Yes our Civil Liberties are suffering but the attack is not directed at them.
The attack is from corporate interests bent on legislating their business model. They push and push and push our (supposed) representatives (Democrat, Republican AND third party) for business friendly legislation that makes it easier for them to "put the financial screws" to the consumer public to bolster profit margins. It is the consequences (intended or not) that continually erode Civil Liberties.
Nearly as corrosive is the oversensitivity and outrage mentality of so so many of the people. So many hurt people are going further and further out of their way to A) Find someone else to blame for their misery, and B) As misguided as it is they are trying to "bubble-wrap" the world so their offspring won't have to suffer as the feel that they did.
If you can't trip and fall then you can't ever learn how to pick yourself up.
Works cannot be "given" to the public domain. To the degree that members of a society are influenced by, love, or hate a "work" it is part of that societies culture, it IS public domain.
As has been said repeatedly copyright was conceived as an incentive to give creators the opportunity to benefit economically from the works they create, to give them the opportunity to create even more works. It is this incentive that is granted by the society as a privilege TO the creator.
Society wants the creators to create more, society does NOT want to create a welfare system to support a "creator" who does not create. That is not a creator, that is a parrasite on society.
Re: 5-10 level reply tree that can be 100+ replies
It would be very handy to be able to collapse threads at any point the "level" deepens. This would allow the reader to hide subsections of the "reply tree" to more easily follow a discussion, or at least the parts that interest the reader. You could even do some tracking about where readers collapse trees to provide some insight on how discussions are consumed and where discussions get "thread-jacked".
Even so the Supreme Court Ruling statement does not equate "deliberate unlawful copying" to theft. The statement is not a metaphor. It is written with figurative language to make a comparison, the point of which is to say that "deliberate unlawful copying" is no more or less unlawful than "unlawful taking of property than garden-variety theft." That is quite different that saying there are the same act.
If the law was written specifically to define how the gov't can "spy" on "foreigners" shouldn't the first sentence read:
"IT IS UNLAWFUL TO PERFORM ANY INFORMATION OR DATA GATHERING ON ANY UNITED STATES CITIZEN WITHOUT A COURT APPROVED WARRANT FOR SUCH ACTIONS. NO STATEMENT OR WORDING IN THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE USED OR INTERPRETED TO BE USED TO CIRCUMVENT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF US CITIZENS."
You and I pay for cable and then the cable co. sells programming time to infomercial producers. Depending on my schedule I can't even watch the regular "entertainment" programming I wanted cable for because there is "paid programming" on at that time of day/night.