The farmer repeatedly sprayed his crops with a herbicide? You're right, that's very suspicious. I can't imagine any reason a farmer would be doing that.
What has the Motion Picture Association Assholes got to do with books?
Nothing, but they're going to get in the middle of it anyway. They're opposed to any exemptions that weaken monopolistic control over a copyrighted work, whether or not it directly effects them.
The MPAA/RIAA/AAP/etc. aren't naive enough to think that DRM is actually going to completely stop piracy.
The MPAA/RIAA don't use DRM to stop piracy (it's actually useless for stopping piracy), that's just a red herring to justify using it. The real goal with DRM is to eliminate fair use and first sale.
Yep, that was the excuse given when the authors guild was trying to prevent e-book manufacturers from including a text-to-speech feature.
They're interested in helping copyright holders.
To be more specific, they're only interested in helping themselves. They couldn't care less about other copyright holders.
Because you often have to break the DRM in order for your text-to-speech program to access the content.
Who gave the logs to the Police in the first place?
I'm still trying to figure out how a trivially editable text file can be used as "evidence". It's basically just their word against yours, does it really make a difference if they write their word down on a piece of paper? What's to stop them from just creating "log files" that say anything they want?
It was impossible to fully secure the weapon without first disabling that safety system.
It's obvious that the operator was not capable of fully securing the weapon, and had no business trying to do so. A lot of the blame belongs on the gun owner for improperly securing the weapon in the first place, but the babysitter should have never touched it.
They could have filed it as a "defensive" patent, and I doubt most people would have cared. But they're using it for offense, which is what makes them the bad guy.
There is no world. All of your memories, as well as your perception of the present, are imaginary.
there is a special statutory exception that explicitly allows this if you are the legitimate owner of a copy of a program
Making a copy so that you can sell it and then keeping the original, is obviously bad. However, making a necessary copy in order to sell it and not keeping the original shouldn't be any different than other forms of first sale.
How did Bush, Cheney and the like profit?
Yeah, it's not like either of them is an ex-CEO of a private company that made billions off of government contracts as a direct result of the war.