You forgot
4. Taking your business away from a company that supports things you don't like is a violation of the company's right of free speech.
The content gatekeepers feel that, once they shovel over some "campaign contributions", the politicians they bought will belong to them forever. What a pity they don't feel the same way about the music and movies we buy.
Two words: entitlement culture.
"This is mine, I have the right to keep it forever! Nobody else is allowed to use it! Pay me!"
How does a creator benefit from copyright that extends beyond their death? Do you believe the deceased write books, code software or compose music? These indefinite copyright extensions only benefit people who want to be paid for other peoples' work.
A limited copyright, so that the artist can make a living by creating works, is fair. But if the artist wants to keep getting paid, they have to keep working. Limiting copyright impels them to keep creating, as well as eventually opening up their work for others to build on and create from.
Creative projects are of little value if others can't be inspired by them, build on them, improve on them and incorporate them into new and bigger things. Infinite copyright effectively forbids that, so it actually reduces the value of everything that is created.
Face it. The conclusion is inescapable. Infinite copyright suppresses creativity and benefits only middlemen and gatekeepers who contribute nothing. Everything that is created needs to eventually enter the public domain so that it becomes the property of everyone everywhere.
You'd think a total wanker like him would have an effective stress relief method close at hand.
"Have any real proof? Other than all the proof you've already shown?"
FTFY.
The solution is a better business model.
I think flailing, as in waving your arms around in desperation, is just the right word.
It's possible, but unlikely. Why spend so much time and effort? They would have had to set up the racist witch doctor in advance, implying they'd planned this for quite a while, and the bogus C & D demand was risky. What if the institute had folded? All that effort, time and risk just to make themselves look good? Seems awfully elaborate for something so petty. Are these people Scooby Doo villains?
They could have just given the MAI a bunch of money in the first place.
"Thankfully the situation was resolved when Wright reached out to the person sending the letter, who apologized and withdrew the claim."
That's kind of the point. If the person making the false claim had maintained it, Wright would have had no recourse. If a system can only NOT persecute the innocent if you naively assume it will never be abused, and that all disagreements will be settled with smiles and handshakes, then it is a bad system. Do you really not see that?
I assume "corporartion" is like a corporation, but more piratey.
Australia already has laws in place to deal with assault and threats, and ones which deal with obstruction of officials in their duties. But insults? No public figure is, or should be, immune from criticism or ridicule.
Michael O'Brien is a precious, wall-eyed little git.
Righthaven's entire business model consisted of trying to extract money from people with threats and dubious legal posturing. Now they're the ones having to pay and pay.
I don't believe that there's a supernatural force that sees to it that people get exactly what they deserve, which makes it all the more satisfying when it actually happens.
Suck it, Righthaven!
As tempting as it is to cause a shitstorm for companies like this, it's the wrong thing to do. You'd be hurting the company's other customers, who've done nothing to deserve it.
How do we actually know what the King of Thailand thinks of this whole thing? According to the BBC article he is pretty sick and has been in hospital for a while, so he may not have even known about it. For all we know this is just an overzealous overreaction from some idiot bureaucrats, without to do with the King.
"Petitioners also urge that the Government's position would allow Congress to legislate perpetual copyright terms by instituting successive?limited? terms as prior terms expire. But as in Eldred, such hypothetical misbehavior is far afield from this case."
How can the Supreme Court say that with a straight face?