No

Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no.

EOM

That was never Apple's goal. That was just the pie in the sky calculation the article made using extremely optimistic numbers of 1b devices. It stated that Apple's goal was eventually 100m users. I think that's plausible although the number of paying subscribers I think will be just a small fraction of that.

I would expect a massive crowdfunding campaign would cover any legal costs if the "rights enforcement goons" tried to sue someone for using CC BY redistributable music.

You can expect whatever you want. I don't think I'd risk my financial future on the expectations of success of a crowdfunding campaign.

I'm all for being brief and getting directly to the point, but either a lot of details are going to be left out of an "article" or will be a overly complex run-on sentence. I don't want to have to read 18 different images (with accompanying ads) just to get the full story of something more complex than what can be said in a slightly more than a single tweet.

Using made up numbers, You pay Uber $10. Uber takes $2.80, but gives back a $5 bonus incentive for being a new driver. The driver returns the $10 to the customer/accomplice plus 1/2 of what's left. The accomplice makes $1.60 and the driver makes $1.60 and Uber is out $3.20 (or more if you account for other overhead)

Anyone know why I can't get to any search engine now?

Spotify raises $526m. Apple as of earlier this year had $178b in cash reserves. Now obviously Apple isn't going to spend all it's reserves, but you're going to need a lot more than that money to win a fight against Apple.

A little bit later in the article it states "Heâ(TM)s one of no more than 50 people in Australia known to have the antibodies, according the Australian Red Cross blood service."

My guess is that he's not the only one that could be used, but only one person donating is needed to meet supply demands.

If you're a freelancer or don't have a regular employer sending you paychecks, you don't have wages that can be garnished. If you calculate your tax withholding or estimated taxes right, you don't give the government an interest free loan and you won't have a return that will be garnished. If you have little assets, suing you probably will cost them more than they could recover.

Life would probably become more difficult than someone with good credit, but probably not impossible. You aren't going to qualify for car loans or mortgage, but renting isn't impossible with bad or no credit as long as you aren't real picky and can make a few month's down payment.

Wage garnishment, IRS refund garnishment, indefinite threat of lawsuit for federally held loans too.

That's pretty racist and stereotypical. Sanjay helps with tech support. Ming helps with math.

if they get the public to vilify encryption users as criminals

It's really hard to vilify encryption users when everyone is a encryption user. Sign on to anything recently? Bam. You're now an villainous encryption user.

There was a recent legal case that dealt with this exact thing. AF Holdings (aka Prenda Law) sued Joe Navasca accusing him of pirating porn via Bittorrent in January of 2012, but didn't file any paperwork on the case until May 2012. During discovery AF accused Navasca of improperly spoliated evidence by using CCleaner to clean his hard drive. The judge found that the defendant had been using the program regularly for several years prior to the lawsuit and until Navasca was served, had no duty to preserve any evidence.

Sorry, but there's a reason that Dropbox, Twitter, Facebook, Google, Microsoft and everyone else has an Irish datacenter - they have to control and process UK and EU user's data within the EU, according to strict laws, or risk enormous fines.

The fact that they have some of the most favorable corporate tax laws allowing them to shield billions from US taxes by setting up a nexus there I'm sure has nothing to do with it.