If the data proves true, this is the totally the fault of proprietory software developers for making their products too easy to pirate. What they need to do is make their products impossible to install and run on systems that can't prove that the appropriate funds have exchanged hands. Further, I'd even suggest that their installation software provide links to free alternatives so that those who will never pay have an easy out to avoid becomming criminals.

Picture if you will this. You go to install a program and either don't have the funds to pay for it or do but are unwilling to part with them. If said software's intallation routine provided a button such as "install free alternative" wouldn't potential pirates choose that option instead?

Seriously proprietory software developers, all you have to do to prevent piracy is to provide people ways to achieve the same functiality that your product provides without the cost.

If two people invent the same thing at the same time why doesn't the USPTO just consider the thing obvious and not worthy of patent protection?

Government needs to get out of the business of supplying endless money to students.

True, it should. But since a college degree is fast replacing the high school degree as the minimum level of education to enter the workplace, government needs to start providing it free as well.

Seriously, like what I suspect is the same for most people, I only spend a couple of hours a year on games. On average that is obviously less than an hour a day, but wouldn't voting that option imply I spend some portion of every day to video games?

This is no time to be lazy!! You have decided to join the fight in one of the hottest and most controversial slashdots topics. Certainly you can afford to expend a little effort here!

I eagerly read your post looking for citations proving your claim of "obvious correlation between piracy and decreased music sales" and was very disappointed to find none! Certainly, since you say it is obvious, there has to be something you can provide to back up that assertion.

Sure, but out of respect I'll let you go first. Would you start with justifying why how one expresses an idea is a protected right in the first place?

If you had to pay no taxes, would your employer need to pay you so much? I've never understood why so many people think that if they paid less they would have more. Businesses aren't going to pay you anymore than they have to to ensure you walk in the door tomorrow morning.

What about what necessity demands? If it costs $X to operate something and you pay less than your share then it seems obvious someone else must pay more.

Taxes are a wash. If it takes $X to live in a location, then the market will ensure that is $X is equal to or greater that you take home. It has to, otherwise there would be market at all.c