Well, this particular twerp wasn't actually elected. And for what it's worth, Labour's poll numbers are in the low twenties right now. (Besides, if you're an American then you're not really one to talk, now, are you?)

Their policies go far further than that - take a look at their proposed Freedom Bill. They're the only major party worth voting for on civil liberties right now, as far as I can tell.

Most lawsuits against people without serious money don't have a few million in potential damages at stake. Or an army of lawyers backing the plaintiff, with the accompanying promise that even if grandma is innocent the case is going to be dragged out until she's bankrupt. Or the "generous" immediate settlement offer of "only" ten thousand or so. And the justifications tend to pass the laugh test. And I suspect most people would stop at suing one helpless target.

In short, most lawsuits aren't naked extortion on a massive scale. These are.

(Disclaimer: I neither download nor buy, although I find the idea of piracy far more moral than the idea of giving these scumbags a single penny.)

Bullshit. I've seen a lot of people who thought America was losing, saw the amount of damage its presence was causing Iraq, and wanted to pull out and cut losses all round. I haven't seen anyone this side of a straw man who actually wanted Iraq to be a clusterfuck and hundreds of thousands to die just to discredit Bush. This guy, on the other hand, wants a complete economic collapse - which, at the end of the day, would probably have a similar death toll - just to discredit Obama.

On the other hand, pure avian flu wasn't spreading rapidly from human to human. It might be an over-reaction, but I think it's a stretch to call racism the primary motivation. (Of course, I don't live in the US...)

On the other hand, as someone who neither downloads nor buys, I'd say it's more moral to pirate than give those thieving bastards a single cent. So while a total boycott is the ideal solution (if only to deny them their nice shiny piracy statistics as a justification for lost sales), if people are going to give in and get the music then I'd rather they... well, not buy it!

No, max(author's lifetime, 25 years) would be reasonable. Just because since there are a few cases in which extending copyright past the author's death is justifiable doesn't mean it's still justifiable when the author has already profited from their work for seventy years.

Actually, it's none of the above - the queen specifically asked for the iPod (see here). I agree it would be nice to force the RIAA into commenting on legality, though.

Riposte is that every single Republican was happy with this "compromise", while the majority of Democrats were against it. There's a difference between compromise and unconditional surrender.