Not come across that myself. Never received an email from them to any email address other than the one I provided to them. The emails I do receive are in accordance with my preferences.
files frivolous patents
That's subjective
files lawsuits based on an allegedly "purely defensive" patent portfolio
So far as I'm aware, they haven't sued anyone since the One Click fiasco five or six years ago. At that time, their patent portfolio wasn't been sold as "defensive". I note the FSF's boycott of them ended in 2002 as they'd stopped suing people. It is probably true that their current patent portfolio is defensive.
pretends to oppose the current patent system while systematically abusing it
Ok, I think you're repeating yourself, and you're also guilty of over-simplifying. They did fund a stillborn attempt to get evidence overturning process and software patents. It was nice that they did it, but it demonstrated in the end that the situation wasn't as clear as any of us would like. Amazon responded, I think rightly, by building their patent portfolio, as you need to if you want to defend yourselves against patent claims by other groups in the same climate. The question is, if Bezos et al had had evidence handed to them on a plate that "frivilous" patents can easily be over turned, would they be worried enough to build themselves a defensive portfolio?
is consistently "the worst neighbor we can get away with being" as a matter of policy
I've not come across any examples of bad neighbourliness, at least, not since the One Click fiasco.
Now, on the other hand, you have to consider:
1. Amazon is one of the most innovative and inventive companies on the 'net. From popularizing online commerce in the first place by creating one of the first safe, solid, buying portals, they've introduced a large range of concepts that have been copied and relied upon from everyone from Yahoo Shopping to Apple iTunes Music Store. My favorite feature is the integrated reviews system, largely uncensored (Yes, you can find an example of someone who had their reviews removed, but a quick look at the majority of products will find bad, scathing, and even insulting, reviews in abundance) and an excellent system to evaluate products.
2. Amazon has one of the largest catalogues around, as a matter of policy. If they've found it exists, and it fits their categories, it has an ASIN. Even if they can't sell it, marketplace sellers can be very specific about the item they're selling, meaning buyers can be fairly confident about what they're getting.
3. Amazon has excellent customer support. I've never had an issue unresolved by them. I rarely have problems in the first place. I've never met anyone who had a problem with them. They also act as an "honest broker" between third party sellers and buyers, and a reliable one, which is more than can be said for Paypal.
These three facts between them are why, in the absense of current bad behaviour I do buy from Amazon. Of all online retailers, they're the most useful. Their inventive and innovative streaks do deserve support. And I can trust them.
What amazes me is the number of apologists who will do anything but admit the plain reality. Amazon sucks. We would be better off with pretty much any other company replacing them.
*Any* company? Heh. Good luck buying "War and Peace" from Staples.com...
Anyway, that's simply nonsense. They have no major competitors on the "We sell everything front", with the possible exception of eBay/Paypal. There are the aggregators/portals like Yahoo Shopping, but there the consistancy and reliability of the information is awful. Then you have other companies that specialize in a particular field but don't necessarily have that wide a range.
It turned out that the only downside of nano was that it harmed the hearing of some of its users.
Seriously, you're confusing nanos. Carbon nanotubes are merely strong carbon molecules chains, manufactured in the lab. Nanotechnology (generally) refers to self-replicating machines that are microscopically small (and non-organic, presumably, or at least, unnatural, since natural, organic, self-replicating machines already exist. We call it "life"); it's the latter that people routinely express concern about. iPod nanos are very, very, small iPods, that use flash memory for storage.
The good news is that nobody will invent microscopic, useful, self-replicating machines in my lifetime, and probably not yours either. There is absolutely no chance of such a technology being invented. It's impossible.
Maybe in Tiger. I know my PowerBook automatically connected to the neighbour's network recently when I was reconfiguring my WLAN and accidentally made it disappear.
Absolutely pissed me off, especially given the legality of the situation. I was, fortunately, watching the machine at the time, otherwise the results could have been embarassing.
Rather than attack my summary without giving relevent reasons, perhaps you'd like to give an example of a situation that's outlawed by the license that my summary would have outrageously mislead people into thinking was valid.
Summaries don't always include exactly the same wording as what they summarize, otherwise they wouldn't be summaries. Go boil your head.
No, in the situation you describe, RedHat (who probably wouldn't do this anyway - I add this in case anyone reads this thinking "My god! RedHat's going to try to violate the GPL!") has to rethink the situation more clearly.
If RedHat (or whomsever) is signing its binaries purely so they will run on specific machines that have been locked to those distributions (the only case in which the keys are relevant, remember the wording "in the recommended or principal context of use"), in such a way that users of those machines cannot compile their own versions, then RedHat is violating the principle (and probably the letter) of GPLv2 and definitely the letter of GPLv3. It is absolutely right that under those circumstances, RedHat either not sign the distribution (and not produce a version for DRM'd computers), or they distribute keys allowing others to do so.
This is about using DRM to bypass the GPL completely. And remember, the current clause 3 of GPL2 (the clause that mandates source code disclosure) reads, in part:
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable.
It isn't at all clear to me right now that refusing to distribute a key that's necessary to compile code in order to make it run on a specific device is compatible with the above terms and conditions. Clearly without the key, you do not have a viable, let alone "preferred", form for making modifications.
In any case, the clause in GPLv3 clarifies this and removes this loophole. There will be those that will throw a tantrum. Nothing, of course, prevents Torvalds, if he's so gung-ho about allowing manufacturers to lock their hardware to specific operating systems from specific suppliers, from adding a postscript to the license to relieve licensees from that duty. He hasn't with GPLv2, and if he so believes that that's a great thing to do, then he probably should.
If DRM'd hardware is the "recommended or principal context of use", then you apparently do have to distribute your private key. If non-DRM'd hardware is the principal context, but the software happens to be used on a DRM'd machine, then you get the Man-in-the-middle attack that the grandparent complains about.
And nobody considers it a bug, with the possible exception of Torvalds, that if DRM'd hardware is the "recommended or principle context of use", that you have to distribute a private key. That's not a bug, that's a feature.
The GGP's comment about MitM attacks really only highlights the difficulty of putting together a license that catches every violation. What this, at least, does is make it obviously difficult for a hardware manufacturer to distribute GPLv3'd software with hardware that prevents that software from being changed. It doesn't make it impossible, but then, if they want it to be impossible, they can burn the entire thing into a ROM on an integrated chip. Putting up barriers though isn't a bad thing even if, for a minority, there are still benefits to be had from hopping over them.
There's a few updates. Other than clarifications (for example, over GPLing something you have an exclusive or semi-exclusive patent license for that you can't transfer to licencees), the major changes I saw are:
1. A manufacturer who takes GPL'd code, signs it, and then sells hardware that only runs code signed with their key, which they don't redistribute, is in violation of the license. This is relatively narrowly defined, despite Torvalds throwing a hissy fit about this part of the license a few weeks ago, thinking it outlawed all forms of DRM (it doesn't.)
2. The license isn't automatically revoked upon it being breached. Instead the copyright holders have to give the breacher 30 days notice to allow them back into compliance.
3. To make it more compatable with similar licenses, there's a whole bunch of optional terms and conditions that can be added. For example, you can say "If you sue us for patent infringement, you can't use any patents our code relies upon that we own, effectively ending your ability to use our software." The notable feature is that this is an optional condition.
HTH. Anyone notice anything else that was major (ie not a clarification of something we largely knew anyway?)
There's something wrong, somehow, about the notion that a "mature" framework requires the absolute bleeding edge version, such that 1.8.4 works and 1.8.2 doesn't.
Mind you, it could just mean there's a bug in 1.8.2/.3 that happened to break RoR, so I'll reserve judgement.
Is Ruby "stable"? That is, is it still under intensive development or are we looking at minor upgrades to fix bugs and such in the implementation?
You read this and your blood runs cold. It makes you wonder what would happen to George Washington if he was attempting to break the colonies from Britain today.
Well, he'd be subject to British law. So I'm guessing he'd be served with an ASBO ("Anti-Social Behaviour Order" - essentially an injunction against something considered generally anti-social by a magistrate.)
In the event he violated the ASBO, say, by taking control of Boston, his parents would be subject to a very stiff fine, and he'd be given a stern talking to.
I'm not sure what this has to do with trade secrets, but, well, that's what I think would happen anyway.
We had a worm hit an Apache server at my employer just over a week ago. Ironically, it was running Windows and also had IIS6 on it (on a different port.)
Nope, what was settled a long time ago was that selling devices for the purpose of recording TV shows for later viewing, where some TV show producers were consenting to such recordings, is legal. Assuming you're talking about the Betamax case.
The Betamax case didn't "legalize" half the things people think it did. We could do with a law that does, but don't get the idea that just because you can come up with a bizarre, convoluted, argument comparing something to recording it with a VCR, that it's legal. The Betamax case didn't even say that all time-shifting was legal. It just said it was legal to sell devices to time shift (given many TV producers in the 1980s were happy for such time shifting to occur.)
The argument, for example, that as one can record a movie being shown on TV onto a tape for future viewing, and that a friend might be in the same house when you view it later, that it must also be legal to copy a CSS-encoded DVD onto a PC, and distribute it to millions of anonymous strangers, falls down on two counts: The first is that the original claim may well not be true. Betamax was about VCR makers, not VCR users. And secondly, the two things are not alike in any real way.
So can we make the dramatic and hitherto unbelievable conclusion from all this self-congratulatory DVD-collection-size-boasting that many people who like movies have large DVD collections and also make use of other methods, legal and illegal, such as infringing copies via filesharing networks, to get movies?
I've owned one in each major generation of powerbooks/ibooks (no macbok yet) since the 520c and the ONLY thing that has bugged me generation to generation is how hard it is to remove/replace the HD.
Because if they had an easy way to replace the HD, a decent pointing device, and the ability to operate while hot without crashing, then they'd be called "Thinkpads".
That has to be the most long winded justification for sitting on your arse not doing anything I've ever heard of.
The reason the system doesn't change is because people like you don't seek to change it. If you get active within your party, you will make a difference. If most people who feel strongly about a subject like patents get involved, you'll make a major difference. You don't do that because you're lazy and apathetic, not because you can't change anything. On your own, yeah, maybe you can't. With a large group of others, others who right now are spewing the same bullshit you just did, yes, you can.
I'm not going to cry about your increased taxes when you've done fuck-all about them.
Of course, I don't think the term "piracy" applies to any situation other than armed robbery of ships on the high seas.
Then it's time you checked both your dictionary and how the word is used in common parlance. Because copyright infringement has been a definition of piracy many, many, decades, and appears under the definition of piracy in most dictionaries.
The term "copyright infringment" is accurate, in the same way as "property misappropriation" is an accurate description of theft. However, it would be as ludicrous to complain about people using the word "theft" when they mean "property misappropriation" as it would be to complain that people use the word "piracy" when they mean "willful copyright infringement".
That would be a risky game for the PTO to play. The other consequence of doing the job badly is that the job can be taken away from you completely. The patents section of the PTO could discredit the very basis of its existance, the USPTO becoming the USTO.
uh... that would be your tax money they would pay out with. No thanks.
Why the hell not? These are your people, your employees, who are out there approving bogus patents and operating within a patent system you are responsible for. Why should you, as a voter, not be held accountable for your decisions in terms of who you elect? Should a shareholder get the same premium every year regardless of whether they have Louis V. Gerstner running the ship, or Kenneth Lay?
If you don't like the patent system as it stands, you can do two things: you can bitch and moan about it on Slashdot, or you can actually take affirmative steps to reform it. That could be as simple as writing to your representatives, or as strong as getting involved in the party you feel closest to, helping reshape it to fit your agenda. If you're prepared, however, to just pay the taxes and not actually hold the people spending that money to account, then expect to pay more taxes. It's your fault they're wasting money.
There's a minority of us who this doesn't apply to. Me, for example. I like in the US, and don't (yet) vote as I'm not a citizen (yet). But the vast majority of taxpayers in the US have some say over how their taxes are spent. Most of you bitch about it, yet never actually do anything.
If your Patent Office, whose legal standing is based upon laws accountable to you, is fouling up, prepare to pay for its mistakes (be that via higher taxes or poorer services), whether it's buying too many paperclips every year, or its employees are approving too many troubling patents.
Piracy is not "stealing a physical object", it's a word whose definitions are numerous but include "copyright infringement" (unlicensed radio broadcasting on frequencies that require licensing is also called piracy.) The definition that includes stealing physical objects actually goes somewhat further - me walking into a store and walking out with a CD that I haven't paid for (and should have) isn't piracy, unless the store's on a vessel in international waters, and I've just stolen that CD as part of a process of raiding the vessel.
BTW I find your assertion that "people that download stuff would not have bought it anyway" to be largely false. I know far too many people who see unlicensed P2P as a substitute for buying music. There are the handful that see P2P as a way to try out new artists, and there's the occasional poor student who doesn't have any money to spend on CDs anyway, but by and large, a substantial amount of unlicensed P2P use appears to be to circumvent the notion of paying for the music people listen to.
And in another first, fast-growing Linux took third place, bumping machines with IBM's mainframe operating system, z/OS. Linux server sales grew from $4.3 billion in 2004 to $5.3 billion in 2005, while mainframes dropped from $5.7 billion to $4.8 billion over the same period, Eastwood said.
The major issue here is that GNU/Linux is growing in marketshare.
Probably worth adding that in many shops I know, every new server-type application that requires Windows gets its own Windows box, whereas people seem to understand the concept of "multitasking" with Unix and GNU based platforms, which is another thing that probably distorts the figures. That is, suppose my employer sells "StatisticStats" to Target, WalMart, and K-Mart. If we've written it as a web application, we'll deploy it one-(or-more)-CPUs-per-customer with all three (ie three servers) if we're doing it under IIS, whereas we'll centralize it unless it really starts becoming a resource hog if we deploy it under GNU/Linux.
I don't really understand why, except in that Windows does a lot to hide the underlying system to the point that it becomes easier just to throw a new box at each job than spend the time getting the different parts to work. It shouldn't be like this, IIS is pretty versatile, it just... is.
Nope. The people who misbehaved were elected to their positions by the very same group that will pay more in taxes (or suffer reduced services, two sides of the same coin) as a result of this lawsuit. They do bear some responsibility, and it's going to be very hard to see a situation where the governed demand accountability if they themselves aren't held at least somewhat accountable for the misdeeds of the people they elect.
Otherwise we'd all feel free to elect Governor Robert Maxwell, who'd have free reign to do whatever the hell he wants, as long as he personally pays the fines. Corrupt government but low taxes, so who cares, right?
No, I didn't ignore the point, you specifically said there hadn't been a single incident of violence in relation to the Last Temptation issue. That was nonsense. I love the way you claim it was a lone nut-job rather than an actual Catholic terror group BTW. In any case, I corrected that exaggeration, and then went on to address the major issue.
The point you missed was the countries and contexts issue. How many embassies in Europe or America have been attacked by Islamic militants? Any? Any at all? The only places serious violence has supposedly spontaneously occured have been in countries where the governments essentially encouraged it.
Islam has no monopoly on violence. Nutballs exist in all religions, and comparing like with like - Muslims in Europe with Christians in Europe for example - I'm not seeing any serious evidence that one is significantly worse than the other. I could claim that Catholics has the largest percentage of violent psychopaths in the world, given my own experience of living in Britain under the IRA's shadow, and the closeness of the cinema bombing I mentioned, but I wouldn't believe it; yet there's more justification for me to claim that, based on concrete, like-circumstances, than there is for the broad, sweeping, attacks on Muslims I'm reading here.
I fear deeply both the countries promoting violence and xenophobia, and the counter-xenophobia I'm reading here and elsewhere (some of which is what started the ball rolling in the first place.) I believe we're a decade or two away from the world being in the same situation as it was in the middle of the 20th Century. These are fearful times for thinking people.
I always get a kick out of hearing Bush saying "God bless America" after having done a speech about those evil moslems (sorry, terrorists - they all are, right? sigh) and their god Allah... can someone please tell him it's the same god... ?
I don't generally agree with the man, I think he's incompetent, I'm amazed he's President, and he's far to the right of me... but the man has never done what you claim him to have done. He has regularly spoken out against prejudice against ordinary muslims and made it quite clear he doesn't endorse the "Muslims = terrorists" crap that halfwit right-wingnuts like Ann Coulter insist on propogating.
Slashdot Mirror
Not come across that myself. Never received an email from them to any email address other than the one I provided to them. The emails I do receive are in accordance with my preferences.
That's subjective
So far as I'm aware, they haven't sued anyone since the One Click fiasco five or six years ago. At that time, their patent portfolio wasn't been sold as "defensive". I note the FSF's boycott of them ended in 2002 as they'd stopped suing people. It is probably true that their current patent portfolio is defensive.
Ok, I think you're repeating yourself, and you're also guilty of over-simplifying. They did fund a stillborn attempt to get evidence overturning process and software patents. It was nice that they did it, but it demonstrated in the end that the situation wasn't as clear as any of us would like. Amazon responded, I think rightly, by building their patent portfolio, as you need to if you want to defend yourselves against patent claims by other groups in the same climate. The question is, if Bezos et al had had evidence handed to them on a plate that "frivilous" patents can easily be over turned, would they be worried enough to build themselves a defensive portfolio?
I've not come across any examples of bad neighbourliness, at least, not since the One Click fiasco.
Now, on the other hand, you have to consider:
1. Amazon is one of the most innovative and inventive companies on the 'net. From popularizing online commerce in the first place by creating one of the first safe, solid, buying portals, they've introduced a large range of concepts that have been copied and relied upon from everyone from Yahoo Shopping to Apple iTunes Music Store. My favorite feature is the integrated reviews system, largely uncensored (Yes, you can find an example of someone who had their reviews removed, but a quick look at the majority of products will find bad, scathing, and even insulting, reviews in abundance) and an excellent system to evaluate products.
2. Amazon has one of the largest catalogues around, as a matter of policy. If they've found it exists, and it fits their categories, it has an ASIN. Even if they can't sell it, marketplace sellers can be very specific about the item they're selling, meaning buyers can be fairly confident about what they're getting.
3. Amazon has excellent customer support. I've never had an issue unresolved by them. I rarely have problems in the first place. I've never met anyone who had a problem with them. They also act as an "honest broker" between third party sellers and buyers, and a reliable one, which is more than can be said for Paypal.
These three facts between them are why, in the absense of current bad behaviour I do buy from Amazon. Of all online retailers, they're the most useful. Their inventive and innovative streaks do deserve support. And I can trust them.
*Any* company? Heh. Good luck buying "War and Peace" from Staples.com...
Anyway, that's simply nonsense. They have no major competitors on the "We sell everything front", with the possible exception of eBay/Paypal. There are the aggregators/portals like Yahoo Shopping, but there the consistancy and reliability of the information is awful. Then you have other companies that specialize in a particular field but don't necessarily have that wide a range.
Rig
Also energy efficient computer-controlled roomy comfortable flying cars. Will never happen. Completely impossible, alas. Can't see it ever happening.
Seriously, you're confusing nanos. Carbon nanotubes are merely strong carbon molecules chains, manufactured in the lab. Nanotechnology (generally) refers to self-replicating machines that are microscopically small (and non-organic, presumably, or at least, unnatural, since natural, organic, self-replicating machines already exist. We call it "life"); it's the latter that people routinely express concern about. iPod nanos are very, very, small iPods, that use flash memory for storage.
The good news is that nobody will invent microscopic, useful, self-replicating machines in my lifetime, and probably not yours either. There is absolutely no chance of such a technology being invented. It's impossible.
Absolutely pissed me off, especially given the legality of the situation. I was, fortunately, watching the machine at the time, otherwise the results could have been embarassing.
Summaries don't always include exactly the same wording as what they summarize, otherwise they wouldn't be summaries. Go boil your head.
"iTunes is filmed in front of a live, studio, audience!"
If RedHat (or whomsever) is signing its binaries purely so they will run on specific machines that have been locked to those distributions (the only case in which the keys are relevant, remember the wording "in the recommended or principal context of use"), in such a way that users of those machines cannot compile their own versions, then RedHat is violating the principle (and probably the letter) of GPLv2 and definitely the letter of GPLv3. It is absolutely right that under those circumstances, RedHat either not sign the distribution (and not produce a version for DRM'd computers), or they distribute keys allowing others to do so.
This is about using DRM to bypass the GPL completely. And remember, the current clause 3 of GPL2 (the clause that mandates source code disclosure) reads, in part:
It isn't at all clear to me right now that refusing to distribute a key that's necessary to compile code in order to make it run on a specific device is compatible with the above terms and conditions. Clearly without the key, you do not have a viable, let alone "preferred", form for making modifications.In any case, the clause in GPLv3 clarifies this and removes this loophole. There will be those that will throw a tantrum. Nothing, of course, prevents Torvalds, if he's so gung-ho about allowing manufacturers to lock their hardware to specific operating systems from specific suppliers, from adding a postscript to the license to relieve licensees from that duty. He hasn't with GPLv2, and if he so believes that that's a great thing to do, then he probably should.
And nobody considers it a bug, with the possible exception of Torvalds, that if DRM'd hardware is the "recommended or principle context of use", that you have to distribute a private key. That's not a bug, that's a feature.The GGP's comment about MitM attacks really only highlights the difficulty of putting together a license that catches every violation. What this, at least, does is make it obviously difficult for a hardware manufacturer to distribute GPLv3'd software with hardware that prevents that software from being changed. It doesn't make it impossible, but then, if they want it to be impossible, they can burn the entire thing into a ROM on an integrated chip. Putting up barriers though isn't a bad thing even if, for a minority, there are still benefits to be had from hopping over them.
1. A manufacturer who takes GPL'd code, signs it, and then sells hardware that only runs code signed with their key, which they don't redistribute, is in violation of the license. This is relatively narrowly defined, despite Torvalds throwing a hissy fit about this part of the license a few weeks ago, thinking it outlawed all forms of DRM (it doesn't.)
2. The license isn't automatically revoked upon it being breached. Instead the copyright holders have to give the breacher 30 days notice to allow them back into compliance.
3. To make it more compatable with similar licenses, there's a whole bunch of optional terms and conditions that can be added. For example, you can say "If you sue us for patent infringement, you can't use any patents our code relies upon that we own, effectively ending your ability to use our software." The notable feature is that this is an optional condition.
HTH. Anyone notice anything else that was major (ie not a clarification of something we largely knew anyway?)
A: In case he got a hole in one! Arf arf!
Mind you, it could just mean there's a bug in 1.8.2/.3 that happened to break RoR, so I'll reserve judgement.
Is Ruby "stable"? That is, is it still under intensive development or are we looking at minor upgrades to fix bugs and such in the implementation?
Depends on if the bars stay open.
In the event he violated the ASBO, say, by taking control of Boston, his parents would be subject to a very stiff fine, and he'd be given a stern talking to.
I'm not sure what this has to do with trade secrets, but, well, that's what I think would happen anyway.
Apache worms are growing.
The Betamax case didn't "legalize" half the things people think it did. We could do with a law that does, but don't get the idea that just because you can come up with a bizarre, convoluted, argument comparing something to recording it with a VCR, that it's legal. The Betamax case didn't even say that all time-shifting was legal. It just said it was legal to sell devices to time shift (given many TV producers in the 1980s were happy for such time shifting to occur.)
The argument, for example, that as one can record a movie being shown on TV onto a tape for future viewing, and that a friend might be in the same house when you view it later, that it must also be legal to copy a CSS-encoded DVD onto a PC, and distribute it to millions of anonymous strangers, falls down on two counts: The first is that the original claim may well not be true. Betamax was about VCR makers, not VCR users. And secondly, the two things are not alike in any real way.
So can we make the dramatic and hitherto unbelievable conclusion from all this self-congratulatory DVD-collection-size-boasting that many people who like movies have large DVD collections and also make use of other methods, legal and illegal, such as infringing copies via filesharing networks, to get movies?
The reason the system doesn't change is because people like you don't seek to change it. If you get active within your party, you will make a difference. If most people who feel strongly about a subject like patents get involved, you'll make a major difference. You don't do that because you're lazy and apathetic, not because you can't change anything. On your own, yeah, maybe you can't. With a large group of others, others who right now are spewing the same bullshit you just did, yes, you can.
I'm not going to cry about your increased taxes when you've done fuck-all about them.
The term "copyright infringment" is accurate, in the same way as "property misappropriation" is an accurate description of theft. However, it would be as ludicrous to complain about people using the word "theft" when they mean "property misappropriation" as it would be to complain that people use the word "piracy" when they mean "willful copyright infringement".
That would be a risky game for the PTO to play. The other consequence of doing the job badly is that the job can be taken away from you completely. The patents section of the PTO could discredit the very basis of its existance, the USPTO becoming the USTO.
If you don't like the patent system as it stands, you can do two things: you can bitch and moan about it on Slashdot, or you can actually take affirmative steps to reform it. That could be as simple as writing to your representatives, or as strong as getting involved in the party you feel closest to, helping reshape it to fit your agenda. If you're prepared, however, to just pay the taxes and not actually hold the people spending that money to account, then expect to pay more taxes. It's your fault they're wasting money.
There's a minority of us who this doesn't apply to. Me, for example. I like in the US, and don't (yet) vote as I'm not a citizen (yet). But the vast majority of taxpayers in the US have some say over how their taxes are spent. Most of you bitch about it, yet never actually do anything.
If your Patent Office, whose legal standing is based upon laws accountable to you, is fouling up, prepare to pay for its mistakes (be that via higher taxes or poorer services), whether it's buying too many paperclips every year, or its employees are approving too many troubling patents.
BTW I find your assertion that "people that download stuff would not have bought it anyway" to be largely false. I know far too many people who see unlicensed P2P as a substitute for buying music. There are the handful that see P2P as a way to try out new artists, and there's the occasional poor student who doesn't have any money to spend on CDs anyway, but by and large, a substantial amount of unlicensed P2P use appears to be to circumvent the notion of paying for the music people listen to.
Probably worth adding that in many shops I know, every new server-type application that requires Windows gets its own Windows box, whereas people seem to understand the concept of "multitasking" with Unix and GNU based platforms, which is another thing that probably distorts the figures. That is, suppose my employer sells "StatisticStats" to Target, WalMart, and K-Mart. If we've written it as a web application, we'll deploy it one-(or-more)-CPUs-per-customer with all three (ie three servers) if we're doing it under IIS, whereas we'll centralize it unless it really starts becoming a resource hog if we deploy it under GNU/Linux.
I don't really understand why, except in that Windows does a lot to hide the underlying system to the point that it becomes easier just to throw a new box at each job than spend the time getting the different parts to work. It shouldn't be like this, IIS is pretty versatile, it just... is.
Otherwise we'd all feel free to elect Governor Robert Maxwell, who'd have free reign to do whatever the hell he wants, as long as he personally pays the fines. Corrupt government but low taxes, so who cares, right?
The point you missed was the countries and contexts issue. How many embassies in Europe or America have been attacked by Islamic militants? Any? Any at all? The only places serious violence has supposedly spontaneously occured have been in countries where the governments essentially encouraged it.
Islam has no monopoly on violence. Nutballs exist in all religions, and comparing like with like - Muslims in Europe with Christians in Europe for example - I'm not seeing any serious evidence that one is significantly worse than the other. I could claim that Catholics has the largest percentage of violent psychopaths in the world, given my own experience of living in Britain under the IRA's shadow, and the closeness of the cinema bombing I mentioned, but I wouldn't believe it; yet there's more justification for me to claim that, based on concrete, like-circumstances, than there is for the broad, sweeping, attacks on Muslims I'm reading here.
I fear deeply both the countries promoting violence and xenophobia, and the counter-xenophobia I'm reading here and elsewhere (some of which is what started the ball rolling in the first place.) I believe we're a decade or two away from the world being in the same situation as it was in the middle of the 20th Century. These are fearful times for thinking people.