I'm aware that post-modernists believe it is a self-evident truth that there is no such thing as a self-evident truth.

Well that's just not true - Wikipedia could accept copyrighted photos subject to an absolute irrevocable non-exclusive licence for their use on wikipedia (with attribution). A simple click-through licence would suffice.

As a matter of UK law, the gallery's position is most likely correct. How it enforces this against Wikipedia and/or the user in question is a different story...

Or they could just be an innocent citizen arrested by the secret police of a totalitarian state that denies freedom to its own people?

Just a thought.

You are confusing the European Court of Human Rights (relevant to this case, irrelevant to the USA) with the International Criminal Court (which the US hasn't signed up to but which is irrelevant to this case)

The problem is that the study was limited to Wikipedia articles covering mainstream science, and the quality of these is generally very good. The quality goes downhill very rapidly the further one gets away from the mainstream, whether in science, history, politics or anything else.

I think you are right. I'm not a German lawyer, but on the basis of European law she has a couple of excellent arguments:

First, under the Distance Selling Directive she has 30 days to return the software and receive a refund (how precisely this applies to downloads is unclear, but it certainly applies).

Second, under Council Directive 93/13/EEC, unfair terms in consumer contracts are unenforceable. A hidden term that the consumer pay a fee for software that is normally free is likely to be regarded as "unfair".

I assume Germany has implemented these Directives into local law - it certainly should have done. So she should refuse to pay under the Distance Selling Directive, and have the Unfair Terms Directive as a fallback.

Amazing so many people are so confident she has to pay.

Plus an injunction to prevent further infringement, which is of some use...

How can that be? The cost of physically producing a copy of OS X is tiny. There may be a huge sunk development cost but - no matter what it is - Apple will make money off each sale. Whether this is increasing Apple's profit from OS X, or reducing its loss doesn't change that.

OK, but bear in mind the electricity may have been generated from fossil fuels at efficiency of 50-60%, and then transmitted across the distribution system at efficiency of 90ish%, and then used to charge the capacitor (which will have an efficiency of less than 100%, but I've no idea what it will be)

All of which will likely end up better than 20% efficiency, but some way short of 90%.

This is not necessarily correct - in construing laws and contracts it's often corrrect to interpret "entitled if" to mean "entitled if, only if". Well drafted laws/contracts make this explicit. I don't know enough about the specifics, or indeed anything about Texas statutory interpretation, to say what the correct result is here.