There is no inequity. An author or musician only gets money once per copy upon that copy's first sale. If they sell the original manuscript, which is the equivalent of the artist's original painting, they would be paid for it once just like the artist.
Except you tried to change the original argument from banning bananas to banning brandishing them. That verb belongs to you, not the original argument. Yes, it may be illegal to use a banana to rob a bank. It is not illegal to own, possess, or consume or banana. Or carry one into a bank.
Isn't threatening someone if they don't do something outright blackmail? It's weird to bring that up here on a non-Copyright post, but it sure seems like "take down the stuff mentioning us or we'll have you arrested for stealing" is pretty blatant.
By that logic, there should be a shoe-size threshold as well. Proposal: US Mens size 10 or smaller, you're free to keep your foot odor to yourself (provided the blueshirts don't detect any anomalies such as a loose heel or an unfamiliar knot). Size 10 or greater, remove your shoes for screening. While the rule only applies to Men's sizes, profiling is wrong so if you have a women's size 10 or higher you may also be asked to remove your shoes for screening.
If your footwear is European sized, no matter what the size you must remove them for screening because you've clearly done business or traveled abroad and therefore are subject to enhanced screening. Once screened, said footwear will be turned over to ICE at the International Terminal to ensure it isn't counterfeit or infringing on a copyright. If it is, you will be subject to rendition to a secret holding cell at Disney headquarters. But if you're cleared after all this, you are free to continue to your gate where you'll have an unobstructed view of your plane taking off without you.
"However, I don't think I've ever heard the level of dislike towards an owner like the publicly expressed feelings many fans have towards Dan Snyder."
I think the hatred of Al Davis by Raiders fans (of which I am not) is worse, but he isn't suing them (just the league and former coaching staff). Kinda gives credence to the Streisand Effect point you made.
Funny, I've occasionally and briefly considered how nice it would be if politicians were similarly certified so the voters would know whether or not they're competent to hold the office. Then you'd need to certify the voters to make sure they're competent enough to understand the politician certification process.
Then I rejoin reality and laugh it off. If he wants to stimulate discussion, get a Twitter account or a blog. Legislation at any level is the final step, not the exploration.
This passes in the U.K. the day after J.K. Rowling states "I'm quite sure in the not-too-distant future, I will bring out another book." When she was hungry, she was publishing a book a year. Then every other year. Now it's been 3 years since the last (and counting).
Yep, those Harry Potter copyrights have really encouraged her to keep contributing to the arts and sciences.
"To me, piracy is something adventurous, it makes you think about Johnny Depp." So the entertainment industry says they need a new word because they themselves glamorized the term "piracy".
If they still argue "inciting infringement" should be a criminal act, maybe they should be held to the same standard if "inciting piracy" by making murder, rape, and actual theft on the high seas glamorous.
Touching on the topic of bloggers breaking the story (which I realize isn't the primary point of the post, but it is a prevalent thread throughout many discussions here): Maybe what we're seeing is the development of the fifth estate. Because the media has become such big business it's no longer possible to consider it an unbiased watchdog. So we now need to watch the watchers. The main question in my mind is "will the blogosphere develop enough core discipline and credibility to be that watcher?"