The US Copyright Group mass filings create an undue burden for the companies targeted. In truth - imagine the number of staff working continuously to respond to such a huge request - it would be overwhelming even for a huge company. Subpeona compliance is a legal process and TWC could not "automate" the process. Staff would need to receive and respond to each legal request.
Like it or not even if what she did was despicable, unless her husbands name was on the mobile account or he had account privileges, it's likely that her privacy was violated when they gave him the ability to bundle in her account. As a tech/law community we can't allow our moral outrage to blind us to the legal issues here. I suspect she has a real case here and while I don't support her actions, I do support her suing them provided it was a completely separate account from him.
As for the internet? Some kind of license wouldn't work and would only be something somebody else would identity steal.
Also, It's slightly off topic but in responding to your remark about car ownership I'm so much better off without a car. I live in a city that has a medium (but not robust) transportation network so I walk a bike a fair amount - yes even in the winter. Far from being "extremely limited" - I have been MORE enabled and have greater freedom without one I have found. I plan my day ahead, get at least 2 miles a day of walking exercise related to work and pleasure, and don't have to worry about drinking if I stay out late at a party. I network with individuals who do drive to "rideshare" when needed, I'm so much more organzized and functional because I "think" and behave in smarter ways. Lose the car -> get smarter!
It's connecting and innovation that matter - not the specific characteristics or any hypothetical attribute in a given market. You are transposing candy bars and CD's in your example - not a good one. Look at the overall theme of making your product stand out by giving people incentives to choose your product, or BUY your product (such as a digital download purchases instead of torrenting).
But aren't we really just talking about two of the same things. Candy bars don't change anything except flavors. Movies don't change except plot. Kit Kat is innovating and "connecting with fans" by creating a "reason to buy" such as mailing them to share with friends. The fans say "we want to be able to share them because that's our culture" - Kit Kat responds buy doing what they did and creating a mailable bar. If other bars cannot be mailed - then it gives them a "reason to buy".
This is a TEXTBOOK example of using a societal aspect we all have now (the need to share things like our music and media) and applying it to candy bars. It's beautiful in it's application. What if modern media in America did the same thing and provided us a reason to want to buy their product? They don't - they keep trying to limit it's use.
Give me a reason to buy a CD and I will. Set it apart. Make it different from an online download. KitKat = CWFRTB all the way.
I disagree (I sent in the article).
Kit Kat could do business as usual and perhaps try to create "exclusivity" arrangements with vendors (windowing arrangements) that would force out competition (as the music and movie industry has done here in the United States - take the attacks on Red Box as an example.) Instead - they have capitalized on innovating to attract attention. Mailing candy bars was a true innovation in this story that sets them apart. They have adapted to a changing market with new strategies that DON'T minimize choice.