I remember when people claimed Kmart had a monopoly (1970s-80s).
Where's that monopoly now?
Point - No monopoly lasts forever, because there's always someone new willing to knock you off. Kmart was knocked-off its pedestal by Walmart, and eventually I'm sure someone new will knock Walmart off. Perhaps circa 2020, the WM managers will get careless, raise prices, and along will come Target or Kresge or somebody else to be the new retail leader.
Some of our rural roads have "humps" in the middle. The idea is to make the rain wash off the road to either side, but the practical result is that your car is constantly leaning ~10 degrees off-kilter. I can't believe the engineers once thought that was a good design, and I'm glad it's going out of fashion.
BTW I love driving California's Pacifc Coast highway. So do the motorcyclists with crotch rockets. Curve-curve-curve.;-)
Well then don't narrow. I can't think of any reason why we can't have a 20-lane-wide I-95 extending from Boston to Richmond. (And the same for I-5 on the west coast.)
We're engineers. We're not supposed to accept "no" for an answer. We're supposed to find solutions.:-)
>>>How many times have you seen cars fly across 3 lanes of traffic to get to an exit?
That's the fault of the engineers. If they announced the upcoming exits at 4, 2, 1, and 1/2 mile intervals, it would give everyone enough time to get in the right lane. But they don't. Typically they put a sign "exit now" and that's when you see the drivers panicking. The flaw is in the designer, not the road or the driver.
>>>now you end up with the left few lanes having the long-distance drivers
Sounds good to me. I'm a long-distance driver who would love to hug the left lane, and just keep zooming down the road while avoiding the slower right lanes.
An alternative idea, rather than 20-lane roads, is to have dual interstates. Right now I-85 stops near Richmond, but I think that interstate should be extended to run semiparallel to I-95 upto New Hampshire. That way the traffic load can be split in half between 85 and 95.
But of course, that won't happen. No. We can't build more roads, just as we can't build more oil refineries, or nuclear plants. The Greens will protest because they fear progress as if they were half-amish. (Okay maybe I'm just a little bitter.)
>>>The problem with 20 lane highways, is that they have to converge somewhere.
False statement. Highways have inlets and exists (just like water pipes) which is why when you leave Baltimore the traffic is bumper-to-bumper, but by the time you reach the Susquehanna River bridge, you have a big empty expanse of concrete with just a few cars. The highway hasn't changed - it's the cars that have bled off.
>>>4 lane freeway, which converges to 2 lanes with lights near the downtown area, and it is here that traffic grinds to a halt. >>>
Poor design.
Clearly the 2-lane "pipe" is not wide enough to handle the load, so it should be widened to 4 lanes. People going straight-through the city will not have to slow down, while those exiting into the city can take an off-ramp to the streets. (Again, same as how I-95 exits into Baltimore without any kind of backup.)
I'll give the Maryland engineers credit. They know how to design good roads, often putting more lanes than what is necessary, to ensure that traffic stoppages rarely occur. The only place Maryland has "failed" is on the D.C. beltway, and I suspect that's because of interference from Congress. ("No you can't put I-66 straight through Washington. Make everyone go *around* the city." Yeah that's logical.)
>>>interpreted by some as an acceleration and so their deceleration is not noticed
Yes true but some use their *brakes* on the beltway's various curves, and I can't figure out why. Speedup; brake; speedup; brake. It makes no sense. I could zoom around the D.C. or Baltimore beltways all day long and never once use my brakes - except for the idiots in front who slowdown to 45 to take a curve.
Like I said the curves are gentle, and designed for high-speed travel.
>>>they are right beside each other, in lock-step, doing the exact same speed over the course of miles. That way no one can pass them. If you tap (not lay on) your horn to try to get the guy in the passing lane.... they often think you're challenging their manhood >>>
I HATE that.
I'll give them two chances, and then I get mad. (1) Beep-beep. Wait. (2) Beep-beep-beep. Wait. (3) Lay on the horn. I figure they'll soon get tired of the noise and move over. (4) Goal accomplished and back-up to 70mph.
>>>Two words, separated by a hyphen: rubber-neckers.
Yes but that's the advantage of having an interstate 20 lanes wide. The rubber-neckers will hog one or two lanes, but you'll still be able to get by one the remaining 8. In upstate New Jersey I-95 is 10 lanes wide, and rarely backs-up until you reach the entrace to NYC.
If you want to carry a lot of water, you need a giant pipe. The same principle applies to roads - got lots of cars to move? Make the road superwide to handle the load.
Aside-
D.C. is worse than Baltimore, but not as bad as NYC, Atlanta, or Chicago. Horrible, horrible messes. I was trying to come home from a business trip in Minnesota, and all I wanted to do was skirt *around* Chicago and continue eastward. It was the middle of the day and even then the I-90(?) highway was not moving.
...for insurance companies. You left-out that part. They lobby harder than anyone for speed limits, because if you get two or more tickets, they can label you a "wreckless driver" (even if you've never had an accident your whole life) and double or even triple their rates.
Furthermore U.S. Congressional law mandates that interstates be designed for 120 miles an hour (note I said interstates, not the spurs or beltways). Why we are limited to only half that speed makes no sense to me. Other states like Montana have no speed limit, or like Oklahoma have 75mph limits, and are still just as safe as those states with 55 or 65.
What really pisses me off is when you're on a long trip, and you catch-up to the "back" of one of these "herds" of cars. You want to pass but can't because the two cars in front are driving side-by-side, blocking the interstate, and everyone is apparently content to just sit there.
So I start beeping my horn to get their attention. i.e. "Please move over so I can pass."
It's too bad I'm not a cop. Blocking the interstate like that is illegal, and I've seen many officers arrest drivers for sitting in the passing lane instead of moving over.
>>>whether as an internal score or compensation for...something else. I'd hate to deprive them of their little joys
I don't give a frak about their "joys". If I'm driving the I-95 and cars are literally bumper-to-bumper, I will Not allow the guy behind me to pass and scoot in front of me. I push the pedal and close the gap, because I'm just as anxious to get home as he is. Why should he be able to "butt in line" like that? That's just plain rude.
And yes I know it's just one car, but if I did that for every car that does the "jump ahead one space" routine, I'd soon end-up a mile behind where I used to be in the I-95 lineup. My Friday commute's already three hours long (to my home). I don't need several more minutes added to the trip by impatient people butting in front of me.
No it isn't. A "derived right" can be traced back to a natural right. For example ownership of money is a "derived right" because money is collected when labor is sold, and labor comes from my body which I own. Therefore I own the money since it was "derived" from my body.
And yes artisans own the items they produce, whether it's a chair or a book.
But they do Not own my trees in my backyard, and if I want to chop one down and copy the artisan's chair design, I can. It's my tree. Or if I want to press the tree into paper, and handcopy the artisan's book, I can. AGAIN IT'S MY TREE. Artisans don't have a right to control how/why I use my own personal property. I'm not the artisans' slave and the tree is not his to control.
On the contrary:
What artisans have is a *privilege* granted by the government in the form of a copy license, and said privilege is temporary one which will be revoked after XX number of years. (HINT: If it was a "right" it could not be revoked, because rights are innate qualities of being human.)
AS I SAID IN MY ORIGINAL POST, if the movie already exists there's no additional labor that needs to be paid. Therefore Disney can sell-off 6 billion Itunes copies of Fantasia without cost.
>>>>>Once a book, song, or movie exists, it can be mass-produced at zero cost... For example if Disney could convince every person on earth to buy "Fantasia" from itunes.com, they'd get ~40 billion dollars profit and no manufacturing cost >>>>>
>>Except that Fantasia, with its hand drawn cells, is... hideously expensive to make.
Except that Fantasia only cost Mr. Disney 0.003 billion to produce. He paid-off that bill in the 1960s, so every digital copy today's Disney Company sells online would literally be zero cost. And pure profit.
"When you outlaw hacking cellphones, "then only criminals will have working phones!"
That meme doesn't quite work here, but the point is valid. Passing a law to stop people from hacking cellphones is Not going to ctop criminals from attacking towers anyway. Criminals don't give a fuck about laws.
Ditto on the D.C. beltway. I don't understand people who slowdown for bridges or curves. It's not going to kill you to take the curve at 65mph. That's why the sign says 65 - because it was designed for high-speed travel. (duh)
By slowing-down you impede the flow of traffic and create a chain of cars behind you. Show some consideration. (sigh). This is why I leave home at 5 a.m. Most of the idiots don't come-out until after 6:30. Leaving early helps me to beat them.
Aside-
Another cure for traffic jams is to make our highways 20-lanes wide (like in Asimov's novels). I guarantee that a nice, wide, open stretch of macadam won't jam up if you have that many lanes to serve the cars.
Yet another cure is to simply let your office workers stay at home. Do I really need to drive two hours a day to sit inside a Baltimore office and type code all day? I can do the exact-same work at home.
>>>Our system of checks and balances resulted in lobbyists writing the checks, and the executive branches appointing justices that fit their political desires. >>>
Our system of checks/balances broke-down when the State Governments lost power over the Senate. Prior to that point the Senate acted as a moderator to stop the Washington D.C. government, and to keep most of the power at the State level where it belongs (per the Constitution). Now that "check" is gone, and D.C. is sucking up all power in sight.
A couple states have issued proclamations that they won't comply with unconstitutional laws (nullification), but D.C. just laughs and keeps passing more laws. It's reached the point where even a powerful state like California can't legalize medical marijuana for use by doctors, because D.C. will send federal police who ignore California's duly-passed laws and arrest the doctors anyway.
Everything is off-kilter.
We need a new constitutional convention. We need to propose amendments that will strictly define what D.C. can do or cannot do, and what powers are reserved to the States.
Plus piratebay doesn't have enough money to outspend the billions the MAFIAA and other megacorps spread liberally to politicians' reelection campaigns, so even if piratebay lobbied it would be for null: - The politicians will listen to the biggest contributors, not the small ones. Isn't corporatism fun?
>>>It is also "abundant," (can be replicated infinitely, by anyone, at zero cost).
You really hit the nail on the head with that sentence. Once a book, song, or movie exists, it can be mass-produced at zero cost. It's the ultimate product where the "economy of scale" has no limit. It's an infinite value.
For example if Disney could convince every person on earth to buy "Fantasia" from itunes.com, they would have made 6 billion customers times ($10 minus $5 for apple's cut) == $40 billion in profit. And every time a new baby is born, Disney gains a new customer, and they can replicate Fantasia for even more money.
Pure profit. No cost.
No wonder businessmen are falling all over themselves to protect their exclusive distribution privilege, and kill bittorrent.
>>>"They're suing us over something which we don't own"
The argument which has been used for at least 5 years now (where have you been), is that trackers don't have copies of the books, songs, or videos. The possession is in the hands of the private *citizens* and the tracker merely acts like a phone company to connect these distant homes to one another. i.e. The tracker doesn't own the works.
>>>if I make alot of money through a company I own which is involved with illegal behaviour
A company telling User Joe Smith that he can find a copy of "Twilight Zone" from User Trinity, and providing B's address to A is not illegal behavior under current law. You might wish it was, but it ain't.
The people who are the "criminals" in that case are Mr. Smith and Trinity, not the tracker company, and they are the ones who should be getting sued for violating existing laws, not piratebay.
People feel most-compfortable with the status quo, and that includes copyrighted works but with an exception for libraries. Yes it's illogical but that's how it's "always" been. Of course one wonders why a City Library is allowed to buy a book, loan it out physically to thousands of people, but not do the same digitally. Hmmmm.
Grandparent poster wrote: >>>>>they throw lawsuits out like last year's fashions. If some stick, win! If not, raise prices or sue another grandma. >>>
That's because there's no punishment for bringing a case, wasting years of government resources in court, and then suddenly dropping the case when it appears to be going south. And there should be. Any case brought by a megacorporation should require it be taken to completion, else the filer will have to pay a fine to compensate the State for its time/expenses.
I still believe the next World War will between the European Union and the United States, and the spark will be over economic control of markets..... just as happened with Carthage and Rome (both democracies, but both desiring to be number one economically).
The U.S. won't want to lose control over its european hegemony (see current lawsuit against piratebay and other euro-businesses), and the E.U. won't want to permanently cede control of its economy or businesses to a foreign nation (see lawsuit against the american microsoft), so relations will gradually degrade until war breaks-out circa 2050 or 2060 A.D.
Not when you live under fascism...... ooops, I mean "corporatism" where the government represents the corporate lobbyists, rather than the people. Sweden's leaders are just following the path of least resistance, which is to say "yes" to whoever donates the most money to their next election campaign.
"All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. -- The history of the present is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over [the citizens]. The government has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance."
I say
-revolt. The is NO natural right to stop someone from copying your book, or song, or filmed play. The only natural right is the right to lock it into a safe and hide it from view, but you do Not have a right to stop someone from using their own pen-and-paper, or tape recorder, or computer, however they desire. It's THEIR property, not yours.
Slashdot Mirror
I remember when people claimed Kmart had a monopoly (1970s-80s).
Where's that monopoly now?
Point - No monopoly lasts forever, because there's always someone new willing to knock you off. Kmart was knocked-off its pedestal by Walmart, and eventually I'm sure someone new will knock Walmart off. Perhaps circa 2020, the WM managers will get careless, raise prices, and along will come Target or Kresge or somebody else to be the new retail leader.
Some of our rural roads have "humps" in the middle. The idea is to make the rain wash off the road to either side, but the practical result is that your car is constantly leaning ~10 degrees off-kilter. I can't believe the engineers once thought that was a good design, and I'm glad it's going out of fashion.
BTW I love driving California's Pacifc Coast highway. So do the motorcyclists with crotch rockets. Curve-curve-curve. ;-)
Well then don't narrow. I can't think of any reason why we can't have a 20-lane-wide I-95 extending from Boston to Richmond. (And the same for I-5 on the west coast.)
We're engineers. We're not supposed to accept "no" for an answer. We're supposed to find solutions. :-)
>>>How many times have you seen cars fly across 3 lanes of traffic to get to an exit?
That's the fault of the engineers. If they announced the upcoming exits at 4, 2, 1, and 1/2 mile intervals, it would give everyone enough time to get in the right lane. But they don't. Typically they put a sign "exit now" and that's when you see the drivers panicking. The flaw is in the designer, not the road or the driver.
>>>now you end up with the left few lanes having the long-distance drivers
Sounds good to me. I'm a long-distance driver who would love to hug the left lane, and just keep zooming down the road while avoiding the slower right lanes.
An alternative idea, rather than 20-lane roads, is to have dual interstates. Right now I-85 stops near Richmond, but I think that interstate should be extended to run semiparallel to I-95 upto New Hampshire. That way the traffic load can be split in half between 85 and 95.
But of course, that won't happen. No. We can't build more roads, just as we can't build more oil refineries, or nuclear plants. The Greens will protest because they fear progress as if they were half-amish. (Okay maybe I'm just a little bitter.)
>>>The problem with 20 lane highways, is that they have to converge somewhere.
False statement. Highways have inlets and exists (just like water pipes) which is why when you leave Baltimore the traffic is bumper-to-bumper, but by the time you reach the Susquehanna River bridge, you have a big empty expanse of concrete with just a few cars. The highway hasn't changed - it's the cars that have bled off.
>>>4 lane freeway, which converges to 2 lanes with lights near the downtown area, and it is here that traffic grinds to a halt.
>>>
Poor design.
Clearly the 2-lane "pipe" is not wide enough to handle the load, so it should be widened to 4 lanes. People going straight-through the city will not have to slow down, while those exiting into the city can take an off-ramp to the streets. (Again, same as how I-95 exits into Baltimore without any kind of backup.)
I'll give the Maryland engineers credit. They know how to design good roads, often putting more lanes than what is necessary, to ensure that traffic stoppages rarely occur. The only place Maryland has "failed" is on the D.C. beltway, and I suspect that's because of interference from Congress. ("No you can't put I-66 straight through Washington. Make everyone go *around* the city." Yeah that's logical.)
>>>interpreted by some as an acceleration and so their deceleration is not noticed
Yes true but some use their *brakes* on the beltway's various curves, and I can't figure out why. Speedup; brake; speedup; brake. It makes no sense. I could zoom around the D.C. or Baltimore beltways all day long and never once use my brakes - except for the idiots in front who slowdown to 45 to take a curve.
Like I said the curves are gentle, and designed for high-speed travel.
>>>they are right beside each other, in lock-step, doing the exact same speed over the course of miles. That way no one can pass them. If you tap (not lay on) your horn to try to get the guy in the passing lane.... they often think you're challenging their manhood
>>>
I HATE that.
I'll give them two chances, and then I get mad. (1) Beep-beep. Wait. (2) Beep-beep-beep. Wait. (3) Lay on the horn. I figure they'll soon get tired of the noise and move over. (4) Goal accomplished and back-up to 70mph.
>>>Two words, separated by a hyphen: rubber-neckers.
Yes but that's the advantage of having an interstate 20 lanes wide. The rubber-neckers will hog one or two lanes, but you'll still be able to get by one the remaining 8. In upstate New Jersey I-95 is 10 lanes wide, and rarely backs-up until you reach the entrace to NYC.
If you want to carry a lot of water, you need a giant pipe. The same principle applies to roads - got lots of cars to move? Make the road superwide to handle the load.
Aside-
D.C. is worse than Baltimore, but not as bad as NYC, Atlanta, or Chicago. Horrible, horrible messes. I was trying to come home from a business trip in Minnesota, and all I wanted to do was skirt *around* Chicago and continue eastward. It was the middle of the day and even then the I-90(?) highway was not moving.
...for insurance companies. You left-out that part. They lobby harder than anyone for speed limits, because if you get two or more tickets, they can label you a "wreckless driver" (even if you've never had an accident your whole life) and double or even triple their rates.
Furthermore U.S. Congressional law mandates that interstates be designed for 120 miles an hour (note I said interstates, not the spurs or beltways). Why we are limited to only half that speed makes no sense to me. Other states like Montana have no speed limit, or like Oklahoma have 75mph limits, and are still just as safe as those states with 55 or 65.
What really pisses me off is when you're on a long trip, and you catch-up to the "back" of one of these "herds" of cars. You want to pass but can't because the two cars in front are driving side-by-side, blocking the interstate, and everyone is apparently content to just sit there.
So I start beeping my horn to get their attention. i.e. "Please move over so I can pass."
It's too bad I'm not a cop. Blocking the interstate like that is illegal, and I've seen many officers arrest drivers for sitting in the passing lane instead of moving over.
>>>whether as an internal score or compensation for...something else. I'd hate to deprive them of their little joys
I don't give a frak about their "joys". If I'm driving the I-95 and cars are literally bumper-to-bumper, I will Not allow the guy behind me to pass and scoot in front of me. I push the pedal and close the gap, because I'm just as anxious to get home as he is. Why should he be able to "butt in line" like that? That's just plain rude.
And yes I know it's just one car, but if I did that for every car that does the "jump ahead one space" routine, I'd soon end-up a mile behind where I used to be in the I-95 lineup. My Friday commute's already three hours long (to my home). I don't need several more minutes added to the trip by impatient people butting in front of me.
>>> It [copyright] is a derived right
No it isn't. A "derived right" can be traced back to a natural right. For example ownership of money is a "derived right" because money is collected when labor is sold, and labor comes from my body which I own. Therefore I own the money since it was "derived" from my body.
And yes artisans own the items they produce, whether it's a chair or a book.
But they do Not own my trees in my backyard, and if I want to chop one down and copy the artisan's chair design, I can. It's my tree. Or if I want to press the tree into paper, and handcopy the artisan's book, I can. AGAIN IT'S MY TREE. Artisans don't have a right to control how/why I use my own personal property. I'm not the artisans' slave and the tree is not his to control.
On the contrary:
What artisans have is a *privilege* granted by the government in the form of a copy license, and said privilege is temporary one which will be revoked after XX number of years. (HINT: If it was a "right" it could not be revoked, because rights are innate qualities of being human.)
AS I SAID IN MY ORIGINAL POST, if the movie already exists there's no additional labor that needs to be paid. Therefore Disney can sell-off 6 billion Itunes copies of Fantasia without cost.
>>>>>Once a book, song, or movie exists, it can be mass-produced at zero cost... For example if Disney could convince every person on earth to buy "Fantasia" from itunes.com, they'd get ~40 billion dollars profit and no manufacturing cost
>>>>>
>>Except that Fantasia, with its hand drawn cells, is... hideously expensive to make.
Except that Fantasia only cost Mr. Disney 0.003 billion to produce. He paid-off that bill in the 1960s, so every digital copy today's Disney Company sells online would literally be zero cost. And pure profit.
"When you outlaw hacking cellphones,
"then only criminals will have working phones!"
That meme doesn't quite work here, but the point is valid. Passing a law to stop people from hacking cellphones is Not going to ctop criminals from attacking towers anyway. Criminals don't give a fuck about laws.
Ditto on the D.C. beltway. I don't understand people who slowdown for bridges or curves. It's not going to kill you to take the curve at 65mph. That's why the sign says 65 - because it was designed for high-speed travel. (duh)
By slowing-down you impede the flow of traffic and create a chain of cars behind you. Show some consideration. (sigh). This is why I leave home at 5 a.m. Most of the idiots don't come-out until after 6:30. Leaving early helps me to beat them.
Aside-
Another cure for traffic jams is to make our highways 20-lanes wide (like in Asimov's novels). I guarantee that a nice, wide, open stretch of macadam won't jam up if you have that many lanes to serve the cars.
Yet another cure is to simply let your office workers stay at home. Do I really need to drive two hours a day to sit inside a Baltimore office and type code all day? I can do the exact-same work at home.
>>>Our system of checks and balances resulted in lobbyists writing the checks, and the executive branches appointing justices that fit their political desires.
>>>
Our system of checks/balances broke-down when the State Governments lost power over the Senate. Prior to that point the Senate acted as a moderator to stop the Washington D.C. government, and to keep most of the power at the State level where it belongs (per the Constitution). Now that "check" is gone, and D.C. is sucking up all power in sight.
A couple states have issued proclamations that they won't comply with unconstitutional laws (nullification), but D.C. just laughs and keeps passing more laws. It's reached the point where even a powerful state like California can't legalize medical marijuana for use by doctors, because D.C. will send federal police who ignore California's duly-passed laws and arrest the doctors anyway.
Everything is off-kilter.
We need a new constitutional convention. We need to propose amendments that will strictly define what D.C. can do or cannot do, and what powers are reserved to the States.
Yeah basically.
Plus piratebay doesn't have enough money to outspend the billions the MAFIAA and other megacorps spread liberally to politicians' reelection campaigns, so even if piratebay lobbied it would be for null: - The politicians will listen to the biggest contributors, not the small ones. Isn't corporatism fun?
I for one do Not welcome our corporate overlords.
>>>It is also "abundant," (can be replicated infinitely, by anyone, at zero cost).
You really hit the nail on the head with that sentence. Once a book, song, or movie exists, it can be mass-produced at zero cost. It's the ultimate product where the "economy of scale" has no limit. It's an infinite value.
For example if Disney could convince every person on earth to buy "Fantasia" from itunes.com, they would have made 6 billion customers times ($10 minus $5 for apple's cut) == $40 billion in profit. And every time a new baby is born, Disney gains a new customer, and they can replicate Fantasia for even more money.
Pure profit.
No cost.
No wonder businessmen are falling all over themselves to protect their exclusive distribution privilege, and kill bittorrent.
>>>"They're suing us over something which we don't own"
The argument which has been used for at least 5 years now (where have you been), is that trackers don't have copies of the books, songs, or videos. The possession is in the hands of the private *citizens* and the tracker merely acts like a phone company to connect these distant homes to one another. i.e. The tracker doesn't own the works.
>>>if I make alot of money through a company I own which is involved with illegal behaviour
A company telling User Joe Smith that he can find a copy of "Twilight Zone" from User Trinity, and providing B's address to A is not illegal behavior under current law. You might wish it was, but it ain't.
The people who are the "criminals" in that case are Mr. Smith and Trinity, not the tracker company, and they are the ones who should be getting sued for violating existing laws, not piratebay.
Simple.
People feel most-compfortable with the status quo, and that includes copyrighted works but with an exception for libraries. Yes it's illogical but that's how it's "always" been. Of course one wonders why a City Library is allowed to buy a book, loan it out physically to thousands of people, but not do the same digitally. Hmmmm.
Grandparent poster wrote:
>>>>>they throw lawsuits out like last year's fashions. If some stick, win! If not, raise prices or sue another grandma.
>>>
That's because there's no punishment for bringing a case, wasting years of government resources in court, and then suddenly dropping the case when it appears to be going south. And there should be. Any case brought by a megacorporation should require it be taken to completion, else the filer will have to pay a fine to compensate the State for its time/expenses.
I still believe the next World War will between the European Union and the United States, and the spark will be over economic control of markets..... just as happened with Carthage and Rome (both democracies, but both desiring to be number one economically).
The U.S. won't want to lose control over its european hegemony (see current lawsuit against piratebay and other euro-businesses), and the E.U. won't want to permanently cede control of its economy or businesses to a foreign nation (see lawsuit against the american microsoft), so relations will gradually degrade until war breaks-out circa 2050 or 2060 A.D.
Not when you live under fascism...... ooops, I mean "corporatism" where the government represents the corporate lobbyists, rather than the people. Sweden's leaders are just following the path of least resistance, which is to say "yes" to whoever donates the most money to their next election campaign.
P.S.
The government grant of license to an artisan is a *privilege* not a right, and only a temporary one at that.
"All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable,
than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. -- The history of the present is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over [the citizens]. The government has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance."
I say
-revolt. The is NO natural right to stop someone from copying your book, or song, or filmed play. The only natural right is the right to lock it into a safe and hide it from view, but you do Not have a right to stop someone from using their own pen-and-paper, or tape recorder, or computer, however they desire. It's THEIR property, not yours.