If you steal a sample of cow manure from a pasture, you have taken something of value. Either pay for it, or don't take it. Taking it without paying is a capital offense, or requires a fine that you can never afford to pay.
Just how much value it has is a different question.
Making copyrighted films based on the public domain would be like copying your neighbor's flower arrangement, getting a copyright on that arrangement, and then suing your neighbor for copyright infringement.
Or eating at your neighbor's house, liking the dish, getting the recipe, slightly altering it, publishing it with copyright, and then suing your neighbor for copyright infringement. Furthermore, mass suing everyone who has ever eaten your neighbor's recipe without a license from you.
Copyright length is like if a home builder built a house and then thought they should be able to make money on it forever, like rent, or a fee each time it is sold, for example. They would argue this is justified because their hard work went into that house, just as the work that goes into a movie.
No. God, no. No. No. This is the single greatest hemorrhaging of legitimate American secrets in the history of this country.
Wow. This is not even an act of actual spying. This is just exposing massive wrongdoing that could not be addressed through proper channels. I guess Hayden would have the not be any legitimate means to address concerns about such massive inappropriate action on the part of the government.
So this is a bigger act of spying than, say, stealing secrets about the atomic bomb? Just to reveal government wrongdoing? Wow.
What he is really saying is that it would better to take the actions that actually splinter the internet and attempt to keep it secret for as long as possible (which is not forever). Then one day (now in the past) when the secret is exposed that the NSA has splintered the internet, blame the messenger and say that the messenger has splintered the internet.
Forget the token payment. Why shouldn't the BSA just license the photo?
Maybe the BSA is assuming that the owner of the photo would be as ridiculous as the BSA. Does that photo require CAL's? (Client Access Licenses for each device that accesses the photo?) Or maybe the photo is licensed per server, per cpu, per year?
The BSA might be shocked to find that the owner of the photo might give them quite generous usage rights for a very reasonable fee. Maybe the BSA realizes that it could not withstand such a shock if it were to ask what it would cost to license the photo.
There is nothing wrong with talking about the bad or stupid practices of a company. Even if the bad or stupid thing they do is perfectly legal. Even if people are free to leave and even if there are other choices available.
So what's your problem?
TD talks about stupid and/or bad things that companies do all the time.