You're under the mistaken impression that this is a widely known fact among 22 year olds. Most people that age aren't yet world-weary and cynical enough to think such a problem could be as bad as it apparently is.
"So your argument is that the greedy corporation was right to both keep that song and underpay contractual royalties?"
I think the point was more that the family don't exactly make a sympathetic victim, not that the record companies weren't acting unconscionably. Most people here don't believe copyrights should extend beyond the rightsholder's death, and so there should be no need for a law suit.
Re: The "irreparable harm" is income that will NOT be received.
"Income that should go to those who paid to make the content, bt (some of) which others will get by the infringement."
Mangled English aside, what you're describing is not the loss of anything, it's merely not getting as much as you wanted. That's not harm. No business is automatically entitled to income, you have to actually convince people to give it to you.
"Infringement is illegal. Publicly advertising intent is valid evidence."
Can you name for us any other situation where showing mere intent will get you charged with the actual crime itself? I don't think you'll be able to, in which case you seem to be claiming that copyright law is some special little flower that deserves far harsher enforcement than any other crime. Is that really your position?
"Now that the fast track has been approved it is available for ANYONE to see the terms..."
Great to hear, but you forgot to provide the link to the document that ANYONE can see.
"Everything that was wrong (which was a lot) with NAFTA actually gets addressed in TPP, which is why I am dumbfounded by people who do not support it because of the NAFTA debacle.."
Actually that's one criticism of TPP that I've barely heard mentioned around here. Most of the criticism on Techdirt has been based on the leaks and the ridiculous secrecy, so your complaint makes little sense.
And how exactly do you know that TPP fixes everything wrong with NAFTA?
So what you're saying is that you have a vested interest in the promotion of stupid, over-broad, excessively long copyright restrictions that are so complicated and devoid of common sense that high-priced 'specialist' lawyers are required for practically all interactions between producers and consumers of content. Basically the exact opposite of what the public needs or wants. Good for you...
This is one reason why any moral argument made by studios against movie piracy falls flat on it's face. You simply cannot claim the moral high ground on piracy while at the same time committing a level of fraud that would most likely be found illegal if it were properly exposed in a court of law.
"I'll put my name on this as soon as you put the name of your source on your article - the name of the Sony employee who leaked the e-mails."
Ooh, that's clever! Make revealing your vested interest dependent on Mike providing info he couldn't possible know.
"But I also see that you are convinced you've uncovered some "shocking truth" about MPAA deception. There is none."
On that I'm sure we all agree. Nobody is shocked that the MPAA is being deceptive by publicly claiming one thing while telling politicians and trade reps the opposite in secret. At this point we'd be surprised if they weren't doing that. But that doesn't mean it's not newsworthy or worth reminding people of.