Copyright infringement is already illegal, like murder.
This is more like thinking a ban on the sale of hunting knives will prevent murder. Actually it is a little more like telling the transit company that they can't have transit routes that pass by one store that sells knives, but doing nothing about people walking there or taking a taxi, or even the other stores.
I don't think it is unreasonable to have some type of expiration date or balance reduction time limit on gift cards, as long as it isn't too soon.
They already do. It's called inflation.
Your personal freedoms and right to anonymity end when you use equipment that is not your own (but your company) and you are doing it while on the clock for purposes other than those tasked to you while on the clock.
By that token, even your home computer can be censured by your ISP, because hey, you're using their equipment to transmit the message. You also need to be careful what you say on the phone at work, or who you talk to. even during your breaks because it is company equipment you know. This excuse for expunging peoples freedoms is used frequently and is often even promoted by many of the people on this site who otherwise are against unreasonable limitations of freedom. I don't buy it, and no one else should either.
My question is would he have been fired if the school knew what he was doing, but he posted a less offensive message?
They should have enough by now to start their own country.
Don't they already own one? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/31/microsoft_screw_google/
Hell Yeah, Have you ever tried to buy a computer without windows on it? It is always cheaper to by a windows machine and wipe the OS then it is to buy a NoOS machine.
do I believe that a person should have a monopoly over the products of the labor of his/her own mind? Absolutely. Society has no right to something that someone has created. It is the property of the person/company that created it.
That is only true for as long as the person who created it keeps it to themselves. As soon as they allow it to become part of the culture, then they have to be willing to give up some control over it, and eventually all control. When it becomes part of the culture it is no longer their sole possession, they have conceded to share it with the world, and they must therefore also concede some of the ownership rights too.
Once works become part of our culture people will naturally use those works to reinterpret that same culture. Witness YouTube. People have to be free to create derived works and share them otherwise we have what I guess could be referred to as cultural tyranny.
You speak with sarcasm, but you are absolutely correct.
Society does have a need for music, and for more music (and other works to be produced) society NEEDs that music to enter the public domain at some point. The same holds true for pharmaceutical drugs as well. That is why copyright and patent protection are for limited times.
You make the common mistake of confusing real property rights with monopoly rights granted through copyright and patents. and the point you are trying to make illustrates where this analogy breaks down. I wish we user the term Intellectual Monopoly instead of property. It is more accurate and less likely to lead people to making these poor analogies.
Sorry but that IS what British citizens call it, because they are tried of hearing a bunch of dictatorial bastards say "no". That organization's job is to DENY care and reduce costs.
Any chance you may be confusing them with Americans HMOs? I've heard that's their job too.
You are always doing something marginal when the boss drops by your desk.