I used to think nobody was that awful, e.g. nobody was anti-public-library, until I met people who were. It's totally understandable that the goal is to elimin

I used to think nobody was that awful, e.g. nobody was anti-public-library, until I met people who were. It's totally understandable that the goal is to eliminate the public domain and all free/libre/open publications as a means to the end of funding proprietary stuff. Say you have a business mowing people's lawns. If you were anti-social, you might support outlawing friendly neighbors mowing others' lawns for free or even outlaw people mowing their own lawns. You might even deceive yourself with some pro-social ideas about how forcing all lawn-mowing to be paid-lawn-mowing will end up with a world of better lawns, better economy, and all the extended benefits of well-paid lawn-mowers besides yourself… Similarly, if you're a news outlet, you'd be happy to see a price forced on all your competitors. It's easier for you to charge your price if everyone else has to also. Ironically, this could be argued from a pro-social consideration of solidarity and funding journalism. Of course, deeper pro-social inspection of the situation reveals that sabotaging FLO works and public domain is an unacceptable tragedy that is not a respectable means to the end of funding journalism. But short-sighted folks will try anything since they are freaking out about the valid concern over journalism funding in general.