There is nothing wrong with them doing what's best for themselves. The problem is that history has shown that they have no idea what is best for them. I don't recalling anyone saying that they didn't have the right to do what they did. We just pointed out how shortsighted and stupid their actions were.
You wouldn't own the copyright to the program because that would be categorized as a work-for-hire. Also most employment contracts contain a clause stating that everything you create on company time belongs to the company.
Re: But... FREE only works if products are duplicable at trivial cost.
But that is the point. "Free" applies very well to things that aren't scarce because that is what there price is pushed towards anyway.
Companies like Wal-Mart have no use for free in this context because their products are scarce. I can't just walk into Wal-Mart, pull out my magic duplicator, and make my own copy of the t-shirt they are selling. That item is scarce and has a marginal production cost that is not 0.
I'm not sure you're right about that. Even as text-to-speech gets better, it will never be able to read a book in a dramatic fashion like many books on tape do. Most humans would rather listen to another human read the book, using inflections and emphasizing words to make the book more interesting. Text-to-Speech will not be able to reproduce those type of experiences. At least not for a long time.
It discredits your argument that people are not doing something "normal and natural". It appears you thought it was "normal and natural" to copy the image from google to use as your image. If it's natural for you to copy that why is not natural for others to do the same?
Re: mass exodus form the usa for web hosting begins
While that is likely to happen to some extent, I don't think it's necessary. The problem here was not due to the US. The FBI didn't request even the single site taken down. They only wanted to information on the poster so they could handle the person directly. I think this is actually a very reasonable response by the FBI. The problem was in Burst.net panicking and taking down not only the sight in question, but all of Blogetery. That was just a huge mistake on the part of Burst.net.
Yet you are still ignoring the fact that the action done by the business was done for the purpose of financial gain. They play the music to attract more customers to their business, but they don't pay the license to save money.
There is no commercial gain in individual file sharing. The judge is pointing out that the business fine is less even though they are benefiting commercially from the infringement, where the individual fine is significantly more where there is no direct benefit (other than money from not paying for the songs).
I'm completely agree. Lets just say they uploaded the song to 100 people (probably actually very high as most people never get over about 5). So if you figure damages as $100 give or take and even say it was willful and award treble damages your still only talking $300 per song and this reduced reward is 7.5x that.