Which was exactly my point - you ban these things because the potential harm outweighs the benefit gained by allowing it.

The arguments against endorsing violent video games seem to me a factual debate - do they cause harm? There is evidence that they do: the question is how much harm - is it to all, or just those with an existing propensity for violence?

The evidence is similar to the 'cigarettes cause cancer' debate: the effects are only seen in the long term, and at this stage the evidence is anecdotal but not proven. If signs of harm continue to show in 10 years I am all for banning the games. But by then if the harm as bad as suggested, wouldn't it have been easier to ban them in the first place?

-1 Flamebait? Really?

You don't universally ban/restrict child porn because SOME people will become paedophiles.
You don't universally ban/restrict drink driving because SOME people will cause accidents.
You don't universally ban/restrict race hate propaganda because SOME of the population breaks the law.

etc...

We could add the same common sense reasoning to other material known to cause harm for some, like violent video games, and so on.

All Hail Grandma Natzi.

Teaching users to change their behaviour?!? I wanted a real solution - with more code.

I'm sure he will find a way back from the grave / freezer to sue you for breach of copyright.

... oh wait - that was the other Walt.

Or better yet shut up in general. Defamation cases have paid out on less than you posted above - especially as on the internet they could forum shop for whatever country had more favourable laws. Don't get me wrong - I'm all for sticking it to the man... but for god's sake finish the case (including all appeals) before you go blab, let alone publish a book (ie 7+ years after you actually get paid following a judgement).

After the bug deletes all your friends... Tom is added.

He was feeling all left out when everyone left myspace.

You are missing the role of discretion - there should be and is a controlled level of freedom for officers (and judges / juries) to choose - that is, to interpret the law based on their own first hand experience. This is (or should be) limited by reasonable standards, but the officer is usually in the best place at the time to determine the difference between an aggressive disagreement, and assaulting someone.

Some claim he left a power of attorney:

God, c/o His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI
Apostolic Palace
VATICAN CITY

I'm sure there is an intelligent design troll to be found here somewhere.

... or at least an intelligent troll designing something.

In the recent iiNet case (Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Limited (No. 3) [2010] FCA 24), using BT to share a file, no matter how many times the file was downloaded, how long it was available, or who each part was downloaded from, were considered a single infringement. The decision is being appealed but the decision will still be persuasive for 2 years or so.

Talking from Australian law here (I believe it is substantially similar in most commonwealth countries):

Copying exists when any 'substantial part' is copied [Copyright Act 1968 (Cth)]. There is no strict 10% cutoff, nor any set %. It is however common policy not to copy over this to be on the safe side (you will find posters and notices about this in most libraries).

Main reason for the 10% suggestion is the case 'University of New South Wales v Moorhouse' regarding authorisation infringement. It is more about protecting the library than any allowance individual copying.

As a law student - "reasonable timeframe", and "reasonable period of time" are examples of perfectly airtight legal language.

Pretty much all laws </exaggeration> have some sort of 'reasonable man' component, which is so abstract as to be anything but reasonable. But without the ambiguity the law would be arbitrary and wouldn't support justice. And by justice I mean billable hours.

Unfortunately they usually become lawyers.

Something you are... or were before I took your hand / eyeball / DNA.