Gosh, it's almost as if some regulations are actually necessary, and one has to intelligently debate the subtle, often-complicated nuance of each implementation!
That's the very problem with Trump's rule that for every 1 new regulation 2 old ones have to go.
Take a look at the drone market for an example of why this won't work. Previously there was one and only one regulation on drones, none are allowed for ANY reason period, not for toys, not for businesses to deliver products, nothing.
But now that drones are allowed for more and more things, you need more and more regulations to regulate the drones. Are there a lot more drone regulations than there used to be before? Heck yeah. But do we have more freedoms when it comes to owning and using drones then we used to? Well duh of course anything is a step up from no drones at all.
There's an obvious fix to the dirty businesses tactics of companies like John Deere and others, make it effectively illegal by making it no longer financially viable.
If companies want to claim you don't actually own the stuff and are just renting or leasing it from them, then some things need to change to make it just like actual renting.
All repairs, taxes, and fees are paid by the 'actual' owner John Deere/etc, and not the renter.
Nobody pays for the entire cost of the car up front when renting it, so John Deere and others can't charge the full value of a car or tractor up front while still insisting to own it.
And of course, John Deere and others must clearly say up front you are renting their stuff and NOT buying it. Failure to do so makes them guilty of deceptive marketing practices, and open to whatever penalties there are already on the books for doing so.
The reason for the FBI's 10 year term is try to insulate them from politics more (which Comey has obviously failed to do with all his recent controversial decisions in the last election, but that's not the point here).
But why does the head of a copyright department need a 10 year term? What partisan politics are there that justifies trying to insulate them from politics? Copyright and IP isn't a partisan issue that one party supports and other opposes.
Not to mention DRM and outdated technologies dying out and becoming unusable also reduce the value of e-books.
If I buy a physical book I can re-read it whenever I want forever, as long as I don't lose the book or let it get so badly damaged it falls apart.
E-Books however can often be stolen from me whenever the publisher wants to. And who knows if the Kindle/etc. format will still be readable in the future.
My brother is a pastor, and he said all the older pastors warned him to keep backups of his old sermons in txt files, because many of them lost their lost sermons by using now unsupported word document formats. Txt files on the other hand are unlikely to ever become completely unreadable with time.
Communism and Capitalism have a lot of the same core foundations (including support for free public education). Just because Communism failed doesn't mean all it's ideas were bad, 8 out of 10 of Karl Marx's core principles of communism are well practiced in all capitalist countries in the world.
Not to mention what if someone is framed because another person put an encrypted file on their computer, and they then report that person for say possessing child pornography on their computer?
The accused literally can't prove themselves innocent by providing the password, because they won't know it. The accused will never need to be brought to trial, the prosecutors can just keep a wrongly accused person in jail forever.
Not to mention it also shows just how absurd the length of copyright terms are that they're even protected in the first place.
No one in their right mind would ever think games like Sonic the Hedgehog 1 are sellable and commercially viable games anymore these days. That's why even Sega doesn't sell it anymore.
There's only a small handful of Sega Genesis games that have retained their value today. But the people who own the copyright on them don't sell them anymore, it's just collectors on Ebay who sell them.
The earlier ricin false arrest on such flimsy evidence a few years ago makes this ruling even scarier.
For those don't know/forgot, a summary of the ricin issue.
Someone sent letters laced with ricin to several prominent politicians, including a US senator, and President Obama, as well as at least one judge.
The letters were signed 3 initials.
Law enforcement asked the US senator who he knew with those initials who might have done this. The Senator said he only knew of one guy with those initials, a famous Elvis impersonator in his state who performed at a few of his personal events (including his wedding).
Based solely on that 'evidence' from the senator, and some quick finding of the Elvis impersonator having a few mental health issues over the years, the police arrested the Elvis impersonator for the crime.
Within a week the police were forced to let the Elvis impersonator go when they did more investigation, and found the guy who actually did it, who had signed the letter with a different set of initials than his own in order to throw off the cops and frame someone else.
So yeah, in that case literally anyone with those same initials could have been thrown in jail if the US senator had thought of them and brought them to the police's attention.
Umm... this is WAY different then Obamacare in so many ways.
The Federal government and States have different powers. What's legal for one to do isn't necessarily legal for the other to do.
The mandate wasn't crafted to be a tax to raise money, it was crafted to push people to get health insurance to prevent the market from spiraling out of control (due to people only buying insurance when they're sick and then canceling it). There's no pressing issue that not taxing 'porn' will cause to get worse.