Or just revise the law to state that international copyrights will only be enforced if they are held by Canadian trading partners in good standing, and that the only prosecutable violations of those copyrights are those which have taken place during the most recent contiguous period that that partner has been in good standing.

That way we don’t need to keep updating the law every time a trading partner starts/stops acting up, and other trading partners won’t need to worry about impacts to their IP. It will simply be baked in that every time a trading partner unilaterally breaks a trade agreement with us they will in effect be granting amnesty to every Canadian citizen who ever breached their copyright in the past and creating an open season on their IP within Canada until they can reach a new mutually acceptable trade agreement. Honestly this should be a standard practice for many countries.

Well it does seem to be talking about the global 1% which is known to include a pretty big slice of the population in relatively wealthy places like the US. The more exclusive 1% that people usually talk about is the US 1% or the 1% of another specific country.

Keep in mind that 1% of 7 billion people is 70 million. And estimates for the number of billionaires in the world look to be under 3000. In addition, most estimates for worldwide median individual income are under 3000 USD per year.

Taking all that into account, 140k sounds pretty reasonable as a boundary for the global 1%.

I mean it’s a state election. Even if they gained 100% control of that state’s government they wouldn’t have taken over Germany.

Go for it

He’s free to discuss this article any way that he thinks is interesting. Just because he found it helpful to point out the bias in this case doesn’t obligate him to do it in any other cases. He doesn’t owe you anything.

Also, responding to someone noting the reputation of your source with what amounts to "ARE YOU ACCUSING ME OF BREAKING THE RULES? ARE YOU SAYING CONSERVATIVE LEANING SOURCES ARE ILLEGAL?” is basically the textbook definition of a wildly defensive response lmao.

The saying never says that you can make 999,999,999.99 honestly. It just says one amount you can make honestly and one amount you can’t. The implication is that the outer limit of what you can make honestly is somewhere in between.