How about require that a salesman verbally confirm that you understand those things before selling it to you? Of course then you get into "I don't remember agreeing to that!" territory verbally, which is is even harder to confirm... hmm...
Nope, I guess the only way to make these things safe and fair to consumers is a transparent Opt-In.
The estate of William Shakespeare, playwright, has announced a class-action lawsuit against every living and dead speaker of the English language who spoke or wrote in English between January 1, 1601 and the present day. They cite the flagrant appropriation, use, and misuse of hundreds of instances of Mr. Shakespeare's intellectual property. The suit has be brought in East Texas, due to the "especially odious" nature of the abuse of the IP in question in that district.
I like to think that the various free BSDs and Linux offer each other healthy competition, I'd prefer to see them both around in the future. An attack on Linux hurts the whole open source software community, not just the distribution in question.
The problem with takedowns being used to avoid liability is that it creates a chilling effect on free speech. "Be careful, because a single item that a company wants gone could lead to your entire website being taken down, possibly at great cost to you." Even if the claim is illegitimate, a host may take your site down to cover THEIR butt. And once again, a takedown in one jurisdiction applies everywhere, and if instead they try some kind of filtering technique, it will inevitably be ineffective. Even if no one claims that their laws apply everywhere, any enforcement on the internet is effectively acting like they do.
A directed attack on linux would probably be multi-vectored. Someone going for money won't be trying to completely take down linux as a force in the market, even if they could have that effect. Intent does matter.
In that case they should be held liable according to the procedures of that jurisdiction.
This is the problem with trying to regulate the internet. ANY website is accessible (by default) ANYWHERE in the world. Enforcing a law on a website in one jurisdiction expands the jurisdiction of that law to the entire world. ACTA to the contrary, the DMCA and its associated procedures apply only in the United States. GoDaddy, as a service, may be in violation of laws in various places. Who has juristdiction, however, is a difficult question. Is it the nation in which it is incorporated? The nation where its headquarters are? The nation where it does the plurality of its business? Any nation in which it does ANY business? Does Angola receive a claim to jurisdiction over all of godaddy's holdings if a single customer there does business with them? This is why the DMCA has safe harbors, but not all countries provide such protection. The issues go on and on.
There is not an International Court of the Internet to pass judgement on the border-transcending entities that are modern websites. As long as there are multiple nations in the world with extremely different laws, there never will be. And therefore the internet will continue to lie above and beyond political boundaries, and true regulation will remain always out of reach.
And that's a good thing. In the meantime, arbitrary divisions of jurisdictions do exist, and people will proceed to regulate within them, while trying to regulate everywhere. Good luck forcing your laws to apply in every other nation in the world. As long as the internet exists in its current form, roadblocks like that will be routed over, under, around and through. And those whose existence depends on barriers will fade into irrelevance like the tollbooths they man.
That was one of my favorite magazines when I was younger, but the quality declined and I lost interest, and I found it in fewer places anyway. Looking at a recent issue, I was surprised by the lack of content.
Like pretty much anything combining news and dead trees these days, I find it redundant now. I guess I'm kinda the archetypical consumer of news these days in that respect.