It all works out in the wash. Your vegan all natural food benifited from the same cheap energy costs that my fast food did. Your prius takes advantAge of the same exteralities that my diesel truck did. Your solar pannels are the same. But in the same sense of "you didn't build that", the exact proportipns aren't the exact same but it works out kn the wash.

Heh. 2911.12.. damn phone and fat fingers.

You are ignoring the statute. It actually says no person by force, stealth, or deception shall do any of the following then lists several things, one of which you cited.. One of those traits need to be present in order for what you cited to come into play. If anyone iis invited in- by anyone who has the ability to do so-, and that invite was not because of force, stealth, or deception, it cannot be burgulary. Your examples fail what you are trying to claim.

When reality and legality back my worldview, the only thing that is sad is you. Go shead and reread the law. Its 2911.11 and it simply does not say what you want it to say.

Well, it wouldn't be the first Sony-signed rootkit...

And if you don't think that's a backronym, I have some swampland in Florida to sell you.

Actually, USPS does derive quite a bit of its revenue from "bulk rate" mail.

No it didn't. Pirates have never had a technological edge over legitimate publishers. At best there's parity, but usually publishers have an edge over pirates.

If you wanted to pirate a book before the invention of movable type, you could copy it longhand -- just like you'd have to do if you wanted to make an authorized copy.

And people did this all the time. In fact, the only reason that any books (other than those written on clay, stone, or metal) survive from antiquity is because they were copied, the copies were copied, and the copies spread far and wide. Often only one copy survived long enough for more to be made. Paper of various kinds has been in use for a long time, but the oldest paper book is only about 1700 years old.

There was no exclusivity. Some places, like the city of Alexandria, in Egypt, had an official policy that all books that entered the city had to be made available for copying.

The very idea that authors should have exclusive rights in their works is only a few centuries old.

At which point it's a physical (and psychological) game; at least if you are doing it right. :)

If there was ever a time for an "all of the above" this was the time. I pretty much play most of those varieties (Card, Board, Video, Pen & Paper and Physical games).

Sounds like we need more bots.

I do not think you have thought that through.

If any power source becomes cheaper than what we have, the utilities will simply impliment it themselves. The worse things we will see is a drop in rates the utilities pay for net metering or abandoning it altogether.

Yes, a minor child can have charge of property. They would be considered the agent of the owner. Minor children can actually be the owner of property too. I purchased my fisrt car when i was 14. An uncle left me his motorcycle and 10 acres of land adjacent to our property when he passed from cancer. I was 16. They all were legally mine and no one had to assume ownership or otherwise consent to the registration of the titles.

And for there being numberous counter examples, you sure failed to present one. Ohio law considers it to be tresspassing whenever you enter the property of another. An example is ghe dog bite laws. If you walk up to someone's door and their dog bites you,they are not liable because you were tresspassing. But if they invite you over, you are not tresspassing and they are liable. If a kid invites another kid onto the property, the owner is liable. It makes no difference their age. Of course that gets tricky because the bitten person could become the handler of the dog under the law and the owner becomes not liable again.

I doubt it. "Duress" is pretty well-defined in most jurisdictions, and rarely extends to "living beyond your means."

Well, all the people who published works before 1710 had no copyrights. All the people who published after that, but not in England had no copyrights until various countries slowly adopted copyright (the US picked it up in 1790, the French after that, and most of Europe in the 19th century -- and they only exported it to the rest of the world by means of colonialism, not on its own actual merits).

Plus there were various limits, e.g. the US only granted copyrights to Americans until almost the end of the 19th century; British authors had no option to get an American copyright at all... unless they became American citizens.

More recently, various classes of work were ineligible. For example, architectural works (in practice, buildings) were uncopyrightable in the US until 1990. Were no buildings designed and built in this country until architects were given copyrights?

What I think you're missing here is that there are a plethora of incentives for an author to create and publish a work. Money gained by exploiting a copyright on the work is but one of those incentives, and often is not the most important one, and also often is not an essential one.

I certainly agree that it can be useful, but that doesn't mean that we ought to go hog wild with it; as with many other things, a little might be beneficial, but too much can be harmful.

The point is to grant authors copyrights as an additional incentive in order to entice them into creating and publishing works which they would not have created and published, but for copyright. If they would've done it anyway, the copyright is superfluous, and granting it would be wasteful. If they require more copyright than is healthy for society, all things considered, we're literally better off not granting it even though it means we'll be bereft of the work in question.

It's not intended to give authors control over works for their own sake. That's just the means by which it functions. It's intended to produce a public benefit. And while the public does benefit from having works created and published, it also benefits from not having anyone controlling works.

Well, that's how it operated in the US from 1790 through to the end of 1977. Turns out that relatively few published works were copyrighted. Further, since there was a renewal term (that is, the copyright would be good for an additional number of years if you re-upped in a timely fashion) we also know that most authors of copyrighted works didn't bother to get a renewal, and let their works enter the public domain sooner than they had to.

It worked fine. We got great literature and the golden age of Hollywood on both film and tv, as well as tons of great music.

And frankly, a system of strict formalities to get copyrights is a more important thing to change in the law than shortening the term length.