"The problem is, in the case of an actual active-shooter or hostage situation, restraint is really the last thing you want them to show."
Fair enough, but first they should have to determine if there really is an actual active-shooter or hostage situation. Until that's decided by professional LEO's, not unreliable or malicious "witnesses", restraint should absolutely be shown.
Given their history, any strong pro-IP stance from Metallica is totally believable. Lawyers act on instructions from their client, not on their own whims. Somebody either told them to do this, or (more likely) they had standing instructions that weren't clear enough in their limits. The band may honestly not have wanted this to happen, but they're not blameless.
"Would you ever argue that a grocery store with record sales shouldn't worry about shoplifting? I wouldn't, because it's a silly argument."
Well that's exactly what a lot of stores do to a degree, so who's the silly one?
"Yes, it's a successful film. But how successful would it have been without piracy?"
Wrong question. The right question is, how much more or less money would we make if we stopped heavily investing in historically unsuccessful anti-piracy efforts, and put that money into productive (i.e, profitable) areas instead. Given widespread piracy still is, the return on investment seems pretty terrible. If you could make more money overall by taking a more realistic approach, i.e. targeting only large-scale commercial piracy instead of the general public whose custom you're trying to win, why wouldn't you?
"Why is copyrighting a work from 1959 terrible for culture, yet copyrighting a work from 1960 is something you now admit to supporting? Wouldn't it be terrible for culture too?"
Wow, that is the lamest attempt at a "gotcha" question I've seen in a while. Both are just as bad, but you well know that a line has to be drawn somewhere to make a law. Why don't you explain to us why Life+50 is an acceptable copyright period but Life+49 is not? The question is just as dumb and we know you can't answer it.
"I do base it on things like my ability to control the car and avoid a crash. Things like not having a computer inserted between my controls and the car."
Modern stability controls can do a much better job of allowing you to control the car and avoid a crash than most drivers are able to. You say you're in IT, not a professional driver, so it's safe to assume that includes you. I'm not criticising your car choices, just your rationalisation for them. Claiming you can do a better job of avoiding a crash on your own implies a skill level that's probably higher than the reality.
I don't want to offend but you sound a bit naive, as if you didn't think government and big business would push back to defend their firmly entrenched interests. Tell me who else has the power, funds and network to effectively challenge them? The only group who has a change are voter/purchasers, and they're doing a pretty average job...
Your criticism is very poorly aimed. Those in the "free speech tech community" are not the ones breaking the promises you grew up hearing, in fact they're often the one's fighting hardest for them. It's governments and big business that are entirely to blame for the ills of the internet. You same ones you probably vote for and buy from.
While I share your enthusiasm for older cars, you have to be truly ignorant of modern automotive engineering to think a few basic bolt-ons to an old car can make it as safe as a new one. What you're doing is simply accepting greater risk of injury in an accident. Nothing wrong with honestly admitting that.
Also note that driving in a caged car without a helmet makes serious injury more likely than if you had no cage. Side impacts are far more common than rollovers, and smacking your head against a cage during a crash is never pretty...