NAT has many benefits besides reducing the number of IP addresses required. It has important security benefits in that it allows one to hide one's internal network structure from the outside world. Without NAT, attackers would know how many systems you have on your network as well as your router deployment. Potential attackers could benefit greatly from this information when planning and launching attacks.

What if your house is within 1000 feet of a school. Are you not allowed to keep a gun in your house in that case? Does it matter if your house was there first and the school was built later?

I wish that were true but it isn't. You'd be breaking copyright law. You're importing copyrighted content from someone without the legal authority to distribute said content in Canada. It isn't unusual for different companies to have exclusive rights to distribute in various countries, and the U.S. Netflix has no rights to distribute this copyrighted content in Canada. Therefore, in transferring the data from your VPN in the U.S. to your computer in Canada, you're copying copyrighted content which you have no authorization to do. That's illegal. I'm not saying I agree with this law, but it is wrong to say that what you're doing isn't illegal.

If you even just read the summary you would see that the school board is buying software which is capable of location based identification, so simple fake accounts should be easy to see through. I suppose a brother or sister in the same household might be able to pretend to be you, but beyond that, I doubt this software is that easy to fool.

Well, the fact that they are paying $13,000 per year in license fees strongly suggests that this software will give them access to information that isn't public.

But there are two separate types of infringement at issue here. First is direct infringement. This occurs when the defendant actually violated the patent him or herself. This is a strict liability offense, meaning that it doesn't matter if the defendant was aware of the patent or not, and it doesn't matter if the defendant was aware that his or her actions infringed the patent or not. And if the patent has not been declared invalid, it is presumed valid and the defendant is liable for damages even if the patent is later ruled invalid. This is well-established law and is not at issue in the Supreme Court's decision.

The other type of infringement is induced infringement. This occurs, for example when a defendant sells a product which would cause the end users to violate the patent. The defendant is not violating the patent directly. According to patent law, for a defendant to be liable for induced infringement, he or she must be aware of the patent and also aware that the usage of the product would be a violation of that patent. So the question before the Supreme Court was in the case of induced infringement, what if the defendant had a good faith reason to believe the patent to be invalid? I tend to agree with the majority here: if the patent wasn't declared invalid by a court, the usage of product would be infringing, so the defendant must have known that such usage would be infringing, since they knew of the patent. The dissenters (Scalia and Ch. J. Roberts) thought otherwise: if a patent is invalid, how can the defendant believe it to be infringed?

Federal employees? I thought they worked for Amtrack.

So 36 is the least upper bound.

Most professional sports teams copyright their games. Even tweeting the score can get you in trouble. I guess this is no different. I'm not sure why the IRS would be involved though. Do they handle copyright enforcement?

No, but selling information on how to break the law is against the law. It's called being an accessory.

Great. I'll open up a terrorism school where I teach people how to fly planes into buildings, assassinate government leaders, sabotage trains, make poison gases, bombs, and other weapons of mass destruction. I'm just teaching so it shouldn't be illegal.

And that by itself is not illegal. But, if one of your perspective students said to you: "I think your techniques might help me to beat a polygraph test for a federal government job that I'm applying for. Where do I sign up?" And you say: "Right here, just give me a deposit check for $50 to guarantee your spot in the class." then you are an accessory to fraud. And because your student has said they are applying for a FEDERAL government job, you've committed a federal felony which carries some serious prison time.

There are a lot of other things that are challenging once you're dead too, like brushing your teeth, combing your hair (and it's a real pain when it starts to fall out), and even scratching an itch. Being dead sucks, actually, and you'll have a lot more on your mind than keeping your WordPress site up to date!

No, the DMCA provides no safe harbor for anyone profiting directly from the unauthorized sale of copyrighted works, intentional or otherwise. As long as the Google bookstore gets a cut of the profit on the sale, there's no safe harbor.

Unless it's the NSA using their computers. Then it is a very serious crime.