That and no one knows what is in his insurance policy.

If that wasn't enough, they're more likely to be arrested than make an arrest. They're absurdly expensive: we're paying $200M per arrest, about 4 arrests a year, and the arrests are almost exclusively small quantity drug possession charges. Last, on the very small percentage of flights they're actually on, they're not even sitting among the potential threats, they're always cloistered up in first class, which makes them really really easy to spot and really useless in spotting anything suspicious.

This isn't tragedy of the commons. Tragedy of the commons occurs with non-excludable but exhaustible resources. Piracy makes games non-excludable, but the game is utterly inexaustible.

Air Marshals aren't exactly the crack team you'd hope. In fact, they're more likely to be arrested than make an arrest. They're absurdly expensive: we're paying $200M per arrest, about 4 arrests a year, and the arrests are almost exclusively small quantity drug possession charges. Last, on the very small percentage of flights they're actually on, they're not even sitting among the potential threats, they're always cloistered up in first class, which makes them really really easy to spot.

If a certain viewpoint is preferred by 90% of people, do you really think that 10% will keep a niche rather than be bullied & overwhelmed? What about when viewpoints are wrong? In vitro fertilization had overwhelming opposition when it was first pioneered, and human history is rife with illogical prejudice and absurd beliefs. I'd like to be an optimist like you, but it seems - with regard to religious or political issues - the majority typically attempts to impose its vision on others.

Replace "justice system" with "legislature" and I'm with you. However I still think copyright - its scope and length - is broken.

How do you think common law is/was developed/created? It is judges modifying existing law to fit new circumstances. If you have a law or precedent immediately on point, ruling against controlling authority (legislative or judicial) is activism. But when judges are presented with a new situation without controlling authority directly relevant, they have to use their own judgment to determine whether extending/reducing a law/precedent to cover/exclude a defendant is fair or not.

Doesn't someone spellcheck these summaries?

The US DMCA has the same requirement, but the "effective" has been read by courts to simply cover whether the DRM works, not how easy it is to break.

I softmodded my wii, it took about 10 minutes. It lets me run emulators for N64, SNES, NES, Genesis, NeoGeo, PS1, NDS, DOS, GBA, ScummVM, and more. I haven't seen any dreamcast emulators, but if it can run PSX games, dreamcast shouldn't be outside the realm of possibility. So other than running PS2 games instead of gamecube ones, I don't see why you would consider the PS3 a "dream console" for emulation when the wii can already do what the PS3 hopes to accomplish.

Agnostic and atheist gets confused all the time. Theism is about belief. Athiests do not believe in god. Theists do. Gnostism is about knowledge. Agnostics claim to have no special knowledge one way or another. Gnostics claim they do. You can have agnostic theists - people who don't claim to know, but believe in god; agnostic atheists - people who don't know, and don't believe in a god; or gnostic theists - people who claim to know and believe in the existence of a god. I suppose you could have gnostic athiests if you had people claiming knowledge about the lack of existence of god, and did not believe in a god.

I'm not an expert on this, but I believe Presidents can enter into executive agreements with other countries only until the President's actions affect US citizenry. Then we've got an ultra vires issue or presentment problem unless congress passes the agreement.

Executive agreements obviously cannot violate the Constitution. Since the Reid v. Covert decision, the U.S. has made it explicit that although the U.S. intends to abide by a treaty, if the treaty is ruled in violation of the Constitution by federal courts, then the U.S. legally can't follow the treaty since the U.S. signature would be ultra vires.

Plus treaty law (including executive agreements, congressional-executive treaties, and real treaties) is incorporated into the body of U.S. federal law. So congress can modify or repeal treaties afterwards, and SCOTUS can review it.

However, I'm still wary. According to an EFF article published in The Yale Journal of International Law [PDF]. Even if this article is true, the agreements are still subject to modification after they're passed, but that shouldn't be good enough.

Those aren't the only bad parts of ACTA. Here are some more odious provisions, in my opinion:

* ACTA would impose the DMCA's "no circumventing DRM" clause everywhere
* ACTA imposes 3rd party liability for infringement everywhere (it already exists in the US & much of Europe)
* ACTA creates ISP safe harbors (plus notice & takedown), but raises the bar for qualification, e.g. ISPs must have some plan to curtail repeat infringement by subscribers
* ACTA offers statutory damages to copyright holder, as well as actual damages, and as Jammie Thomas can tell you, that wipes out any relevance to damage
* ACTA targets transferring pharmaceuticals across the border, which is mostly designed to get those going from Canada to the US
* ACTA requires criminal penalties for "willful" infringers, and their aiders/abettors, which is looser than the current US standard
* The forfeiture provision for large scale infringers is vague enough to possibly be a problem
* ACTA has broad

China, India, Pakistan, Brazil, New Zealand, & Japan really don't like it for a lot of reasons. To a some extent, the developing world doesn't like it because it would cost policing resources enforcing copyright/trademark when the resources are needed for more important activities, like stopping crimes. The US & Western Europe are the largest proponents.

You've stumbled onto the reason Larry Lessig left copyright reform to study government corruption.

Angle won't win because they won't have a suit. Righthaven, once recognizing their mark isn't an easy one, will drop Angle from the suit, and nothing will change.