There is a third option, which is just living without it.
I just can't help but laugh every time I see this line, given how ultimately destructive it would be for the 'entertainment' industry if people took this option more often.
If someone pirates, they might not be paying now, but given multiple studies have found that those that pirate more also tend to buy more, there's at least fair odds that if someone pirates they might end up buying later on, should they find the quality acceptable*.
However, if someone really took to mind the idea of 'living without it', you know how much the studio/label/company is getting from that person, at that point, and in the future?
They're not getting money now, and odds are they're not getting it ever, because there's always more out there, and if someone is really going the path of 'do without', then they're going to find that other content, and end up completely forgetting about the previous show/music/movie.
*Not to defend piracy mind, personally I'm against it for several reasons, 'It's a waste of time, why go through the hassle when there's so much stuff legally available, offered at a decent price and on decent terms from companies/groups that don't hold a seething contempt for their customers?' being one of the major ones.
Well to be fair, they are a pretty contemptible and cowardly group, so 'Contempt of Congress' is generally seen as more 'common sense' than 'crime' these days, and even if Congress does get angry, so what, it's not like they have the guts to do anything about it.
Yup, you lot just keep pretending that this has anything to do with enforcing copyright law, rather than creating new parts to it that currently don't exist, maybe eventually someone who isn't already taking home a paycheck from the 'entertainment' industry will believe you.
Normally, they should want to reveal such things to the NSA to help with protecting networks.
Umm, who would ever be so stupid as to point out a security vulnerability to the NSA in hopes of protecting a network?
That's like pointing out that a house filled with valuables has a broken lock on the back door, absent owners, and no video security, to a well known gang of B&E experts, there's only one real possible end to that, and it's not 'improved security'.
Disgusting and telling I'd say, as cases like this make it abundantly clear that the government and it's agencies don't see themselves in any way, shape or form as serving the public, but rather as rulers over the public.
A boss can question their employees, but the reverse is not true, so the fact that the government believes itself above reproach or question makes it pretty clear just which position they believe they hold.
Ideally yes, but in this case that's irrelevant, as they found a real winner in the judge, who was either so incompetent, or corrupt, that destruction of evidence be damned, that student was getting charged!
Reading that... every single on of those people other than the victim is rotten all the way through.
First you've got the school administrators, who seem to believe the best way to have a 'bully-free school' is by ignoring any evidence that there even are bullies, and punishing anyone who dares to show how wrong they are.
Then you've got that moronic, over-trained idiot of an officer, so desperate to find something, anything to charge the victim with that they're even calling up the DA to find something, while also not giving a damn about the actual victim here.
I'd throw equal blame on the DA, but that's almost like blaming a fish for breathing water. Their entire job is to throw the book at people and get convictions, and as story after story has made clear, they don't particularly care who the target is, as long as they can get that extra feather for their cap.
And finally, the judge... where to even start with that one... it's pretty obvious the judge had already made up their mind before the defense had even said a word, simply by the fact that they were there in court.
After all, they're the defendant, that automatically means they're guilty, right? Innocent people would never find themselves in that position! /s
The judge had quite obviously entered the court-room with massive blinders on, willing only to see the evidence they wanted to see, seeing the school as some perfect paragon of justice that could never screw up(or be so incompetent or corrupt) so badly that they threw a victim of bullying into the meatgrinder rather than go after the actual bullies.
This was a case where the judge recusing themselves from the case was not only a good idea, but pretty much required for any semblance of 'justice' to ever make it into the ruling, as the judge was obviously biased towards one of the parties from the start.
I can only hope this travesty of justice gets appealed, hopefully to a judge not so biased or blind, and those involved named and shamed for their disgusting actions.
If this is any indication, he isn't, the judge has already made up his mind and the entire thing is just about going through the motions.
Ordering anything and everything to do with the case sealed, even things that have no classified information whatsoever in them makes it pretty clear the judge has already bought the government's argument in it's entirely.
I'm confused, do none on those in Congress or the Senate have the power to order those document to be handed over, and/or the answers given, no matter how much the FBI might want to stonewall or refuse to answer?
Either Congress and the Senate really are powerless to do anything, or they're too cowardly to actually do so, and the other agencies/branches know it.
With how convoluted the legal systems are(pick a country, they're all guilty of this), and how many laws there are on the books, not doing anything obviously illegal might seem fairly easy, but not doing anything illegal? All but impossible.
Here's one of the big differences: Global warming? That has scientific backing, and a lot of it. There may be some minor quibbles over whether or not it's human driven, but the scientific consensus is pretty solidly on the side that it is happening.
The idea that everything in the universe, or even just the solar system revolves around the earth, rather than the sun? That has the exact opposite of scientific backing, to the point that any reputable scientist or person that knows anything about the field, and isn't getting their 'scientific knowledge' from a couple thousand years old book, will point out how arrogant, egotistical and laughable such an idea is, with pretty much no actual real science behind it.
Except no, that line does in fact essentially wipe away the wrongdoing, because it re-phrases all of it from 'excessive, unneeded use of force', which is a crime(well, except when a cop does it apparently), into 'self-defense', which is not a crime.
Saying in the report that they use force when it's excessive, or would unnecessarily escalate the situation is meaningless, if at the end it's all just hand-waved off as 'fully justified self-defense'.
Now, I would be pleased as can be to be proven wrong here, and all it would take would be seeing some of the cops who are doing the stuff called out in the report charged, tried, and thrown in jail(remember, this is not just some harmless stuff, people have been assaulted and killed by the police there).
However, I get the strangest feeling not a one of them will face any real punishment(or at most a few 'not-a-team-player' sacrificial officers might be tossed under the bus), even with this report, as if the department was really interested in dealing with the sadistic thugs they've got on the force, they'd have done it a long time ago, instead of let it get so bad that the freakin' DOJ thought an investigation was needed.
The lawyer's getting paid whether they win or lose in court.
They might get an extra percentage if they win, but that's just icing on the cake, and if worse comes to worse, the lawyer will likely come out without a scratch, while their client is the one that'll suffer the PR backlash, so even if they do think it's a crazy lawsuit, they don't exactly have much reason to object too strongly, especially given that, like you said, if they object too much they'll probably just be fired and replaced with a more 'agreeable' lawyer.