"In any case, the purpose of the artist, which is artistic merit, has no legal force at all."
I'm not a lawyer, but I think you're just trying to sound like one. You sound overly certain of some overly general statements to support of an absurd proposition. You're telling me that a half-decent lawyer couldn't find some basis in law to protect a Picasso rendition of Mickey Mouse? Baloney. The "critical commentary" clause you allow would probably serve.
And almost all culture production derivative of Disney wouldn't involve ripping off Disney's digits in the first place. Someone would be shooting something with their own camera. The legal situation generally has nothing to do with DRM.
"But Disney wrote the law, so how can you ignore them?"
By not buying their stuff.
> Currently there are rules governing the posting of *official* House of Reps material . . .
> It says *nothing* about prohibiting posting of opinions by house members on any web site. Nothing.
That depends on the meaning and interpretation of *official*, doesn't it?
I don't know what the Administration Committee is up to. But bear in mind that nowadays a successful censor would have to control speech without announcing they are controlling speech. The American Constitution was an innovation in methods for the prevention of the abuse of power, but it would be foolish to imagine that those who would abuse power (eg, anyone holding it) won't come up with counter-innovations of their own. There is more safety in norms and methods that can't be abused by anyone than in presuming we can identify the abusers and keep them out of power. "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."
Waste not, get your budget cut next year.