So basically the law is the law and you couldn't possibly hold an opinion that is contrary to what the law says.
Why don't you take some of the advice you regularly dole out to Mike and tell us what you think about the government taking peoples' property before there's even been a trial, let alone a guilty verdict. It's not a legal question.
"...all I was trying to say was that I believe both extremes---"everything must be owned" vs "everything must be completely unrestricted"---equally go too far, just not in the same way."
Claiming that "everything must be completely unrestricted" would indeed be going to far, if anyone was making that claim. This is a complete strawman.
The fact is, as Leigh mentioned, humanity's default position for millenia has been that everything created was what we now call public domain, and only very recently in our history did we decide to place restrictions on that. The real argument is about the extent of those restrictions, and there's a very strong feeling that copyright laws have gone too far and now act in opposition to the reasons they were introduced in the first place.
"It is easy to bash the company because its works have benefited from the expansion of copyright terms..."
You're right, it is easy to bash the company because its works have benefited from the expansion of copyright terms that they spent tons of time and money fighting for.
"...but to say it is "taking" things is just plain wrong and misleading to a fault."
Of course they're "taking" from the public domain, that's exactly what is supposed to happen. They're being criticized for then going to great lengths to prevent others from doing the same thing with their works.
But's it's not obsolete. While it may be stretching the definition of DRM a little, thanks to some digital management, it stops working after operating for only a fraction of it's potential useful life. That's just as bad as true DRM.
"UMG, the RIAA, MPAA, etc., misinterpret copyright law to protect their business model."
'Misinterpret' is completely the wrong word here. They practically write the laws to benefit them above all others, then they twist, reinterpret or just plain ignore the law when they're not quite beneficial enough.
"I left Techdirt due to Tim's cop hating nonsense."
Oh don't be such a drama queen. You don't 'leave' a website, you either read it or you don't. And clearly, you still do.
"Do none of you seriously understand why a cop might not want people wandering around when then are trying to detain or arrest someone?"
Of course we all understand that a cop might not want to be held fully accountable for their actions, and might want to be able to make up whatever story suits them best it things go south. At this point it's pretty much considered to be standard operating procedure.
"A dozen people buzzing around a few feet away creates severe security issues."
Indeed it could, and if you can prove that's ever actually happened (literally a dozen people, literally within a few feet), and happens often enough to justify punishing people for filming a lot further than a few feet away feet, then you might have a case.
"And having armed people buzzing around... good grief, that is just a recipe for someone getting shot."
So you're basically admitting cops are a danger to other people's lives when they get nervous. Y'know, like a wild animal. You really think that's a good thing?
How did you manage to use so many words to say so little? You offer not a shred of counter-argument, just a bunch on name-calling surrounded by a lot of blah-blah. Sounds like the criticism hit a bit close to home for you...