The fact that there are ways to learn and develop knowledge without infringing on an absurdly over-broad copyright are irrelevant It's relevant to the extent t

The fact that there are ways to learn and develop knowledge without infringing on an absurdly over-broad copyright are irrelevant It's relevant to the extent that it would have to be true in order to argue that the $150,000 fine promotes learning. The fact that I make that argument as "devil's advocate" and that I've got to sing "Like a Virgin" as an allegory of finding Jesus means I accept the law might be absurd. I would like greater insight into and specificity concerning the nature of that absurdity (the burden of the argument I quoted was being carried by a rhetorical question), and, for that reason, and for what it's worth, I find your comment more interesting and more substantive than the original post.