Or you are sued into bankrupcy by an industry trade group trying to use a corrupt law to supress your first amendment right to publish any writing or artistic work that does not endanger the national security of the United States or cause a clear and present danger to public safety. Copyright infringement does neither. It neither puts DoD personnel in danger nor does it present a real physical/psychological danger to the public. Publishing a paper on the flaws of a DRM system is thus perfectly constitutional.
Your definition puts you in the former camp, right alongside Al Gore and Ralph Nader and Abbie Hoffman and Che Guevara. Nice cesspool you have there.
Conservatism (n): Liberalism minus any principles and a deep seated hatred of reason as means of living as an alternative to faith.
If corporate officers weren't shielded from lawsuits, nobody would bother to form companies
I'm not talking about lawsuits. I'm talking about the ability of the government to disband a corporation that has a serious track record of criminal behavior. I'm not talking about Microsoft here, I'm talking about not for profits like the RIAA, BSA and MPAA that act as mercenaries for public corporations like Microsoft, Sony, et al. Of course you cannot easily get rid of a for-profit corporation nothing short of hiring a mercenary army to overthrow foreign governments could justify that. However the state supreme courts should have the authority to kill groups like the **AA in the blink of an eye if they feel that they are fundamentally abusing the law.
When a government becomes abusive of the rights of the people, they have a right to alter or abolish it, but what if a corporation or union becomes abusive of their rights? Should the people have to bend over and take it when faced with SLAPPs (for those who don't know, SLAPP means "Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation")?
The US is too soft on high profile criminals. Bill Clinton and Ken Lay should both face the death penalty for their crimes against the people and the public liberty. Obviously the war crimes against our people and the people of countless nations justify the execution of the former, but IMO, the latter should face at least life for his crimes against the stockholders of his company and its workers.
This is sad.
Are you aware, child, that if your next-door neighbor steals your car, rapes your mother, or shoots your father, he has not "endanger[ed] the national security of the United States or cause a clear and present danger to public safety"?
Remember, I didn't say he became a career criminal. He merely went after your family.
Before you puke out some more ejecta, remember that the courts have driven a broad distinction between "public" and individual matters, i.e., the police have a mission to maintain public safety in general, but are not obligated to protect my safety. There have been test cases (i.e., the woman in NY who was killed after she was turned down for a CCW -- her mother sued, and lost).
I am really sad that so-called conservatives (which is what libberoids masquerade as in order to avoid being kicked off a conservative forum) would take such a *clearly* anarchist/marxist posture WRT property rights.