Let me add one more point: the idea that each subscriber has his own antenna, and that the antenna is the sole source of the signal he receives is pure smoke and mirrors.
The issue is not whether the antenna is the sole source of the signal (though it is), the issue is whether the signal from the antenna ends up going to anybody other than the antenna's owner (renter, actually).
I'm not familiar with the story about which you speak (a link would be appreciated), however, the New York Public Library (about a week ago) released scans of their collection of public domain maps, for no fee.
Your point is well-taken for the sense of copying in a manner that might qualify as infringement under current laws. But in the broader sense of copying, it is undeniable that "we all do it". You see, I just copied from your post ("we all do it"), and you copied it from the video. Would such copying qualify as infringement? Probably not*, but it is copying.
* But then, some courts have found that a single-line poem, or a 13-second performance, is deserving of copyright protection. So who knows for certain?
"Come to its milk" is an old dairy farming phrase that means the calf has been weaned and will drink milk out of a bowl. The sooner a calf could be trained to "come to its milk", the sooner its dam (mother) could return to production.
What I don't understand is this: how did software ever get patented in the first place
I attribute it to a combination of things, starting with the unfortunate wording of the Patent Act which says that "processes" can be patented, and then defines processes as follows:
The term "process" means process, art or method, and includes a new use of a known process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter, or material.
Ignoring the inane circularity of a "'process' means process", the act was amended to employ the word "process" in the 1930s, back when "information processing" was virtually non-existent. So the term as intended by the legislators of the time obviously only referred to processing associated with mechanics, chemistry, and manufacturing for which granting of patent protection is arguably reasonable (or at least the processes are not abstract).
With the advent of computers, and the ability of machines to "process" information, the term took on the connotation of performing manipulations upon purely abstract concepts -- something that has traditionally been rejected as deserving of patent protection.
Unfortunately there are many misguided folk who fail to grasp that no matter how much you process an abstract concept (such as information), that concept is still going to be abstract.
We also do so because it is a matter of safety for our customers. Our tools are used in high-energy industrial environments, where precision and safety is an absolute necessity.
It is not the purpose of trademark law to protect people from misusing items they've purchased; it's purpose is to protect them from being misled in their decision to make the purchase.
That an electrician, engineer, or hobbyist might grab the wrong DMM out of the toolbox because of similar schemes is not an issue to be addressed with trademark law. If there is a concern that the CAT II, III, and IV markings on the device are not sufficient then a more conspicuous standard (such as color coding) should be mandated.
By mentioning the fact that the CIA searched the network of the Senate Intelligence Committee staffers, it means people will die?
I don't see where Sen. Udall even mentioned that much. All he stated in his letter was that the CIA had taken unprecedented action of some sort. Hardly revealing at all (perhaps they refused to serve meatloaf in the cafeteria).
It makes me cringe to see Aero described as "innovative". It is a horrendously inefficient means of receiving broadcasts, with the one redeeming quality being that it is less horrendously inefficient than most other means imposed by the monopolistic regime of copyright.
Moreover, the "camel" comment in the letter and the report is pure hearsay. Swartz's lawyer is the only one who has said this is what the lead prosecutor said. Just because he says so does not make it true.
This is incorrect on a couple of counts.
First, it was not Aaron Swartz's lawyer who quoted the lead prosecutor, it was MIT's lawyers (in a memorandum provided by MITís outside counsel to its Office of General Counsel, dated August 10, 2012).
Second, MIT's counsel recited what the lead prosecutor stated directly to them -- in order to qualify as "hearsay" they would have to had quoted something that they heard that the prosecutor said to someone else.