Yes, in short politicians have to accept that sometimes the rule of law, due process and fairness mean that we simply have to take the hit of terrorism. If you think rationally it isn't a big hit. After all the entire history of international terrorism has claimed fewer lives (worldwide) than one year of road deaths in the US alone.
The constitution gave the right to set copyright laws to Congress. It was the express intention of the constitution writers to clear up the mess of state copyright laws that had already begun to cause problems by handing over the authority to set copyright laws to Congress.
Why do 90% of the artists they sign never see a dime in royalties? Is it because the labels stiff them and take all the money for themselves? If so, has any of the artistes sued the labels? Did the union take action on the artistes' behalf?
Reda Courtney Love's article for a an artist's eye view on this:
However I would suggest that the reason why many artists now fail to make (much) money is that technology (the internet - but also cheap recording equipment etc) has lowered the cost of entry - consequently many more people are trying to make a living and the increased competition has made life harder for some artists. This view is backed by the one (fairly) major recording artist that I know personally.
However, these claims that piracy will "stop the music" are ludicrous. At worst, it will stop some artists from producing their art, but there are uncountable numbers of artists who produce art because they love to produce art. Those will continue.
To me it seems that the net effect will be positive. Good artists with talent, enthusiasm and a message to communicate will continue. Those whose only motivation is money and who churn out dreary samey stuff that only succeeds through exp-ensive promotion will stop.
The act gives a definition of terrorism as an act or threat "designed to influence the government", that "is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause" and that would pose a "serious risk" to the health or safety of a section of the public.
Those negotiating "corporate sovereignty" deals wouold certainly fit the definition.
I'm just a small-time hobbyist when it comes to electronics, but of all the meters I've seen they've been yellow and grey if and only if they've been Flukes.
I'm currently looking at a yellow and grey multimeter. It isn't a Fluke. (and that isn't a fluke in the other sense either because other meters I've had have been similar colours - none of them Flukes). By a pure fluke my wife just showed me a picture of a ruggedise mobile phone - guess what - it's yellow and grey. Those colours are a universal code for "ruggedised". The yellow has a practical value as a high visibility colour.
Re: Jobs jobs jobs ... it is not jobs that we need
That still leaves a problem of redistribution.
By default a tiny fraction of the population will live as you say (because they own the machines, the "intellectual property" or the land). A substantial chunk will be employed in law enforcement to protect them from the remainder, who will be at the mercy of whatever benefits regime is politcally fashionable.
The US plea bargain system really sucks - in the UK he might have been able to fight - and win - like Clive Ponting. Although after that case the government did change the law one suspects that a modern jury in the UK would ignore it and do the same as Ponting's jury.
I also note how history has been rewritten in the linked article - at the time that Higgs came up with the Higgs model he wasn't "trying to understand the origin of mass" - at least not directly. They were trying to resolve the difficulties of two other mechanisms/models - that were already well known. Yang and Mills's non-abelian gauge theory and Goldstone's spontaneous symmetry breaking. The latter gave mass to one particle at the expense of creating another one that HAD to be massless whilst the former also seemed to give rise to massless particles. Now there would be no problem with this but for the fact that we don't see the massless particles - the ones we do have (eg the photon) don't have the right "signature".
What Higgs did was to put the two theories together, stir the mathematical pot a bit and then... Voila! the two sets of massless particles stuck together and became massive as if by magic.
The remaining problem was that we didn't see the massive particles either.
Of course if you can't see a massive particle that isn't a problem - it may just mean you haven't cranked up you particle accelerator enough.
For the last 50 years physicists have been progressively cranking up their accelerators - and finally they found all the massive particles - the lst being the so called Higgs itself.