What needs to be carefully looked at is interpretive laws and the way they actually work in application. The rich basically use their wealth and lawyers to abuse the poor. Not only can the rich most abusively annoy the poor and get away it, they can also claim any imaginable action of the poor is annoying and ensure the poor are punished for it.

Just to be clear about an understanding of annoyance. A criminal runs up and shoots people in a bank and takes the money. Now don't you think that criminal finds in annoying when police investigate the matter, find out who did it, hunts the criminal down and arrests them. Don't you think the criminal finds the prosecution, judge and jury annoying when the evidence in presented and the criminal is successfully prosecuted. Now don't you think the criminal is extremely annoyed by the correctional services people who will not let the criminal run free to able to commit more crimes.

Be very, very careful of the legal dance with the idea of annoyance because the most glaring example, don't you think investors find it annoying when unions demand better wages and conditions for their workers, extremely annoying, let alone an actual strike. Don't corrupt politicians find protesters to be extremely annoying and look those corrupt politicians actually do seek to prosecute those people expressing their political rights under what are basically annoyance laws under another name.

Don't you get it, it works the American way. Eye for an Eye. One person from a country attacks me, then I am allowed to attack anyone from that country for any reason and in any way, as well as attack all those from that country who would try to stop be attacking some one in that country.

So in computer parlance, let's all play the electromagnetic pulse game because that is really going to work so well for everyone.

Here is a question and what point does a countries espionage agents cease to be their agents and become more accurately double agents working for another country. So did German intelligence do this or did German nationals working as American espionage agents do this. The law would say, that they were not German Agents but American agents who happened to be German nationals working in German intelligence services. The exact same thing applies to most of the others in one eyed, eight blind mice group.

Those double agents are not working in the interests of their country, they are working in the interests of the corrupt US corporations that control the US government. Imagine nine countries intelligence services all managing the global fuck up that has been the 'WAR ON TERROR'. Now how many of them were actually treasonously 'in the know'.

The most noticeable thing about abusive law enforcement actions in the US, only the law enforcement (let's be clear the US does not have police it has law en-FORCE-ment). Not really US law enforcements fault, not really. Some one else is selecting the people to become law enforcers, somebody is training to poor selections to be law enforcers, somebody is setting policy for those poorly selected and badly trained law enforcers, to ensure they act as revenue generating law enforcers. Take a long hard look at the difference between law enforcers in Conservative Government zones and police in Progressive zones. Not just locally but globally, yep, the people you select to run government are smooth talking, self serving, idiotic fuck ups, who are only capable of knee jerk simplistic thinking and voila you get the results you would expect.

The American reaction is like blaming all dogs for some dogs being bad. There is a huge difference in selection and training for a guide dog for the blind and a junk yard guard dog. Conservative American politicians in their ignorance and stupidity are putting junk yard dogs out on the street and getting the results you would expect.

Amongst the over 55s American Exceptiolism runs rife. Their viewpoint, who gives a shit what the NSA were doing to foreigners, foreigners are all sub human only Americans, well, certain Americans are actually human and should get human rights. This extends to foreign countries, only Americans have rights in foreign countries and those foreigners, 'er', 'um', it is up to their government to provide them rights 'AGAINST' the actions of the American government or American Corporations (with tiny defence forces and no nukes, snark, snark, if they try we will kill all that resist and they do exactly that and then fucking celebrate it). Regardless of anything they will say when answering a survey. That is the reality of American exceptional and America has no allies as far as those Americans are concerned, no country whose citizens have rights within their own country if those rights would in any way infringe about Americans in any way shape or form, no matter how much those actions are against the law in American (only when applied to American citizens, well, most citizens of course, exceptions being pretty bloody obvious). Thanks to the internet, America is pretty much advertising exactly this to the rest of the world, winning hearts and minds, not so much.

Exactly. Why buy a locked down 4k bluray, when the Pirate Bay has a free copy that will play where I want when I want. I'll pay for content but not for digital restrictions added on.

RMS himself has said that he would only be okay with getting rid of copyright (and hence the basis on which GPL and its copyleft protection stands), if copyleft itself is written into law - i.e. if redistributing binaries without access to the code becomes illegal.

No. A citizen was lower upper class.

Better: non-donors go to the bottom of the list when they need one themselves.

Mergers are always done as a way to create a bit of chaos and negotiation opportunities so that CEOs and top shareholders can pocket a bit of the wealth they control, but isn't theirs.

So Disney ensures that every quarter, at least one copy of Steamboat Willy is sold. Or they simply show it once a year on the Disney Channel, which means they are making money off it.

Better to specify a fixed term for copyright in the spirit of the US constitution: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Art...". Copyright should be about the public interest; the interests of creators are secondary to that. A copyright term should be short enough to ensure that all works enter the public domain in a meaningful time frame, but long enough to allow creators to cash in on successful works, and long enough to make sure publishers don't simply outwait creators so they don't have to pay them. 25 years ought to be ample.

Useful arts; documentaries, instruction manuals, text books, reference books, factual news, the air hostess given instruction about emergency procedures at the front of a plane, puzzle books (in terms of mental exercise), historical performances, instructional videos etc. Of course we could just subsidise their production rather than paying for them over and over again. As for the rest, I am quite comfortable leaving it up to a publicly representative body reviewing content and deciding whether it is worthy of copy protection or not and justifying to the public what social value is in that particular content or why is was deemed worthy of publicly funded protection or why is was rejected and deemed not worthy of protection at public expense.

So let me get this straight. It is illegal in America for law enforcement to shoot someone in the back because they are too lazy to chase them but when it comes to dirty filthy coloured foreigners, it it legal to blow them to bits and any one near them, when they are no where near you nor any kind of current threat you, they just maybe, might be in the future, as for those standing around them, er, they deserved it for 'er' aiding and abetting, including the children. Or is the reality just, "Ohh I'm bored staring at this screen, let's blow some people up and make up shit about them, set the drone on auto and knock off for a long liquid lunch". Any claims are just that empty claims, prove it in a public court, lets see the evidence, let's see that evidence challenged.