Let's see, you're running a highly successful criminal organisation, and up comes somebody and spills the beans?
Of course you hate him!
(Yesyes, it's of course a well-known phenomenon that you now see yourself as the victim, even if you were the one running an organized crime ring. It doesn't change the fact that YOU are the perpetrator, the criminal who did immeasureable damage to people and society).
The Advocate-General is an idiot who does not know the Law
Copyright is, and was, ALWAYS about publishing. And never about "receiving" or "getting" something.
Now, just about every copyright law on earth is about this. Except the german one, they recently included a paragraph where they made "downloads from an illegally published source" illegal. Which is of course an epitome of stupidity, because no one except a judge can tell whether something was "illegally published".
Furthermore of course, everyone is a copyright holder. I have a blog, I post photographs on the internet, thus a lot of what I am doing is copyright protected. Now, what happens if you download a picture of a cute cat from the internet, which somebody put up there, without having it made himself? If the AGs view of the law was only remotely correct? Yep, copyright violation. Because nobody ever gave you an explicit permission. In fact, if the AG were right, we'd find hundreds if not thousands of files (especially emails!) on his computer which would constitute a copyright violation according to his own misinterpretation of the law. I could even make him break the law by e-mailing him something which I do not have the necessary publishing rights for. Ridiculous.
Or let's take another angle: How do I now some TV-station has the necessary rights to show a movie that was obviously made by someone else? Do they need to publish all the contracts they have with the movie studio? Because if they don't everyone can call "copyright violation". And the movie studios, do they need to publish all contracts with the people that actually made the movie, because otherwise anyone can call them for "copyright violation"? It's probably not what the AG was thinking of, which just shows he wasn't probably thinking at all...
In other words, its totally, completely, utterly impossible to know if _anything_ is "legally published". Yes, it's possible for the copyright-holder to recognize his own work, and then for a judge to decide whether that claim has any merit. But before that happens, nobody can really know.
And that is the reason, (most) copyright laws are not about the receiving but only the publishing end.
Ah, forget it, whether this comes out or not won't make a dent. There's enough material already out there to try the whole executive, the uppermost NSA echelon, a lot of people in the USTR and many more as traitors -- Sadly, the law not as succinct as it could be:
"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."
But given that the sovereign of the United States is its people, something could probably be constructed. Especially, declaring a US citizen "enemy combatant" would actually make you a traitor, since you wage war against him, and thus the US. Even if you are the government (The right way to do it would be trying him as a traitor, of course; but NOT as "enemy combatant").
He wasn't just there, he also worked for the Economist:
The granting [of] patents ‘inflames cupidity', excites fraud, stimulates men to run after schemes that may enable them to levy a tax on the public, begets disputes and quarrels betwixt inventors, provokes endless lawsuits...The principle of the law from which such consequences flow cannot be just. -- The Economist, July 26, 1851
(Yes, there's a reason for linking to the "Ciba-Geigy"-part. Because Alphons Koechlin-Geigy, of that very same family, argued AGAINST patents in 1878 when he was president of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economiesuisse)
There was a law from 1801 -- when Switzerland did not exist, and the region was annexed by Napoléon. After the Fall of Napoleon, two Cantons, Tessin and Solothurn, kept the patent law, and they were ditched 1848 as Switzerland became a Nation.
And another one, a "real" patent law, came 1888. There was quite a big discussion about it, if you read german, here's some sources:
This is NOT about property. Patents are NOT property. Patents are not even a license do do something, but a license to KEEP SOMEBODY ELSE FROM DOING IT.
Translated to property, it gets totally absurd. It's not like owning a house, but having the right to throw out anyone wanting to live in it. And since there are hundreds of other patents, held by other people, each and every one of those have the same right to throw out anyone wanting to live in that house.
Obviously, this has nothing to do with property, instead it's nothing more than an acquirable RIGHT OF SPITE.
Market is market. And book prices are totally out of the roof, with no basis in reality.
The only market where prices seem to reflect some reality is actually computer games. Take a look at steam or gog.com, and you'll see how much the market is working. And the prices are NOT what every publisher think they should be. But so is the amount of goods sold -- higher than anyone would expect.
And I'm a typical "victim" of that market -- I've got more games than I ever might play. Still, they were cheap... The same could be true for the book or movie market IF they would price them right. I simply would buy more than I could ever read or watch.
I'm completely baffled why _law enforcement agencies_ are backing these hare-brained schemes.
Any forensic technician can tell you, that with such malware on a computer, you've got a broken chain of evidence. You cannot prove anymore that the user of that computer was actually committing a crime. It could just as well been perpetrated by the agent controlling the malware.
So any government installed malware is completely, utterly, unusable for law enforcement purposes.
Of course, intelligence agencies give a damn about any chains of evidence; so they might like it.
s/should/can/ It's impossible to copyright facts.
(a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories:
(1) literary works;
(2) musical works, including any accompanying words;
(3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music;
(4) pantomimes and choreographic works;
(5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;
(6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
(7) sound recordings; and
(8) architectural works.
there is no category "information" there. And as long as you don't enact any stupid "Leistungsschutzrecht", there is no way that there CAN be any rights on it.
I wouldn't say Obama; he's certainly one of the bigger enemies of the people of the United States; but there's a whole lot of bureaucrats, policy-makers and people in the government (and people formerly in the government) that qualify just as much. Dick Cheney and Henry Kissinger come to mind..