I'll say this, if he's a shill he's the most convincing one I've seen. There's still the odd capitalization bits and strawmanning, but one doesn't need to be a shill to do these things. He hasn't used the term 'freetard' once in this thread, hasn't defended the labels or the RIAA, and actually defends his views from time to time. His viewpoint that it should be the artist's choice how do distribute their art, however idealistic, is a valid one. I still believe piracy is a service issue.
Additionally, artists in any field should see their craft as an art first and a profession later (if at all). The best ones already do this. If you happen to make enough money through various means to support yourself, then more power to you, but don't expect society to figure out a way for you to monetize. That's your problem. For that matter, if you even see that as a problem, you're probably doing it for the wrong reasons.
I'm still waiting for someone to propose patents on literary devices. If you can patent things like algorithms and APIs, you should be able to patent things like "en media res" and metaphor. Lets take this ad absurdum: "Abstract: A mechanism for describing a concept or object by comparing it to another concept or object without using comparators such as 'like' or 'as'... on a mobile device." Yup, seems entirely doable.
The issue here is that they would just create "copyright troll" companies the same way there are patent trolls. The labels et al would simply transfer their copyright on a particular item to a shill company, and the shill company would then sue. Nevermind that this company would be fully owned by the label and would be dissolved at the end of the suit. It would be very difficult to write a law that would solve this issue without the possibility of some nasty unintended consequences.