"It's faith-based teachings not actualities, let alone the clear simple morality that creators own their creations and have sole control of copies -- yes, SOLE control: media only licenses you to read/view the content."
If you want creators to have sole control of copies (yes, SOLE control!) of their creations, perhaps you should turn your attention to the fact that the first thing most creators have to do when publishing their work is to completely relinquish that control to industry gatekeepers. There are few "actualities" in your claims of creator control.
"Yeah, it's so hard to find actual infringers that they must be making it up."
No, it's hard to profit from actual infringers, which is what these clowns are trying to do. Try to look beyond your usual "dirty pirates!" schtick and take note of the fact that this purely abuse of the copyright system for profit. If you're really so sure copyright is the only thing preventing total cultural meltdown then you should be equally outraged against it's abuse by people who have zero interest in actually protecting artists or their output.
"Brooks is right in fact about used CD sales, that's how should be, but is not law any more than is with books. I'd go for a tax on both those, because re-sellers have no intrinsic right to profit from those creations, but that's a whole 'nother topic, eh?"
So do you think people selling houses or cars or every used item on eBay have no intrinsic right to profit from those creations either? Would you like to tax every single person selling something they bought? You're right that's another topic, but one you'll never discuss because you know such sheer idiocy would have you mocked clean off the internet.
"He can come to the US and have his day in court. In fact, if he had done so 3 years ago and was in fact innocent, his problems would already be over."
And in the meantime he would have most a few years and millions of dollars more than he already has, forced to like in a country he has no interest in, unable to work or run a business and probably held without bail (OMG, flight risk!). You can't see why someone who believes they're innocent would fight as hard as they can against that? I'm pretty sure you would.
"The amount of effort he is putting into remaining out of the US is enough to make one think perhaps he knows that if he actually has to go to court on the underlying charged, he will lose big time."
Again, you seem to think simply going to court in the US would be no big deal, a minor inconvenience, a mere trifling. I'm not sure if you're being willfully untruthful or if you really are completely ignorant about what that experience would be like.
"I don't know his thought process, except to say that he is working extremely hard to avoid having to face justice."
He could also be working extremely hard to avoid having to face injustice. You might think the US legal system is a paragon of justice, but many people who've experienced it think its rotten to the core.
"Remember, extradition has nothing to do with guilty or innocence. The NZ courts are in no position to rule on that. They can only decide that the US has presented them with a valid extradition warrant, that the charges are covered by treaty, and that they have some semblance of a case."
And so far they've failed pretty badly at all of those things. You might think this has been dragged out by Dotcom's legal trickery, but if the US had a genuinely solid case this would've been over a long time ago. The case is weak, and lot's of legal minds smarter than you and I have said so.
"Yeah, I am really horrible, hating that Kim got rich on the back of others..."
That is literally the only way to get as rich as he is. He's just one of a very large club, so if you really just have a problem with rich people than at least admit that.
It should be noted that millions of happy customers around the world contributed that money for the legitimate use of a legal service. The only people complaining were the movie studios who are the poster children for getting rich on the back of others.
As that article points out, a lot of activities are described in the report as "illegal" or implied to be illegal, when they're simply not. Things like using VPN's to access US Netflix from other countries (terms of dervice breach), downloading infringing content (a civil matter, not criminal), or simply using uTorrent and Bit-Torrent for anything (perfectly legal). It's another case of repeating an incorrect or inaccurate claim often enough to trick the simple-minded policy makers into over-reacting.
"In DC, a single company is contracted to serve Dulles airport."
This is common practice in airports around the world, as it's a great way for airport companies and taxi companies to gouge passengers with higher prices. Until the likes of Uber came along, passengers had no choice but to suffer these cozy, anti-competitive arrangements.
Note that's it's never been Snowden who decided what to publicly release and when, but the journalists he entrusted the data to. They've spent a lot of time going though it all to decide what should and shouldn't be publicized, so any criticism about that info should be directed at them.
And at this point it's pretty safe to laugh out loud at anyone suggesting he's working for Russia.
"Here's a thought to ponder: how do you maintain both a safe speed and the proper distance between vehicles, when the car behind you is still under manual control and they're tailgating you?"
I think it's obvious the the statement was referring to following distance, which is directly under the control of the driver (human or not), but it seems feasible to have an autonomous car react to a tailgater to moving out of their way if a free lane is available. Beyond that there's not much an autonomous car should do. Pretty much all the suggestions people have for dealing with tailgaters involve risky or inflammatory behavior that is unlikely to ever be implemented...
"Where exactly is your "right to rip" stated? What's it based on?"
Since you're the one who wants to impose artificial limitations on what's possible (as all laws do), what's your justification? What possible reason can an artist or creator have for wanting me to buy multiple copies of the same file for personal use in my house, car and portable music player? We all know that the only real intended "benefit" is for the copyright holder (probably not the creator) to make more money, but I'm curious to hear your reasoning anyway.