Isn't finding your vehicle destroyed by an 18th century weapon getting old?

The entire idea behind the law is to protect media, corporations and the corrupt government from their subjects. Media companies simply mostly ignore each others infringements, and focus their censorship on the ones trying to take their monopolies down. No media organization can sue another one because then they will be sued back. But taking the basic rights from new voices that aren't in the ruling class is very easy, which is the entire point.

And while this is happening, media will be blowing up a big "fight" between Mitt and Obama, as if either of them would stop the rape on your (and the rest of the world's) basic human rights.

You can also sign a petition.

I don't think that an industry that have bought your politicians and are trying to shut down Internet as we know it should be considered a joke. It's a terrorist organization, and a far deadlier one than any Al Qaeda. With the copyright and patent monopolies the very few are stealing the opportunities from the poor, and the suffering this is causing is immense. Due to these monopolies, you have to be something like Google to create this very simple service that actually most programmers easily could have mad if they were allowed.

It's definitely time for an Occupy IP-monopolies movement!

So Google becomes a content seller and part of the RIAA and MPAA kind of mafia industry too? We already know that a big part the money we buy music/movies for is used to buy politicians to impose ever more draconian laws that restricts common people's rights and steal our money and freedom.

It's quite possible to have fun without buying content! Kill the information monopoly companies (entertainment industry), or you are to blame for the end of freedom!

"If I am correct, what is stopping me from drafting a "take-down" notice stating that I own the trademark for MPAA.org? RIAA.org? whitehouse.gov?"

The fact that MPAA and RIAA own the courts, of course. If you aren't a member of the content-industry's organizations, you'll have no rights. If you are a member, you'll get your own personal APIs that you can abuse with automatic programs and so on.

Ah, OK. So we'll just take your word for it.

#insert "bunch of insults"

Well said!

Also note that all the trading laws or the private stock-markets' rules aimed at "stop speculation", "market distortion" and "inside trading" always end up hitting the little smart traders that are using the big firms' flawed algorithms against them, and almost never hit the stock markets' big customers (big thieves) who are screwing the other investors daily.

So if tobin-taxes are imposed, you can be sure that it will not hit the thieves (because they will go around the tax) and it will give very little income.

So instead of simply paying a fee on everything, and then hand out the money to companies and people who have published very good designs and/or research, you honestly think it's a good idea to go medieval and hand out state enforced monopolies and force people to have armies of lawyers fighting each other in courts for years while the invention is forced off the market?

Not to mention that

patents kill innovation directly. An innovation is a combination of two or more ideas (always). If you combine two patents into something new, the both patent owners will say that their patent counts for 65% of the value of the product, and thus the product is effectively banned from market. Because people want to have laws that forbid new inventions to be used.

No, that isn't a correct analysis. I've studied this for years, as I develop and run (more narrow) social network sites for a living.

What is happening in both Brazil and Russia is that people in the big towns and people who have international connections tend to use Facebook. You can't keep contact with your friends in Europe with Orkut or Vkontakte, and after a while, Facebook wins because it's a better system and because people don't want to use two systems (people do use two systems for a while, but then Facebook wins). There are many many more examples, you can take a look at the pretty old, but still valid State of Facebook Competition that I wrote last year.

In USA there was a social difference between MySpace and Facebook, where the students used Facebook and annoying kids used MySpace. Eventually Facebook won because it was less annoying to browse around. Now it's the nerds that are using Google+, but they kind of fail to attract more people. If you want to read something from a nerd, just read his (or maybe "her") blog, Twitter, FB and so on... No need to register for Google+ for that.

Here in Sweden Facebook has had a little of backlash among kids, because they don't want to be on the same site as their parents and teachers. But I think it's something they have learnt to handle now.

Yes, that's why no one is using Facebook and everyone is using MySpace.

I have discovered that people think that one of the best features of Elftown is that there are no games...

"Actually the "compelling function" is that the crowd is there."

Yes? You don't expect the ones with thousands of photos and stuff on Facebook to suddenly just start using Google+ instead, do you? And Google+ doesn't offer anything that I can't get on FB. If someone has something important to say, they do it on FB (or a site related to the subject).

I think that Google+ has messed up the marketing here. I got tired of Google+ after a few days, and I feel really uncomfortable with giving even more power to Google.

An artist's job is to do propaganda. That the best of the artists have little problem to convince people to give them benefits that they don't deserve, don't need and are harmful to society is just as sad as it's predictable.

I see little hope to change this sad fact until the ones who stand up to the entertainment industry can get an equal amount of money to spend on propaganda and people who are good at it.

If Springsteen wants money, I suggest that he goes out and play some concerts. I don't see why anyone should get money for stuff they recorded a long time ago. It's OK if someone sells old copies of records or tunes, but there is NO REASON to give them a monopoly.

It would be so much better if the money spent on buying old music, went to something useful, like investments for the future. Ex-musicians and RIAA will just spend the money on bribes and jet set lifestyles. Not something the state should pay for by giving them monopolies.