1) You cannot violate the rights of citizens simply because you put it in a "contract". Similarly, citizens may not simply waive their rights for a service. It happens all the time, but it is always a violation.
2) Contracts are to be negotiated, not forced upon one side who has no choice between two completely evil options - if they are lucky to have two or more. This has also been a problem forever. (With, you know, contract language which one party may unilaterally change _at any time_, with or without notice. These are "contracts" in name only.)
You have read nothing but the graffiti on the straw windmills inside your head.
All the writers, and the non-lazy commenters here, have always been pretty damn clear and consistent.
The problems have always been abuse of the "IP" systems, and the warrantless extension of the laws behind them. And none of it protects actual creators any more than it ever did. Further, these systems no longer even produce results anywhere in line with the original (and good) intent of patent and copyright laws. (Trademark is almost 100% BS and let's not even go there as it has about zero to do with creators, which seems to be your ill-informed fantasy whining point.)
While there is enough dark fiber some places, it isn't everywhere, and you can't go 100% wireless. Plus the local incumbent ISPs (who seem to want to buy up the backbone providers who where not last mile carriers before) are just going to start charging the wireless ISPs more to carry their traffic. Not a solution.
The other funny thing is that borders seem to be wherever they say they are. Reagan said territorial waters extend 12 nautical miles from the shore. The exclusive zone extends 200 miles from shore, which seems to be appropriately related to Customs in particular.
So perhaps they should ring the country at one or both of these two distances with their respective agents and let them tread water until they can find someone to search.
It is unlawful for a person to knowingly and willingly make, publish or circulate on an Internet Web site, or cause to be made, published, or circulated in any writing posted on an Internet Web site, a false or deceptive statement designed to influence the vote on either of the following:
Apparently Soros runs half the world. Nobody opposing the various flavors of social and political far right ever had an idea without Soros. And all facts are invalidated because where the information came from, no matter how verifiable.
Not sure also what is wrong with anti-authoritarians protesting and resisting self-admitted authoritarian governments.
So the other half of the story is what "you bet". Which should always be given equal time to facts.
Yeah, that's what this article was about: Fawning over Bill Gates. @@
Also, I am so sure this is why he donates funding to ResearchGate. He just knew there were infringing works there and wanted to get on some bandwagon or other to seem hip and relevant and pretend to "subvert copyright".
On another note, he never would have been in a position to make a lot of money off of things that also happen to be copyrighted if he had not been busy digging through other people's code and straight up violating copyright himself. So, whatever on that front. That's just how the players play.
So maybe you should take your dog and pony show elsewhere, eh? Another clown with oh-so trenchant observations everyone else is just too blind or deep in denial to see. It is to laugh.
When former or current members of a faith have an issue with the "secret" operations manuals and teachings... they are supposed to what, just talk about it while some won't even believe it, and others mount disinformation campaigns against it? This is no different than leaking any other government or corporate information.
This isn't about someone making money off of someone else's marketable product, or even just a bad attempt to control a market. It is merely a silencing tactic. An attempt to remove corroboration for what many know (and have lived) already.