unless --- they are perform content-based censorship and their censors (human/automated?) fail anything they can't read.
Since the book is bilingual (ie everything written in Cornish is repeated in English) even that excuse fails.
Furthermore I would say that copyright acts as a magnet to the dregs of humanity. Its promise of a income (effectively) for ever in exchange for no further effort brings out the worst in people (and brings the worst people in!).
Look at the kibnd of people who run the gatekeepers, the kind of creators who proactively defend copyright - and - yes - the trolls round here - and you will see what I mean.
For you, anyway, it's about taking away the rights of authors and artists. Your rhetorical move in focusing on these evil "gatekeepers" is cute (and I'm sure effective), but at bottom you don't think authors and artists should have any rights to their works.
I suggest you actually read the linked article, which was written by an author who explicitly said that he thought his "rights" were less important than the integrity of the internet and he was prepared to abandon them if the damage caused by keeping them was too great.
Because they were told that specific shippers were shipping illegal drugs, and they continued doing business with them anyway
I've read your link - and I don't think it says what you think it says.
In any case it is not illegal to do business with someone merely because they have previously been caught doing something illegal. As the UPS terms of service state, responsibility for any illegal shipment lies clearly with the client and not with UPS. The legality or otherwise of shipments is judged individually.
The only possible case the DOJ has against UPS is that they were actively targeting illegal business, and even there it is not entirely clear what law it is that they are breaking.
The evidence for that, given your link, is at best muddy
The whole thing looks more like "pay 40 million to make this go away" than anything else.
Funny thing is - I take his argumetn about the impossibility of distinguishing between "discoveries" and "inventions" and I can't disagree with any of it. The only thing is - I come to the exact opposite conclusion: NOTHING should be patentable.
Come to think of it, how can a tax be collected if the goods are coming from another country - say China for example? Will they monitor all courier, mail, or shipping services?
Come on a trip to the UK. Now buy something direct from the US. You will find out that the answer to that question is (unfortunately) yes.
The solution to the US problem is to introduce a national sales tax and abolish the local sales taxes. Then redistribute the proceeds to the states. That way you will get a level playing field whilst continuing to raise the revenue.
this particular quote in no way says what Mike is saying it does.
Well the quote is objecting to the combination of emotional appeals and online petitions. Since these people use emotional appeals all the time the only reasonable interpretation is that it is the online petitions bit that they really don't like!
The base version of PGP was created as free software - and would not have survived otherwise. Having a company making money from pgp at that stage wouold simply have created a target for attack by the authorities.
Winrar is not better than 7 zip - WinraR IS A PAIN precisely because it isn't free. 7 zip is better by being free. It means I don't get nagged every time I want to decompress someone else's file.
Audacity is good enough for my needs so I have no incentive to find out whether there is a better "paid" option out there.
Same is true of PowerDVD vs vlc - in fact all those paid options have one thing in common. They constantly hassle their users to upgrade to a new version and pay more money.
As far as anti-virus is concerned - well if we didn't have a vulnerable (paid) OS in the first place we wouldn't need any of them!