It is not stealing. You are absolutely right. It is copyright infringement. Punishable with fines up to $150,000 per work (unless the copyright holder can prove that the actual damage is higher).

If you want a tattoo on your wrist, either put it on the wrist where you wouldn't wear a watch, or go to some competent tattoo artist who will be able to advise you what kind of ink will affect your skin more or and which one will affect it less; consider that the Apple Watch is just the start of wearing things around your wrist. .

Nothing would have happened. The pilot knows how to take off from A. And he knows how to land at B. However, due to unforeseen circumstances, he might not be able to land at B but might get redirected to any of a large number of airports. And for that, he has this huge set of maps that describe exactly how to start/land at each of those airports.

If the iPad (I assume you were just trying to make a stupid joke there) crashes mid flight, you reboot it. Then you take the co-pilots iPad.

The information is there in triplicate. Pilot's iPad. Co-pilot's iPad. Bag of papers. As a passenger, you are safe with one copy. The rules say that three copies must be there when the plane takes off, to guarantee that at least one is there when it is needed. The delay happened because there were no three complete and up-to-date copies.

They can't freeze the configuration unless they freeze all the airports. These devices carry maps. Maps need to be updated all the time.

What happened here wasn't that an update caused a problem. What happened was that two iPads in a cockpit didn't manage to receive an update that they should have received, so they had to take the iPads into the airport, and the data update worked just fine. Obviously this took time, so the flight got delayed.

than the climate skeptics like. But maybe they are right, maybe he should just give them spiritual guidance to stop lying for money.

That is assuming that rich parents donating to schools actually want to buy their little boy or girl a degree. Plenty of people are rich because they worked hard for it (maybe with a little luck added, but still..) and are not really keen on them just relying on their parents instead of their own work.

Insurance companies won't be interested. This doesn't save expensive buildings. It gives people a chance to get out of buildings just in time. For an insurance, dead people are cheap.

You're asking "couldn't I defeat this by committing fraud"? Quite obviously if you get caught, you won't be fined for driving in the carpool lane, but for driving in the carpool lane and committing fraud to get away with it. I could easily see you getting a criminal conviction.

Simple way to level things is what is used in Germany - fees are limited to a fixed small percentage of the value being argued about, but if you demand a large amount and get only a small amount, you actually count as the loser (so a large corporation suing you for 100 million dollars and awarded $100 would actually pay 99.9999% of the total cost).

In the case of patent trolls demanding huge money, even if they are rewarded a small amount, they would have to pay all the cost.

Of course. Didn't he say "Only a fool wouldn't buy an Apple Watch"?

We are talking about Germany here. Judges there don't like it if you game the system. Steamboat Willy would have to be on sale publicly, so that everyone who wants to watch it can do so. And judges can see if the price is exorbitant so that no actual sales are made.

So it covers my reasoning against eternal copyright: That copyright makes works disappear if the copyright owner doesn't care about it anymore. It doesn't cover lots of people's reasoning: That eternal copyright is bad because we want things for free.

Before software was protected by copyright, which happened sometime in the 80's or so, in Germany software was protected by "unfair competition law". Quite simply, if A hires developers for a million to write software and sells it, and B just copies the software, that is unfair competition. However, "unfair competition" only applies if A is actually selling the software; if A doesn't sell it, then B isn't competing with A at all, whether fair or unfair. Obviously now software is under copyright, so things have changed.

With very old works the same could be done: Let them run out of copyright. However, it would be "unfair competition" and thus illegal to compete with the copyright holder. So as long as Disney is selling Steamboat Willy, it would be protected. If they stop selling it, you can copy it and even sell it freely.

There is monetary incentive if you can put the movie onto a shelf in the shops and sell it. Most people don't actually copy stuff. And those with huge illegal collections don't actually listen to or watch all the stuff that they copied. So you have to be careful estimating how many sales would be lost. And at last, you _can_ put DRM onto works in the public domain if you feel like it.

On the other hand, if people are worried about cultural values being lost, and these people are not the copyright holders, then works being in the public domain is actually very helpful for society. Because these people _can_ restore movies without having one foot in jail.

Apple makes more profit selling PCs than all the other manufacturers together, and these profits are growing year after year after year. Why would they get out of that business?