You have a problem and you think Perl provides the solution. Now you have two problems.

Go Niners!

If you want to change behaviour using sticks rather than carrots you do need to use an appropriate stick. Hitting an elephant with a matchstick probably won't influence his behaviour much, hitting him with a telegraph pole might get his attention.

If Google was fined $1,000,000 every time one of their employees gets caught speeding, they'd pretty soon figure out how to prevent their employees speeding (or at least getting caught)

Large cluster of Raspberry Pis

That way your qualifications won't matter and won't get in the way

Not much of a sailor on the cruiser. According to TFA he saw the sub 100-200 yds ahead and ordered "all back". Should have been hard a port or starboard

Why would you consider that to be an example of "fair use"? Looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Fair_use_under_United_States_law I get "purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright."

The band in question wouldn't be "forbidden" to make the cover, they would simply need to agree licensing terms with the copyright holder. That [licensing] sounds perfectly fair and reasonable to me, your "form of fair use" sounds like simple theft.

This is certainly the way I read it. I watched the video and almost as soon as Coyne started I felt my hackles rise. For a "scientist" he made a pathetic and childish argument, a sneering rant in fact.

If Jerry Coyne's the best science can come up with I'm going back to worshipping trees.

that everyone's patent laws were brought sharply up to date by restricting the term to TWO YEARS instead of the hugely anachronistic 20.

My final contribution on this matter before retiring to the pub is:

1) I accept that US copyright law appears to employ the concept of a copy owner, with associated rights.
2) I withdraw my comments about the GPL.
3) I cite below the relevant sections of the relevant UK law "The Copyright (Computer Programs) Regulations 1992"

New permitted acts in relation to computer programs
        8. After section 50 insert--

            Computer programs: lawful users

                        "Back up copies.
                                50A.--(1) It is not an infringement of copyright for a lawful user of a copy of a computer program to make any back up copy of it which it is necessary for him to have for the purposes of his lawful use.

                                (2) For the purposes of this section and sections 50B and 50C a person is a lawful user of a computer program if (whether under a licence to do any acts restricted by the copyright in the program or otherwise), he has a right to use the program.

                                (3) Where an act is permitted under this section, it is irrelevant whether or not there exists any term or condition in an agreement which purports to prohibit or restrict the act (such terms being, by virtue of section 296A, void).

                        Decompilation.
                                50B.--(1) It is not an infringement of copyright for a lawful user of a copy of a computer program expressed in a low level language--
                                    (a) to convert it into a version expressed in a higher level language, or
                                    (b) incidentally in the course of so converting the program, to copy it,
                        (that is, to "decompile" it), provided that the conditions in subsection (2) are met.

                                (2) The conditions are that--
                                    (a) it is necessary to decompile the program to obtain the information necessary to create an independent program which can be operated with the program decompiled or with another program ("the permitted objective"); and
                                    (b) the information so obtained is not used for any purpose other than the permitted objective.

                                (3) In particular, the conditions in subsection (2) are not met if the lawful user--
                                    (a) has readily available to him the information necessary to achieve the permitted objective;
                                    (b) does not confine the decompiling to such acts as are necessary to achieve the permitted objective;
                                    (c) supplies the information obtained by the decompiling to any person to whom it is not necessary to supply it in order to achieve the permitted objective; or
                                    (d) uses the information to create a program which is substantially similar in its expression to the program decompiled or to do any act restricted by copyright.

                                (4) Where an act is permitted under this section, it is irrelevant whether or not there exists any term or condition in an agreement which purports to prohibit or restrict the act (such terms being, by virtue of section 296A, void).

                        Other acts permitted to lawful users.
                                50C.--(1) It is not an infringement of copyright for a lawful user of a copy of a computer program to copy or adapt it, provided that the copying or adapting--
                                    (a) is necessary for his lawful use; and
                                    (b) is not prohibited under any term or condition of an agreement regulating the circumstances in which his use is lawful.

                                (2) It may, in particular, be necessary for the lawful use of a computer program to copy it or adapt it for the purpose of correcting errors in it.

                                (3) This section does not apply to any copying or adapting permitted under section 50A or 50B.