Exactly! The legal definition of stealing or theft involves tangible property. When you can take one copy of a thing and effortlessly make hundreds of copies, their is no tangible value. That is why it is called copyright infringement. No stealing or theft.

those radio and youtube download apps follow the same principle as cassette tapes recorders and VCR's. Sony Betamax case made such actions legal. These downloader apps do the same thing. It's just a different source.

Aspartame does change to formaldehyde due to body heat. However, formaldehyde is required for proper metabolism and our body produces two enzymes which can break down the formaldehyde. The dangers of aspartame involve consuming aspartame faster than your body is able to break it down. To begin to suffer the effects of aspartame (formaldehyde poisoning) would require the consumption of approximately 50mg of aspartame per kilogram of body weight. So for me, I would have to consume about 60 cans of diet cola ) per day to feel the effects of formaldehyde poisoning. (1 12oz. can of diet coke: 125 mg) Results may vary based on metabolism speed and body weight.

and what do you suggest that something else be? Elections won't get rid of the problem. We would simply be trading one corrupt politician for another.

There is no perfect system. Personally I'd go with the con-con since it has potential to fix a problem instead wait idly until we become a totalitarian world like in 1984. It is a damned if you do damned if you don't.

Just because it has not happen yet does not mean it never will. Because of Obamacare, a constitutional convention has been in the works for a balanced budget amendment http://www.sweetliberty.org/st...

The Mickey Mouse Protection Act will reach its end in 2018. You can bet that Disney will dump millions into another extension. One potential source of influence against Disney and other supporters is software publishers. Present copyright terms for software copyright is pointless because of how quickly the programs become obsolete and unusable due to lack of hardware and OS support. Software publishers have no valid reason to extend copyright. Who will still be using Windows XP in 2096 when the copyright expires? Who will be using it in 2066? 2036? No one! The hardware to run the OS will be long gone with exception to a technology museum.

Incorrect. The states can open a constitutional convention to create an amendment to ban financially influencing politicians. If 3/4 of the states approve of the amendment, then it by-passes congress and becomes part of our constitution.

There is one answer that can work. It is a constitutional convention. If 2/3 of the states demand an amendment, then Congress is obligated to open a constitutional convention for the proposed amendment to the Constitution. If 75% of the states approve of the amendment to the Constitution, then that by-passes the US Congress. This is the only way we can create term limits for the US Congress. They will not slit there own throats. Ever since Obamacare, the idea of opening a constitutional convention has been growing among the states to propose a balanced budget amendment. Term limits for US Congress would not be far behind.

campaign contributions according to politicians, judges and lawyers. but to us common folk, it's bribery.

add I'll bet that those republicans introducing the bill are on telcom's off-the-record payroll.

And what of orphaned works? Works in which the copyright owner cannot be found or has died and that person's copyright were never handed down. There are thousands of works which will fall into the abyss of time because of IP giants who want to continue commercialy exploiting their few copyrights. http://www.public.asu.edu/~dka...

A use it or lose it clause should be added to copyright law.

First off, I believe software should have a different copyright length. (Windows XP's copyright expires sometime after 2100. How crazy is that?) I also believe a "use it or lose it clause" should be added to copyright law. If a publisher or copyright holder ceases to publish, market, support and profit from a product, then after X number of years, that game will fall into public domain. I believe this clause should apply to all copyrights and not just software.

When the publishers and copyright holders cease to produce, market, support and profit from their games, yet there are still consumers demanding the game and those consumers will do whatever it takes to continue playing the games they love. Are the publishers and copyright holder then indirectly promoting the piracy of their own products? It's like giving a suicidal person a gun. The suicidal person makes the choice to kill himself or not, but the other person put him in that situation.