I think it should've been made clearer that this doesn't in anyway reduce the awfulness of the current notice-and-takedown system, it merely points out that the content industry's proposed alternative is far worse. A notice-and-notice system would provide the same (probably more) incentive to make works available, while reducing the crazy levels of abuse of the notice-and-takedown system.
"You survived the last terrorist attack. Thousands of your fellow citizens did not."
Wow, really? You sound like a typical politician trying to get elected with blatant fear-mongering.
"Meanwhile, you and your cohorts post hyperbolic claims about living in a police state..."
Meanwhile, you and your cohorts post hyperbolic claims about living in a state of imminent terrorism. This despite the fact that the chances of being directly affected by a terrorist attack are statistically minute, particularly one of foreign origin. The government has been given (or just taken) far more power than it needs to combat the problem, and is massively abusing that power.
"I support the rule of law and will abide by the Court's decision, even if I don't like it. This is what the "Founding Fathers" also had in mind."
The law is supposed to be a reflection of the public's will, the kind of society they want to live in. When the law is extended, twisted and abused to the point where it no longer reflects the public will, it should be changed, not supported. I'm pretty damn sure the Founding Fathers didn't have total acquiescence to government power in mind.
"I think you presume a lot with very little support for your presumptions."
You're either unbelievably ignorant in claiming there's no support for these "presumptions", or you're trying to convince us there is no such support despite the massive amount of published info providing quite solid support. So are you dumb or deceitful?
"U.K. intelligence has stated that known terrorist methods of operation and communication have changed (improved)."
So the people who have been proven to be lying to the public on a massive scale offer one of the easiest and most obvious defenses, and you just believe them? Are you one of these people or just a bit naive and gullible?
"Make him your hero if you like, but more and more observers are waking up to one of the most massive media deceptions in American history."
Who are these people exactly? Seriously, this is a pretty easy claim to make, but you're going to have to provide at least some proof, because it sounds quite overblown and without any merit whatsoever.
"...incredibly naive of him to think of Russian press as free and Putin's Q&A sessions as non-scripted..."
What on Earth makes you think Snowden thinks that? Absolutely nothing he's done could make anyone who's followed his public statements leap to that conclusion. Your comment almost seems like a weak attempt to lead people to believe something you know to be false...
Actually I think it's dangerous not because of what they could do to me personally as you describe, but what they can do to other more important people that who may be working in my interests. What if some in the government decided they were sick of the actions of groups like Wikileaks, EFF or the ACLU, or up-and-coming politicians who start getting popular with voters because they challenge current government positions or actions. What if what you describe above is done to them? To me that's far scarier.
"The assumptions made in this story are completely stupid."
Be careful throwing that word around...
"First off, you wouldn't get cable to watch a single show."
Well done, you've actually hit on the main point without even realising it. People won't pay just to watch GoT, they'll get it elsewhere instead. An entire section of the market is being ignored and not earning anybody any money. How is that a good business decision? And if it turns out that keeping it exclusive does actually maximise their profit, why the hell are they complaining about it?!
There's nothing misleading here, you're just not understanding the argument. If you want to watch GoT legally, that is what you have to pay. The fact that you get access to other stuff is not relevant, because the discussion is about being able to watch this particular show.
"To suggest Megaupload was primarily used for legal traffic is ludicrous."
Suggesting the VCR was primarily used for legal purposes was also considered ludicrous by the MPAA, and yet looked how that worked out.
It's clear to anyone with half a brain that MU and other cloud storage sites have "substantial non-infringing uses", so I don't understand why you think the end result should be different this time around.
And before any of the usual studio shills jump in, the fact that MU didn't pay for the films to be made does not in any way preclude the studios from offering exactly the same service and potentially making the same income they claim MU made. Unless of course their claims are exaggerated or unfounded...