Bill's Ted talk was actually great.

I agree. I recommend people watch it.

I'm now feeling quite conflicted about Bill Gates. Yes, he spawned Microsoft, which has engaged in illegal and unethical practices and whose mediocre products have caused untold frustration to millions and retarded progress in the software world. My line used to be that it's hardly virtuous to give back to the world the billions of dollars you have taken from them in less than fair ways. But with the sort of work he's funding and advocating, he may just get to join the ranks of the robber barons who, in balance, left a legacy more good than bad. People such as Rockefeller and Carnegie. I think he's still got a way to go but I'm now feeling a little bit more open to the guy.

Ballmer, on the other hand, ...

Sites which are carte-blance blocked

Poor use of the term carte blanche which means full power, open sanction, free hand etc.

Clinton also called on U.S. businesses, particularly media providers, to fight censorship in the countries where they operate.

"Censorship should not be in any way accepted by any company anywhere," she said. "American companies need to make a principled stand. This needs to be part of our national brand."

This is very strong language. Google is getting full backing and all other US companies are being actively encouraged to follow their lead.

Yes, I understood the point you were making. To answer, for a car I am paying for a material good. For a live performance I am paying to enter a real venue to see and hear the performance. Both of these have natural limitations. We completely create the limitations on copying by inventing copyright. It's too much of a stretch of fiction and it is not surprising that the experiment has devolved into an unworkable and perverse system. Sorry, I have read about this issue and given thought to it for more than a decade and the position I now take is hardline. If you create a copyable work and release it to the public (not legally release but release into circulation) then you must let it go free. Anything else hampers and perverts the free creation of culture. RMS understood this when he developed the GPL. If you completely respect the rights of the users or audience, then a natural corollary is that you do not legally constrain the work. It's not that the goal is cost-free access, it's that it's a natural side-effect that you can't force people to pay. They may pay, but you can't force them because you want to maintain their right to copy and modify.

Yeah, and because of that Shakespeare, while alive, refused to actually publish his plays.

Direct refutation of this assertion. 18 plays were published (and republished) before the death of William Shakespeare in 1616. Mostly the more popular plays including Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet, King Lear, Othello and A Midsummer Night's Dream.

Yeah, and because of that Shakespeare, while alive, refused to actually publish his plays. There's a reason that some of his plays are lost for good. A lack of copyright has a lot to do with that.

Sorry, I think you are making that up. Would you like to provide a reference? Details of Shakespeare's life are very scant, so much so that there has been speculation for centuries about his true identity. There is no documentation of his personal views or position on anything. It's arrogant of you to put words into the great bard's mouth.

...copyright just makes your subsidy of a public good more direct and lets you [...] decide who's worthy of getting money.

No, it forces me to pay money to the rights holder who more often than not is a bloodless corporation or estate. Letting me decide who's worthy of getting my money is letting me actively volunteer to give them money or pay them for their live performances.