Not true. This is a civil case. The actual requirement is that you take steps to PRESERVE electronically stored information. This is in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure - no court order required. If you fail to preserve the information, and the court finds that you did so to deprive the opposing party of the information (like, by saying you will preserve it but don't actually do it), then the court can instruct the jury to assume that the missing information was unfavorable to the party that deleted it.

It creates artificial scarcity by, in the words of the Constitution, giving 'exclusive rights' to the author. Since the author has exclusive rights, he can make access to his work as scarce as he wants.

"Ultimately" it means that? It is the entire purpose of copyright.

This makes ZERO sense. The purpose of copyright is to encourage new works to be created, by giving control of the work to the author (so he can sell it). If we didn't have 'infinite reproducibiiity' (ie every copy had to be hand made by the author) THEN there would be no need for copyright. "Infinite reproducibility" is the entire REASON for copyright.

The only thing "under penalty of perjury" is a statement "that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed." Now, which "fake notices" are the movie and recording studios sending?

Taxpayers aren't coughing up anything. Learn how the FDIC works and is funded.

Except that SpaceX doesn't actually do that with capsules, they parachute them into the ocean.. Here is Dragon returning from space https://youtu.be/p91bGgGHf90 Look familiar?

I don't think that is the point of giant rockets for moon missions. The rockets are big because they need to be in order to get the mass required launched. They don't just say 'lets build a giant rocket and see how much stuff we can cram in it'. So if you are adding ANY mass you need more fuel, and that fuel itself has mass, so you need even more fuel. And adding space for more fuel means the rocket itself must be larger, again adding mass, and so on.

Hey moron, here is a video https://youtu.be/p91bGgGHf90 of the SPACEX Dragon capsule returning to Earth. Please point out exactly where in the video this capsule is doing a nice slow landing on a ship. Oh wait, you can't because SpaceX HAS NEVER DONE THAT.

The summary states that the lawsuit proved that Linux didn't contain copyrighted code. This is nonsense, every bit of code in Linux is copyrighted. And if they meant that the suit proved that Linux doesn't contain any improperly used copyrighted code - well it didn't do that either (the suit never got that far). What the suit proved is that SCO did not own any of the copyrights to code it claimed it did, having sold those rights to Novell.

None of what you wrote is true. The FDIC does not protect the bank at all. It is the Federal DEPOSITORS Insurance Corporation. The depositors are insured, not the bank. If they make bad investments, the depositors are (if the bank is a member of the FDIC) protected. The investors in the bank itself are not, they will lose their investment.

Read the federal rules of Civil procedure. You will find that if the court determines a party failed to preserve electronic records in anticipation of litigation the court may a) assume the records were unfavorable to the party, b) instruct the jury to assume the records were unfavorable to the party, or c) issue a summary judgment against the party.

So you're claiming that Google thinks their internal chats are not relevant? Gotta wonder why they would even have a chat system then.

Nice little rant, but the actual fact is that this is a civil, not criminal, matter. Nobody is going to jail for destroying evidence in a civil case, no matter who they are. The punishment for destruction of evidence in a civil case can be that the judge instructs the jury to assume that the destroyed evidence contained exactly what the opposite party claims it did. Alternatively, the judge can just issue summary judgement and not even go to a jury.

In other words, the punishment for destroying evidence in a civil case is that you are likely to lose the case.

Nope. The actual wording of the rule is "If electronically stored information that should have been preserved in the anticipation or conduct of litigation is lost because a party failed to take reasonable steps to preserve it".

Deliberate destruction is not required, failing to take reasonable steps to preserve it is sufficient.