Here is the problem with his argument. He is ignoring the fact that in a capitalist system there is supply and demand. The demand for recorded music has not decreased, however the supply of recorded music has gone to infinity. When a song can be copied for free with no real world costs then the supply becomes infinite and cost goes down to zero. If the market for recorded music were truly a free market that cost would have gone to zero as soon as Napster was invented. However, we have a protected market in the form of copyright that has artificially propped up the price of recorded music and thus has delayed the inevitable.

To use an example that he uses consumers want other things for free such as cars but can not have them. This is true do to the basic laws that are killing the price of recorded music. However to equalize the analogy, if GM were to somehow produce a trillion cars next year, there would be way too much supply and the price of cars would drop to probably near zero but not zero because a trillion cars is still not infinite as music is.

So how are musicians supposed to make money? They have to innovate and compete with free and it can be done. The greatest example of competing with free is bottled water. I am willing to bet that the vast majority of people reading this can walk a few feet and find a source of fresh, drinkable water for essentially free, yet the bottled water industry has made billions selling what is ultimately the same thing. How did they do this? They provided the product in a convenient manner that consumers wanted and people are willing to pay them for it. Is it hard to do? Yes. But look at how long water was around before someone put it in a bottle and became rich off of it.

It could place providers in the position of requiring warrants for all law enforcement requests

This could be the craziest comment I have ever read. They essentially oppose the law because it would require that they obey the Constitution of the United States. That just goes to show how scary of a state that the US is in right now when something like this can be an issue.

That is not quite right though, they are just renting the antennas that receive the signal to the consumer. The Networks effectively want to limit the length of the cord that the consumer uses to connect to the antenna. It is just semantics, if I ran a cable from my house to Aereo's offices and hooked up the antenna that way they could not say much, but since I want to use the internet as an extension cord, the want to call it rebroadcasting.

I have no issue with throttling heavy users to increase the customer experience for all. My issue is that this plan will not really solve that issue. If I am on a little used tower at 3AM it costs ATT nothing extra if use 1GB, 100GB, or 1000GB, neither does it hurt anyone else. However on a crowded tower it makes sense to throttle heavy users so that the other users on the tower will be able to have a better experience.
What they should do, to be open and fair, is throttle heavy users on congested towers and then restore their speeds to normal when there is no more congestion. Annoying, possibly, but at least reasonable and purpose driven to the stated purpose. In this light the proposal that they have outlined is simply designed to make the unlimited plan so unpalatable that the users will switch to the tiered plans that have the possibility of garnering more income for ATT. If they truly want to do that, that would be fine, but do it openly, maybe by saying that the next time these subscribers contracts expire, they will have to switch to the tiered pricing or something similar. At least then they would be honest in their approach.

Unfortunately in the world that we live in the copying of software can not be avoided. Trying to prevent it is futile at this point. Instead my recommendation is to build your business around the idea of supporting your software. You wrote the software, no one will ever know it as well as you do, so capitalize on that. Look at the model set forth by companies such as Red Hat, they sell free software and grossed 1 billion dollars last year. Let me repeat that, Red Hat was paid one billion dollars in a year for free software products. Why? Because they emphasized the support that you receive along with the software and provided value above and beyond what could be obtained by downloading the software for free. Just my two cents, but I feel like trying to stop copying is a losing proposition and the development hours and money spent on that fight could be better purposed by using it to develop your product and support your customers to a level where they want to pay you.