You don't know shit then. Stop talking like you know America if you aren't from here, asshole.

We need to raise taxes on the rich back to what they were in the good old days Republicans pine for. Marginal tax rate of 90%. "Oh!" you whine, "Nobody paid that!" Yes, but they paid more than they do now and that's the point. Raise taxes on capital gains, raise corporate taxes, lower taxes for the middle class and boom! Deficit fixed.

Normal people are not lazy, they just don't want to be taken advantage of. The real drag on our economy is billionaires and other tax cheats.

Oh stop lying. You can't provide any evidence for any of your wild claims. You censorious assholes only ever talk in generalities. Be specific. What fucking books are you talking about?

What normal people have figured out is that it is the right wing and religious figures who are abusing kids. So many right wingers who shout "groomer!" have been caught with child porn. You disgust normal Americans.

We don't have a left wing in US politics. We have a center right party, and a far right party. Neoliberals want everything Reagan wanted, they are not left wing. And they are very authoritarian.

It is pretty obvious that the right wing is banning books and free speech. That's what you mean, right? The actual government telling you what you can and can't read, and what you can and can't wear.

Sorry, bud, but "normal people," which is to say the majority of Americans, support people living however they please. We are not authoritarian by nature, quite the contrary. We believe in individual rights to self expression, and if you don't, I kindly suggest it you may not be a real American.

As for left wing narratives, the majority of voters in both parties favor economic policies to the left of what we have now. Medicare is left wing socialism, and the most popular government program ever made. That's why people like you want to get rid of it, not because it doesn't work. You want to get rid of it because it does work, and people know it. Kinda plays hell with your "no government is good government" propaganda.

It's not just the third party apps that use the API. Almost all moderator tools do as well. And Reddit plans to charge its own unpaid moderators for that API use.

Nobody, and I repeat NOBODY in any position of power, authority or influence over the site has called for zero cost API usage.

There's a reason that sites publish APIs: scrapers. These are incredibly inefficient. If Reddit keeps the price where it is now, piracy is an option, and it will cost Reddit more than just lost ad revenue, it will cost them server CPU cycles.

In general children can enter into contracts but they can usually void the entire contract at will until they reach their majority. There are some exceptions, but the result is that no one wants to enter into contracts with them because as soon as it's inconvenient for the kid, they'll void it which can leave the other party in a fix.

I can't believe they're only talking about this now.

Semi-feral children can't light a fire inside the shell of a flatscreen TV and watch it for entertainment. The sets are too thin! That only works in the shell of a bulky CRT TV set. But everyone already replaced theirs years and years ago.

This is not the war between man and machine we were always promised and I find it very disappointing.

If you're going to use books strictly for decoration you can at least show off a bit by using real yet uncut books. There is literary precedent.

Can't have been -- the 'I' stands for 'Intelligence'

He's in his 70s, actually. And probably more on the ball than you give him credit for.

No.

It's an incentive. There are many other incentives as well, and often they are even stronger. Also note that the incentive provided by copyright is somewhat more complex than one might initially imagine.

In any event, I agree that copyright shouldn't be based on the life of the author; it should be for a predictable term of years, perhaps with the option to renew periodically, if desired at the time.

That's a poor assumption. In the US, copyright treaties have no meaningful legal effect; federal copyright law is what's in Title 17 of the US Code. We are actually in violation of a number of treaty provisions, but we don't care. (For example, check out WTO Dispute 160)

That being said, your analysis is basically correct with regard to the prima facie case of infringement. Frankly, it was clear enough that the court didn't need to spend much time on it.

That is correct. You can only distribute a copy, and a copy is defined in 17 USC 101 as basically being a tangible object in which a work is embedded. So a paper codex with a work printed in it is a copy of that work; a flash drive with a work stored in it is a copy of that work.

A digital file, divorced from any particular medium it's stored in, is not a copy. When you upload and download you're really just making a new copy because nothing physical is transferred from the server to the client.

But courts have persistently been calling it distribution for decades, even though it really ought to be public performance and display and contributory infringement to the other party making a copy. It is probably a lost cause at this point.