So why do you feel compelled to post when you know what you are saying is old news? You just adds to the noise and make it off putting for anyone else to post that actually knows about this event including your obvious point.
The concept of freedom can quickly become confusing, but I think the accepted terminology is that "freedom from" is negative freedom as in protections like universal healthcare. While "freedom to" is positive freedom as in expressions like absolute[-1] freedom of speech [0]. Where negative freedom is more left and positive freedom more right. You of course also have to account for the political y-axis (or similar concept [1]) i.e. the level of authoritarianism.
I think it's interesting that many of the concepts that the US prides itself on originally included negative freedom in a more prominent way than you see today [2][3][4].
[-1] Non-absolute freedom of speech can probably also be seen as a negative freedom.
There's more than a semantic difference between moral and material interests. In fact most "internet hippies" I know wants strong moral protection for authors [0][1]. It's a fairly central concept in the copyright debate, not least since it's part of the universal declaration of human rights.
I definitely think jurisdictional issues can be interesting from an intellectual point of view. Especially since the Internet has made many such concepts far less obvious. One could of course argue that discussions (especially outside of obscure technology) rarely reach a level where they become interesting.
