that it held in reserve.

This is analogous to hedge funding, but instead of being built upon discretionary lending of private lenders, it is mandatory lending by the public coffers, purportedly to create an adequate money supply.

Nonsense.

Property rights can be lost through e.g. laches, limitations periods, and adverse possession. If you do not pay your property taxes, eventually the municipality will take possession of the property and sell it. While not strictly expiration, one cannot separate the relationship between land and recurring taxes, since that is how land "ownership" evolved.

As a matter of interest, if you are in a commonwealth or former commonwealth country then you almost certainly draw land-ownership rights as a "fee simple" (aka freehold). Fee simple is a form of license granting the right to exclusive use of the land by the sovereign, which right is granted in exchange for payment of taxes. In the commonwealth countries the sovereign is the Queen, and in the US the Queen has been replaced by the "People". The Queen owns all land within her territory because she answers only to god (i.e. is a sovereign), and the rights of subjects to the use of land within the commonwealth are derived from this hierarchy of god, sovereign, landholder.

Practically speaking, being a sovereign - since the Peace of Westphalia anyway - means having an unchallenged exclusive statehood recognized by state peers (e.g. at the UN, or by the world's postal system, etc). Boundaries may fluctuate according to the resolution of disputes by force or agreement or certain accepted rules (e.g. the Law of the Sea), but the essentially autonomous governance remains over the areas remaining under the state's control. Within those areas property ownership typically flourishes. Outside those areas, it is a murky prospect - try delving into the law of treasure salvaging in the deep ocean.

The registration systems for each jurisdiction have changed, but the fundamental relationship of land ownership to government remains effectively unchanged.

Unless you live in the bayou or Sealand, the numbers in the computer that give you an exclusive right to enjoyment over certain areas of land are subject to the governing laws of the land. If you do not meet the requirements set out under that law, then your rights to the land will be extinguished.

Even supposing a complete legal enjoyment to land, it remains subject to change and destruction by nature. And in any case, when you die you cannot take it with you.

This is the legal fiction of land ownership. Unless you circumvent your sovereign and talk to god directly, it is a fiction imposed by the laws of the land. Literally.

As a lawyer who has acted on behalf of several individuals with property disputes, I can assure you that land ownership is neither more or less fiction than copyright ownership. They are all rights derived from the law.

Some food for thought: All property is a legal fiction.

It just so happens that most property is tangible. Copyright is intangible, but the legal fiction of property as it applies to qualifying artistic works is no different than the legal fiction of home ownership, stock ownership or life insurance ownership. All these forms of property are granted by legislation.

Whether copyright in its present form is morally objectionable or adequately serves the social utility for which it was created is another question. Given the mortgage crisis, one could entertain the same question about home ownership.

What is the difference between monetization in this context and Broadcast Syndication?

Or is the addition of advertisements more of an exclusive license with value added (via advertisements) reselling?

NTP offered to settle in the millions of dollars initially. RIM mislead the Court about prior-art in an effort to invalidate NTP's patent. They got caught, and the Judge awarded punitive damages that were a multiple of the infringement damages, if I recall correctly.

It is misleading to say that every penny went to a patent troll. RIM today still makes several billion dollars a year, and since 2006 they had significant profits. The NTP settlement was around $613 million.

If you had a license or proof of purchase, it ought to be straightforward to succeed whether in summary judgment or another method for a determination on the merits.

Practically speaking, a proceeding is unlikely to get to any summary judgment as on the presentation of proof of a licence a plaintiff/copyright holder will likely dismiss its claims.

I am not familiar with this case. I understand the USCO to have jurisdiction to determine the suitability of works for copyright protection. I recall their decisions being subject to review by the federal courts.

Incidentally, I agree with the decision of the USCO in this case, though not for their reasons (I take no opinion on their reasons, as I have at best cursory experience in this sort of "copyright prosecution"). From a social policy perspective, I believe the BW logo is properly protected as a trademark, and at the same time the objective of copyright is not met by granting copyright protections to the logo.

I wonder what BW hoped to achieve with copyright protections, given that it already has trademark protections. Perhaps they would use it to demand licensing fees from web-sites that have listings with their logo?

I have a point that you may find interesting or illuminating.

Copying without permission is infringement. However, one is not liable for infringement where (1) you have permission to make the copy through a license of the copyright holder, or (2) alternatively through exception set out in 17 USC 117(a)(1).

There is an implied license upon purchase of software, essentially an implied warranty for fitness of purpose. I believe 17 USC 117(a)(1) is a statutory codification of that sort of implied license.

By installing software, there is a prima facie case of infringement. However, it is a complete defence to have a license permitting the installation, or alternatively the copying falls under a statutory exemption such as 17 USC 117(a)(1).

The shift in onus is an important practical consideration, and the distinction is helpful to understanding how our legal system operates. This is why organizations such as the BSA can make accusations of infringement and require proof of licensing compliance. The burden is not on the BSA to prove that infringement exists - the case for that is in the installation; the onus is on the accused to prove they have a license.

As a lawyer I have argued copyright law as it relates to software, including in federal court. However that was a decade ago; some things have changed, and I always appreciate illumination. Recent issues around intellectual property for fonts I am unfamiliar with, but interested in.

Of course, none of the above is legal advice - seek legal counsel for advice on any particular situation.

I hope the above is interesting or helpful.

Nonsense. You have fixed nothing, and completely misconstrued the law.

Software is a literary work under Section 101 of the USC. Case law has held that the code, audio and visual work of software is protected by copyright.

Customers are liable for operations that violate the patent. Users have generally been saved by the impracticality of such litigation. For example, Apple has sued Samsung for the patent violations of the Android software that was developed by Google.

As for Title 17 s. 117, that relates to copying necessary to use the software, archival backups, subleasing (with permission), and temporary copies for maintenance. Suggest you re-read. It is here:

Please refrain from misleading people in future.

You are not copying the book by buying it. The copy was made by the publisher, which has a license from the copyright holder to make said copy (or is violating copyrights).

You are likely copying software when you install it but that being said, we do not have strong and clear relationship for lawful use of software. We have instead pigeonholed the issues into traditional copyright, patent, service and license agreements. The results have been ugly at times, but I would not now describe them as murky - with the exception of fonts I do not see much issue around software use and online service rights.

GoodOldGames is a great site and example. I would expect a Court to call the entitlement upon purchase to download the games a license to copy. As a matter of policy, it is against the economic interest of this site, which provides service considered useful, to prohibit subsequent sharing of these games as if they were effectively in the public domain. Since it is not a stretch for copyright to apply, and it is useful to do so in cases such as this, it probably will be deemed to apply (or so the argument goes, though with some variation, throughout the common law).

The legal question has typically been whether the software is a "work" to which copyright law applies. There are weird edge cases, such whether fonts can be copyrighted or protected by some other intellectual property. I do not believe this to be an issue now (though, of course, I always stand to be corrected).

As a matter of interest, Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed., defines the relevant terms as:

Good: 1. Tangible or movable personal property other than money; esp., articles of trade or items of merchandise. ...

Service: ... 3. The act of doing something useful for a person or company for a fee. ...

License: 1. A revocable permission to commit some act that would otherwise be unlawful; ...

In the case of a software game:

1. the box, CD, manual etc., is a good;
2. permission to use the software in spite of copyright and patent protections is a license; and
3. the interactive online access is a service.

It is not apparent to me what is "murky" here.

Expiration of copyright and statute of limitations are separate issues.

Copying of a work after the copyrights expire does not constitute copyright infringement.

If infringement has occurred, one must bring a claim before the statute of limitations expires.

Expiration of copyright is somewhere in the order of 80 years or so, depending on where you are. The typical statute of limitations is usually between 1 and 6 years, depending on the claim and the jurisdiction.

IAAL, but this is not legal advice. Please seek legal counsel for advice on any specific issues.