"Anyone notice how all those old school rules are really about maximizing label profits by screwing over the artist?"
Actually, I hadn't noticed that. How does refusing to sell things in Australia until they're not cool anymore maximize label profits? I see your explanation of "billing the artist for each release", but that seems weak.
You do realize that anywhere that lots of people go qualifies as a "shooting gallery", right? Malls, schools, restaurants, department stores, airport security lines, and lots of other things all qualify as shooting galleries. Not supporting them would be beyond impractical.
I can always talk to the people around me, but do you have any idea how limiting it feels to even think about having that as the only good option? If what you seem to be getting at came to pass, I'd be cut off from almost all of our culture and have to make do with whatever the people who happen to live in the same geographical area as me come up with. Why would I ever want to be restricted to talking to whoever happened to buy a house near my parents or go to the same college I am? How could segregating society in such a manner possibly be acceptable?
"Using your criteria, there would be no such thing as non-governmental action in the law."
Congress making no law that abridges freedom of speech certainly sounds like it isn't limited to Congress not passing laws that allow Congress to abridge freedom of speech. Using your criteria, Congress could make a law that allows private firms to remove anything criticizing them from the Internet, and it would be perfectly okay because it wouldn't be the government removing criticism of itself.
"This company using patent law to assert its rights is no more government action than someone suing under the Bill of Rights for violation of their right to peaceably assemble."
Well, it's certainly not a government-independent action. Let's see someone try doing that in a country where the government doesn't afford them First Amendment protections.
If someone wants the product in a country it isn't sold in, that person doesn't have any legitimate options. "Respecting the content providers" would mean not getting it at all.
If someone wants the product sooner than the content provider has decided to allow them to buy it, that person doesn't have any legitimate options. Respecting the content providers would mean waiting until whoever makes release decisions decides that they want to make money off of DVD sales. If someone gets something before its producer decides to sell it, it's the producer's fault that they didn't buy it.
If someone just wants a product cheaper, okay. There's a lot of things I don't buy because they're too expensive. It's a perfectly reasonable decision by the producer, but they have no right to complain when the people who aren't willing to spend that much money on their product don't. If they want the people who want it cheaper to buy it, they can lower the price, and if they think they're okay without those people buying it, they can keep the price the same. The situation and solution are the same regardless of whether piracy is involved or not.
Probably. Measuring the existence of a particle isn't the kind of thing that can be easily faked by some delayed messaging. Those are very complicated readings, and the fact that they're showing us exactly what we expected to find would be an incredible coincidence if it turned out to be faulty equipment. The neutrino story, on the other hand, made about as much sense as this. That bumped up the chance of wrongness there.
There is a patent for looking at the Internet on a smartphone? What dumbass decided that was novel? Hell, it's not just smartphones! My laptop can qualify as a wireless device! This is completely fucking ridiculous!