thats why i have a 16 inch genuine gurkha kukri (masquerading as a display piece) on my night stand and a loaded .30 rifle in easy reach. i know how to use both and luckily havent had to do more than brandish them at the druggies looking for my apartments previous tenant (bad neighborhood). ANYONE who kicks my door in and enters without my permission will get 1 between the eyes. and i am a good shot. i can turn a nickel into a washer at about 100 yards if my scope is dialed in at least halfway decent.
saying that the h1n1 flu was prevented by measures taken, if it was such a risk then why didn't i get it? i haven't had a flu shot in 9 years. i was around several sick people in the flu season. never even got a cold. in fact now that i think about it, i haven't been sick once since i stopped getting flu shots. not once. also no one i was around a lot after being around sick people got sick either. that includes my immuno-compromised mother.
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Thomas Jefferson said that i believe.
when acta and other laws put fear of the government in the american public there WILL BE tyranny. maybe you want that but if that is so then i pity you. forgive me if i misunderstood your post
well, maybe its better to make a bit less money at first to keep people coming back, instead of screwing them right away and not have them come back at all. why? because as long as people get your product you have a chance for a sale if dont piss everyone off. once people get pissed your chance for any sales become precisely zero
this is a situation where you are damned if you do and damned if you dont. personally i agree mike. free speech is free speech is free speech. even though in this case its... wrong on way too many levels it is still free speech. although people tend to defend free speech only when it suits them then decry it when it doesnt. for example: i once saw an article on yahoo about a state (i think it was either arkansas or oklahoma, cant remember though) in which a guy was posting anti-muslim propaganda fliers at businesses and areas ran/owned/inhabited my those who were of the islamic religion, the people complained and the courts threw out the complaints on 1st amendment grounds. i personally disagree with the message on the fliers, but the man had the right to post them. muslims are not very well liked right now in many areas due to certain events that took place 8 years 3 months and 8 days ago (9/11) so the guy was immediately allowed to post them again if i remember correctly, correct me if im wrong. now here we have the (gasp!) immigration topic. some see it as unamerican. personally i dont think its all that bad of an idea, but because it doesnt suit some peoples opinion of how things should be, the unpopular speech is being stifled.
in closing: people are splitting hairs. they cant have it both ways, so people as a whole need to decide if they want free speech or censored speech. i personally go for free no matter the consequences
if an average citizen is seen using unlicensed material in something they create they get sued. it doesnt matter if it is accidental or not. it doesnt matter where they got it. they get sued. why is it that a corporation can get the benefit of the doubt (which is what you are giving them) but the lowly consumer cannot? someone i know was fined for using a virus scanner they got with a "1 year free" coupon. the coupon was legit. they got it from 3rd party but it was a legit coupon. they got fined for "pirating" the software anyway because the company dismissed the coupon after this person used it. the company admitted the coupon was real and dropped (and sent it to a collection agency afterwards, illegaly. zombie debt, look it up) the fine though. anyway what i am getting at (and what you missed) is: if we accidentally infringe why do we get fined, but the corporations get off without even a slap on the wrist?