interesting statistics - where did you get them from? We do not take such uncorroborated statements as fact - especially politically motivated ones.

ps: I agree with the sentiment

Okay, I'm not American, nor am I fully versed in American law, jurisprudence or Constitution. But isn't it written somewhere in your constitution that no person shall be denied life liberty etc, except by due process of law.

In this case, the due process was tainted by the judges payback from a corporation to send victims^H^H^H^H^H^H convictees to their facility for their own profit, and the judges profit as well. Having received 2.6 million in payback indicates that he sent a LOT of children there.

All of this judges decisions need to be reviewed, to see how many children were sent to these facilities unnecessarily, such as the student in the article. The children should be recompensed for their suffering and unconstitutional abridgment of their freedom for what is generally considered a misdemeanor, resulting in either warnings or community service, not incarceration.

Do it for the children!

I find that tag intriguing - where is it from?

I originally read this as " Robotic Prostheses For Human Feces". Cool - Bionic Poop!!! (and a fitting analogy for the patent ).

from tfa:

In May 2006 the company was raided by Swedish police who seized their servers and in January of last year the owners were charged with the copyright infringement.

What they purposely omit telling the rest of the world is the reaction to that seizure - a political crisis in Sweden, resulting in major embarrasment and public outcry for the illegal manner in which it was prompted by a government minister at foreign urging, and contrary to Swedish law.

For people who make a living out of creativity or in a creative business, there is scarcely anything more important than to have your rights protected by the law. Copyright exists to ensure that everyone in the creative world from the artist to the record label, from the independent film producer to the TV programme maker - can choose how their creations are distributed and get fairly rewarded for their work.

Nice statement, but somewhat disengenuous (sp). As a former musician, I can tell you that copyright is fine, though it needs adjustment to fit the current electronic form. We are protected by law. What we are not protected from are the criminals who have stolen the creative industry.

We are more interested in distribution and promotion, and those 2 areas are locked up by the criminal organizations behind this legal scam.

The concept of fairly rewarded means the distributor gets the gold, and the artist gets the least amount possible. In the entertainment 'family', the creators are simply meat, to be used and disposed of, while milking every possible dollar out of them.

And at every turn, it is the consumer that loses, wether it be DMCA takedowns of parody on youtube, DRM hacks on your consumables riping the functionality out of your electronics, or simply not being able to hear or see the evolution of art and culture due to the propensity of the industry to ensure only what 'they' consider worthy or profitable is marketed.

It has been said that talented people such as Buddy Holly, Frank Zappa or Graham Nash would not make it today, as they do not fit the industry mold. I believe this to be true.

The only place to truly evolve art and culture is within the bounds (and at the edges) of human experience, and not corporate or industrial dominance. Long live the indies.

Yeah, right.

It's technology - it's neutral. That argument is often used to justify one more nail in the coffin of what's left of the American illusion of freedom.

We need more police on the street - 'It Stops Crime'
We need more cameras on the street - 'It Stops Crime'
We need more informants - 'It Stops Crime'
We need your DNA - 'It Stops Crime'
We need your children to spy on you - 'It Stops Crime'

Here's an interesting thought - take DNA samples AFTER CONVICTION, or are we now presumed guilty until proven innocent (sounds like trying to prove you did not do something, and IIR, you can't prove a negative )