WRT point 2. The problem from my perspective is that such thought experiments are often used to warp and confine the political debate. The extreme case is described and discussed as if it were the actual case. It defines the debate, and is often used to place proponents on the other side on the defensive. Indeed, the copyright debate has been dominated by precisely such an effort by proponents of copyright extension to define all opposition as supporting the elimination of copyright.

Nothing sums up my objection to this in the political science field better than the fact that every time Larry Lessig talks about copyright policy, some wag in the audience or on the panel thinks they are scoring a point by observing that Lessig charges money for his books. This is only a valid point if one believes Lessig's argument is not about modifying and moderating existing copyright, but eliminating existing copyright.

Hence my rolling of eyes at what seems to me as yet another effort to define the debate as a binary copyright yes/no rather than a sensible examination of what our copyright policy ought to be.