Yes, the Author's estate has been decided to also be included in this and can be willed just like any other asset the Author holds. However, they did not create new rights for the heirs, only allowed the inheritance of the existing rights. This is talking about creating new rights for the Broadcasters of said writings which is basically saying the "Broadcast" of the existing work is a completely new work and the Author is the broadcaster which is complete and utter BS. I can't wholesale copy someone else's work and then republish it as my own work with my own copyright (even with the Author's permission). The permission gives me the right to copy but does not give me a copyright to it, the Author maintains the copyright over the original and subsequent work.

You highlighted the wrong phrase that makes this unconstituional.

Uh, let me get this straight. An explosion happens in a cartoon and instead of being injured, maimed, or killed the character has his face covered in soot. This is racist? How?

Not quite, it is actually an extension of case #3 to cover all cars everywhere, all the time. If these things are everywhere, reading everyone's plates, and storing the data then they have a pretty effective (although maybe not entirely complete) GPS tracking of every car, where it's been, where it's going, and when it was there.

I propose a compromise. The Muni's should seize all the lines (cable/fiber) and lease it back to any ISP that wants to provide service. Viola competition.

I think that's close but then there are these types of stings which are (arguably) legal. An undercover cop asks you out of the blue if you want "a good time" or to pay for sex. It's out-of-the-blue because you were just driving by.

I don't know why i'll reply to am AC but I'll bite. No, your rights should not be stripped. However, your rights also should not carry over to the association and become the association's rights. The association has no rights (or shouldn't), only the individuals comprising it do.

First, there are many private industries involved in health care; pharmaceuticals, device manufacturers, private practices, hospitals, and insurance companies. They all profit off of pain and suffering or the curing thereof. The insurance companies are at the top and mark-up/profit off of everything that falls below them. What ACA did was force every consumer to buy health insurance from a private company - it does not provide for universal health care. It is ensuring, under the power of law, that the private health insurance industry receives business and generates profits. I'm not saying regulating health insurance is tyranny, I'm saying forcing the market to buy it is. They are separate and different issues. Just because they were lumped together in a single bill does not mean they cannot be debated as separate issues.

In fact, I have never once listened to Rush.

You may want to re-read my post as that isn't even close to what I said. I said mandating private industry profits via congressional edict (or via the force of law) is not freedom it is tyranny. I went further and said that it is still tyranny regardless of whether a person thinks it is the right thing to do or not.

Please explain to me how people who could not afford insurance before can magically afford it now? I live in MA where insurance was already mandated and subsidized-plans are available for low-income and there is a tax penalty for non-compliance. Guess what? We still have people who cannot afford and do not have health insurance. The only difference the law to made to those people is they now have a $300 penalty every year on their taxes and still no coverage. This is what will happen nationally, the people who this law was supposed to help will end up getting screwed on their taxes and still have no coverage.

Legislating private industry profits is not freedom it is tyranny regardless of whether you think it's the right thing to do or not.

Really? Considering they went up significantly immediately after the law was passed, I'd say this is now fact.

I take it one step further, logically. The current term (I believe) is the Life of the Author plus some additional years (like 70 or something ludicrous). Making the length of time be the life of the author makes the amount of time unlimited when looked at from the perspective of the author. It literally lasts for all the time they have in the world with no limits.

You don't have to accept it without evidence, I agree. But your bias shows in your dismissing it outright without evidence, or at least without citing any.

But you don't when they prescribe things that are just about as effective as a placebo? Your bias is showing.

Which Government? Federal, State or Local? When talking policy you have to be specific at which level of government you are talking about. Some policies are wrong for the Federal Government to enact but perfectly fine for State or Local government to (examples: health care, education) and this is due to the fact that the Constitution severely limits (spurious supreme court rulings aside) the power of the Federal Government, leaving all remaining powers to the States or to the People.