Wow. It’s been a long time since I saw such a collection of misinformation in one place. Let’s go through a few of the more risible inaccuracies, shall we?
1) “Wiki” and “Wikipedia” are not synonymous. A wiki is a technology, like email. Wikipedia is one wiki. There are hundreds of thousands of others.
2) “If downloaders found “safe” alternative routes to ripped-off stuff, huge numbers would descend down those narrower highways. It would be as if the residents of Springfield were offered free beer on certain roads.”
This displays a degree of ignorance about how the Internet works so profound that I don’t even know where to begin.
3) “Where is this freedom they’re all talking about, if they can pull the plug on their service when they can’t get what they want for free?”
Total non sequitur. What is this even supposed to mean?
3) “One had widespread support within the creative economy”
First, the MPAA, RIAA, et al don’t have a monopoly on creativity. Second, inserting yourself between the the talent and the money isn’t “creative”. It’s parasitism. Sorry.
4) “the Open Rights Movement (ORM) – as the loosely affiliated group of internet activists and online corporate interests who backed the Wiki blackout style themselves”
I find no evidence of any of these groups or individuals “styling themselves” the “Open Rights Movement”, and barely any mention of the term. Google turns up only 18 hits for “Open Rights Movement”, none of which appear to be from backers of the Wikipedia blackout.
5) “the myth that traditional creative businesses – film companies, book publishers and record company executives – are the greedy exploiters in this market.”
Oh, no. They’re not greedy exploiters. They just suck up 90% or more of the revenue. A GREEDY exploiter would take what, 95%?
6) “It was the active and vocal campaigns of writers in the 19th Century that established copyright in the first place.”
In fact, copyright was first established by the Statute of Anne, which was enacted in 1710. Hint: 1710 was not in the Nineteenth Century.