Because our laws are written by corporate interests, not the people.

The software that circumvents encryption or copy protection mechanisms is a circumvention tool, not the hard drive. The hard drive is simply a storage device.

It's a class action. That means the payment is to all members of the class, possibly even potential members of the class who have not yet joined it. Class action suits are very lucrative for the attorneys involved because the payouts are so large.

Um, where in the United States is it illegal to take photographs?

and often photos of the property are included in tax records. if there isn't a photo of the property there is at least an exact description. i can very easily pull those up for my county online. before that it was simply a matter of going to the courthouse. all these folks talking about privacy really don't seem to know the law at all.

Considering the explosion of surveillance in British cities, I'd think they've made it clear they don't expect any privacy in public. I fail to see how living in an "affluent area" allows you some extra privacy rights others do not have.

But hey, I guess rich people really feel like they're entitled to special treatment. You'd think having the money would be enough.

Try telling a user who has had a pirated application on their computer you can't provide it -- that's no fun at all. They've gotten used to using it and most won't accept another program in its place. Even worse you'll get nonsensical crap about free/open-source software not providing appropriate output.

And management isn't always helpful. You'd think telling them "you are breaking license agreements and exposing yourself to legal liability" would be enough, but sometimes that isn't enough. At least in this case you have someone (old fake IT guy) to blame -- that's more or less all you can do.

And let me chime in on the ZOMG install FOSS tip -- this is a great opportunity. You've already got a tailor-made excuse. "X user is using X software and we do not have a license. We can either pay X dollars for a license or use this freely available alternative that will provide the same functionality." In this economic climate, they won't even consider the pay software in most cases.

How would you argue that the economic stimulus package is either immoral or unconstitutional? It regulates interstate commerce fairly clearly. The Congress is entitled to raise funds and distribute them. "I don't like it" does not equal "unconstitutional." As to the morality of government spending? Lots of folks opposed to the stimulus supported the Iraq war. If you want to get into the relative morality of different kinds of government spending (even deficit spending), I think you'll find you're probably not on the firmest ground. Or would you argue that highway construction is somehow morally objectionable and war isn't?

What, you going to rebel against the government? That's called suicide-by-cop. It's always interesting that folks point to guns as protection against tyranny. Guess what? If you're going to try to use a gun against the government, the government will use many more against you. If you truly want to change anything in this country, the political process is the best (very very far from perfect) way to do it. You are far more likely to succeed at changing the way the government works by political processes.

Your chances aren't particularly good, but they ARE non-zero. Your chances of starting a successful revolution against the United States government with privately owned firearms are zero. Folks fetishizing weapons like this is obnoxious. Stop glorifying violence in your own mind and get with the 21st century.