The point that you're missing so spectacularly is that "borrowing" samples from each other is part of their culture, so they should be in favor of strengthening fair use to allow for these things. So they can speak out against current copyright laws as they relate to fair use without having to call for abolishing all copyright.
A consumer boycott large enough to make a dent is unrealistic and would just be used as extra fuel in the debate of why they need new legislation ("See, sales are down dramatically, PIRACY!")
What needs to happen in the music industry is a boycott by the artists. If the popular artists refuse to sign deals with the major labels and sell directly to the consumers (or use a co-op label) then the tides are really turning. I think this is just a matter of time, too. SOPA became so toxic that no politician wants to be associated with it. Artists, too, should be distancing themselves from the industry.
In the film industry it is slightly more complicated and it will take longer to bypass the gatekeepers, but I believe it is possible.
I also like his objection to touring: Aretha Franklin shouldn't have to drag her 78 years old butt on stage. Well yeah, he's right. Just like everybody else has retired by that age. It's called planning ahead and managing your finances. The sense of entitlement these guys display is just mind-boggling and, frankly, insulting to anybody working normal jobs.
Naw, they complained to the pirate party via email. Well, they didn't accuse them of anything really, just "expressed concern". Maybe they thought this way the story makes the news and therefore the message reaches the intended audience :)
The reason they haven't sued anyone is because there's nobody to sue. The pirate party itself never used the toys, just multiple news outlets. Someone did it once, other thought it's cute, and now it it has turned into somewhat of a meme. The party itself doesn't even particularly like being associated with toys. It's funny that Playmobil then direct their complaint to the party who isn't responsible for any of this.
He never framed the issues like you said. Where did he focus on individual patents? It says it pretty clearly that it's the current implementation of the patent system as a whole that is hindering progress rather than promoting it.
Sure, patents are a trade-off, but all evidence points to the fact that the balance is clearly off, causing the system to stifle progress (yes, even in the long term). Also, nobody said the benefit to the public needs to be upfront, so that's just a silly straw man.
I disagree that the name will prevent them from being accepted by the mainstream. The meaning and associations of words change over time and what sticks is what they stand for, not what you currently associate with the word pirate. Society used to think of pirates just as the swashbuckling kind before it associated the term also with file-sharers. There's nothing that says we won't associate the term with people fighting for our civil liberties one day.
Another example of how that already happened before with a political party is the Green party in Germany. When they started out, being "green" was considered totally out of the mainstream. The name conjured up images of idealistic yet utterly unrealistic one-issue hippies and it was very much a protest party at the time. People said the same thing you're saying now, that their name would lock them in and prevent them from ever becoming mainstream. Now that they've been in the mainstream for 30 years people no longer associate "green" with purely environmental issues and the name is no hindrance.
The fact that this made front page news in a tabloid paper speaks volumes actually. That just goes to show how popular the phenomenon is if tabloid papers think it's a story that will be that interesting to its readers, most of whom probably care little about politics or the talking points of the party.
I thought the issue was more that overzealous photographers/artists might sue pinterest because they store copies of their work. The TOS is standard boilerplate, sure, but if you pinned the work of someone else and the guy in turn sues pinterest, you're the one who promised to indemnify them.
I don't even use pinterest so I can't be sure I'm getting this right. This is based on what I read in her blog post. I wouldn't be too surprised if one of those self-righteous overzealous entitled artists decides to make a big stink about something and you might be the one having to deal with it. Am I getting this wrong?
One of the major issues of the day? Setting fire to his ideals? Jesus, talk about hyperbole.
This wasn't an "assault on free speech", unless you believe campaigns should be able to anonymously smear their opponents in an election. He wasn't going after some random individual on the internet because he didn't like the message. He was suing because he was reasonable sure that the Huntsman campaign was behind it. There are different standards and would the press have done their job with some basic investigative journalism this could have been quite a scandal.
So yeah, you can complain about him using the wrong tools for the job, but to call this a flip flop on his ideals is stretching it.
The last time this was mentioned here I hadn't actually heard about the incident so I caught up on the story and read what was out there. To call the evidence improbable or downright stupid and painting Ron Paul supporters as conspiracy theorists is lazy, opinionated drivel. There's plenty of evidence out there pointing to the Huntsman campaign. It's not certain, but even Ron Paul was sure enough that he decided to launch a lawsuit to reveal who's behind it.
Was he using a loophole? Yeah. Abusing the trademark law? Probably. Would the result have justified the means? I think it might have. I certainly would have liked to know if the Huntsman campaign actively smeared a candidate using a false flag attack. But the one thing I'm sure about is that Mike never bothered looking into the case, or he's so biased that he doesn't care about the facts. I'm not even a Ron Paul supporter and that much is obvious to me.
Pretty close. It's the credit card companies, but they don't typically refuse payments. They just charge a lot more because of the added risk of chargebacks. Paypal doesn't want to take on the extra cost so they just refuse any content that might be deemed risky.
Well yes, they are middlemen. I don't think he's ever made the point that nobody should be able to profit from distribution. If file lockers ever pull the shit that MPAA/RIAA and their ilk are getting away with we'll be bitching about them as well.
If that were true open source would not exist, right?
But still open source which says you are free to copy, modify, distribute and sell is a growing ecosystem, vibrant full of people creating and being paid to do so, how do you dismiss reality?
I agree with most of your points but I really wish people would stop citing open source as the alternative model that's somehow overlooked in the entertainment industry. There already exists something like that in the world of creative works and it's called Creative Commons. Many artists use it, but it doesn't mean it makes sense for everybody. Just like there are reasons why Microsoft, Apple, Oracle and Adobe don't just open-source their cash cows.