HTML doesn't mention DRM. See for yourself: http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/PR-h...

There's Encrypted Media Extensions, which everyone says is "ZOMG DRM", but it's an entirely separate document, and no more insidious than EncryptedXML.

You can't "standardize" DRM, it's literally impossible.

Fixed

The metric you're looking for, and the only meaningful one for your point, is called Real GDP Per Capita. And it's up. Subcatagories of durable goods are also up. Up in real terms, per capita.

If you want to say we would be manufacturing more if not due to bad economic policy, fine. I agree.

But don't spread this nonsense that is technically the same thing as saying we're in a recession.

GDP measures the growth of the economy as a whole, over time, within a particular geographical area.

If you say that share of GDP of a certain industry to nationwide GDP has changed from 28% to 12%, but overall GDP grew 600% (or whatever), then mathematically, said industry grew -- it wasn't #1 in growth, but it still grew.

Nor does manufacturing need to be #1. The service sector can grow without sucking up other industry's resources, so naturally the GDP-share of other industry is going to shrink.

These are well-defined terms in economics. You're just being obtuse.

That sounds like "throttling" and in the particular way they're doing it, "fraud." I still fail to see how Net Neutrality comes in here.

Now there's an actual Net Neutrality violation. But...

You don't need legislation for that, isn't that called fraud?

That makes even less sense... How's that a problem unique to Internet providers, never mind routing rules on routers?

I doubt Net Neutrality is about "fast lanes". Isn't that called... you know, bandwidth? When I pay my Internet carrier per Mbps for a dedicated pipe, how is that not paying for a "fast(er) lane"?

Net Neutrality is a technically a routing policy that individual nodes in the network can comply with. My home router is most certainly not neutral, for instance, and that's a good thing, I like how I have traffic prioritized on my network.

Of course, that definition doesn't really make sense in this context. Perhaps you refer to enforcing a law that brings legal action against router operators that don't implement the routing policy. But that doesn't really make any sense either; the FCC never had any policy on the books to begin with. You can't end something by continuing to not have a law three decades after the fact.

(Fwiw, I'm totally down for not enacting more laws. The FCC is not your friend, and I doubt they'd be an effective packet police.)

Corporations have been around long before the 19th century and as legal entities managed and owned by us individuals, they most certainly do enjoy the same rights to own property and conduct trade, and are held accountable to not violate the law.

That last part is kind of important. Corporations are considered persons because they're expected to follow the law, too!

Really, what do you think corporations are made of, woodland critters and robots?

"Information wants to be free" is an obvious anthropomorphization; of course it can't literally "want" to be free, what's being referred to is the negative consequences that happen when we try to restrict resharing of information: you could almost imagine the information as a person being unhappy and protesting, whenever is censored.

A computer program is a literary work; not a song, audiovisual work, or similar. You don't "perform" a computer program, and executing it does not create a copy. If the concept as applied to literary works wasn't clear enough, the statute explicitly singles out computer programs as not infringing during the process of executing them.

They are terms for redistribution as required to legally make a copy under copyright law. It is not an EULA or other form of contract that must be agreed to prior to receiving a copy.

The GPL does this effectively: "You must include the source code (and other conditions) or you can't distribute a copy at all." This is the only restriction it can legally make, however. It can't restrict how you use the software in private when you don't make copies (including how you or others access it over the network).

But the source is free to the public, there's no terms and conditions I have to agree to. Indeed, it would no longer be Free Software, or at least it wouldn't be Open Source Software according to the Open Source Definition.

Please name the legal requirement that I accept the AGPL in order to use the software. In the US, there is:

* Copyright law
* Patent law

Patents aren't the issue here, and copyright law is not being invoked by merely making the software available on the network (and in fact, this use is explicitly defined as non-infringing).