What *content* was disallowed?
"... because the typical person does not benefit." Utter bullshit. Anyone creative enough can obtain a copyright, patent or trademark and benefit from it. If someone writes a book, without copyright protection the first lazy moron who comes along can take it and publish it as their own.
"People get paid by the fact that only they can create a particular piece of art or item, up against true competition." This time shallow bullshit. Without protections, the moment any creative item is available a *corporation* could simply abscond with it, out produce the individual and take it from them.
Same old screed from those who can't create - "I want access to yours for nothing."
And - "He blogs at The Philosopher's Beard." - (a link) which also reads very much like an advertisement to me.
FTA - "The solution to both requires legal recognition of the property rights of human beings over our attention."
Here we have his crux. More government to prevent what he doesn't care for.
Nawh. Just go to a skateboarding park sometime. The world is full of things that will kill/maim you if you're incompetent. I have known two people who reached under the shell of a running lawnmower to lift it over a curb. One would thing that one would be obvious, eh?
That and the sense I got throughout that he was really directing the bot because he was a weird, voyeristic creep.
argumentum ad absurdum
Indeed. I've seen those terms applied to opposite sides of many a disagreement.