I am inclined to disagree, when sqooshing spiders and especially aforementioned bookscorpions on a not perfectly even surface paperback books are far superior, though newspapers are still best suited for this task.
I recently decided against applying for a job in Florida which I'd probably have gotten, since the person doing the hiring asked me whether I'd be interested. Why? Because of everything AC stated. I don't want to go to your country and get sued for millions of dollars for having done something which is legal here. Perhaps I know something they don't.
Sad but true... Time to stop putting any money whatsoever in big content's pockets. Luckily my most recent fave musician is self published, so buying from him doesn't leave a bad aftertaste. Other than that I don't need to buy anything new to entertain me for the rest of my life, so they can rot, I'll just rewatch/reread/replay the stuff I already own.
I'm not going to take your post seriously, your punctuation says enough about you. The only times you've used caps are for "I", "US" and US Law. And I'm not even sure that "L" is supposed to be capitalized.
"standards are different"
The Nazi's had different standards too, 'nuff said.
I've spent the past 30 minutes trying to decide where to even begin shooting holes into your argumentation. And have subsequently concluded that it's probably going to waste a lot of my precious time with little to no avail. Your comment about the British Empire says enough, they most definitely could have promoted free trade between the ENTIRETY of the empire and the rest of the countries in the world (yes, there's more to the world than just the British Empire) even if those were colonialistic empires too.
If you're just here to spout a "rich EVIL, copyright GOOD" message, you should find yourself a different audience.
True, the comparison is stupid. It should be "just as if you wrongfully copied your neighbor's house and watched the copied television for a week, or used the car you copied from them" Then how on earth do I interfere with their property?
Most of the larger "standard" textbooks are unrealistically expensive. Even compared to other scientific books. I have free access to a lot of material on Campus, because our University Library pays millions each year to get campuswide access to a large number of magazines (needless to say I save anything and everything I ever look at to my harddisk in case I lose access). Practicing science is becoming ridiculously expensive and at the cost of quality too. It's like being in a library where you can see the stuff you need is on the shelf and you can read the backs of the books, but for most you have to pay huge amounts to actually be allowed to look inside. So what happens is you just copy a lot of the stuff you need from books/articles from fellow students/professors who already paid up. Or go on a downloading spree when visiting a foreign university which does have access (seen it happen). It's really sad that sometimes you can see from an article that the authors simply haven't had access to the newest material available and end up supporting outdated theories.
Copyright supporting science? Get a grip, all it does is hinder it. If you ask me scientific publishers are the most disgusting ones around.
I think the part about stress is true, but I don't know about the calming effect. I tend to read cute manga oneshots in the morning when I'm in a slump to cheer me up and relieve stress, but the super happy feeling tends to make me hyper instead of clam. Cute cat videos have the same effect on me (but it might be just me XD).
I'd typed up something myself, but you've said it so much better. This is exactly the reason I pirate.
+1 for insightful
I'd like to add that free online music 'alternatives' aren't always true alternatives since people who work for a living often listen to music at times when they have no access to internet and don't have the spare time to spend hours browsing and listening online during their free time.
I'm not really surprised by this. I read the brochure/party program for the Dutch PP and that one was also pretty moderate. I also don't think there are many people who really think IP should be completely abolished, I think this point is what most people are after:
"Legalization of free, non-commercial copying of all creative works online"
It's not so much that everyone should be allowed to sell Harry Potter books or whatever which they printed themselves and earn money without anything going to the rightsholder, but that you shouldn't be at risk of being disconnected from your internet, getting huge fines or even ending up in prison just for sharing what you like for free. I know it's not as bad in Europe as it is in other places, but there is definitely room for improvement. And I think a surprisingly large amount of younger voters do understand this, I mean even my little brother gets this. He actually DIDN'T want to vote PP at first because he thought they wanted to abolish IP. We both voted PP btw, unfortunately the elections were completely overshadowed by other subjects and the PP didn't get a seat. Plus here in the Netherlands downloaders aren't persecuted (yet).
I don't really think it needs to be abolished, but both copyright and patents definitely need (much) shorter terms and stronger and guaranteed exceptions (non commercial file sharing, educational purposes and the like), maybe making them non-transferrable except by inheritance would be good too. The idea of IP isn't bad, it's the current laws and execution of it which are. Patents and copyrights give artists and inventors some rights to what they come up with and allows them to earn money more easily.