Most biz dont have the kind of money to hand over to Goog workspace or M$. therefore, you get what its free, and thats WA biz

https://freedomindex.us/us/

Massie has 99% And Paul was at 96 % in the 117th congress

https://freedomindex.us/us/legislators/session/11/sort/sd/

I've seen compost vending machines in my visits to NYC and a few other places, but i've yet anyone using them

The truth of the matter is that employers pay a humongous share of the health insurance bill, and if you shop directly, you will pay that 100% on your own.

You do have to put in a little more effort, but as an employer you can build a hybrid plan and contract with certain networks, and lower your bill tremendously.

Will you do the same for your kids ? WOuld you let the government decide for you whats right, and what's wrong ?

Its quite insane

and -at least in this article- the consequences seem noticeably missing

EDIT: Althought the article does not include it, the bill (linked from the article) does.

That's not correct and the law is clear on this respect. No one has standing to sue you if you decide to sing in public a Michael Jackson song. However, the moment you start selling tickets to the presentation, that's something entirely different.

You are literally leveraging the fact that someone put that song on the map. You didn't create it. You didn't promote it. You didn't do anything, in fact, except try to profit from it.

Libertarians still believe in property rights. Property can be tangible or intangible.

The point can easily be made with a simple peek into history. No one that recorded anything intangible, like a song, was selling it to others for commercial use because they didn't understand that intangible they had just created had value, but the moment they did, morally, they felt it was wrong and sought the courts for redress. There are examples in history:

In fact, the oldest documented examples of creators pushing back against unauthorized copying predate any formal copyright laws by centuries anda few stretch back to over a millennium! [1] [2]

[1] https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2011/10/04/the-world%E2%80%9...

[2] https://course.oeru.org/oerdsc/copyright-and-licensing/copyr...

Why is this important ? Because the oppression you mention of freedom, in order to happen, must be codified by government. If you have this issue going so far back in time, when government hadn't codified anything, its a clear indication that the issue trascends code and goes to the heart of what is moral and inmoral.

This debate of whether you own an idea, trascended the codification of the idea in government "repressing your freedoms" . The fact of the matter is, we believe strongly in freedom, as long as it doesn't transgress the freedoms of others. This is key. In this case, the freedom to reap the rewards of your hard work should not be infringed by the work of another. You are not more important than someone else. This is a basic tenet of liberty

the thought is that the copyright value accrued out of some accident and thus, the owner does not deserve its value . That thinking is flawed. If anything, the copyright owner contributed to the equity accrued to the copyright. They should be able to pay the high price to keep adding value to it. This does not discriminate. IN fact, i would say the opposite, what you are proposing, feels like stealing.

If i dump millions into developing a copyrighted work, why could any random artist with nothing to lose be able to exploit the work by paying a small/no fee? This seems incredibly unfair. Do you agree?

I think a key tidbit not mentioned by the article, is to recommend for US and Europeans travelers the experience of ecosystem change by going from coastal (sea level), to paramo , to high Andes , and then back down to (dense) tropical jungle.

That ecosystem journey does not exist in North America, and its rare in the EU, except for maybe Switzerland (where you will not experience tropical jungle anyway).

Yet, the journey from coast to highland down to jungle, is available on all highways criscrossing the Andes!

It also was super helpful in maintenance of a 3rd language spoken at home.

Maybe that's where the problem is. Perhaps it should be a requirement that an app must be winner in the consumer education market before it can be sold to the education bureacracy. If an app survived the cutthroat education app B2C market, you know it works well for B2E market

I did look into the complaints and went direct to the source: My kids. ONe actively loves it. He seeks it out. I asked him about the author's complaints. He agreed its slow but didn't seem to bother him. He's not particularly patient, so this part was surprising based on the article.

Idk what the older brother will say but ill report back

Some private companies make it so hard these days (Adobe & NYT being the kings of subcription dark patterns), I am curious how the process goes with a govt entity like the BBC ?

Would that work ?

Seems benign enough that its not going to earn you a visit to the judge, but should disable most electronics, no?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_Atrix_4G

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapdock

I think its more :

if your taxable income during OR post-office exceeds (some 1,3,5 yr average) prior high watermark income, or the officeholder's salary (whichever is higher), every penny over high watermark is taxed at 99% tax rate.

That should take care of those pesky "speaking fees" and other nonsense that makes politicians rich.